Null Hypothesis

[RobotCzar]

I am taking a graduate-level stat course so I have had reasons for reviewing basic statistical concepts. In doing so, I now believe I can perhaps shed some light on the concept of the null hypothesis and some misunderstanding evident in posts in this forum.

1) First off-- the word "null" in null hypothesis has NOTHING to do with a null in audible differences. Lots of people are confused about this--including some people who are posting the results of blind testing. The null in the hypothesis refers to an assumed "no difference" in the mean of a sample (the test data) and the population from which the sample is taken (all humans that can hear in this case). The null assumption is necessary in order to make a judgment about the probability that your test results are due to chance.

2) The null hypothesis of an experiment is choosen as something you TRY to prove false. For this reason it is often chosen to be something that would be easy to show as false, but might be much harder to be shown as true in all cases. For example, if our null hypothesis is that "nobody can hear differences between two specific cables" we can easily find this to be false by finding ONLY ONE person who can. If the hypothesis were "some people can hear differences" it would be difficult to show this to be false as no matter how many people we test that hear no differences, we can suspect that someone else, not tested, can. Why do scientists always try to something is false rather than true? Well, demonstrating that something is false is usually easier as we only have to find one case were the the contention is false. The key point of this is that the way the null hypothesis is stated HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THE EXPERIMENTER EXPECTS OR "WANTS" TO FIND IN THE EXPERIMENT. The conventions of stating the null in a particluar way relate to practical matters of logic.

Certain wire gurus (complete with Web sites), are demonstrating not only their lack of knowledge about valid testing, but also their muddle-headed thinking abilities, when they claim things like "you can't prove a null" or "scientists are trying to find a null in cable audibility" and so on. Rest assured the scientific and mathematical communities would be more than happy to point out how or why a peer-reviewed study is making mistakes in logic, theory, or experimental practice. Scientific reaseach studies are open to all kinds of criticism and carry much much more logical weight than all the 'theories" and "white papers" written by crackpots without scientific rigor.

[markw]

No, I'm not really a doctor but I like to keep it simple.

AFICT, the whole idea is to prove something. As far as testing for cable differences go, you either hear a difference or ypu don't. Simple as that. Now, as far as excluding wll the responses that essentially come out to "can't tell" is simply disallowing any response that proves there is no difference.

So, it would boil down to either you DO hear a difference or you DON'T hear a difference. Once that's accepted, then we get down to how many are correct. Of course, if you didn't hear a difference when a cable was changed, then you got it wrong, pure and simple. Likewise, if the cable wasn't changed and you still hear a difference, that's counted as a wrong also.

[okiemax]

I am taking a graduate-level stat course so I have had reasons for reviewing basic statistical concepts. In doing so, I now believe I can perhaps shed some light on the concept of the null hypothesis and some misunderstanding evident in posts in this forum.

1) First off-- the word "null" in null hypothesis has NOTHING to do with a null in audible differences. Lots of people are confused about this--including some people who are posting the results of blind testing. The null in the hypothesis refers to an assumed "no difference" in the mean of a sample (the test data) and the population from which the sample is taken (all humans that can hear in this case). The null assumption is necessary in order to make a judgment about the probability that your test results are due to chance.

2) The null hypothesis of an experiment is choosen as something you TRY to prove false. For this reason it is often chosen to be something that would be easy to show as false, but might be much harder to be shown as true in all cases. For example, if our null hypothesis is that "nobody can hear differences between two specific cables" we can easily find this to be false by finding ONLY ONE person who can. If the hypothesis were "some people can hear differences" it would be difficult to show this to be false as no matter how many people we test that hear no differences, we can suspect that someone else, not tested, can. Why do scientists always try to something is false rather than true? Well, demonstrating that something is false is usually easier as we only have to find one case were the the contention is false. The key point of this is that the way the null hypothesis is stated HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THE EXPERIMENTER EXPECTS OR "WANTS" TO FIND IN THE EXPERIMENT. The conventions of stating the null in a particluar way relate to practical matters of logic.

Certain wire gurus (complete with Web sites), are demonstrating not only their lack of knowledge about valid testing, but also their muddle-headed thinking abilities, when they claim things like "you can't prove a null" or "scientists are trying to find a null in cable audibility" and so on. Rest assured the scientific and mathematical communities would be more than happy to point out how or why a peer-reviewed study is making mistakes in logic, theory, or experimental practice. Scientific reaseach studies are open to all kinds of criticism and carry much much more logical weight than all the 'theories" and "white papers" written by crackpots without scientific rigor.

GOOD FOR YOU! I hope you find the statistics course intellectually stimulating and learn useful information. Unless I'm missing something in your post, however, there may be a problem with your understanding of the null.

You said:" Certain wire gurus (complete with Web sites), are demonstrating not only their lack of knowledge about valid testing, but also their muddle-headed thinking abilities, when they claim things like "you can't prove a null" or "scientists are trying to find a null in cable audibility" and so on."

I can't comment on your remarks about wire gurus, because I don't know who you have in mind. However, you seem to be saying you can prove a null, which contradicts the following statement you made earlier:

"If the hypothesis were "some people can hear differences" it would be difficult to show this to be false as no matter how many people we test that hear no differences, we can suspect that someone else, not tested, can."

Here you seem to be saying you can't prove a null. I believe that would be the correct thing to say.

Good luck with the course!

[RGA]

I can't speak to what cable guru's claim. I think where the biggest break-down in all of the arguments over such inane issues as this is the statistical separation from the very goal of the test at the outset. I also have spoken to psychologists and PHD students in brain research who don't accept the null hypothesis nor would they accept double blind tests to prove or disprove cognitive brain function studies...which audio and any test of human subjects most certainly falls under - which isn't to say it should not be used either of course.

Though I certainly wouldn't spend any money on cables - so you can tell where I sit on the fence of cables. Though interestingly I did here a $100.00Mit cable once that sounded very different from the first set of cables...this was sighted and not level matched - he simply replaced the cable - both were probably 8foot sets. The MIT was quiter and rolled of the treble and muddied the bass. $100.00 and the sound was WORSE. Whatever MIT put in the box made it worse IMO. Anyone can DELIBERATELY make something like this sound different and it is in these companies' best interests to do so. Most will hear the difference and buy.

The fact that none of these companies gets positives in DBT's is odd IMO because if people can't hear the deliberate reverberation of a Rega Planet CD player(which is a deliberate attempt to alter the sound to make it different) then I wonder about the tests...then again perhaps that specific unit was not tested.

[RobotCzar]

I had hoped to make it clear that the word "null" and what you are testing for are NOT related. The concept of null in testing relates to the assumption of a null difference in that sample (test cases) mean and the mean of the whole population (humans who can hear in this case).

The other point I wanted to make was that the "null" hypothesis (it is just a name, not a test for a null) is stated in a way that makes it easy (or easier) to reject based on the data. (And not on what the experiment hopes to find evidence for.)

The target of post is people reading the misleading assumptions and opinions of unnamed cable gurus (who have web sites, offer up lots of technobabble on cables, and sometimes have the initials JR--hint hint).

No scientific test, especially statistical samples, can be said to prove anything. The study merely lends support or non-support to a hypothesis. Is the fact that nothing is "proved" significant? No, because what IS established is whether or not there is evidence supporting a hypothesis. So even though we can't say any individual test "proves" that cable differneces are inaudible (or are audible) we CAN make a very powerfual statement like "there is no evidence people can hear cable differences". This statement is sufficient to lead us to reject the usefulness of expensive cables (on the quality of our music reproduction). Anyone claiming that cables make "huge" or even subtle differences has the burden to produce some evidence that they do. Claims made in uncontrolled listening are useless as evidence as they don't isolate the source of the claimed differences (including listener bias and illusion).

[kexodusc]

Certain wire gurus (complete with Web sites), are demonstrating not only their lack of knowledge about valid testing, but also their muddle-headed thinking abilities, when they claim things like "you can't prove a null" or "scientists are trying to find a null in cable audibility" and so on.

I certainly don't like the wire gurus or their websites, but I must come to their defense here...
If a wire gure claims that "you can't prove a null" they are telling the gospel truth. You can't. Not possible. And not proper statistics. You can reject the null, you cannot prove the null. The problem is thes goofy cable gurus aren't supporting their argument any by making such a claim.
Basically what they're saying here is "We're not going to prove to you there is an audible difference, instead we're just going to tell you that you cannot absolutely, with 100% confidence, prove that there IS NOT an audible difference."
As you've suggested, it is the seller's burden to provide proof, not the consumer's.

Great thread!

[okiemax]

I had hoped to make it clear that the word "null" and what you are testing for are NOT related. The concept of null in testing relates to the assumption of a null difference in that sample (test cases) mean and the mean of the whole population (humans who can hear in this case).

The other point I wanted to make was that the "null" hypothesis (it is just a name, not a test for a null) is stated in a way that makes it easy (or easier) to reject based on the data. (And not on what the experiment hopes to find evidence for.)

The target of post is people reading the misleading assumptions and opinions of unnamed cable gurus (who have web sites, offer up lots of technobabble on cables, and sometimes have the initials JR--hint hint).

No scientific test, especially statistical samples, can be said to prove anything. The study merely lends support or non-support to a hypothesis. Is the fact that nothing is "proved" significant? No, because what IS established is whether or not there is evidence supporting a hypothesis. So even though we can't say any individual test "proves" that cable differneces are inaudible (or are audible) we CAN make a very powerfual statement like "there is no evidence people can hear cable differences". This statement is sufficient to lead us to reject the usefulness of expensive cables (on the quality of our music reproduction). Anyone claiming that cables make "huge" or even subtle differences has the burden to produce some evidence that they do. Claims made in uncontrolled listening are useless as evidence as they don't isolate the source of the claimed differences (including listener bias and illusion).

I get the gist of what you are saying, but I'm still not sure about your understanding of hypothesis testing. You said: "No scientific test, especially statistical samples, can be said to prove anything." I disagree, and will try to show why with a hypothetical example.

Suppose we are doing a controlled double-blind listening test on a $10 cable and a $100 cable with 20 subjects and 15 trials. The hypothesis and null hypothesis are stated as follows: hypothesis -- there is an audible difference in the two cables; null hypothesis -- there is no audible difference in the two cables. If one subject correctly identifies the cables enough times(e.g., 14 out of 15) to remove any doubt his score is a result of chance, the hypothesis is confirmed, even if the score of each of the remaining 19 subjects is no better than random. Because of the way the hypothesis was stated(i.e., existence of an audible difference), one listener is enough to prove it. If this isn't exactly what a researcher wants to find out, he can try to state the hypothesis in a different way.

It also would seem reasonable to suspect most people would not notice an audible difference in the $10 cable and the $100 cable, and that for them spending 10 times as much for no difference makes no sense. On the other hand, if an individual hears a difference, the worth of the more expensive cable to him would be for him to determine. His right to decide how to spend his money, however, does not depend on whether the decision is based on sighted or blinded listening. Nor is he obligated to scientifically verify his hearing claim or justify the expense before telling others about the purchase.

[mtrycraft]

The fact that none of these companies gets positives in DBT's is odd IMO because if people can't hear the deliberate reverberation of a Rega Planet CD player(which is a deliberate attempt to alter the sound to make it different) then I wonder about the tests...then again perhaps that specific unit was not tested.

Well, maybe one would get a positive result under DBT for just such a component IF the 'reverb' is great enough. Being under DBT is not a masking condition of differences. Actually, the senses are even sharper as you are not distracted by other sensory inputs.

One of my citations for JND, just noticable differences, is a peer paper for threshold detections. Conducted under forced choice DBT. It works. Just because it doesn't produce answers one wants or thinks it should is not an indication of DBts inability to deliver results.

[92135011]

o.o if you wanted to get technical you would need a control group
a group that listens to the same cable 2 times.
If you see a statistical difference then you know that there are problems.

but whatever, you can judge with your own ears.
However, for everything there is a limit.
Do you enjoy it to the extent to put out 500 bux for a pair of cables? Price controls all.

[Monstrous Mike]

RobotCzar:

Here is where I believe we are at and please correct me if I am wrong.

I personally hold a null hypothesis that there are no audible differences between a proper basic cable and the ones that are claimed to have "higher performance". This null cannot be proven true, or it would be extremely difficult to prove true.. However, it would be fairly easy to prove it false by having one properly contolled test done that shows that at least one person can consistently tell the difference.

And the very fact that there is not one single test in controlled conditions that proves this null hypothesis false is pretty strong support for it being true IMHO.

If anyone here feels so strongly that they have cables that make an audible difference, then I urge you to go to your local college's electrical engineering department and challenge some professor to do some proper testing on you and your cable. If the test comes out positive then you would be a hero to the audiophile community. Further you would have proven my null hypothesis false and now us scientists could get to work on finding out why your particular cable made a difference instead of chasing ghosts.

[Richard Greene]

I participated in a double-blind ABX comparison:

Ten feet of Radio Shack 14AWG zip cords versus ten-foot $995 Tara Labs speaker cables at DLC Design, an audio consultancy in Michigan. The test was conducted by DLC owner Dave Clark (inventor of the DUMAX dynamic driver measurement system) and Tom Nousaine. Both work full-time in the audio field and both are internationally known.

As usual in DBT's, some people quickly claimed they heard differences in the subjective sighted warm-up audition.

During the double-blind portion of the test no one actually heard differences based on their "scorecards", although one golden ear had quite a few "correct" responses in a row so thought that was absolute proof that at least HE heard differences (not statistically significant but close) and he probably still thinks so today over 10 years later.

One lesson I learned is that golden ears always think they can hear differences among components and no test data will convince them there is even a possibility they could be mistaken.

Have you even heard a golden ear say or write:
"They sound the same to me" ... or
"I don't hear any difference"?

I never have, and I've been an audiophile since 1966.

These wire beliefs have reached a point where some golden ears think they can hear wire
"break-in" ... and I expect some time in the future when I predict most golden ears will be using "high end" wire lifts ... that one will claim he can actually hear when a mouse walks under his suspended wires because that disturbs the magnetic field. However, there will be a new name for magnetic field that sounds more high tech -- "magnetic field" is just
too old fashioned. Won't work in the ad copy written for the wire "Manufacturers"
(three guys in their garage attaching terminations to wires they bought from Belden and sealing them in fancy packages).

[E-Stat]

Ten feet of Radio Shack 14AWG zip cords versus ten-foot $995 Tara Labs speaker cables at DLC Design, an audio consultancy in Michigan.
Please tell us more about the rest of the setup and test material used.

rw

[Tony_Montana]

Won't work in the ad copy written for the wire "Manufacturers"
(three guys in their garage attaching terminations to wires they bought from Belden and sealing them in fancy packages).

Well, seeing how gullible audiophiles can be and want to part with their hard earned cash, now Chinese are getting into the game. Gene at Audioholics claims that alot of fancy cables from manufactures comes from china which is just a plain Belden cable with fancy packaging with name of manufacture on it. He said he get several offers each year from overseas as to make him fancy cables for marketing with Audioholics printed on it.

[mtrycraft]

Please tell us more about the rest of the setup and test material used.

rw
Immaterial, isn't it. Especially when you don't have anything to show that it matters one witt.
Any excuse will do for you. But you need better game plan.

[mtrycraft]

Well, seeing how gullible audiophiles can be and want to part with their hard earned cash, now Chinese are getting into the game. .

That is how you make a real killing. Buy for pennies and sell for 3-5 digits:)

[E-Stat]

Immaterial, isn't it.
Depends upon what you are trying to prove. You will likely not get any debate regarding the results of every single test for which you have provided internet links. Like say the gripping results from "Stereo Review Dares to Tell the Truth" ? Exciting reading for the receiver set. ;)

rw

[markw]

Depends upon what you are trying to prove.

rw


Well, after all this time, all these words were expended, all these magnamous advertising claims and after all these bruised egos, I would have hoped by now that someone, anyone would have proved by now, with some scientific certainty, that significant sonic differences in cables exist that would logicly justify the extremely wide price range between the least and most expensive cables/interconnects. I can't think of any other commodity with such a range on commonly manufactured items with such a wide price variation.

