sss said:this thing cant be proven because is measured by humans and not test equipment .
there were millions of blind tests with the same result-no one can tell the difference ,but still those that believe that theres an audible difference (or even can hear it 🙂) cant be proven wrong .
i think that the guys that believe that theres a difference should buy those 10000$ cables and enjoy 😀
I don't think the logic is that difficult. If you do a blind test, and no differences are detected, that means that no differences were detected. I'm not being snug here, but that's just what it says. It is NOT proof that differences do not exist.
However, if differences are detected, it means that differences DO EXIST. Note the difference between 'detected' (which leave open the existence) and 'exist' which gives a clear proof.
So blind tests that do not detect differences are non-conclusive. There is always the possibility that the differences DO exist but were not detected. So those that maintain that there actually IS a difference have a case. Plain logic reasoning.
But I must confess, that after many, many blind tests, differences are still not detected, I am doubting whether they actually exist, and the possibility, although logically there, gets more and more remote.
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Could it be possible that the approach and present 'method' of attempting to detect those differences is simply unappropriate?
Peter Daniel said:
Yes, of course. But I cannot think of anything more to do than trying to make it as 'blind' as possible and use a setup that comes as close as possible to actual use.
There has been some discussion that the actual switches or relays used for the switch-over would introduce degradations that would suppress the differences. Its possible. But what if the used speaker cables (as an example) would suppress the differences? Does that not mean that even if there ARE differences, there is a very small chance that in a practical setup they would be audible, and the whole point becomes moot.
Jan Didden
So blind tests that detect differences are non-conclusive. There is always the possibility that the differences DO NOT exist but were matched by the subjects by chance, coincidentally. So those that maintain that there actually MAY NOT BE a difference have a case. Plain logic reasoning.
/Yet another post by 667 -- neighbor of the beast.
janneman said:
I wouldn't expect relays and switches to be a problem here. I would rather think that the simple idea of doing it "blind" limits somehow our sensory perception, as I believe the ears are not the only sensors involved in perceiveing the outside world.
How it all translates inside our brains can be still a matter of many speculations. That's why I'm very hesitant to chose any side of the coin here.
In other words, I'm not claiming that there are defferences and I cannot say that there are no differences. Presently, it seems to me that I can perceive them, the differences, (under not blind conditions, of course). I'm quite happy about it, as it adds more excitement to my audio hobby. It can be that simple 😉
Prune said:
So blind tests that detect differences are non-conclusive. There is always the possibility that the differences DO NOT exist but were matched by the subjects by chance, coincidentally. So those that maintain that there actually MAY NOT BE a difference have a case. Plain logic reasoning.
Nice try. We're getting into statistics here. If a difference is detected, that difference exist to a certain probablilty. Depends on the number of trials, numbers of persons etc. I think that particular horse has been beaten to death quite effectively by Thorsten.
So, if you do the test correctly, and you get a very high probability that the detected differences are very unlikely to result from chance, that is s strong case.
But, if you want to be principled, yes, you have a point. You're pretty smart, you know that? How come you're not rich yet?😉
Jan Didden
janneman, notice the smilie I used? I'm being a devil's advocate here.
Peter Daniel, your other senses are not eliminated. Say we let you look at both cables, if that helps you tell the difference. But at the same time, we can still eliminate psychological bias by dressing the crappier cable up to match in looks the fancier one. The result would be the same.
Not to mention the time I waste on this forum -- I should be working on my thesis instead ... d@mn you guys!
Peter Daniel, your other senses are not eliminated. Say we let you look at both cables, if that helps you tell the difference. But at the same time, we can still eliminate psychological bias by dressing the crappier cable up to match in looks the fancier one. The result would be the same.
Because I was born in Bulgaria, and Bulgarians are the laziest people in the world. 😴
Not to mention the time I waste on this forum -- I should be working on my thesis instead ... d@mn you guys!
Peter Daniel said:
Yes Peter, but that is the whole point of blind testing. You want to try to isolate ONLY the strictly audible differences. You WANT to limit the other sensory perception, or better, you want to disable them, to better be able to search for plain audible differences. The reason this is necessary is because your perception indeed is 'muddled' by a lot of other things, that have NOTHING to do with the audible differences: mood, expectation, knowing relative prices, the looks, the design, the size, peer opinions and probably a lot more that I can think of.
Jan Didden
Prune said:
The single notion that you are doing it under 'test conditions' might effect the judgement and sensory perception. Unless you arrange it in such a clever setup the the person under the test will not be aware of it. I would be quite happy to take part in such an experiment.
Prune said:
Since the point of getting rich is that you can afford to be lazy, you're ahead of us. You don't need it😀
Jan Didden
Well, that would be hard, although experiments where the subjects are being mislead of what is being tested are standard in psychology.
I think that Jon Risch's suggestions at AudioAsylum as to how to perform audio blind tests are a good middleground (sorry, I don't have a link to the actual post underhand).
Peter Daniel said:
Hmm. Thoughtfull. But how then are you going to ask the guy/girl for a score, if you don't want to give away that there is a test in the first place?
Jan Didden
I can only afford it because my student loan hasn't run out yet. 🙄 If HRDC reads this I'm in deep sh!t...
Hey, Prune, quit changing your posts behind my back! 
666, yeah, the beast is loose tonigt
Who is HRDC or whatever?
Jan Didden
666, yeah, the beast is loose tonigt Who is HRDC or whatever?
Jan Didden
One way to do what PD suggests is to send as presents/samples fake equipment, say a high-end and a low-end cable with the insides switched. The user ends up praising high-end-on-the-outside one, not noticing it's low-end-on the inside, and thus shows that the difference is a placebo effect.
janneman, they are (in)Human Resources Development Canada. They are the main Canadaian agency implementing the socialist cough communist cough policies in this country.
janneman, they are (in)Human Resources Development Canada. They are the main Canadaian agency implementing the socialist cough communist cough policies in this country.
Prune said:
I would conservatively estimate this to work as you say about 100% of the time😀
Jan Didden
Dude, this is not a real-time chat! Quit replying so fast, before I've had a chance to edit my posts! It's much easier for me to proofread once I've posted, and when I go back to change something, I have to Save Changes, read the post, and if something else further on needs changes, go back to the editing screen again, and so on.
RHosch said:
No, the "buy what you want and enjoy" mentality encourages buying what you want and enjoy.
If audio equipment doesn't offer what people want and what people enjoy, then it's ultimately worthless!
What other end does music and its reproduction in our homes serve but our own enjoyment?
se
janneman said:
Well, I did something like that with one of my amps and didn't even expect any comments on that.
I prepared two versions of the same circuit. The only difference was a shunt resistor. One amp had a Caddock , the other had a Vishay. The person who took the amps to the show was not aware of that. He later reported that for some reason one amp sounded much better (had a bigger soundstage), to the point that he didn't even bother to play the other amp.
After he brought the amps back, I looked inside and changed the resistor (for same value, just different type). Well, the amps began to play similar again (to him).
Another example was using MUR860 diodes in my GC PS. I chose those diodes by coincidence, as I just had them on my shelf. Later, I built exactly same supply, but with different rectifiers. The guy who listened to the original supply for a while, and later was listening to the "new" one, said that it sounds different. I was insisting that everything was the same (as I didn't expect then that rectifiers make a difference), yet after finally checking it closer and changing rectifiers I finally satisfied my "person under test".
Well, all those things happened purely by accident and were not intentional, yet the reaction from people makes me suspect that there is more to it that some people are willing to accept.