Differences are small, but by " not deaf " hearable. I am currious, how this " stupidity " is possible to discuss on 28 pages.
Quo vadis ...
All " hifi " goes to the wrong way - instead objective and scientific results take impresionism, which excuse " deafs " and commercial interests. We can to see it on magazines, on promotions and sorry, here also.
All " hifi " goes to the wrong way - instead objective and scientific results take impresionism, which excuse " deafs " and commercial interests. We can to see it on magazines, on promotions and sorry, here also.
epicedium said:
Epicedium, best wishes for you too!
I like to react to two of your points. Firstly, the 50/50 cable test. My comment was NOT to prove that cables have no differences; I wanted to point out that if there is a 50/50 result you cannot conclude that there are or are not differences. To suggest that the 50% that didn't hear any delta was because they are deaf, is as stupid as saying that there are differences because 50% heard them.
In other words, I don't want to conclude anything else except that the ONLY conclusion you can draw is that this test is inconclusive.
Because it is inconclusive (and extending this, for the sake of discussion) to all other tests that were inconclusive, for me means that it has not been shown that there are audible differences. That is not the same as saying there are no differences, which I have never said.
The 2nd point of your post is a complete misinterpretation of the post in question (which I know intimitely because I wrote it). The issue was the validity of blind tests. The initial Coke test was with unmarked bottles that either held Classic Coke or Coke Light. Preferences among 167 persons were 50-50.
Next the test was repeated, with the products now in marked bottles. Preferences were now 75-25 in favor of CC. What does that tell us? It tells us that the PREFERENCES FOR CLASSIC COKE WERE BASED ON THE BOTTLE LABELS AND NOT ON THE TASTE. (Sorry for the caps but people simple cannot read anymore these days it seems).
I never said CC and CL are the same. They may be, they maybe not. Fact is, that 167 people had no preference for one over the other so either they tasted the same or they are the same or people are not able to taste the differences that might be there. You figger out what that means.
But, I must admit, after my post on this there were several people saying, hey, I KNOW how CC tastes; indicating they hadn't understood a syllable of the story. Well, you loose a lot along they way. I'd be happy if only a few understood it and as a result are getting better in evaluating their own responses to product marketing, hype and fraud.
No leap of logic required at all. The FACTS show that it is impossible to tell the difference in the unmarked case.
Jan Didden
Aren't both situations possible ?
I'm refering to (1) not hearing differences in some systems and (2) hearing differences in other systems.
Let that the source impedance ( out impedance of the amp ) be very low ( say less than 0.1 ohm ) and flat over the frequency range.
Now the cable impedance and the speaker impedance are both complex. They also act as a voltage divider with the voltage across the speaker being the 'sound' we are listening to.
So with different complex impedances of various cables the combination will have a different 'frequency response' at the speaker terminals. That surely must sound different between cables.
We wouldn't be hearing 'better and worse' sound but just the differences causes by the combination of complex impedances in the dividing chain.
So if they do sound the same or are 'hard to tell' , the speaker impedance must be fairly high and flat over frequency compared to the cable impedance and the cable contributing very little .
If however the speaker impedance falls very low and is not very uniform over the frequency range "and" the cable has significant inductance , resistance and capacitance , we should be able to hear differences.
To make things more complex, the system might not be just a simple voltage divider .
So differences might be possible depending on the conditions.
Cheers.
I'm refering to (1) not hearing differences in some systems and (2) hearing differences in other systems.
Let that the source impedance ( out impedance of the amp ) be very low ( say less than 0.1 ohm ) and flat over the frequency range.
Now the cable impedance and the speaker impedance are both complex. They also act as a voltage divider with the voltage across the speaker being the 'sound' we are listening to.
So with different complex impedances of various cables the combination will have a different 'frequency response' at the speaker terminals. That surely must sound different between cables.
We wouldn't be hearing 'better and worse' sound but just the differences causes by the combination of complex impedances in the dividing chain.
So if they do sound the same or are 'hard to tell' , the speaker impedance must be fairly high and flat over frequency compared to the cable impedance and the cable contributing very little .