So far, no go.

But, I'm also waiting for undeniable proof of aliens, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and that Elvis is still alive as well.

[mtrycraft]

Depends upon what you are trying to prove. You will likely not get any debate regarding the results of every single test for which you have provided internet links. Like say the gripping results from "Stereo Review Dares to Tell the Truth" ? Exciting reading for the receiver set. ;)rw


News to me if I posted that link to SR. Unless, of cource you are fabricating again.

But hey, you have offered nothing to date to support anything you claim. Or, maybe you claim nothing?

[Tony_Montana]

That is how you make a real killing. Buy for pennies and sell for 3-5 digits:)


You know, cable business might not be such a bad business to get into. All we have to is come up with some weird cable design, and say the patent is pending and then market it. The only down fall might be that we have change position to a yeasayers in order to sell fancy cables :D

[E-Stat]

News to me if I posted that link to SR.
It seems you just don't read (or retain) what you post. First you talk about the Russell claims, when there are none. His web page merely contains a collection of completely unsubstantiated claims, the Stereo Review one being among them. Here is the tired old link again:

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

Then you point to the McLaren link as though that seems to support your assertions until I pointed out to you that they were not comparing $2 cables, but $300 cables vs $100 cables.

Perceptive listeners can hear the difference between give away wires and very good ones on commensurately good systems.

rw

[mtrycraft]

Then you point to the McLaren link as though that seems to support your assertions until I pointed out to you that they were not comparing $2 cables, but $300 cables vs $100 cables.


So what? You really think the $2 cable sounds different? Prove it.

Perceptive listeners can hear the difference between give away wires and very good ones on commensurately good systems. rw


Hogwash. You have no evidence beyond an empty claim, sheer speculation as those claims are very empty. LOL.
You still don't get it. You don't have any evidence.

[E-Stat]

So what? You really think the $2 cable sounds different? Prove it.
I still await a single report of any findings to support the "all cables sound the same notion" using equipment better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers. You may posture all you please. Perhaps the extent of their (and your) audio experience goes no further. What are the tester's afraid of by not divulging full details of their "tests"? Does anyone really consider that lack of disclosure to conform to true scientific principles? What are you afraid of by not divulging details of your system? You will predictably continue to dodge the question by replying "irrelevant". The (lack of) confidence in your own position speaks for itself.

As for me, I have the amps warmed up downstairs for some nice music listening. I plan to spin some Copland, Bach, and Dido this afternoon. :)

rw

[markw]

I still await a single report of any findings to support the "all cables sound the same notion" using equipment better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers. You may posture all you please. Perhaps the extent of their (and your) audio experience goes no further. What are the tester's afraid of by not divulging full details of their "tests"? Does anyone really consider that lack of disclosure to conform to true scientific principles? What are you afraid of by not divulging details of your system? You will predictably continue to dodge the question by replying "irrelevant". The (lack of) confidence in your own position speaks for itself.

As for me, I have the amps warmed up downstairs for some nice music listening. I plan to spin some Copland, Bach, and Dido this afternoon. :)

rw

I really, really think the burden of proof is on those who claim differences, don't you? Most of the scientific community would think so.

After all, in courts of law, it's up to those making the charge to prove the defendent did something. It's not really the responsibility of the defendent to prove he didn't do it.

Your continually falling back on this weak "well prove they don't make a difference"line simply proves the weakness of your case.

Methinks you would be happier "over there" where you are not asked to think. Simply to believe. That's fine for religious beliefs, but cable differences should be a more scientific endeavour. No?

[E-Stat]

I really, really think the burden of proof is on those who claim differences, don't you? Most of the scientific community would think so.
Unlike some "yeasayers" I find the differences to be subtle indeed. I use fancy cables only on the best of my three systems as I find the other two not good enough to bother. Only the big system can float images, resolve very fine detail, and produce a reasonable soundstage. As for the burden of proof, Ferrari, Maserati, Porsche, Aston Martin, et. al. find no need to prove their worth, either. The knowledgeable automotive press and enthusiasts world-wide speak for them. Sound familiar? There are many subjective handling characteristics that defy simplistic numeric testing. Similarly, I have yet to find a "specification" or collection thereof that directly correlates to system soundstaging capabilities.

I'm constantly amused how much virtual ink is spent in this forum discussing what they claim doesn't exist. Yes, it is ridiculous to spend as much on cables as you would major components. You either hear differences or you don't. Move on. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

rw

[Monstrous Mike]

I'm constantly amused how much virtual ink is spent in this forum discussing what they claim doesn't exist. Yes, it is ridiculous to spend as much on cables as you would major components. You either hear differences or you don't. Move on. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

rw
I initially got into this debate because I wanted to know that if cables can sound different, what properties or parameters were responsible? Then I quickly came to the realization that claims that cables do sound different is not even an established fact. I have listened all the arguements on both sides of the issue and have come to the conclusion that it is all completely unfounded, like many other types of claims in our society.

Personally, I believe society is at a point where we do not need to perpetuate unfounded scientific claims. This type of behaviour has done humanity a great disservice in the past and that is one of the reasons I stick around and monitor the situation albeit this is fairly benign discussion topic.

It still dumfounds me how many people believe in things that are patently false. Examples are: Do you need to wash your hands after going to the bathroom? No. Does water rotate counter-clockwise down a drain in the Northern Hemisphere? No. Can you catch a cold from a draft? No. Do chocolate cause acne? No. Does reading in a dim light damage your eyes? No. Does shooting a bullet through an aircraft window cause explosive decompression and suck everybody out the hole? No.

We need to systematically eliminate all of these myths and prevent new ones from forming. A lot of power (i.e. people who hold authority) today depends on keeping people ignorant and it is my view that this has got to stop. Cable sonics may be fairly insignificant to society but it is the principal of spreading unfounded claims and passing them off as fact that is what is at stake. If it can happen with audio cables, perhaps it could happen with something more important to all us of causing real, undesirable results.

[Pat D]

I still await a single report of any findings to support the "all cables sound the same notion" using equipment better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers.
rw
You remind me of the fundamentalists who argue that their position must be true if I can't prove it false. They neglect the burden of proving their assertions are correct.

First of all, I know of no one who formally states that "all cables sound the same." Indeed, it has been shown that this proposition is false by the very people you criticise. So, you are giving a straw man argument.

Second, what you ask is impossible theoretically as the result is statistical. It's probability. It is also impossible to absolutely prove statistically that two things sound different, but no one seems to have any doubts some things sound different.

If you wish to criticise Stereo Review's test procedures, perhaps you should at least take the trouble to look up the article in question and then take it up with Hachette or with the authors.

[E-Stat]

They neglect the burden of proving their assertions are correct.
What I question is the sweeping "mountain of proof" assertion that there are zero audible benefits to using the best cables on the best systems mtry refers to but seemingly cannot find. Tests are only as valid as the testing methodology and only provide results for that which is tested. I assert that there are no valid results supporting either position based on every report found here.



If you wish to criticise Stereo Review's test procedures, perhaps you should at least take the trouble to look up the article in question and then take it up with Hachette or with the authors.
The primary issue I take with the Stereo Review test is that it is limited to simply different flavors of 30 foot long zip back in 1983. Monster of that day was basically 12 gauge zip. Yet some attempt to extrapolate those results to every other speaker wire today. Here's the quote from the link:

A 6-page article by Laurence Greenhill titled "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?" was published in Stereo Review magazine on August 1983. It compared Monster cable, 16-gauge wire and 24-gauge wire.

All the other details are really moot.

rw

[pctower]

What I question is the sweeping "mountain of proof" assertion that there are zero audible benefits to using the best cables on the best systems mtry refers to but seemingly cannot find. Tests are only as valid as the testing methodology and only provide results for that which is tested. I assert that there are no valid results supporting either position based on every report found here.



The primary issue I take with the Stereo Review test is that it is limited to simply different flavors of 30 foot long zip back in 1983. Monster of that day was basically 12 gauge zip. Yet some attempt to extrapolate those results to every other speaker wire today. Here's the quote from the link:

A 6-page article by Laurence Greenhill titled "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?" was published in Stereo Review magazine on August 1983. It compared Monster cable, 16-gauge wire and 24-gauge wire.

All the other details are really moot.

rw

These guys here consistently give unqualified advice to newcomers to use the cheapest possible cables they can find. Then they try to claim that they don't make any claims about cables not sounding different.

Pat's been doing this forever. Not really worth the bother to try to communicate with intelectually dishonest people.

[mtrycraft]

I still await a single report of any findings to support the "all cables sound the same notion" using equipment better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers. You may posture all you please. Perhaps the extent of their (and your) audio experience goes no further. What are the tester's afraid of by not divulging full details of their "tests"? Does anyone really consider that lack of disclosure to conform to true scientific principles? What are you afraid of by not divulging details of your system? You will predictably continue to dodge the question by replying "irrelevant". The (lack of) confidence in your own position speaks for itself.

As for me, I have the amps warmed up downstairs for some nice music listening. I plan to spin some Copland, Bach, and Dido this afternoon. :)

rw

Hey, I don't have to have a single citation. You still have the burden of demonstration for differences. Rather simple science. But then, you don't understand that stuff.

[mtrycraft]

Unlike some "yeasayers" I find the differences to be subtle indeed. I use fancy cables only on the best of my three systems as I find the other two not good enough to bother. Only the big system can float images, resolve very fine detail, and produce a reasonable soundstage. As for the burden of proof, Ferrari, Maserati, Porsche, Aston Martin, et. al. find no need to prove their worth, either. The knowledgeable automotive press and enthusiasts world-wide speak for them. Sound familiar? There are many subjective handling characteristics that defy simplistic numeric testing. Similarly, I have yet to find a "specification" or collection thereof that directly correlates to system soundstaging capabilities.

I'm constantly amused how much virtual ink is spent in this forum discussing what they claim doesn't exist. Yes, it is ridiculous to spend as much on cables as you would major components. You either hear differences or you don't. Move on. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

rw

Subtle or huge, you are still claiming a difference that you just cannot demonstrate under bais controlled listeing, regardless of component quality. Simple. End game.

[mtrycraft]

These guys here consistently give unqualified advice to newcomers to use the cheapest possible cables they can find.

And? Why shouldn't they? What sonic reasons or evidence are there to use more expensive cables?

[mtrycraft]

You know, cable business might not be such a bad business to get into. All we have to is come up with some weird cable design, and say the patent is pending and then market it. The only down fall might be that we have change position to a yeasayers in order to sell fancy cables :D

No we don't have to change postitions. What's his name, John Dunlavy designed, created and sold a rather expensive wire based on the transmission line principle yet he conducted DBT listening showing no audible differences :D

[markw]

Unlike some "yeasayers" I find the differences to be subtle indeed. I use fancy cables only on the best of my three systems as I find the other two not good enough to bother. Only the big system can float images, resolve very fine detail, and produce a reasonable soundstage.

I'm constantly amused how much virtual ink is spent in this forum discussing what they claim doesn't exist. Yes, it is ridiculous to spend as much on cables as you would major components. You either hear differences or you don't. Move on. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

rw

Well, Phil, here's one of yours saying that it takes a certain calibre of system to "show off" those highly touted "subtle" differences.

Problem is that few here bother to even bother to see exactly what type of system they are dealing with when they argue against "common" cables. They simplt allude to the fact that glitzy cables do make a difference.

Actually, I'd be curious to know which systems are worthy of these fine cables and which aren't worth it, wouldn't you? I guess not. You would rather call names.

So, by your blanket condemnation of Pat's advice, I'd have to classify yourself as the "intellectually dishonest" one here. I guess too many years in Law does that to one, eh?

[pctower]

Well, Phil, here's one of yours saying that it takes a certain calibre of system to "show off" those highly touted "subtle" differences.

Problem is that few here bother to even bother to see exactly what type of system they are dealing with when they argue against "common" cables. They simplt allude to the fact that glitzy cables do make a difference.

Actually, I'd be curious to know which systems are worthy of these fine cables and which aren't worth it, wouldn't you? I guess not. You would rather call names.

So, by your blanket condemnation of Pat's advice, I'd have to classify yourself as the "intellectually dishonest" one here. I guess too many years in Law does that to one, eh?

Why is he one of mine?

I've never claimed him or anyone else to be "one" of mine.

Confront me with stuff I say and I'll respond. Employ your typical tactic of putting words in my mouth, and I'll treat you with the disdain and disgust you deserve.

[markw]

I love it when you get huffy and indignent in an attempt to avoid the issue at hand. That means I hit a nerve. Isn't that a legal tactic to avoid answering the question?

Your response to Pat D's post.


These guys here consistently give unqualified advice to newcomers to use the cheapest possible cables they can find. Then they try to claim that they don't make any claims about cables not sounding different.

Pat's been doing this forever. Not really worth the bother to try to communicate with intelectually dishonest people.

So. since it's fairly obvious you feel Pat (one of "these guys") is unqualified to offer advice to newcomers, who, in your esteemed (at least to yourself) IS qualified? Well, from your input on this site, it's fairly obvious where your beliefs fall.

You constantly say you don't know what to believe, yet you seem ready to condem those who lean towards the moderate spending group. We're not as easily manipulated as a jury you would try to hand select. You are about as transparant as a pane of glass.

... or you actually gonna try tp pull off that you never said Pat is not one of "these guys"?

Actually, the fact that you choose treat me with disdain rather than owe up to your own acts pushes me to greater heights. When you speak from one side of your mouth perhaps I'll lighten up.

Not enough action twisting words in court? Gotta come here to get your jollies?


TTFN

[E-Stat]

... regardless of component quality. Simple. End game.
It is indeed simple for those who do not think. You claim results from tests that do not exist.

rw

[E-Stat]

Hey, I don't have to have a single citation.
Mtry, I'm beginning to like you. You are honest after all !

rw

[FLZapped]

These guys here consistently give unqualified advice to newcomers to use the cheapest possible cables they can find. Then they try to claim that they don't make any claims about cables not sounding different.

Pat's been doing this forever. Not really worth the bother to try to communicate with intelectually dishonest people.

I suppose then, my 30 years in electronics research, design, and manufacture don't qualify either. In that time, I've been exposed to far more than any "audiophile" - regardless of what some claim. Maybe you have the cart before the horse. Ever consider it's BECASE we have found no evidence audible differences among like cables that we use "the cheap stuff." Gee, what a concept.


By the way Phil, we're smart enough to understand that 25 foot long speaker cables that are 24 AWG and 12 AWG, will indeed sound different - or were you just hiding that fact to try and make another invalid point in your lawyerly fashion?


-Bruce

[okiemax]

I participated in a double-blind ABX comparison:

Ten feet of Radio Shack 14AWG zip cords versus ten-foot $995 Tara Labs speaker cables at DLC Design, an audio consultancy in Michigan. The test was conducted by DLC owner Dave Clark (inventor of the DUMAX dynamic driver measurement system) and Tom Nousaine. Both work full-time in the audio field and both are internationally known.

As usual in DBT's, some people quickly claimed they heard differences in the subjective sighted warm-up audition.

During the double-blind portion of the test no one actually heard differences based on their "scorecards", although one golden ear had quite a few "correct" responses in a row so thought that was absolute proof that at least HE heard differences (not statistically significant but close) and he probably still thinks so today over 10 years later.

One lesson I learned is that golden ears always think they can hear differences among components and no test data will convince them there is even a possibility they could be mistaken.

Have you even heard a golden ear say or write:
"They sound the same to me" ... or
"I don't hear any difference"?

I never have, and I've been an audiophile since 1966.

These wire beliefs have reached a point where some golden ears think they can hear wire
"break-in" ... and I expect some time in the future when I predict most golden ears will be using "high end" wire lifts ... that one will claim he can actually hear when a mouse walks under his suspended wires because that disturbs the magnetic field. However, there will be a new name for magnetic field that sounds more high tech -- "magnetic field" is just
too old fashioned. Won't work in the ad copy written for the wire "Manufacturers"
(three guys in their garage attaching terminations to wires they bought from Belden and sealing them in fancy packages).

