Well, I was inspired to look at the DiffMaker program again - fool me!!!
This "software" takes the cake for probably the most poorly written program I've come across in a long time - I struggled for quarter of an hour to get it to do anything - literally anything!! - and gave up in disgust. I thought to myself, I'll get another of those test difference files from the DiffMaker website, and run though the procedure ... no matter what I did the program refused to do anything sensible, with 2 separate files I downloaded, merely crashing in different ways or going away into la-la land forever.
I don't know the magic incantation to make this silly program behave - anyone got ideas ...?
This "software" takes the cake for probably the most poorly written program I've come across in a long time - I struggled for quarter of an hour to get it to do anything - literally anything!! - and gave up in disgust. I thought to myself, I'll get another of those test difference files from the DiffMaker website, and run though the procedure ... no matter what I did the program refused to do anything sensible, with 2 separate files I downloaded, merely crashing in different ways or going away into la-la land forever.
I don't know the magic incantation to make this silly program behave - anyone got ideas ...?
nothing of the sort, and I'd add that's the sort of argument presented by psychics, prophets and homoeopathic practitioners. I note that I haven't used either of those descriptors either. You don't need to be expert or technically astute to carry out a decent blind test - just honest.
For further info, here's some lists of some tests done. I doubt any of them would pass as clinical double blind protocol , but they generally (except where noted) attempt to address the common biases and influences. Some of them actually confront them by carrying out open and then blind tests. The results of those are probably the most interesting.
Red Spade Audio: Blind Test Results
Testing audiophile claims and myths
Links to blind listening tests - Hydrogenaudio Forums
feel free to google more.
Well I was firmly in the disbeliever camp for mains lead benefits.
I made a couple of short leads up as I detailed earlier with the full intention of reinforcing my position. I fully expected to come on here and say it's definitely all nonsense!
The trouble is I now can't do that without lying. I have an improvement, not huge but noticeable all the same.
The iec plugs I bought were decent but cheap, when I plug them in it takes more force than it did with the old freebie ones I was using. So the pins make a tighter contact, probably a better electrical contact with slightly lower resistance.
I'm not about to attach some mystical belief to bits of wire, they are not even shielded! The only thing I can come up with is that the new leads might be providing better mains earth grounding for the amps.
Would that not count as a mains lead benefit?
I am not making this up, why would I, I have less than nothing to gain by doing so. I tried swapping back to the old leads and it definitely reversed the small sonic improvement I got.
I could do with an explanation now because this is not sitting too well with me.
No crystal puns accepted!
I made a couple of short leads up as I detailed earlier with the full intention of reinforcing my position. I fully expected to come on here and say it's definitely all nonsense!
The trouble is I now can't do that without lying. I have an improvement, not huge but noticeable all the same.
The iec plugs I bought were decent but cheap, when I plug them in it takes more force than it did with the old freebie ones I was using. So the pins make a tighter contact, probably a better electrical contact with slightly lower resistance.
I'm not about to attach some mystical belief to bits of wire, they are not even shielded! The only thing I can come up with is that the new leads might be providing better mains earth grounding for the amps.
Would that not count as a mains lead benefit?
I am not making this up, why would I, I have less than nothing to gain by doing so. I tried swapping back to the old leads and it definitely reversed the small sonic improvement I got.
I could do with an explanation now because this is not sitting too well with me.
No crystal puns accepted!
Trouble with that concept, is hearing "something" that no-one told them to expect. So, we then have to invoke mental telepathy, some "strong minded" chap implanting the idea on the sly. Or, maybe it was body language: some individual vigorously waggled various appendages, bounced on his head 3 times, and counter rotated his ear lobes. Aha! said the listener, that's a sign that I'm supposed to pick up something unusual in what I'm listening to ..
Does self-deception still apply when the subject does NOT believe something and is forced to reconsider because the results of an experiment left no other plausible explanation?
Some people believe that all well designed amplifiers and CD players sound exactly the same and they can (apparently) produce double blind test results which confirm this.
I personally don't hear huge differences between CD players but I do hear some. Amplifiers are different beasts, I've had loads over the years and every one sounded different even though none of them were badly designed, just different.
People talk about 'house sound' within a particular manufacturers range of kit. This must clearly be mass group deception as all kit sounds the same. So it was written, so it must be true 🙄
Some people believe that all well designed amplifiers and CD players sound exactly the same and they can (apparently) produce double blind test results which confirm this.
I personally don't hear huge differences between CD players but I do hear some. Amplifiers are different beasts, I've had loads over the years and every one sounded different even though none of them were badly designed, just different.
People talk about 'house sound' within a particular manufacturers range of kit. This must clearly be mass group deception as all kit sounds the same. So it was written, so it must be true 🙄
Yes, it can. You're not immune to it, I'm not immune to it, no humans are.
"A" speaker doesn't. "Two speakers" (or more) create a soundfield that is different at your two ears. The "image" is constructed by the bio-based signal processor in your skull.
Yes, we actually DID have an AI poster here at one time, with some very impressive programming. I'll accept Davy's bio basis as an "arguendo."
I have to admit that once, in response to a poster who was as persistent as he was stupid, I resorted to using the ELIZA responses. He got more and more wound up until someone finally let him in on what was going on.
I once had an on-line chat with someone from my telecoms provider, while chasing a problem with my email. Part way through the chat I had to ask whether I was talking to a person or a chatbot, as he seemed to ignore some information I gave while lavishing fulsome praise on me for answering a trivial question. He assured me he was real - but a chatbot might claim that too? I suppose an unimaginative person working from an inflexible script can appear to fail a Turing test.
So then, your here to tell people the effect is real because you say you hear it, but you keep it a secret? Hmmm. My first impression would be that you are afraid that the scientific people here would punch huge holes in your methodology. I suspect they would be correct.
That is why I actually made electrical test equipment to measure it. My rudimentary drawings of what I built is as far as I am allowed to present, as the IP is mine but the hardware is not.
You are certainly not wrong.
Actually, there was, there is, I experienced it.
In one case, the ground loop coupling compromised the phase margin of the system so much that one particular record with a spike in the music caused an ultrasonic burst that exploded both channel tweeter capacitors. I tracked the loop down and fixed it. The final straw was an extension cord that had parallel hot/ground/neutral conductors. A twisted cord did not couple as well.
In another, I fed an amp 100 feet away using an unbalanced line level, the system was horrible. In my gallery is the snake I made, where I wrapped the unbalanced IC around a 100 foot extension cord, and eliminated ALL the system problems.
Huh? It most certainly is out there. I have copies of published papers from '72 on from various researchers.
jn
Last edited:
Generally speaking, this is correct.
However it's my impression that some people prefer arguing that cables cannot possibly make any real audible differences, rather than listen to various cables and see (hear) for themselves.
You are referring to articles that suggest that power cords may, or may not, have an impact on the sound.
I refer to my own experience.
I don't assume to have the full understanding of why power cords make a difference, all I know is that they do.
Anyone interested in the factual truth of the matter can find out for oneself.
Possibly, power cords make a difference due to imperfect design of the various audio gear and audio amps. I don't know if this is the case here and I don't care. My amplifiers are commercial ones, I cannot re-design them. All I know and care about is that on my existing audio system, power cords do make a difference. So I choose those power cords that make the most positive difference (to my ears, on my system).
Many DBT procedures inherently mask small differences between tested devices.
For a DBT to be valid, the first requirement is to ensure that the said test does enable detecting changes between devices that measure differently enough, so that sonic differences between them are to be expected.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.