If however the speaker impedance falls very low and is not very uniform over the frequency range "and" the cable has significant inductance , resistance and capacitance , we should be able to hear differences.
To make things more complex, the system might not be just a simple voltage divider .
So differences might be possible depending on the conditions.
Cheers.
janneman said:
Actually, that post (Original post) says it's 67 subjects, so intimacy is in the eye of the beholder, I'd say.
janneman said:
Well, the test doesn't show that, as far as I can tell. The subjects weren't asked to tell which was Coke Classic and which was Coke Light. They were asked to tell which they preferred. Without the complete test results, we don't know how strong the preferences were. It certainly doensn't mean the tastes were indifferent to 67 people, just that preference was split evenly. Had it been an A/B/X, it wold have been a different story.
What the test does conclusively show is that non-blind tests can - and often do - yield different results from blind tests.
It's also true that our ability to detect differences is affected by the assumption that there is a difference. Most subjects, when told there is a difference really want to be able to find it, so they can often see it even when there is no difference in reality. This is part of the reason why scams with supernatural phenomena work so well. A lot of people want to have better than average perceptional abilities, whether it's hearing, smelling, sight or sixth senses.
Rune
runebivrin said:
Indeed. I stand corrected. Another prove that memory plays tricks on us, unbeknownst 😉
Agree fully, that was the point I was trying to make. AFAIR (need to be carefull now!) the gist of the original discussion was about the need (as I see it, anyway) to do blind tests to isolate the issue you are researching, in this case coke taste, from other perceptive influences.
And is also the reaso why cable "scams" work so well. Being told that *this* cable really brings out the space, breathing, details etc in music, how can your unconciousness afford NOT to hear those?
Whichever way you cut this, if you really want to know about the issue you are interested in, non-blind tests are an enjoyable pasttime at best and completely misleading at worst.
Jan Didden
Hi,
Sorry to burst the bubble but that goes both ways.
OT:
Oh....while I'm at it, thanks for being such a good sport, Jan. i really appreciate that.
You know what I mean, don't you?
Cheers, 😉
Sorry to burst the bubble but that goes both ways.
OT:
Oh....while I'm at it, thanks for being such a good sport, Jan. i really appreciate that.
You know what I mean, don't you?
Cheers, 😉
It hurts to see this continually going on. Can't everyone see that if a test obscures noting a difference, then it will come out 50:50. Of course, by chance, preferences 'could' be 50:50, but how often would that happen, if real differences were noted? Not very often, I suspect.
john curl said:
Are you saying that the Coke Classic vs. Coke Light test was in some way flawed to obscure the differences between the two? If so, in what way? Were both varieties doped with sulphur or detergent? Were they scorchingly hot?
Your statement is obviously true, but I fail to see how that is relevant to the discussion. The most obvious reason why no differences are noted is that there are no differences.
With regard to subjective qualities such as taste or sound signature, if a difference is established, there's no way to conclusively state one is better than the other beyond majority vote. Which doesn't mean what's best for the majority is best for the individual. While spinach is generally regarded as tasty, it makes my son retch. If there is a particular sound to a cable (and I hold some doubts there, at least for reasonable cables), it's quite conceivable that sound is airy to me but veiled to my brother.
To establish preceivable differences between cables - or any other component - it has to be done on an individual basis, and anything other than a blind test is suspect.
To establish ranking between the same, you need a larger group to decide, by majority vote, which is preferred. That doesn't necessarily mean the one that measures the best (most linear) will prevail. There's no accounting for taste.
Admittedly, there are issues with blind testing. It could be that you need a very extensive time frame to discover that a particular sound makes you tired, and less inclined to listen to music, even when you can't hear the difference directly. I wouldn't rule out various forms of distortion as having that effect.
It's also reasonable to assume that to be able to discern differences as small as the ones between cables, the other components must be of the utmost quality. A boom box just won't cut it. And even then, you're really testing the combination of amplifier/cable/loudspeaker, so it doesn't really say that much until quite a few combinations have been tried. It's definitely not much help to me with my special setup, if that's different from what's used in testing.
I'm quite sure Upopa will tell us that if the amplifier is affected by the cable, the amplifier designer or the cable manufacturer should be taken out and shot😀, but that's a whole different discussion...