Is a complete description of this study available?

[E-Stat]

In that time, I've been exposed to far more than any "audiophile" - regardless of what some claim.
Exposure to far more what ? Cheap cable? Mid-fi gear?


By the way Phil, we're smart enough to understand that 25 foot long speaker cables that are 24 AWG and 12 AWG, will indeed sound different...
Good. Evidently, you hear better than Greenhill and his perceptive test panel. They couldn't.

Say mtry, you probably need to take this link off your "proof" list. :)

rw

[okiemax]

I initially got into this debate because I wanted to know that if cables can sound different, what properties or parameters were responsible? Then I quickly came to the realization that claims that cables do sound different is not even an established fact. I have listened all the arguements on both sides of the issue and have come to the conclusion that it is all completely unfounded, like many other types of claims in our society.

Personally, I believe society is at a point where we do not need to perpetuate unfounded scientific claims. This type of behaviour has done humanity a great disservice in the past and that is one of the reasons I stick around and monitor the situation albeit this is fairly benign discussion topic.

It still dumfounds me how many people believe in things that are patently false. Examples are: Do you need to wash your hands after going to the bathroom? No. Does water rotate counter-clockwise down a drain in the Northern Hemisphere? No. Can you catch a cold from a draft? No. Do chocolate cause acne? No. Does reading in a dim light damage your eyes? No. Does shooting a bullet through an aircraft window cause explosive decompression and suck everybody out the hole? No.

We need to systematically eliminate all of these myths and prevent new ones from forming. A lot of power (i.e. people who hold authority) today depends on keeping people ignorant and it is my view that this has got to stop. Cable sonics may be fairly insignificant to society but it is the principal of spreading unfounded claims and passing them off as fact that is what is at stake. If it can happen with audio cables, perhaps it could happen with something more important to all us of causing real, undesirable results.

YOU GIVE BAD ADVICE ! I tried not washing my hands before going to the bathroom, and guess what happened. My fingers stuck to my fly and other parts I won't mention. OK, so I had just been eating pancakes and syrup without a fork, but you should consider people will do things like that before making your dumb suggestions. I also noticed water in both the toliet bowl and the sink rotated counter-clockwise after I started it going that way with my sticky hands. After that I decided to not test any more of your screwball theories, such as rubbing chocolate on my face to cure acne or standing in a draft to cure a cold. However, you can't be wrong on everything, so maybe I will stop fooling around with fancy cables to save our civilization.

[mtrycraft]

YOU GIVE BAD ADVICE ! I tried not washing my hands before going to the bathroom, and guess what happened. My fingers stuck to my fly and other parts I won't mention. OK, so I had just been eating pancakes and syrup without a fork, but you should consider people will do things like that before making your dumb suggestions. I also noticed water in both the toliet bowl and the sink rotated counter-clockwise after I started it going that way with my sticky hands. After that I decided to not test any more of your screwball theories, such as rubbing chocolate on my face to cure acne or standing in a draft to cure a cold. However, you can't be wrong on everything, so maybe I will stop fooling around with fancy cables to save our civilization.


You are too funny :)
He forgot to tell you to wash before you go. That will cure that problem.
Try to turn the water the other direction and see:)
You need airborne for the cold. Mine works so well, it works from afar, left at home when I fly. No, I have a lifetime worth in one tablet. I haven't tested an exparation date though.
Let you know that in a few years:)

[FLZapped]

Exposure to far more what ? Cheap cable? Mid-fi gear?

rw


HAHAHHAAHHA, certainly not your snobbery. -Bruce

[skeptic]

Now you are gaining some insight into how real scientific knowledge is acquired. The statistical analysis of data is only one aspect of it.

The scientist who wants to test his hypothesis sets up the fairest test he can think of. He then conducts the test with enough participants and enough trials to be statistically significant. If he prequalifies all of the participants or segregates them into sub groups he tracks that too. The data is analyzed using statistical means to determine if the results are significantly different from the null meaning no statistical difference from random chance. He publishes his results including every aspect of his test procedure in a respected scientific journal which will be subject to review and discussion as well as repetition by his peers. If he finds the results statistically significant from the null, then his hypothesis is assumed to have validity until someone else comes along with a different test to challenge him. When that happens, there must be an investigation to determine why the first test got different results and plausible explanaitons convincing to the profession. When a body of knowledge is built up leading to the same conclusion over a long period, the hypothesis becomes the prevailing theory but is never immune to being challenged.

Now how do audiophiles come to their scientific conclusion about cables? They disconect one pair, try another, and proclaim one far superior to the other without ever having gone through even the most rudimentary analysis of what else might be different of if the comparison is even fair such as their old cables being corroded from years of sitting exposed to the air.

Can cable manufacturers do this? Do they know about this type of test? You can bet your last dollar that every single one of them does. Then why don't they do it? Why wouldn't they want to prove to scientists, engineers and audiophiles alike the superiority of their products? I can only assume the answer. And the answer is a) they know that they can't because their own electrical tests already has shown them that no usable difference exists and b) they don't have to because they already have a market that would only be diminished by the negative results of a test. Or maybe they have already conducted the tests and just don't want anyone to know the real results.

[Monstrous Mike]

The scientist who wants to test his hypothesis sets up the fairest test he can think of.
That's a good post skeptic. The response to it could only be something unscientific, anecdotal or illogical.

The fact is that there is even a <i>standard</i> that one can use to conduct proper subjective evaluations of audio signals. It is called "ITU-R Recommendation BS.1116". This standard was used to develop audio compression coding algorithms like MPeg-3. It is a real, documented, adopted, accepted and utilized method for subjectively evaluating audio signals.

All of the "shootouts" in hi fidelity magazines comparing cables and amps and CD players are basically just audio masterbation. The same applies to discussions on audio forums about in-home "trials" which supposedly show conclusive evidence of sonic differences between various audio products.

If you think about it, other than telling people what cable is correct one to use for the signal at hand, where to get it for a good price and how to hook it up, all the rest is simply fluff. Face it, these debates regarding cables and amps are not about science or truth or reality; they're about entertainment and that's about all.

If that's your bag, then I suggest you Cable Forum where your entertainment is protected from people like me and skeptic by higher beings.

[Monstrous Mike]

YOU GIVE BAD ADVICE ! I tried not washing my hands before going to the bathroom, and guess what happened. My fingers stuck to my fly and other parts I won't mention. OK, so I had just been eating pancakes and syrup without a fork, but you should consider people will do things like that before making your dumb suggestions. I also noticed water in both the toliet bowl and the sink rotated counter-clockwise after I started it going that way with my sticky hands. After that I decided to not test any more of your screwball theories, such as rubbing chocolate on my face to cure acne or standing in a draft to cure a cold. However, you can't be wrong on everything, so maybe I will stop fooling around with fancy cables to save our civilization.
I hope your post was a joke because if any of the myths I posted are actually true, I would like to know.

[rb122]

I hope your post was a joke because if any of the myths I posted are actually true, I would like to know.

Let's just say that if I see you coming out of a restroom, I ain't shaking hands with you! :)

[skeptic]

That is merely the first rung on a very tall ladder to arrive at the conclusion that swapping audio cables is a way to improve the performance of a sound system. Because even if you come to the conclusion that audible differences can exist, there's a lot more work to do to arrive at the recomendation for using them as a tool. The next step would be to understand what the differences are, what causes them, why they happen, and under what circumstances. And who could hear them. After that, the differences must be shown to be superior, not merely different. That's the science. Then comes the engineering. Next you must show that the method for obtaining these improvements, the swapping of cables is the most effective or cheapest way to achieve the beneficial results. Then there are questions which must be answered about how and when to use them, and which ones to use in a particular circumstance. That's a very long way from; they sound different so go out and buy them.

[E-Stat]

...certainly not your snobbery
I think you misjudge me. Remember the thread where you dubbed me Mr. Elitist? A poster asked as to what cable he should use and I replied with a question about the system in which they were to be used. If someone were to ask whether or not they should use premium fuel in their car, then the most appropriate response would be to ask them what car they drive. There is nothing snobbish, elitist, or judgemental in either question. Some engines, mostly higher performance ones, are designed to use premium and in some cases can be damaged by detonation if they use anything less. I will readily acknowledge (are you listening Monster Mike?) that there are a number of oil companies that try to deceive the public into thinking that using premium fuel is somehow always better and will improve the performance of all cars. Poppycock. False claims. That's true snake oil. The fact that snake oil pitches and claims exists does not, however, change the performance quotient for those engines that do benefit from the use of premium fuel.

Real snobbery or elitism is an attitude that some thing, some preference, some desire is simply beneath someone else's superior judgement. How could you even tolerate listening to anything less than my Megavoice speakers? The mere thought! Are you serious or just ignorant? Sucks to be you. Like, for example, Skeptic's view on classical music. That is snobbery. What is not snobbery is the observation that classical music can be (given the recording, of course) a more demanding test of an audio system.

Snobbery is not me. I enjoy listening to ALL of my music systems. I use that term loosely as I include my Sony Diskman, Sony Boombox, and computer audio systems along with the vintage mid-fi garage system and the "big one" down in the basement in that list. I probably spend more time listening to the home computer with ripped MP3s (gasp!) than any of the others. (It does have a rather cool set of Monsoon planar speakers, though) A true snob would have nothing of that. Why, how could I possibly listen to anything less than my tube driven electrostatics? Why even bother having any inferior alternatives? Oh, the very thought of such!

Speaking of premium unleaded, I have yet to see any "expensive cables are no better" test where they are using a car that uses premium fuel as the basis for the test. Forgive my mixed metaphors here. Mtry says he knows of no such citation. If you were to test EVERY SINGLE car that uses regular leaded with premium fuel then you would likely determine that there is simply no performance gain and use of premium is simply wasting money. That is a perfectly valid assertion within the test sample. If, however, you extrapolated your results and assumed that would be the case for ALL cars, then your assertion would not be supported by the facts. That is where I believe we are in the cable debate. There is no snobbery in framing the results of any test in context of that which is tested.

Just to make you happy, I will boast for a moment. Or at least report on my incredible dumb luck. :) I have known John W. Cooledge and Harry Pearson for over twenty five years. As audio reviewers, they get access to a wider range of exotic equipment than do most folks. I have heard about six different $30,000 amplifiers, tube and solid state alike, at Seacliff. Each one sounds different, offers a different set of compromises, and FWIW, my preference is different from that of my friend. Skeptic would be pleased to know that it was they who really got me into classical music when I was 18. After all, the good doctor Cooledge has been a baritone in the ASO Chorus for about thirty years and been on the symphony's board for a long time. The music collections of each range in the multi-thousands. Anyway, I have been exposed to hearing some of the most truly spectacular (and astronomically priced) systems available. HP's current $300k review system is simply beyond belief. It resolves detail that I never heard on my not-too-shabby system. And that is not limited to the best Mercury, Everest, Telarc, Wilson, Chesky, Reference Recordings, et. al. of classical content. I'm talking Madonna and DJ Rap. I was simply amazed that there is a rhythmic line in DJ Rap's (she) "Bad Girl" cut that I never really heard before that is rendered so clearly and so separately from the rest of the instrumentation. The stage width is staggeringly wide. Does that knowledge diminish the enjoyment I get with my "mere" systems when I come home? Not in the least. I simply marvel at what is possible. And look forward to my next visit... which may be around Easter - JWC got a new SUV and we're planning a trip to Seacliff. :D

rw

[mtrycraft]

Exposure to far more what ? Cheap cable? Mid-fi gear?


Good. Evidently, you hear better than Greenhill and his perceptive test panel. They couldn't.

Say mtry, you probably need to take this link off your "proof" list. :)

rw

You need to read it and see the data what is shows, what is audible what is not. 24ga was audibly different, yes.

[okiemax]

Now you are gaining some insight into how real scientific knowledge is acquired. The statistical analysis of data is only one aspect of it.

The scientist who wants to test his hypothesis sets up the fairest test he can think of. He then conducts the test with enough participants and enough trials to be statistically significant. If he prequalifies all of the participants or segregates them into sub groups he tracks that too. The data is analyzed using statistical means to determine if the results are significantly different from the null meaning no statistical difference from random chance. He publishes his results including every aspect of his test procedure in a respected scientific journal which will be subject to review and discussion as well as repetition by his peers. If he finds the results statistically significant from the null, then his hypothesis is assumed to have validity until someone else comes along with a different test to challenge him. When that happens, there must be an investigation to determine why the first test got different results and plausible explanaitons convincing to the profession. When a body of knowledge is built up leading to the same conclusion over a long period, the hypothesis becomes the prevailing theory but is never immune to being challenged.

Now how do audiophiles come to their scientific conclusion about cables? They disconect one pair, try another, and proclaim one far superior to the other without ever having gone through even the most rudimentary analysis of what else might be different of if the comparison is even fair such as their old cables being corroded from years of sitting exposed to the air.

Can cable manufacturers do this? Do they know about this type of test? You can bet your last dollar that every single one of them does. Then why don't they do it? Why wouldn't they want to prove to scientists, engineers and audiophiles alike the superiority of their products? I can only assume the answer. And the answer is a) they know that they can't because their own electrical tests already has shown them that no usable difference exists and b) they don't have to because they already have a market that would only be diminished by the negative results of a test. Or maybe they have already conducted the tests and just don't want anyone to know the real results.

I don't know why cable makers don't do DBT's to prove the worth of their products, but my guess is somewhat different than yours. Suppose a cable maker finds through blinded testing that listeners can hear a difference between one of their expensive cables and lamp cord. What would be the point of publishing such a finding? Wouldn't prospective buyers already assume there was a difference? Wouldn't the firm's competitors in the cable business be laughing their butts off.? I can't think of any business where firms voluntarily do testing on their products in an attempt to make less money.

[Monstrous Mike]

Let's just say that if I see you coming out of a restroom, I ain't shaking hands with you! :)
Just to clarify, I do wash my hands in public restrooms because it is good general hygenic practice and a way of avoiding infectious viruses like the cold virus or flu virus. But this has nothing to do with urinating. I wash before I urinate and then don't touch anything afterwards if I can avoid it, using my elbow to flush for example. Of course, washing after a number 2 is a given.

So washing in public restrooms or in your own home is not related to the act of urinating. Ask your doctor if you don't believe me.

[E-Stat]

I can only assume the answer. And the answer is a) they know that they can't because their own electrical tests already has shown them that no usable difference exists and b) they don't have to because they already have a market that would only be diminished by the negative results of a test. Or maybe they have already conducted the tests and just don't want anyone to know the real results.
or d) they are responsible businessmen making sound economic decisions.

Set aside cables for a minute. I can't think of a single audio manufacturer, be they low end or high end, that uses DBT or any other kind of statistical results in their marketing. Do you ever see an ad like this?

Double blind testing shows that four out of five dentists prefer Panasonkyo receivers.

It doesn't happen. Why? Well for one, properly run statistical testing is not inexpensive. Many audio companies, especially cable manufacturers, are small businesses. Most importantly, it is only the techie geeks who give a rat's ass as to the statistical outcome. Why waste precious marketing funds on tests that are judged irrelevant by your target market? You must have worked for the government at some time.

rw

[mtrycraft]

I don't know why cable makers don't do DBT's to prove the worth of their products, but my guess is somewhat different than yours. Suppose a cable maker finds through blinded testing that listeners can hear a difference between one of their expensive cables and lamp cord. What would be the point of publishing such a finding? Wouldn't prospective buyers already assume there was a difference? Wouldn't the firm's competitors in the cable business be laughing their butts off.? I can't think of any business where firms voluntarily do testing on their products in an attempt to make less money.

Assuming is inconclusive. Knowing is definitive.
But, the real reason for their lack of DBT is the obvious, no differences.

[skeptic]

I don't know why cable makers don't do DBT's to prove the worth of their products, but my guess is somewhat different than yours. Suppose a cable maker finds through blinded testing that listeners can hear a difference between one of their expensive cables and lamp cord. What would be the point of publishing such a finding? Wouldn't prospective buyers already assume there was a difference? Wouldn't the firm's competitors in the cable business be laughing their butts off.? I can't think of any business where firms voluntarily do testing on their products in an attempt to make less money.

Wouldn't the other cable makers be laughing and ridiculing the ONE AND ONLY competitor who could PROVE his cables were better than lamp cord. On the contrary, If I ran that company, my add compaign would be, "I can prove you are getting something of real value for your money when you buy MY cable product. Nobody else can.)

"I can't think of any business where firms voluntarily do testing on their products in an attempt to make less money"

If you feel that your cable is superior, you test it to prove to the world that it really is and then you sell more and make more money. Why would you think that testing would result in making less money? Only one logical reason and that is if you test it and the results show it is no better than a much cheaper alternative, and this test becomes publically known, then there would be no reason for anyone to buy it.

Most companies test their products or send them out for testing for many different things for many different reasons. They also test their competitors products. It was funny. I once worked for a subsidiary of a large pharmaceutical company that manufactured surgical needles. They tested their own and their competitors needles endlessly. In fact, when I was there, seeing all of that industry's leadng company's products they kept buying for testing, I said that they were their competitors number one customer.

[okiemax]

Wouldn't the other cable makers be laughing and ridiculing the ONE AND ONLY competitor who could PROVE his cables were better than lamp cord. On the contrary, If I ran that company, my add compaign would be, "I can prove you are getting something of real value for your money when you buy MY cable product. Nobody else can.)

"I can't think of any business where firms voluntarily do testing on their products in an attempt to make less money"

If you feel that your cable is superior, you test it to prove to the world that it really is and then you sell more and make more money. Why would you think that testing would result in making less money? Only one logical reason and that is if you test it and the results show it is no better than a much cheaper alternative, and this test becomes publically known, then there would be no reason for anyone to buy it.

Most companies test their products or send them out for testing for many different things for many different reasons. They also test their competitors products. It was funny. I once worked for a subsidiary of a large pharmaceutical company that manufactured surgical needles. They tested their own and their competitors needles endlessly. In fact, when I was there, seeing all of that industry's leadng company's products they kept buying for testing, I said that they were their competitors number one customer.


I thought you were calling on cable manufacturers to demonstrate the worth of their products in blinded testing and to make the results of these studies public through advertising or other means Am I wrong? If not, can you give me specfic examples of manufacturers in other industries who have done blinded testing on their products, if not compelled to by law, and have made the results of these studies public. Perhaps there have been some, but I don't know if the practice is widespread, since no examples come to mind. What I am asking for is the names of companies and products, and how the results of the studies were made public. Only scientific studies are of interest.

[RGA]

Assuming is inconclusive. Knowing is definitive.
But, the real reason for their lack of DBT is the obvious, no differences.

Actually no it's not obvious...that statement requires proof.

[pctower]

Actually no it's not obvious...that statement requires proof.

Mytrycrafts and his followers don't need proof for their claims. They are "scientists" and they are above having to produce the kind of proof they demand of others. One might call them hypocritical, but one can't, because, after all, they're "scientists" and therefore beyond reproach.

They'll tell you, correctly so, that one can't prove a negative (such as "cables don't sound different"). But in the same breath they will declare the negative to be unqualifiedly true. When challenged they resort to sophistry and obfuscation. But they're "right" and you're "wrong", because, after all, they're "scientists".

[FLZapped]

Mytrycrafts and his followers don't need proof for their claims. They are "scientists" and they are above having to produce the kind of proof they demand of others. One might call them hypocritical, but one can't, because, after all, they're "scientists" and therefore beyond reproach.

They'll tell you, correctly so, that one can't prove a negative (such as "cables don't sound different"). But in the same breath they will declare the negative to be unqualifiedly true. When challenged they resort to sophistry and obfuscation. But they're "right" and you're "wrong", because, after all, they're "scientists".


And you are what: a lawyer, and by your own admisson not technically competent to make such judgements, yet here you are with the cart before the horse.

So when someone comes up with information that can show cables behave beyond their LCR parameters, and have DBTs which back up their claims of being able to improve the sound of your system, which would violate the laws of physics, I think you should go back to the sideline. Or go camp out with Jon Risch who also believes cables defy the laws of physics and has made claims of being able to hear the differences between various wire insulations without any evidence of such.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

I think you misjudge me. Remember the thread where you dubbed me Mr. Elitist?

rw

Yes, I most certainly do remember. Snobbery, elitist, I'll use them interchangeably, if you need clarification: and maybe another term along the way.

And yes, it is most certainly you. It shows in the attitude of your posts.:


Exposure to far more what ? Cheap cable? Mid-fi gear?

Plain as day.


-Bruce

[Monstrous Mike]

They'll tell you, correctly so, that one can't prove a negative (such as "cables don't sound different"). But in the same breath they will declare the negative to be unqualifiedly true. When challenged they resort to sophistry and obfuscation. But they're "right" and you're "wrong", because, after all, they're "scientists".
"Unqualifiedly true" is putting words in peoples' mouths, isn't it? The hypothesis that cables sound the same has yet to be unproven. And given the zeal of the many who oppose that hypothesis, it makes me believe that it will never be unproven because it is true. Anyone who has no interest in this debate that I have asked has agreed with this logic and reason. Go ahead and ask anyone who cares that you have heard differences and many others have heard differences but it has never been shown in controlled test. Go ahead, ask them what they believe.

No need to qualify anything here. It is quite clear. What do you have to fear? Your gear? Missing an ear?

Hey, did I just rap?

[skeptic]

Sorry counselor, I don't think you made your case. Nothing in science is unqualified. When something is unqualified, it ceases to be science. The best science can say is; all the evidence so far leads to the conclusion that.....Religion is unqualified. Political dogma is unqualified. Advertising puffery is unqualified. But not science. When people tell you a statement like; these cables sound better than those cables, buy them, without any qualifications, that is advertising puffery and has much in common with dogma and religion and nothing in common with real science.

[okiemax]

"Unqualifiedly true" is putting words in peoples' mouths, isn't it? The hypothesis that cables sound the same has yet to be unproven. And given the zeal of the many who oppose that hypothesis, it makes me believe that it will never be unproven because it is true. Anyone who has no interest in this debate that I have asked has agreed with this logic and reason. Go ahead and ask anyone who cares that you have heard differences and many others have heard differences but it has never been shown in controlled test. Go ahead, ask them what they believe.

No need to qualify anything here. It is quite clear. What do you have to fear? Your gear? Missing an ear?

Hey, did I just rap?

You say:" The hypothesis that cables sound the same has yet to be unproven. And given the zeal of the many who oppose that hypothesis, it makes me believe that it will never be unproven because it is true." I doubt your hypothesis that "cables sound the same" can be statistically tested. How would you do it?

[Monstrous Mike]

I doubt your hypothesis that "cables sound the same" can be statistically tested. How would you do it?
Unfortunately, that hypothesis would likely be phyiscally, statistically and financially impossible to prove.

It would be much easier to disprove it by coming up with several examples of comparing basic, good cabling to exotic geometries, special construction, different metals, etc. using controlled DBTs and trained listeners. And then, and most importantly, the test should be documented and published so that any other scientist or capable tester could duplicate the results under the same conditions.

After a few confirmations of the results, the hypothesis would be settled for whatever particular cables were tested and in general it would be shown that there are cable geometries or materials or constructions that can indeed improve the sound of audio signals.

And finally, I personally believe nothing will change in this debate as far as someone coming up with some new, astounding evidence either way. I think it is just a fad and eventually people are going to realize that when they have an extra thousand bucks that upgrading the room will give more sonic benefit than upgrading the cables.

So eventually we may all move on and leave this issue behind without ever knowing what the real answer was, if any at all.

[E-Stat]

And yes, it is most certainly you. It shows in the attitude of your posts.
Since your post failed to state the nature of your braggidocio, I could only speculate. I guess I should have included a smiley face. :)

We're still wondering. To what do have you more exposure than "any audiophile"?

rw

[mtrycraft]

It is indeed simple for those who do not think. You claim results from tests that do not exist.

rw

Oh, really? Which ones don't exist? I cited every one of them. Ah, your imagination run amok.

[E-Stat]

Oh, really? Which ones don't exist? I cited every one of them. Ah, your imagination run amok.
Boy, responding to you sure is a lot of work. Can't you remember what you say from day to day? Look at post # 29 wherein I point out that none of your references is for anything better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers. Here is your response followed with the usual unnecessary defensive jabs :

Hey, I don't have to have a single citation. You still have the burden of demonstration for differences. Rather simple science. But then, you don't understand that stuff.

Then in the very next post, you pontificate with these comments:

Subtle or huge, you are still claiming a difference that you just cannot demonstrate under bais controlled listeing, regardless of component quality.

So, let's look at the pieces.

I say you have no references beyond the mediocre. You reply that is true. Then in the very next breath you make your tired old claim that proof exists "regardless of component quality"

So which one of your two conflicting comments is true? If you assert that your latter comments are correct, then cite the source!

sheesh!

rw

[FLZapped]

Boy, responding to you sure is a lot of work. Can't you remember what you say from day to day? Look at post # 29 wherein I point out that none of your references is for anything better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers.

There you go again with your audio snobbery. How do you know what "mid-fi" is? Where is your evidence this layering even existsexists? What is it based on? How is it quantified? Or are you just repeating an urban myth?

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

How do you know what "mid-fi" is? Where is your evidence this layering even existsexists? What is it based on? How is it quantified?
I'll be happy to answer your question....once you answer mine. Obviously, we are from two different worlds and I'm trying to understand yours. I'm dying to know the answer from your incomplete statement. This should be simple, no? I'll leave off the humor and let you fill in the blank.

In thirty years of electronics (which, by the way? - type not brand) research, design, and manufacture, I've been exposed to far more __________ than any audiophile.

rw

[Mikereyno]

Having just purchased a completely upgraded HT system (reciever, DVD player, and front, center and surround speakers) I, like probably many not as knowledgible followers, came to the Cable portion of the A/V forum and this string to find out why I should be spending significantly amount more of my hard earned money on "high priced" speaker cables. Despite the lenght of this thread and the empassioned views of the proponents I still have not heard validation of why I should part with my money. Do others feel that way?

[FLZapped]

I'll be happy to answer your question....once you answer mine. Obviously, we are from two different worlds and I'm trying to understand yours. I'm dying to know the answer from your incomplete statement. This should be simple, no? I'll leave off the humor and let you fill in the blank.

In thirty years of electronics (which, by the way? - type not brand) research, design, and manufacture, I've been exposed to far more __________ than any audiophile.

rw


I'm not stupid enough to answer that question to have you look down your nose at me. Seen that happen too many times. So go ahead, make excuses to prop up your myths.

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

I'm not stupid enough to answer that question to have you look down your nose at me.
Inspirational words from the voice of confidence. Ok, so you simply exposed yourself far more than any audiophile for the last thirty years.

rw

[pctower]

Having just purchased a completely upgraded HT system (reciever, DVD player, and front, center and surround speakers) I, like probably many not as knowledgible followers, came to the Cable portion of the A/V forum and this string to find out why I should be spending significantly amount more of my hard earned money on "high priced" speaker cables. Despite the lenght of this thread and the empassioned views of the proponents I still have not heard validation of why I should part with my money. Do others feel that way?

What's interesting to me is that you would look to this thread, this board or any other board for a reason WHY you should buy cables, as opposed to simply trying a few after-market cables for yourself and seeing whether FOR YOU IN YOUR SYSTEM you experience an improvement that's worth paying for.

You ask how others feel. Most here feel cables don't make a difference. Most high end enthusiasts (who seldom visit this board) feel otherwise.

Why don't you just find out for yourself WHAT DOES AND DOESN'T WORK FOR YOU. On the other hand, if you are going to base your decision simply on what you are told, I suggest you visit several audio boards so as not to base that decision simply on majority rule at one particular board populated almost entirely by people of a single view of the subject.

I guess the approach you choose is whether you are more interested in conducting a scientific research project (in which case I would caution that what attempts to pass for science on this and most other audio boards is laughable) or are more interested in finding out what does and doesn't improve YOUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in the privacy of your own home.

[Mikereyno]

PCTOWER - I am not interested in conducting any kind of experiment. I just want a valid reason as to why I should expend hard earn money on more expensive speaker cable. Unfortunately, your response did nothing to clarify that. In fact, the only thing it does have the potential to do is drive me away from this board.

[DMK]

PCTOWER - I am not interested in conducting any kind of experiment. I just want a valid reason as to why I should expend hard earn money on more expensive speaker cable. Unfortunately, your response did nothing to clarify that. In fact, the only thing it does have the potential to do is drive me away from this board.

And you should hear both sides.

Side one - there are no audible differences between cables that are suitable for audio which would be 16 guage and lower - NO 24 guage cable! The reason for this is that cable performance can be measured with test instruments and when they are, no differences that would be audible to humans are found. Bias and placebo effect account for what differences you do hear, i.e your mind is playing tricks on you. There is documented evidence of these phenomena.

Side two - measurements don't tell us the whole story of cable sonics. It's important to listen for yourself to determine if you hear differences and if they are significant enough to warrant spending your hard earned money. Cables are very system dependant and if you try something that works for you, it may not work for your friends system. Many audio enthusiasts feel that cables do make a difference and their enjoyment of their systems is therefore enhanced.

This is an oversimplification of the issue, of course. If you follow this board for awhile, you will see the debate flow in more detail. What I believe PCTower was telling you was that you simply need to try cables for yourself to see (hear) if they're worth it and don't follow the A/R status quo. To be fair, you could go to www.audioasylum.com and see a largely different status quo. PCtower was also telling you not to follow THAT agenda. He's telling you to think for yourself and, quite honestly, that's the best advice you can ever get on just about anything. Just make sure you are exposed to both sides of the issue before you decide.

[okiemax]

And you should hear both sides.

Side one - there are no audible differences between cables that are suitable for audio which would be 16 guage and lower - NO 24 guage cable! The reason for this is that cable performance can be measured with test instruments and when they are, no differences that would be audible to humans are found. Bias and placebo effect account for what differences you do hear, i.e your mind is playing tricks on you. There is documented evidence of these phenomena.

Side two - measurements don't tell us the whole story of cable sonics. It's important to listen for yourself to determine if you hear differences and if they are significant enough to warrant spending your hard earned money. Cables are very system dependant and if you try something that works for you, it may not work for your friends system. Many audio enthusiasts feel that cables do make a difference and their enjoyment of their systems is therefore enhanced.

This is an oversimplification of the issue, of course. If you follow this board for awhile, you will see the debate flow in more detail. What I believe PCTower was telling you was that you simply need to try cables for yourself to see (hear) if they're worth it and don't follow the A/R status quo. To be fair, you could go to www.audioasylum.com and see a largely different status quo. PCtower was also telling you not to follow THAT agenda. He's telling you to think for yourself and, quite honestly, that's the best advice you can ever get on just about anything. Just make sure you are exposed to both sides of the issue before you decide.

I think you presented a balanced description of the opposing points of view on audiophile cables. I'm not sure what Mikereyno wants. It seems like he seeks assurance he will hear an improvement in his HT system if he spends more on cables, but is unwilling to try a new cable to find out whether he hears an improvement, despite the fact many cable sellers offer money-back guarantees. I don't see anywhere to go from there.

[mtrycraft]

In fact, the only thing it does have the potential to do is drive me away from this board.

Only if you let it.

[pctower]

And you are what: a lawyer, and by your own admisson not technically competent to make such judgements, yet here you are with the cart before the horse.

So when someone comes up with information that can show cables behave beyond their LCR parameters, and have DBTs which back up their claims of being able to improve the sound of your system, which would violate the laws of physics, I think you should go back to the sideline. Or go camp out with Jon Risch who also believes cables defy the laws of physics and has made claims of being able to hear the differences between various wire insulations without any evidence of such.

-Bruce

Talk about snobbery and elitism!