Rune
john curl said:
John, can't you see that the more extraneous stuff you throw into the test, like looks, size, color, prize, peer opinion, the more you obscure the real issue? Jeez.
Jan Didden
fdegrove said:
Yes, indeed, it goes both ways. That is why a DBT is so important. No extraneous inputs, and even the fact that there is or is not a change should not be disclosed. Not perfect, but beats any other test I know of hands down.
Jan Didden
OT: Sure. Happy NY Frank!
This sentence really bothers me. It does NOT prove that it is impossible to tell the difference- at best it "suggests" the possibility that you can not tell the difference, but it is just as possible that preference was divided. Or, that the difference was so suble that some couldnt tell the difference while a small number could tell the difference but had different preferences.
Also, regarding whole point of the "coke test" example- don't assume that I don't understand the "labelling" factor just because I take issue with certain conclusions that you draw =) ie that its impossible to tell the difference. It proves no such thing- as a previous poster noted, the participants weren't even being asked that? Clearly you could perform a blind test and ask such things like-- "which is sweeter", "which is fizzier", and whatever else. "which do you prefer" clearly supports your labelling argument, but not much else
epicedium said:
epicedium,
I must agree with you, is does NOT prove that it is impossible to tell the difference, I got carried away. Indeed, the conclusion (and that is the point I was out to make - again) is that the preference and judgement is influenced by the packaging as much or even more than by the taste.
That was also the point made by Floyd Toole from Harmann: that the preference and judgement of speakers is influenced big time by size, design, finish etc. As a result, the same set of speakers tested blind led to a different rating order than the sighted test. In the sighted test, there was a clear correspondence between rating, size, design etc. Even with experienced listeners, that said, hey, "I know how to do listening tests!".
Results, that are totally in line with the body of knowledge in psychology, but that are still conveniently disregarded by many on this forum, maybe because they feel that it somehow makes them look less great people. To the enjoyment of the gadget salesmen, of course.
On the contrary, it is a sign of maturity if you accept that you have strong and weak points, because that is the only way to take care of the weak points.
Jan Didden
wholeheartedly agree, and please note that it was never my intention to rebuke the crux of your argument =) simply to clarify what I felt was a flaw in an otherwise valid and relevant commentry
as for my personal opinion, which I don't think I explicitly stated-- I believe that cables can subtly alter the sound and make an audible difference, but that positive results come from very simple principles and not expensive products.
i have carried out extensive cable tests of my own (by ear, by dbt, and by abx), with my own conclusions being that you can only hear a difference when there are fairly substantial differences in cables (in terms of C/R/I, length, cross section, conductor metal, and of course shielding). after most changes I was unable to hear any real difference at all, and I didnt need a DBT to prove that to me, I instantly and secretly knew that it was either no different or so subtle as to be insignificant.
Any advocate of cables should admit that in terms of system performance, their importance lay somewhere at the bottom, and below room size/properties =)
But that said, it is possible to hear a difference between the horrible free cables you get with devices and say a custom cable of decent quality materials (personally I love cat6 cable, cheap and a high standard of engineering). But I stopped experimenting with geometry after I couldnt hear the differences. So subtle I couldnt detect them? Maybe, or maybe not. If a so called Golden Ear can hear a difference and advocates XLO then good on them, but I didnt hear it. Perhaps you need such a highly tuned system in a highly tuned room? It is not impossible, but for the rest of us there are things other than cables we can tweak that will make more difference.
To my ears, Cat5 was audibly inferior to Cat6 in the high frequences. The Cat6 was Cleaner, as a result of better copper or better dielectric one would presume, but I dont know this as fact.
The only way I could hear a difference between a variety of cables made with high quality Cat6 was to construct one with a very high cross section and one with a very low cross section. I DBT a difference, after careful listening for subtle properties that pleased me or made me cringe, and have stuck with the one I prefered-- very simple, very cheap, -ultimately subtle-, but interestingly I have since suffered less listening fatigue.