One doesn't need your vaulted "expertise" to know that mtrycrafts made a claim (and does all the time with his unqualified advice to newcomers) and lacks support for that claim. It's one thing to say that it is unproven that cables make a difference. Quite another to say cables don't make a difference.

Or did they skip the subject of thinking in your engineering school?

[Monstrous Mike]

And you should hear both sides.

Side one - there are no audible differences between cables that are suitable for audio which would be 16 guage and lower - NO 24 guage cable! The reason for this is that cable performance can be measured with test instruments and when they are, no differences that would be audible to humans are found. Bias and placebo effect account for what differences you do hear, i.e your mind is playing tricks on you. There is documented evidence of these phenomena.

Side two - measurements don't tell us the whole story of cable sonics. It's important to listen for yourself to determine if you hear differences and if they are significant enough to warrant spending your hard earned money. Cables are very system dependant and if you try something that works for you, it may not work for your friends system. Many audio enthusiasts feel that cables do make a difference and their enjoyment of their systems is therefore enhanced.

This is an oversimplification of the issue, of course. If you follow this board for awhile, you will see the debate flow in more detail. What I believe PCTower was telling you was that you simply need to try cables for yourself to see (hear) if they're worth it and don't follow the A/R status quo. To be fair, you could go to www.audioasylum.com and see a largely different status quo. PCtower was also telling you not to follow THAT agenda. He's telling you to think for yourself and, quite honestly, that's the best advice you can ever get on just about anything. Just make sure you are exposed to both sides of the issue before you decide.
Just a question for DMK and others. Do you have to try everything yourselves? Do you ever do an analysis to weed out ideas that simply are unsupported and move on? Don't you believe in any of the testing of your fellow man?

If you apply the reasoning you gave about the two sides of this arguement to general life, you would be a professional experimenter with a hundred thousand things to try at home and no time to enjoy any of it.

I don't know about you be the older I get the more precious each day is on this earth. So I'm going to sit back and enjoy a cold beer and all you guys who need to test everything because you don't believe anything without confirmation or anlysis, then you know where to reach me when you have some conclusions.

And don't give me that "You'll never know unless you try it" crap. What that really means is you'll never know until a bunch of other people have tried it for you.

Maybe we have basic philosophical differences about life in general. That would explain a lot.

[E-Stat]

Do you have to try everything yourselves?
No, I rely upon the analysis of trusted sources for many interests.


Do you ever do an analysis to weed out ideas that simply are unsupported and move on?
I'll answer your prejudicially biased question this way: if the topic involves one of my passions, has the potential of enhancing my enjoyment of said passion, and it is a practical exercise to experiment, I will.


Don't you believe in any of the testing of your fellow man?
Most certainly. It all depends upon their expertise and focus. While some here will complain, I will use a car analogy since driving is another one of my passions. Consumers Union is a great source for compiling raw automotive data. Be it frequency of repair, depreciation history, cost of insurance, etc. On the other hand, I find them totally useless at providing any valuable information as to the driving characteristics of a vehicle. I do trust the likes of reviews found in Car&Driver, Automobile, and Road & Track. Here the testers regularly drive some of the best cars in the world on roads both real and on the track. Their point of reference is varied and not lacking in depth. They understand that the "measurements" can only tell you so much. Often, they use race car drivers whose perception goes even beyond their capability to give an even more thorough perspective. I get the kind of specific information as to the complex handling characteristics of my Honda S2000. I find the same to be true in audio. The standard rags like Stereo Review, Audioholics, etc. are like CU in that they are geared towards the mass market and provide only superficial information, none of which I find helpful. Instead, I prefer magazines such as The Absolute Sound. My view is definitely prejudiced since I have known the founder for over twenty five years. Another former reviewer who also lives in Atlanta helped shape my love for classical music with his huge musical collection and ties to the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra (he has been a baritone in the choir for twenty plus years). My exposure to hearing some of the very best equipment available has given me a completely different perspective to what is possible with audio had I not had that good fortune. Visiting Harry and hearing that system is like taking an intense ride in a Ferrari with Michael Schumacher at the wheel. Although I do not always agree with either John's or Harry's exact component preferences, I nevertheless value their judgement and perceptive ability to identify subtleties of music. That is the real trick. Since TAS reviewers state their biases (both musically and sonically), one can read through what they say to get a feel for a given component.



Maybe we have basic philosophical differences about life in general. That would explain a lot.
Perhaps. I like experiencing life to the fullest and not vicariously through the experiences of others wherever possible. I have flown an airplane solo. Skydived. I actively ski, scuba dive, ride motorcycles, figure skate at an adult Bronze level, run 5 and 10Ks, target shoot (and reload my own ammunition) and.....listen to music. Music listening is a daily experience and touches me deeply. I cannot imagine a world without it. For most folks, it is simply Muzak.

rw

[rb122]

Just a question for DMK and others. Do you have to try everything yourselves? Do you ever do an analysis to weed out ideas that simply are unsupported and move on? Don't you believe in any of the testing of your fellow man?

If you apply the reasoning you gave about the two sides of this arguement to general life, you would be a professional experimenter with a hundred thousand things to try at home and no time to enjoy any of it.

I don't know about you be the older I get the more precious each day is on this earth. So I'm going to sit back and enjoy a cold beer and all you guys who need to test everything because you don't believe anything without confirmation or anlysis, then you know where to reach me when you have some conclusions.

And don't give me that "You'll never know unless you try it" crap. What that really means is you'll never know until a bunch of other people have tried it for you.

Maybe we have basic philosophical differences about life in general. That would explain a lot.

I try things myself that may enhance my enjoyment of music which would include new gear and new recordings. What unsupported ideas???? If you're looking for support for cable sonics, take a look at Cable Asylum. You just don't happen to agree with that support. Neither do I but it's because I tried it for myself. But are you saying I should trust YOU over them? That might be fine for someone with a background in science but mine is in business and music. LCR parameters vs listening - only one road to take on that one for someone like me. But you seem to be suggesting that I accept things I don't understand on faith. Are you sure you're not a closet subjectivist? :)

Most of the people on this board have a pretty open mind about the (however improbable) possibility of cable sonics that don't square up with the current accepted scientific wisdom. If that ever happens, are you going to yell at the person who tested it? Shouldn't SOMEONE be testing these things? Isn't that how science advances?

Sorry, but you'll never "know" unless you try it. That's a truth. You may think you know, you may believe you know, you may go to your death bed saying you know, but you don't know. You likely won't even "know" if you tried it and had the expected outcome! Perhaps we do have some philosophical differences. I'm saying that any person that wants to try cables should arm himself with the information that is available and then decide if he still wants to try it. What's wrong with that? I wouldn't have tried cables if I had known in advance what I know now. Sorry... what I "think" I know now! :)

[DMK]

Just a question for DMK and others. Do you have to try everything yourselves? Do you ever do an analysis to weed out ideas that simply are unsupported and move on? Don't you believe in any of the testing of your fellow man?

If you apply the reasoning you gave about the two sides of this arguement to general life, you would be a professional experimenter with a hundred thousand things to try at home and no time to enjoy any of it.

I don't know about you be the older I get the more precious each day is on this earth. So I'm going to sit back and enjoy a cold beer and all you guys who need to test everything because you don't believe anything without confirmation or anlysis, then you know where to reach me when you have some conclusions.

And don't give me that "You'll never know unless you try it" crap. What that really means is you'll never know until a bunch of other people have tried it for you.

Maybe we have basic philosophical differences about life in general. That would explain a lot.

The two responses you already have pretty much say it all.

I do try things that I think will enhance my life if someone I trust and respect tells me that it enhanced theirs. There is enough anecdotal evidence about cable sonics to support such a test and as much as I respect science, it isn't infallible. And as one of the other posters mentioned, with no understanding of the science behind cables, we have to resort to (gasp!) listening to them! Not that there's anything to listen to but it was my own blind testing that proved that to me, not a bunch of internet posters telling me. Of course, without those internet posters, I might not have tried it at all. So... THANKS!

[RobotCzar]

I get the gist of what you are saying, but I'm still not sure about your understanding of hypothesis testing. You said: "No scientific test, especially statistical samples, can be said to prove anything." I disagree, and will try to show why with a hypothetical example.

Suppose we are doing a controlled double-blind listening test on a $10 cable and a $100 cable with 20 subjects and 15 trials. The hypothesis and null hypothesis are stated as follows: hypothesis -- there is an audible difference in the two cables; null hypothesis -- there is no audible difference in the two cables. If one subject correctly identifies the cables enough times(e.g., 14 out of 15) to remove any doubt his score is a result of chance, the hypothesis is confirmed, even if the score of each of the remaining 19 subjects is no better than random. Because of the way the hypothesis was stated(i.e., existence of an audible difference), one listener is enough to prove it. If this isn't exactly what a researcher wants to find out, he can try to state the hypothesis in a different way.

It also would seem reasonable to suspect most people would not notice an audible difference in the $10 cable and the $100 cable, and that for them spending 10 times as much for no difference makes no sense. On the other hand, if an individual hears a difference, the worth of the more expensive cable to him would be for him to determine. His right to decide how to spend his money, however, does not depend on whether the decision is based on sighted or blinded listening. Nor is he obligated to scientifically verify his hearing claim or justify the expense before telling others about the purchase.


No, tests that use samples (i.e., satistical tests) deal with probabilities. When you say that scoring 14 out of 15 "removes all doubt" you are incorrect. It is simply unlikely, not a certain proof that the person can hear a difference. Statistical tests make decisions to accept or reject hypothesis based on a convention of unlikelyness not certainty. There is a known probably of effor (type 1 or 2) in all statistical tests.

People are free to spend their money as they see fit--no matter how foolish the reasons

[FLZapped]

Talk about snobbery and elitism!

One doesn't need your vaulted "expertise" to know that mtrycrafts made a claim (and does all the time with his unqualified advice to newcomers) and lacks support for that claim.


Please point to one. Please proove your assertion of unqualified. What's yours?
Last I checked, mtry has never failed to provide supporting citations when asked for them.

-Bruce

[pctower]

Please point to one. Please proove your assertion of unqualified. What's yours?
Last I checked, mtry has never failed to provide supporting citations when asked for them.

-Bruce

His sources are reported tests using protocol that would never pass muster in even a high school science course, relating to a few wires avaialable 20 years ago. You apparently don't care about protocol, peer review and other well established procedures for ensuring reliable test results so long as the results suit your own dogma.

Moreover, it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. Unbiased people would be content with advising that cable differences are "unproven". Mtrycrafts goes way beyond that.

My claim that he gives unqualified advice is easily verified if you want to do a search. He has done it over and over and over.

[okiemax]

No, tests that use samples (i.e., satistical tests) deal with probabilities. When you say that scoring 14 out of 15 "removes all doubt" you are incorrect. It is simply unlikely, not a certain proof that the person can hear a difference. Statistical tests make decisions to accept or reject hypothesis based on a convention of unlikelyness not certainty. There is a known probably of effor (type 1 or 2) in all statistical tests.

People are free to spend their money as they see fit--no matter how foolish the reasons

My post was in response to your statement that "No scientific test, especially statistical samples, can be said to prove anything." If the example of 1 of 20 subjects scoring 14 out of 15 isn't convincing , make it all 20 subjects scoring a perfect 20 out of 20. And make the sample of 20 subjects scientifically drawn. And get the same results with many additional scientific samples. Wouldn't that show that a scientific test with statistical sampling proved something?

[skeptic]

Not necessarily. Statistical analysis will give you a degree or interval of confidence which only tells you the probability that the results were or were not the effect of random chance. No statistical average is 100 percent certain. For instance, if you were to flip a coin 10,000 times, there is a very high probability that somewhere along the way, you would flip heads 15 out of 16 tries. If you were unlucky enought to randomly pick that sample to look at and draw the conclusion you did, it would be the wrong conclusion.

[okiemax]

Not necessarily. Statistical analysis will give you a degree or interval of confidence which only tells you the probability that the results were or were not the effect of random chance. No statistical average is 100 percent certain. For instance, if you were to flip a coin 10,000 times, there is a very high probability that somewhere along the way, you would flip heads 15 out of 16 tries. If you were unlucky enought to randomly pick that sample to look at and draw the conclusion you did, it would be the wrong conclusion.

What are you taking issue with? I was talking about perfect scores not just with one sample, but with multiple samples. Anyway, this is getting away from my original point which was a person can in a controlled listening test proove two cables are audibly different to him if he can correctly identify the cables a sufficient number of times to remove any possibility that his performance is a result of chance. Thus, if one person has demonstrated beyond a doubt that he can hear a difference, an audible difference in the cables exists.

[RobotCzar]

What we disagree with is the notion that you can remove "remove ANY possibility of performance due to chance". That is precisely what cannot be done, and is one reason that no study can "proove" a hypothesis.

Obviously, we humans can accept that very unlikely events offer some evidence that a hypothesis is true or false. That is the whole basis of statistical testing. We accept evidence that is not 100% proven for every instance all the time. We would be likely to say the a person correctly identifying 18 of 20 tests is evidence that that person can hear a difference, and it is.

Why do you not accept that repeated failure of people to do this is evidence that they cannot hear a difference?

[okiemax]

What we disagree with is the notion that you can remove "remove ANY possibility of performance due to chance". That is precisely what cannot be done, and is one reason that no study can "proove" a hypothesis.

Obviously, we humans can accept that very unlikely events offer some evidence that a hypothesis is true or false. That is the whole basis of statistical testing. We accept evidence that is not 100% proven for every instance all the time. We would be likely to say the a person correctly identifying 18 of 20 tests is evidence that that person can hear a difference, and it is.

Why do you not accept that repeated failure of people to do this is evidence that they cannot hear a difference?

Why do you believe you can't "remove Any possibility of performance due to chance?" If a person in a controlled listening test for an audible difference in two cables scored correctly, say 100 times in a row, wouldn't that remove any possibility his performance is due to chance? If the hypothesis is he can hear a difference in the two cables, wouldn't that prove the hypothesis? If he can hear a difference, it means a difference exists.

What does repeated failure to hear a difference mean? A person's repeated failure to hear a difference between two cables or two of anything else means he has not heard a difference so far. It may mean he will NEVER hear a difference, although someone else might, or it may mean the conditions weren't right or he hasn't listened enough.

If you read my post of 1-24-2004 titled "Jerry Lee DBT," you will see why a negative result in a listening test doesn't necessarily mean there is no difference. This was a double-blind test of my ability to detect a difference in two recordings(sessions) of the same song by the same perfomers. In the first test I correctly identified the recording 7 out of 16 times. Did this mean I couldn't hear a difference? Yes. Did this mean there was no difference in the recordings? No. In the second test I correctly identified the recording 16 out of 16 times. Details are in the post.

[Pat D]

Boy, responding to you sure is a lot of work. Can't you remember what you say from day to day? Look at post # 29 wherein I point out that none of your references is for anything better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers. Here is your response followed with the usual unnecessary defensive jabs :

Hey, I don't have to have a single citation. You still have the burden of demonstration for differences. Rather simple science. But then, you don't understand that stuff.

Then in the very next post, you pontificate with these comments:

Subtle or huge, you are still claiming a difference that you just cannot demonstrate under bais controlled listeing, regardless of component quality.

So, let's look at the pieces.

I say you have no references beyond the mediocre. You reply that is true. Then in the very next breath you make your tired old claim that proof exists "regardless of component quality"

So which one of your two conflicting comments is true? If you assert that your latter comments are correct, then cite the source!

sheesh!

rw
You supply no proof whatever. Complaining about mtry's references and comments (I don't see what your point is there, anyway) doesn't prove your case, whatever it is. What's so hard to understand about that?

[FLZapped]

You apparently don't care about protocol, peer review and other well established procedures for ensuring reliable test results so long as the results suit your own dogma.

Phil, stop trying to put words in my mouth.



Moreover, it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. Unbiased people would be content with advising that cable differences are "unproven".


No kidding, I believe that is what he does. Furthermore, Mtry has more than once said his opinion would be swayed with evidence. As would I, but he has seen none, and I certainly haven't. Being in the business of chasing electrons around, I have never witnessed anything that would change my "bias."



Mtrycrafts goes way beyond that.

Really, what qualifies you to know?



My claim that he gives unqualified advice is easily verified if you want to do a search. He has done it over and over and over.

Search for what? Verified by what standard? Yours? Unqualified by what standard? You can't even qualify your claim. You so much like to ***** about protocols being flawed, do you have any evidence to the contrary? You know there isn't, so how can you call his advice unqualified, no one has "unqualified" any of the knowledge we have to date, have they; Including (and especially) Jon Risch and John Curl. As Steve Eddy has said(and I paraphrase): No one has been able to show that cable design and characterization comes down to anything more than their basic electrical parameters: resistance, inductance, and capacitance.

-Bruce

[pctower]

Phil, stop trying to put words in my mouth.



No kidding, I believe that is what he does. Furthermore, Mtry has more than once said his opinion would be swayed with evidence. As would I, but he has seen none, and I certainly haven't. Being in the business of chasing electrons around, I have never witnessed anything that would change my "bias."



Really, what qualifies you to know?



Search for what? Verified by what standard? Yours? Unqualified by what standard? You can't even qualify your claim. You so much like to ***** about protocols being flawed, do you have any evidence to the contrary? You know there isn't, so how can you call his advice unqualified, no one has "unqualified" any of the knowledge we have to date, have they; Including (and especially) Jon Risch and John Curl. As Steve Eddy has said(and I paraphrase): No one has been able to show that cable design and characterization comes down to anything more than their basic electrical parameters: resistance, inductance, and capacitance.

-Bruce

Bruce: "Furthermore, Mtry has more than once said his opinion would be swayed with evidence."

I never said anything to the contrary. Perhaps you can track down the post where that allegation was made and respond to the person who made the allegation.

Mtrycrafts: " Brand name is not important, unless it falls apart in your hand."
See: http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=29169&postcount=9

That's a claim made without any qualifying language, ergo "an unqualified claim". There - you need not search.

BTW, I cited numerous other examples of his unqualified claims over on the old board.

Bruce: "As Steve Eddy has said(and I paraphrase): No one has been able to show that cable design and characterization comes down to anything more than their basic electrical parameters: resistance, inductance, and capacitance."

I have no argument with that statement AND it has nothing to do with the fact that I'm pointing out that mtrycrafts makes unqualified claims.

I'm also pointing out, while I'm at it, that your bias blinds you to the breach of proper scientific protocol and reasoning in the type of "unqualified" claims that mtrycrafts makes.

It never ceases to amaze me that 99.9999% of the people who discuss cables on the web insist on 100.00000% loyalty to their "side", and will never budge a 0.0000001 inch to criticize something one of their fellow-travelers might say or claim. Very interesting reflection of human nature.

[RobotCzar]

Why do you believe you can't "remove Any possibility of performance due to chance?" If a person in a controlled listening test for an audible difference in two cables scored correctly, say 100 times in a row, wouldn't that remove any possibility his performance is due to chance? If the hypothesis is he can hear a difference in the two cables, wouldn't that prove the hypothesis? If he can hear a difference, it means a difference exists.

What does repeated failure to hear a difference mean? A person's repeated failure to hear a difference between two cables or two of anything else means he has not heard a difference so far. It may mean he will NEVER hear a difference, although someone else might, or it may mean the conditions weren't right or he hasn't listened enough.

If you read my post of 1-24-2004 titled "Jerry Lee DBT," you will see why a negative result in a listening test doesn't necessarily mean there is no difference. This was a double-blind test of my ability to detect a difference in two recordings(sessions) of the same song by the same perfomers. .


You need a course (or book) in logic and scientific method. You are simply not understanding the difference between certainty and very very likely. This difference AND your explanation as to why negative results are not sufficient to establish certainty is why we say "science can't prove negatives". You are also confused as to the meaning and purpose of the null hypothesis, which is what I tried to explain in the base note.

The bottom line is that good scientific tests test a postitive assertion, like "I (or people) can hear difference in cables." When tested, nobody tested (and therefore people in general) has been able to demonstrate that they can consistently distinguish cables. A reasonable view at this point is that nobody can (and it will stay reasonable until somebody does).

Needless to say, a logical analysis of what people can hear vs. what cables can do, leads one to logically conclude that people can't hear differences in typical cables, independent of a direct test.

[pctower]

You need a course (or book) in logic and scientific method. You are simply not understanding the difference between certainty and very very likely. This difference AND your explanation as to why negative results are not sufficient to establish certainty is why we say "science can't prove negatives". You are also confused as to the meaning and purpose of the null hypothesis, which is what I tried to explain in the base note.

The bottom line is that good scientific tests test a postitive assertion, like "I (or people) can hear difference in cables." When tested, nobody tested (and therefore people in general) has been able to demonstrate that they can consistently distinguish cables. A reasonable view at this point is that nobody can (and it will stay reasonable until somebody does).

Needless to say, a logical analysis of what people can hear vs. what cables can do, leads one to logically conclude that people can't hear differences in typical cables, independent of a direct test.

The degree to which you can distort truth and logic is truly awesome.

You assume without any foundation or demonstration that valid cable DBTs have been run.

You further assume that even if every single reported DBT had been run in accordance with proper protocol and subjected to valid statistical analysis and had still produced null results that one could extrapolate from the few trials that have been reported on a miniscule portion of the different audio cables in use to a generalized conclusion about all cables.

"You need a course (or book) in logic and scientific method."

If you have in fact took such a course or read such a book, in the infamous words of Skeptic, I highly recommend that you demand your money back.

[Pat D]

The degree to which you can distort truth and logic is truly awesome.

You assume without any foundation or demonstration that valid cable DBTs have been run.

You further assume that even if every single reported DBT had been run in accordance with proper protocol and subjected to valid statistical analysis and had still produced null results that one could extrapolate from the few trials that have been reported on a miniscule portion of the different audio cables in use to a generalized conclusion about all cables.

"You need a course (or book) in logic and scientific method."

If you have in fact took such a course or read such a book, in the infamous words of Skeptic, I highly recommend that you demand your money back.
Come on, PC! What's a sensible answer? But do you absolutely know whether the sun will rise tomorrow? Isn't a positive answer an unjustified extrapolation based on incomplete data?

You are distorting a probable view subject to revision into an absolute. You simply seem unable to understand Robot's view, much less state it accurately.

[pctower]

Come on, PC! What's a sensible answer? But do you absolutely know whether the sun will rise tomorrow? Isn't a positive answer an unjustified extrapolation based on incomplete data?

You are distorting a probable view subject to revision into an absolute. You simply seem unable to understand Robot's view, much less state it accurately.

I understand his view fine and I understand the null hypothesis. But the null hypothesis can be mis-applied just like anything else. He is mis-applying it for the reasons I gave, which were very specific in nature.

But then again, you don't like to deal in specifics. Sweeping generalizations couched in scientific terms designed to make you feel "important" are what you are all about - at least as you exhibit yourself on this board.

[Resident Loser]

...I've been visiting a branch office of the asylum...

"...You assume without any foundation or demonstration that valid cable DBTs have been run..."

Where was that? I'm not being argumentative...I didn't see any thing like that...plus, if one is to pose a hypothetical situation aren't certain assumptions required to provide a base on which to build upon...

"...You further assume that even if every single reported DBT had been run in accordance with proper protocol and subjected to valid statistical analysis and had still produced null results that one could extrapolate from the few trials that have been reported on a miniscule portion of the different audio cables in use to a generalized conclusion about all cables..."

I take it then you feel any generalization of a class is invalid...even if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and...

"...If you have in fact took such a course or read such a book, in the infamous words of Skeptic, I highly recommend that you demand your money back..."

Coupled with some of your other responses, I have a question:

On your trip to Vegas, did you happen to pick up Don Rickles' luggage by mistake?

jimHJJ(...grumpy, grumpy...)

[Monstrous Mike]

In our cable debate, the null hypothesis can never be accepted since there is no logic, scientific study, nor statistical analysis that will ever be done that can conclusively accept the null hypothesis that audio cables do not sound different. On the other hand, there are certainly methods available that can lead to rejecting the null hypothesis.

This is exactly the same as arguing about alien life. It simply cannot be proven that the null hypothesis (i.e. alien life does not exist elsewhere in the universe) is true. It is simply beyond human means. However, one concrete example of extraterrestrial life can cause the null hypothesis to be rejected.

UFOs are a subset of this alien hypothesis and many have been explained while many have not been, although none of this proves anything.

For those interested, here is a story about a sighting yesterday in Mexico: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2004/05/11/455568-ap.html

And another link here showing an explanation of a UFO by NASA (I wonder how long it took them to figure this one out?): http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/no_ufo.html

More on Bigfoot and Nessie next week...

[FLZapped]

It never ceases to amaze me that 99.9999% of the people who discuss cables on the web insist on 100.00000% loyalty to their "side", and will never budge a 0.0000001 inch to criticize something one of their fellow-travelers might say or claim. Very interesting reflection of human nature.

Did it ever occur to you that I do not read everything he writes? -Bruce

[Pat D]

I understand his view fine and I understand the null hypothesis. But the null hypothesis can be mis-applied just like anything else. He is mis-applying it for the reasons I gave, which were very specific in nature.

But then again, you don't like to deal in specifics. Sweeping generalizations couched in scientific terms designed to make you feel "important" are what you are all about - at least as you exhibit yourself on this board.
No, I have shown you and everyone else draws conclusions from partial evidence, which makes you a hypocrite. The sun will rise tomorrow, PC, whether you like it or not. But I can't absolutely prove it. However, such conclusions can be upset by contrary evidence. Robot isn't saying anything else.You are nitpicking about trivialities and seem to have no real point to make.

[pctower]

No, I have shown you and everyone else draws conclusions from partial evidence, which makes you a hypocrite. The sun will rise tomorrow, PC, whether you like it or not. But I can't absolutely prove it. However, such conclusions can be upset by contrary evidence. Robot isn't saying anything else.You are nitpicking about trivialities and seem to have no real point to make.

He has drawn a conclusion from test results, none of which can be demonstrated to have resulted from proper protocol or statistical analysis. Moreover, these tests involve a miniscule sample of the set for which he has drawn conclusions.

If you cannot see the fault in that and believe it is comparable to the sun example, then you are beyond hope. However, I have suspected as much for quite a long time.

[Pat D]

He has drawn a conclusion from test results, none of which can be demonstrated to have resulted from proper protocol or statistical analysis. Moreover, these tests involve a miniscule sample of the set for which he has drawn conclusions.

If you cannot see the fault in that and believe it is comparable to the sun example, then you are beyond hope. However, I have suspected as much for quite a long time.
Did I say it was comparable? So far, all you do is point out that his conclusions cannot be absolute, which no one disagrees with, but that nevertheless we draw the conclusion, and that was the purpose of the example, as I in fact think you know. You are manufacturing a disagreement with Robot for your own purposes, and God knows what they are. If anyone thinks Robot's conclusions can be upset, they are free to do so. We've been waiting for a long time.

You also forget what Robot said about comparing what cables can do with what people can hear, PC. I told you haven't grasped his argument, and you haven't! You simply ignore those parts inconvenient for your exposition.

You seem to have no idea how science works, PC. According to you, Newton was wrong to come up with a universal Law of Gravitation. After all, he couldn't possibly have established it worked reasonably well for more than a miniscule part of the universe, a tiny, tiny proportion. Indeed, I understand some are now trying to find out how accurate it really is. Does gravity really obey the Inverse Square Law? Newton couldn't measure nearly as accurately as we can today. Nevertheless, the Law of Gravity has stood the test of time pretty well.

[okiemax]

You need a course (or book) in logic and scientific method. You are simply not understanding the difference between certainty and very very likely. This difference AND your explanation as to why negative results are not sufficient to establish certainty is why we say "science can't prove negatives". You are also confused as to the meaning and purpose of the null hypothesis, which is what I tried to explain in the base note.

The bottom line is that good scientific tests test a postitive assertion, like "I (or people) can hear difference in cables." When tested, nobody tested (and therefore people in general) has been able to demonstrate that they can consistently distinguish cables. A reasonable view at this point is that nobody can (and it will stay reasonable until somebody does).

Needless to say, a logical analysis of what people can hear vs. what cables can do, leads one to logically conclude that people can't hear differences in typical cables, independent of a direct test.

OK, Mr. Statistician, how about you telling me the meaning and purpose of the null hypothesis so I won't be confused anymore. Just pretend you are taking a stat course exam, and fill in the blanks. (1)The meaning of the null hypothesis is ......................... . (2)The purpose of the null hypothesis is ....................... . For extra credit, point out how I have misinterpreted the true meaning and purpose of the null. If all this seems like too much trouble, just remember you claimed that I'm a dummy, so the burden of proof is on you.

Your last reply took 2 months, so answering these questions might take 2 years. Why not save time by just admiting you don't know which end is up when it comes to statistics. I'm not sure I do, and I suspect we have a lot of company here on the Forum. Anyway, I don't think you need to be an expert on hypothesis testing to present your argument.

I understand your argument, but I don't agree with your conclusion. You believe the results of listening tests together with what is known about cables mean it is "very very likely" all cables sound the same to all listeners. I view the same evidence as inconclusive. I don't understand why you feel it is necessary to reach a verdict even if supporting evidence is lacking. Do you think scientific method requires you to reach conclusions with incomplete information?

.

[Monstrous Mike]

(1)The meaning of the null hypothesis is ......................... . (2)The purpose of the null hypothesis is .......................
(1) A null hypothesis is a statement that two things are not different. The null hypothesis can be qualified by a number of variables (simply because in nature no two things are <i>identical</i>) but that is the essence of the meaning.

(2) The purpose of the null hypothesis is to reject it and and therefore examine an alternative hypothesis.

If you find that one guy that really has golden ears and can consistently hear a difference between two cables, then I do believe we can reject the general null hypothesis that all cables sound alike for cables of comparable gauge and length (see these are some of the qualifiers I was talking about). Now you can start investigating alternative hypothesis like what types of cables sound different and what kind of hearing is needed to detect those differences as well as how significant those differences are.

However, since we still don't even have one guy who can consistently show he can hear differences, that null hypothesis is still a pretty big matzah ball. We can't explore any alternative hypotheses because we haven't even rejected the null hyptothesis.

You and Robot seem to disagreeing about agreeing, if that even makes sense. The people who really can't grasp statistics or logic are to ones who demand that somebody needs to prove that the null hypothesis is true.

[pctower]

Did I say it was comparable? So far, all you do is point out that his conclusions cannot be absolute, which no one disagrees with, but that nevertheless we draw the conclusion, and that was the purpose of the example, as I in fact think you know. You are manufacturing a disagreement with Robot for your own purposes, and God knows what they are. If anyone thinks Robot's conclusions can be upset, they are free to do so. We've been waiting for a long time.

You also forget what Robot said about comparing what cables can do with what people can hear, PC. I told you haven't grasped his argument, and you haven't! You simply ignore those parts inconvenient for your exposition.


You seem to have no idea how science works, PC. According to you, Newton was wrong to come up with a universal Law of Gravitation. After all, he couldn't possibly have established it worked reasonably well for more than a miniscule part of the universe, a tiny, tiny proportion. Indeed, I understand some are now trying to find out how accurate it really is. Does gravity really obey the Inverse Square Law? Newton couldn't measure nearly as accurately as we can today. Nevertheless, the Law of Gravity has stood the test of time pretty well.

Pat, Pat, Pat

You are really far afield here. Science does not counteanance the use of flawed, unreliable tests for any purpose - period - end of story.

The control of variables that enabled the development of such things as the Law of Gravity within what was possible in Newton's day given measurement techniques and the development of theoretical knowledge then is no way comparable to the virtual lack of any valid or indept research whatsoever on cable sonics to date.

I suspect my knowledge of science far exceeds yours.

[Monstrous Mike]

the virtual lack of any valid or indept research whatsoever on cable sonics to date.
There's been plenty of indepth research into cable sonics. Many people have written very descriptive technical analysis on concepts like the Skin Effect, biwiring, frequency transformations, LCR parameters, etc. Some people seem to think they can invalidate this research by doing an in home test on their cables and claiming to hear a difference when there shouldn't be one, according to this research.