So the fruits of my personal investigation is this-- there are more important things to tweak than cables, but there is still a difference between a well engineered cable and a piece of ****. In my experience, a piece of **** is the entry level, <20euros. Throw away the cheap ones (or the rusty barbed wire) and construct cables out of cheap and excellently engineered Cat6 cable. For a tweaker, this gives you the piece of mind of knowing that your wire is as good as any expensive shiny cable but for practically free.
my opinion of course
Kris
as for my personal opinion, which I don't think I explicitly stated-- I believe that cables can subtly alter the sound and make an audible difference, but that positive results come from very simple principles and not expensive products.
i have carried out extensive cable tests of my own (by ear, by dbt, and by abx), with my own conclusions being that you can only hear a difference when there are fairly substantial differences in cables (in terms of C/R/I, length, cross section, conductor metal, and of course shielding). after most changes I was unable to hear any real difference at all, and I didnt need a DBT to prove that to me, I instantly and secretly knew that it was either no different or so subtle as to be insignificant.
Any advocate of cables should admit that in terms of system performance, their importance lay somewhere at the bottom, and below room size/properties =)
But that said, it is possible to hear a difference between the horrible free cables you get with devices and say a custom cable of decent quality materials (personally I love cat6 cable, cheap and a high standard of engineering). But I stopped experimenting with geometry after I couldnt hear the differences. So subtle I couldnt detect them? Maybe, or maybe not. If a so called Golden Ear can hear a difference and advocates XLO then good on them, but I didnt hear it. Perhaps you need such a highly tuned system in a highly tuned room? It is not impossible, but for the rest of us there are things other than cables we can tweak that will make more difference.
To my ears, Cat5 was audibly inferior to Cat6 in the high frequences. The Cat6 was Cleaner, as a result of better copper or better dielectric one would presume, but I dont know this as fact.
The only way I could hear a difference between a variety of cables made with high quality Cat6 was to construct one with a very high cross section and one with a very low cross section. I DBT a difference, after careful listening for subtle properties that pleased me or made me cringe, and have stuck with the one I prefered-- very simple, very cheap, -ultimately subtle-, but interestingly I have since suffered less listening fatigue.
So the fruits of my personal investigation is this-- there are more important things to tweak than cables, but there is still a difference between a well engineered cable and a piece of ****. In my experience, a piece of **** is the entry level, <20euros. Throw away the cheap ones (or the rusty barbed wire) and construct cables out of cheap and excellently engineered Cat6 cable. For a tweaker, this gives you the piece of mind of knowing that your wire is as good as any expensive shiny cable but for practically free.
my opinion of course
Kris
janneman said:
Not to start the whole discussion again 
but wouldn't this be a valid test:
Run X tests with Y participants.
After that you select the Z participants with the best scores.
Run the test again with the Z participants.
The first test sort of locates the people with the 'best ears'.
If there are differences in the items tested, these people should be able to get a good score the second time.
Since I'm not a statician (is that a word?) I didn't specify values for X, Y & Z but they should be large enough to get a valid reading.
but wouldn't this be a valid test:Run X tests with Y participants.
After that you select the Z participants with the best scores.
Run the test again with the Z participants.
The first test sort of locates the people with the 'best ears'.
If there are differences in the items tested, these people should be able to get a good score the second time.
Since I'm not a statician (is that a word?) I didn't specify values for X, Y & Z but they should be large enough to get a valid reading.
By my opinion are best cables which I had heard industry power coaxials - for example Andrew's " ultraflexible " ones, 1/2 " for speakers and 1/4 " for signal. Price is low ( cca 5 dolls/m ) and results hearable in the first tact of music. 😎
Upupa Epops said:
The last time I checked the Andrew catalogue I didn't see RCA or banana connectors as a termination option for FSJ1 or FSJ4-50B superflexible Heliax cable.
Why is it that the highest quality microwave transmission line products that NASA uses to receive infintesimally weak signals near quantum noise levels and buried in star static from the Voyagers, Pioneers and other spacecraft from the outer limits of our solar system where the signal may take 20 hours to reach earth at light speed, cost only a fraction per foot of what some audiophools feel they must pay to carry a powerful (S/N ratio not an issue), pussy 20 KHz wide baseband audio signal a few feet in their living rooms? 😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.