Therefore, while nobody can conclude that cable sonics don't exist at all, for anybody, or for all cables, the valid research so far indicates this is the likely conclusion. And the lack of any proper test to reject this null hypothesis only adds to this likelyhood.

Like I and many others have stated, science is not going to prove that cable sonics do not exist. The next steps in investigating cables sonics are to find a proper listening test which shows sonic differences in some cables and then to discover the reason for those differences. And as a matter of fact, if that can be done, then we have a foundation for actually making better cables.

As it stands right now, audio cables are jewelry to adorn an expensive home audio system and nothing more. Of course, this jewelry can lead to better enjoyment by the listener and that is usually his goal so nothing more needs to be said about that.

[okiemax]

(1) A null hypothesis is a statement that two things are not different. The null hypothesis can be qualified by a number of variables (simply because in nature no two things are <i>identical</i>) but that is the essence of the meaning.

(2) The purpose of the null hypothesis is to reject it and and therefore examine an alternative hypothesis.

If you find that one guy that really has golden ears and can consistently hear a difference between two cables, then I do believe we can reject the general null hypothesis that all cables sound alike for cables of comparable gauge and length (see these are some of the qualifiers I was talking about). Now you can start investigating alternative hypothesis like what types of cables sound different and what kind of hearing is needed to detect those differences as well as how significant those differences are.

However, since we still don't even have one guy who can consistently show he can hear differences, that null hypothesis is still a pretty big matzah ball. We can't explore any alternative hypotheses because we haven't even rejected the null hyptothesis.

You and Robot seem to disagreeing about agreeing, if that even makes sense. The people who really can't grasp statistics or logic are to ones who demand that somebody needs to prove that the null hypothesis is true.

There are plenty of people who claim to hear a difference in cables. The problem is no one, as far as we know, has done it in the only way naysayers or doubters will accept(i.e., double-blind listening tests). The cable believers could be wrong, but would it be unreasonable to consider the followng two other possibilities? (1) The listening tests done so far are flawed or insufficient in number. (2) The listening tests by their nature do not accurately represent actual listening for pleasure.

[Monstrous Mike]

(1) The listening tests done so far are flawed or insufficient in number. (2) The listening tests by their nature do not accurately represent actual listening for pleasure.
(1) I would have to agree. For example, any listening tests done so far, even if accurate, that show a null result really don't prove anything other than those specific cables for those specific listeners didn't sound different. The most interesting test I have read about was the one where the guy told the listeners that he was swapping between cheapo A and expensive B and sure enough B won the test. But there was actually no swap done. If that is true, then it sure highlights the fact that prior knowledge can indeed affect our assessment.

(2) I'm not sure what you mean by this. The DBT tests we quote are only designed to detect audible differences in cables. Preference and listening pleasure are another matter.

I guess the basic problem is that there is usually a difference between two things when you state a preference. Therefore, when somebody says they bought a new cable and they prefer it over their old cable, that would imply that something is different. Usually the person reports that the sound is better. That's what needs to be investigated. And I don't mean to imply that everybody needs to have this investigation done before they can enjoy their new cables.

But in reality, that new cable may sound better because it looks better, it's more expensive or the audio signal travelling through it is affected differently in an audible manner to the that particular person with that particular setup.

And we won't know for sure until we can prove it.

[pctower]

(1) I would have to agree. For example, any listening tests done so far, even if accurate, that show a null result really don't prove anything other than those specific cables for those specific listeners didn't sound different. The most interesting test I have read about was the one where the guy told the listeners that he was swapping between cheapo A and expensive B and sure enough B won the test. But there was actually no swap done. If that is true, then it sure highlights the fact that prior knowledge can indeed affect our assessment.

(2) I'm not sure what you mean by this. The DBT tests we quote are only designed to detect audible differences in cables. Preference and listening pleasure are another matter.

I guess the basic problem is that there is usually a difference between two things when you state a preference. Therefore, when somebody says they bought a new cable and they prefer it over their old cable, that would imply that something is different. Usually the person reports that the sound is better. That's what needs to be investigated. And I don't mean to imply that everybody needs to have this investigation done before they can enjoy their new cables.

But in reality, that new cable may sound better because it looks better, it's more expensive or the audio signal travelling through it is affected differently in an audible manner to the that particular person with that particular setup.

And we won't know for sure until we can prove it.

Perhaps what he meant by #2 is that the tests haven't been conducted in an atmoshpere that is similar to the ones to which people are accustomed in their own homes.

As I understand it, there is a movement in psychological testing to get the testing "out of the lab" into "real world" environments so that the manner in which the tests are conducted resembles as closely as possible the environment where the activity being tested usually occurs.

I would certainly agree that intangibles such as preference and listening pleasure are other matters. The only thing that matters for purposes of "claim verification" is the actual ability of people to differentiate cables based solely and exclusively on auditory stimulus produced under absolute identical circumstances but for the DUT (the cables being tested).

[okiemax]

(1) I would have to agree. For example, any listening tests done so far, even if accurate, that show a null result really don't prove anything other than those specific cables for those specific listeners didn't sound different. The most interesting test I have read about was the one where the guy told the listeners that he was swapping between cheapo A and expensive B and sure enough B won the test. But there was actually no swap done. If that is true, then it sure highlights the fact that prior knowledge can indeed affect our assessment.

(2) I'm not sure what you mean by this. The DBT tests we quote are only designed to detect audible differences in cables. Preference and listening pleasure are another matter.

I guess the basic problem is that there is usually a difference between two things when you state a preference. Therefore, when somebody says they bought a new cable and they prefer it over their old cable, that would imply that something is different. Usually the person reports that the sound is better. That's what needs to be investigated. And I don't mean to imply that everybody needs to have this investigation done before they can enjoy their new cables.

But in reality, that new cable may sound better because it looks better, it's more expensive or the audio signal travelling through it is affected differently in an audible manner to the that particular person with that particular setup.

And we won't know for sure until we can prove it.

The problem with the "switch that wasn't a switch" is we don't know whether the subjects really thought the attractive cable sounded better or were just trying to please the tester. If you show somone a plain cable and a fancy looking cable, demonstrate them, and then ask which sounds best, that person may think you already believe the fancy cable sounds best, and may tell you what he thinks you want to hear. Or he may think there is a correct answer, and that he is being tested for his ability to get it right, so he may choose the fancy cable for that reason. The tester may think he is fooling the subject, but he may be just fooling himself.

Regarding the other question, I'm not sure whether blinded testing accurately represents listening for pleasure. It seems like it should. However, although it's hard to explain, I don't think listening for differences in equipment involves me in the same way as listening for pleasure. I have also found that I sometimes hear things better when I'm not trying than when I am trying.

I recall an experience many years ago that may be relevant to this discussion. After hearing a big improvement in an inexpensive Onkyo turntable after moving it from a floor stand to a wall mount, I got the turntable bug, and took a Linn LP-12 home for a 30-day trial. I thought the Linn sounded a little better than the Onkyo, but it wasn't as big as the improvement from the wall mount, so I returned the Linn because I decided it wasn't worth the much greater cost.. But after going back to the Onkyo, I missed the Linn. It was much better than I thought. I don't know how to explain why it took being without the Linn to realize how much I had grown to like it. So I bought one.

[Rockwell]

The problem with the "switch that wasn't a switch" is we don't know whether the subjects really thought the attractive cable sounded better or were just trying to please the tester. If you show somone a plain cable and a fancy looking cable, demonstrate them, and then ask which sounds best, that person may think you already believe the fancy cable sounds best, and may tell you what he thinks you want to hear. Or he may think there is a correct answer, and that he is being tested for his ability to get it right, so he may choose the fancy cable for that reason. The tester may think he is fooling the subject, but he may be just fooling himself.



Bias is bias.

[okiemax]

Bias is bias.

What a great idea for a new an imaginative use of the word "biased." Next time I fib to please someone, and get caught, my explanation will be "I was just biasing you." Or if stumped for an answer on a multiple choice test, I'll just resort to my bias. And what about the guy who rigged that phony cable switch -- was he guilty of deception? Nope, he was just doing a little biasing .

[Pat D]

Pat, Pat, Pat

You are really far afield here. Science does not counteanance the use of flawed, unreliable tests for any purpose - period - end of story.

The control of variables that enabled the development of such things as the Law of Gravity within what was possible in Newton's day given measurement techniques and the development of theoretical knowledge then is no way comparable to the virtual lack of any valid or indept research whatsoever on cable sonics to date.

I suspect my knowledge of science far exceeds yours.
We have only your word that the tests are flawed and unreliable, PC. But then you evidently haven't looked into the matter and you seem to have no standards for reliability. But it's a red herring. We don't have to prove they sound the same. Those who claim they sound different have the burden of proof. So, where is the evidence that reasonably constructed 3 foot interconnects and 10 foot speaker cables of appropriate gauge make an audible difference, PC?

I take it that I have won my point that we all make generalizations from incomplete evidence, including scientists like Newton, as you don't bother to dispute it.

Resident Loser raised one point in a different way: " I take it then you feel any generalization of a class is invalid...even if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and..."

Well, those do think like that (and so far, that is about all your objections amount to) can't very well do science. Q.E.D.

Anyway, you don't deny that Newton lacked complete evidence for his generalizations, and we still don't. Never will, either. We simply can't measure everything in the universe to see if it behaves according to those generalizations. But we still find many of them reliable for many purposes.

So, your objection falls completely flat. People have been trying to justify high priced cables with claims of superior performance for quite a number of years, PC. It is easy to make speaker cables that sound different and it ain't rocket science. The capacitance of phono cables can make an audible (and easily measureable) difference, and that ain't rocket science, either.

[pctower]

We have only your word that the tests are flawed and unreliable, PC. But then you evidently haven't looked into the matter and you seem to have no standards for reliability. But it's a red herring. We don't have to prove they sound the same. Those who claim they sound different have the burden of proof. So, where is the evidence that reasonably constructed 3 foot interconnects and 10 foot speaker cables of appropriate gauge make an audible difference, PC?

I take it that I have won my point that we all make generalizations from incomplete evidence, including scientists like Newton, as you don't bother to dispute it.

Resident Loser raised one point in a different way: " I take it then you feel any generalization of a class is invalid...even if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and..."

Well, those do think like that (and so far, that is about all your objections amount to) can't very well do science. Q.E.D.

Anyway, you don't deny that Newton lacked complete evidence for his generalizations, and we still don't. Never will, either. We simply can't measure everything in the universe to see if it behaves according to those generalizations. But we still find many of them reliable for many purposes.

So, your objection falls completely flat. People have been trying to justify high priced cables with claims of superior performance for quite a number of years, PC. It is easy to make speaker cables that sound different and it ain't rocket science. The capacitance of phono cables can make an audible (and easily measureable) difference, and that ain't rocket science, either.

"We have only your word that the tests are flawed and unreliable, PC."

My word has nothing to do with it. This board is the naysayer's holy temple. Yet, no one has ever referenced test results that carry the necessary information to satisfy basic scientific requirements for test reliability.

The people that claim such test results are reliable have the burden of proof of demonstrating reliability.

"Those who claim they sound different have the burden of proof."

YAWN! I can't even imagine what it must be like to have a mind so empty that it could tolerate writing such a basic truism over and over and over.

"But then you evidently haven't looked into the matter and you seem to have no standards for reliability."

Wrong Bozo Man! I have looked into it and I have repeated stated my standard for reliability (and I am the only person as far as I know who has ever done so on this board).

My standard is that for a test to be scientifically valid it should be conducted according to protocol that would be acceptable in any college level or above class (it would help is such class was a psycology class or the like, rather than an engineering classe where I doubt tests similar to cable DBTs are ever conducted) or would be considered acceptable according to standards set by any recognized national research lab, AND

statistically would avoid unacceptable Type II errors:

The synopsis of Leventhal’s article that appeared in J.AudioEng.Soc.,Vol.34,No.6, 1986, June follows:

“When the conventional 0.05 significance level is used to analyze listening test data, employing a small number of trials or listeners can produce an unexpectedly high risk of concluding that audible differences are inaudible (type 2 error). The risk can be both large absolutely and large relative to the risk of concluding that inaudible differences are audible (type 1 error). This constitutes systematic bias against those who believe that differences are audible between well-designed electronic components that are spectrally equated and not overdriven. A statistical table is introduced that enables readers to look up type 1 and type 2 error risks without calculation. Ways to manipulate the risks are discussed, a quantitative measure of a listening test's fairness is introduced, and implications for reviewers of the listening test literature are discussed. “


Shanefield responded at J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 35, No. 7/8, 1987 July/August, page 567, part of which follows:

“While the Leventhal treatment enhances our theoretical understanding of A-B tests, the engineering usefulness is another matter. A value judgment needs to be made as to whether a low number of p is at all useful. My own judgment is that low numbers for p are of little practical use, even though it is satisfying to have a mathematical understanding of them. In other words, if two amplifiers can only be distinguished audibly a small percentage of the time (with a low p), but the experiment can be repeated fairly precisely (with a high "confidence"), then the audible difference is "useless" to me, even though it might be "statistically real." This low p is just as useless as a high p with a low confidence, and the reason is that, either way, there would be no audible difference on which we can depend. In fact, since the same data could usually lead to either conclusion, one type of uncertainty is simply being exchanged for another.”

In that same issue, Leventhal responded to Shanefield at page 569, part of which follows:


“Regarding old conclusions, published listening studies employing a small number of trials or listeners (small N) typically fail to produce statistical significance at the 0.05 level. Many readers reach the conclusion: "there were no audible differences." My paper suggests a more accurate conclusion: "there were no large audible differences, but judgment should be withheld about small or moderate audible differences because the studies were not sufficiently powerful (sensitive) to find them when they occur." Professor Shanefield and others interested only in large audible differences will find no practical difference between the conclusions. But those interested in small or moderate audible differences will find the conclusions to be different.

Regarding engineering usefulness, even engineers interested only in large audible differences should find the paper useful. First, it discusses statistical assumptions and design considerations for listening studies, Published listening studies often founder on one or both of these requirements. Second, an engineer de- signing a listening study can use Table 3 to find the minimum N to employ before the risk of overlooking large differences becomes unacceptably large. For ex- ample, assume it important to keep type 1 and type 2 error risks small and approximately equal. Table 3 shows that one interested only in large differences (p _> 0.9) can employ merely 10 trials or listeners (N = 10) and require eight correct for significance at the 0.06 level (actual type 1 error risk, that is, exact significance level = 0.0547).]° Here the risk of over- looking an audible difference (type 2 error) when the difference is large is 0.0702. Thus type 1 and type 2 error risks are reasonably small and approximately equal (FC0.0 = 0.0547/0.0702 = 0.78). So Table 3 shows that an equal-error listening study looking only for large differences can employ an N of 10 and that most published studies, because they use N greater than 10, are needlessly long for this purpose. The third way the paper is useful is that an engineer reading a study with nonsignificant results can use Table 3 to find whether N was sufficiently large to uncover large audible differences when they occur. Since most studies employ an N greater than 10, they can uncover large differences and, with Table 3, the engineer will know why.

See also: http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?141

"I take it that I have won my point that we all make generalizations from incomplete evidence, including scientists like Newton, as you don't bother to dispute it."

You can take whatever your closed mind wants to take. You apparently have no understanding that simply because one particular generalization may be reliabile doesn't mean ALL generalizations are reliable.

"People have been trying to justify high priced cables with claims of superior performance for quite a number of years, PC. It is easy to make speaker cables that sound different and it ain't rocket science. The capacitance of phono cables can make an audible (and easily measureable) difference, and that ain't rocket science, either."

And so? Are we now on to an entirely different subject?

[Pat D]

"We have only your word that the tests are flawed and unreliable, PC."

My word has nothing to do with it. This board is the naysayer's holy temple. Yet, no one has ever referenced test results that carry the necessary information to satisfy basic scientific requirements for test reliability.

The people that claim such test results are reliable have the burden of proof of demonstrating reliability.

"Those who claim they sound different have the burden of proof."

YAWN! I can't even imagine what it must be like to have a mind so empty that it could tolerate writing such a basic truism over and over and over.

"But then you evidently haven't looked into the matter and you seem to have no standards for reliability."

Wrong Bozo Man! I have looked into it and I have repeated stated my standard for reliability (and I am the only person as far as I know who has ever done so on this board).

My standard is that for a test to be scientifically valid it should be conducted according to protocol that would be acceptable in any college level or above class (it would help is such class was a psycology class or the like, rather than an engineering classe where I doubt tests similar to cable DBTs are ever conducted) or would be considered acceptable according to standards set by any recognized national research lab, AND

statistically would avoid unacceptable Type II errors:

The synopsis of Leventhal’s article that appeared in J.AudioEng.Soc.,Vol.34,No.6, 1986, June follows:

“When the conventional 0.05 significance level is used to analyze listening test data, employing a small number of trials or listeners can produce an unexpectedly high risk of concluding that audible differences are inaudible (type 2 error). The risk can be both large absolutely and large relative to the risk of concluding that inaudible differences are audible (type 1 error). This constitutes systematic bias against those who believe that differences are audible between well-designed electronic components that are spectrally equated and not overdriven. A statistical table is introduced that enables readers to look up type 1 and type 2 error risks without calculation. Ways to manipulate the risks are discussed, a quantitative measure of a listening test's fairness is introduced, and implications for reviewers of the listening test literature are discussed. “


Shanefield responded at J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 35, No. 7/8, 1987 July/August, page 567, part of which follows:

“While the Leventhal treatment enhances our theoretical understanding of A-B tests, the engineering usefulness is another matter. A value judgment needs to be made as to whether a low number of p is at all useful. My own judgment is that low numbers for p are of little practical use, even though it is satisfying to have a mathematical understanding of them. In other words, if two amplifiers can only be distinguished audibly a small percentage of the time (with a low p), but the experiment can be repeated fairly precisely (with a high "confidence"), then the audible difference is "useless" to me, even though it might be "statistically real." This low p is just as useless as a high p with a low confidence, and the reason is that, either way, there would be no audible difference on which we can depend. In fact, since the same data could usually lead to either conclusion, one type of uncertainty is simply being exchanged for another.”

In that same issue, Leventhal responded to Shanefield at page 569, part of which follows:


“Regarding old conclusions, published listening studies employing a small number of trials or listeners (small N) typically fail to produce statistical significance at the 0.05 level. Many readers reach the conclusion: "there were no audible differences." My paper suggests a more accurate conclusion: "there were no large audible differences, but judgment should be withheld about small or moderate audible differences because the studies were not sufficiently powerful (sensitive) to find them when they occur." Professor Shanefield and others interested only in large audible differences will find no practical difference between the conclusions. But those interested in small or moderate audible differences will find the conclusions to be different.

Regarding engineering usefulness, even engineers interested only in large audible differences should find the paper useful. First, it discusses statistical assumptions and design considerations for listening studies, Published listening studies often founder on one or both of these requirements. Second, an engineer de- signing a listening study can use Table 3 to find the minimum N to employ before the risk of overlooking large differences becomes unacceptably large. For ex- ample, assume it important to keep type 1 and type 2 error risks small and approximately equal. Table 3 shows that one interested only in large differences (p _> 0.9) can employ merely 10 trials or listeners (N = 10) and require eight correct for significance at the 0.06 level (actual type 1 error risk, that is, exact significance level = 0.0547).]° Here the risk of over- looking an audible difference (type 2 error) when the difference is large is 0.0702. Thus type 1 and type 2 error risks are reasonably small and approximately equal (FC0.0 = 0.0547/0.0702 = 0.78). So Table 3 shows that an equal-error listening study looking only for large differences can employ an N of 10 and that most published studies, because they use N greater than 10, are needlessly long for this purpose. The third way the paper is useful is that an engineer reading a study with nonsignificant results can use Table 3 to find whether N was sufficiently large to uncover large audible differences when they occur. Since most studies employ an N greater than 10, they can uncover large differences and, with Table 3, the engineer will know why.

See also: http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?141

"I take it that I have won my point that we all make generalizations from incomplete evidence, including scientists like Newton, as you don't bother to dispute it."

You can take whatever your closed mind wants to take. You apparently have no understanding that simply because one particular generalization may be reliabile doesn't mean ALL generalizations are reliable.

"People have been trying to justify high priced cables with claims of superior performance for quite a number of years, PC. It is easy to make speaker cables that sound different and it ain't rocket science. The capacitance of phono cables can make an audible (and easily measureable) difference, and that ain't rocket science, either."

And so? Are we now on to an entirely different subject? And this is what you call looking into it? Do I have to remind you that Cheever's master's thesis only used SBTs? Or isn't that college level enough for you! And he also referred to subjective reviews! Standards ha!

No, it's not a different subject. There are pretty reliable standards for level matching. If those are exceeded, then one could presume the difference would be audible under some circumstances, at least. And, MM brought that up, but you just keep on ignoring it. This is, to say the least, disingenuous. Indeed, I would say that to limit your consideration to particular cables rather than performance parameters is basically unscientific.

You may not like the null hypothesis in regards to cables but it has stood up for quite a number of years. Should be easy to disprove, PC, and nitpicking won't do it! For practical purposes, I'll just keep accepting it under normal circumstances until the data comes along to disprove it. This in no way excludes research PC, and it would be misleading to suggest otherwise. Of course, just finding Cable A sounds different from Cable B is fairly trivial, though necessary. Then begins more the interesting work of determining what it is in the performance that makes the audible difference. And it ain't rocket science, PC, not so far. Are you able to grasp science on that level, PC?

Not only do you foist views on us that we don't hold, you foist them on Professor Leventhal. Leventhal did not say the DBTs are not scientific. How useful the results are depends on the purpose for which they are used.

[mtrycraft]

And this is what you call looking into it? Do I have to remind you that Cheever's master's thesis only used SBTs? Or isn't that college level enough for you! And he also referred to subjective reviews! Standards ha!

No, it's not a different subject. There are pretty reliable standards for level matching. If those are exceeded, then one could presume the difference would be audible under some circumstances, at least. And, MM brought that up, but you just keep on ignoring it. This is, to say the least, disingenuous. Indeed, I would say that to limit your consideration to particular cables rather than performance parameters is basically unscientific.

You may not like the null hypothesis in regards to cables but it has stood up for quite a number of years. Should be easy to disprove, PC, and nitpicking won't do it! For practical purposes, I'll just keep accepting it under normal circumstances until the data comes along to disprove it. This in no way excludes research PC, and it would be misleading to suggest otherwise. Of course, just finding Cable A sounds different from Cable B is fairly trivial, though necessary. Then begins more the interesting work of determining what it is in the performance that makes the audible difference. And it ain't rocket science, PC, not so far. Are you able to grasp science on that level, PC?

Not only do you foist views on us that we don't hold, you foist them on Professor Leventhal. Leventhal did not say the DBTs are not scientific. How useful the results are depends on the purpose for which they are used.

And, he only used 70% confidence level to meet Leventhols thinking. Totally unacceptable as it is not science. 70% is not accepted anywhere in science.

[Pat D]

And, he only used 70% confidence level to meet Leventhols thinking. Totally unacceptable as it is not science. 70% is not accepted anywhere in science.
Yes, that is truly bizarre.

[pctower]

And this is what you call looking into it? Do I have to remind you that Cheever's master's thesis only used SBTs? Or isn't that college level enough for you! And he also referred to subjective reviews! Standards ha!

No, it's not a different subject. There are pretty reliable standards for level matching. If those are exceeded, then one could presume the difference would be audible under some circumstances, at least. And, MM brought that up, but you just keep on ignoring it. This is, to say the least, disingenuous. Indeed, I would say that to limit your consideration to particular cables rather than performance parameters is basically unscientific.

You may not like the null hypothesis in regards to cables but it has stood up for quite a number of years. Should be easy to disprove, PC, and nitpicking won't do it! For practical purposes, I'll just keep accepting it under normal circumstances until the data comes along to disprove it. This in no way excludes research PC, and it would be misleading to suggest otherwise. Of course, just finding Cable A sounds different from Cable B is fairly trivial, though necessary. Then begins more the interesting work of determining what it is in the performance that makes the audible difference. And it ain't rocket science, PC, not so far. Are you able to grasp science on that level, PC?

Not only do you foist views on us that we don't hold, you foist them on Professor Leventhal. Leventhal did not say the DBTs are not scientific. How useful the results are depends on the purpose for which they are used.

I have no more time for responding to the blatant intellectual dishonesty you are foisting on me and others who read this thread. I did not come close to claiming Leventhal thought DBTs were not scientific. You claimed I didn't have standards of reliability. I cited his discussion of Type II errors as one of the issues a DBT would have to satisfy in order for me to consider it reliable.

You are playing games. I have no interest in joining your sand box.

Bye Bye

[Rockwell]

What a great idea for a new an imaginative use of the word "biased." Next time I fib to please someone, and get caught, my explanation will be "I was just biasing you." Or if stumped for an answer on a multiple choice test, I'll just resort to my bias. And what about the guy who rigged that phony cable switch -- was he guilty of deception? Nope, he was just doing a little biasing .

Sarcasm noted.

Here's a definition for you: Bias (2): systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

Seems like that is exactly what happened.

[okiemax]

Sarcasm noted.

Here's a definition for you: Bias (2): systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

Seems like that is exactly what happened.

So the tester introduces the bias, and then attributes the bias to the test subjects. Hilarious! Lewis Carroll would have loved it!

[Rockwell]

So the tester introduces the bias, and then attributes the bias to the test subjects. Hilarious! Lewis Carroll would have loved it!

I don't know the details of the tests, but I think that was the point of it; to show how easy it is to bias the testers with the look of the cable.

[okiemax]

I don't know the details of the tests, but I think that was the point of it; to show how easy it is to bias the testers with the look of the cable.

Yes, but the bias may be a result of more that just the looks of the cables. Consider the following possibilty where we have a plain looking cable and a fancing looking cable, which actually are identical disguised zip cords. The tester asks the subject to listen to the fancy cable and the plain cable, and choose the one that sounds best. The subject thinks the tester believes one cable sounds better than the other, and figures it's probably the fancy one. So even though the subject can't hear a difference during the test, he tells the tester the fancy cable sounds better because he thinks that is what the tester believes. The tester then erronously concludes that the subject believes the fancy cable sounds better. The tester thinks he has fooled the subject, but he has just fooled himself.

[Pat D]

Yes, but the bias may be a result of more that just the looks of the cables. Consider the following possibilty where we have a plain looking cable and a fancing looking cable, which actually are identical disguised zip cords. The tester asks the subject to listen to the fancy cable and the plain cable, and choose the one that sounds best. The subject thinks the tester believes one cable sounds better than the other, and figures it's probably the fancy one. So even though the subject can't hear a difference during the test, he tells the tester the fancy cable sounds better because he thinks that is what the tester believes. The tester then erronously concludes that the subject believes the fancy cable sounds better. The tester thinks he has fooled the subject, but he has just fooled himself.
Likely also that the subject has fooled him/herself, too! Some elements of this are not conscious processes.

[Resident Loser]

"...What a great idea for a new an imaginative use of the word "biased." Next time I fib to please someone, and get caught, my explanation will be "I was just biasing you..."

How can you equate "bias" with lying? Or "fibbing" if that's more to your liking...Have YOU never responded to a question with the answer you THINK the other person wants to hear...You are not necessarily trying to mislead, but we all seem to have this inborn trait of wanting to give the "right" answer...even if there is no such thing.

"...Or if stumped for an answer on a multiple choice test, I'll just resort to my bias..."

Well, perhaps in a way, yes...you'll take your best guess. What might that be based on? Education? Practical experience? Anything that prompts you do do something can be said to be the result of a "bias".

"...And what about the guy who rigged that phony cable switch -- was he guilty of deception? Nope, he was just doing a little biasing..."

Double HUH!!! This "phony switch" was, in essence, one of the items under test. If you are testing "x" and "y" really doesn't exist(except through inference induced by said switch), you are still testing "x"...If people say they hear a "y" how should those results be viewed?

"...So the tester introduces the bias, and then attributes the bias to the test subjects. Hilarious! Lewis Carroll would have loved it!...

A tester CAN introduce bias...Have you ever seen a magician do tricks...card tricks specifically...Magicians consciously use a technique called, in the art, "forcing"...a quite sucessful tactic..."mentalists" use a similar device, when questioning subjects..."Gee! Howdy do dat?"...Testers may do the same "type" of thing on a subconscious level, hence the need for DBTs where neither the subject, nor the tester, are privy to the information...

jimHJJ(...then of course we have the "treble-blind test' wherein no one knows anything...)

[okiemax]

"...What a great idea for a new an imaginative use of the word "biased." Next time I fib to please someone, and get caught, my explanation will be "I was just biasing you..."

How can you equate "bias" with lying? Or "fibbing" if that's more to your liking...Have YOU never responded to a question with the answer you THINK the other person wants to hear...You are not necessarily trying to mislead, but we all seem to have this inborn trait of wanting to give the "right" answer...even if there is no such thing.

"...Or if stumped for an answer on a multiple choice test, I'll just resort to my bias..."

Well, perhaps in a way, yes...you'll take your best guess. What might that be based on? Education? Practical experience? Anything that prompts you do do something can be said to be the result of a "bias".

"...And what about the guy who rigged that phony cable switch -- was he guilty of deception? Nope, he was just doing a little biasing..."

Double HUH!!! This "phony switch" was, in essence, one of the items under test. If you are testing "x" and "y" really doesn't exist(except through inference induced by said switch), you are still testing "x"...If people say they hear a "y" how should those results be viewed?

"...So the tester introduces the bias, and then attributes the bias to the test subjects. Hilarious! Lewis Carroll would have loved it!...

A tester CAN introduce bias...Have you ever seen a magician do tricks...card tricks specifically...Magicians consciously use a technique called, in the art, "forcing"...a quite sucessful tactic..."mentalists" use a similar device, when questioning subjects..."Gee! Howdy do dat?"...Testers may do the same "type" of thing on a subconscious level, hence the need for DBTs where neither the subject, nor the tester, are privy to the information...

jimHJJ(...then of course we have the "treble-blind test' wherein no one knows anything...)

In the phony cable switch experiment, if I say the fancy cable sounds better than the plain cable to please you the tester, rather than because I really heard a difference, I am telling a fib. If you attribute my choice to my being biased by the looks of the fancy cable, you are wrong. In choosing this cable to please you, however, I may suspect you are biased by its looks.

[Pat D]

I have no more time for responding to the blatant intellectual dishonesty you are foisting on me and others who read this thread. I did not come close to claiming Leventhal thought DBTs were not scientific. You claimed I didn't have standards of reliability. I cited his discussion of Type II errors as one of the issues a DBT would have to satisfy in order for me to consider it reliable.

You are playing games. I have no interest in joining your sand box.

Bye Bye
My wife's mother had cancer and subsequently died, so I have been too busy with family matters to address your unthinking outburst.

To say "the DBTs" is to refer to some DBTs, not every one. In fact, you have often stated that the DBTs in question are not scientific, and you support your contention by mentioning Leventhal's letters in Stereophile. How on earth you come up with an interpretation so silly as supposing that Leventhal thought that all DBTs were unscientific, I do not know. I can only conclude you have no interest in an honest discussion.

In fact, you sometimes distinguish between the data from a DBT and the statistical analysis. The data can be valid even though the statistical reliability does not satisfy you. Sometimes you recognize this, but most of the time you seem to confuse the issues.

I still say you have no standards of reliability. You mention Leventhal but don't tell us what your standards are, or even what his are. As mtry says, the example of 70% reliability is simply silly. Leventhal's main concern seems to have been what some readers might incorrectly conclude.

Of course, for you, both sighted, uncontrolled listening and the DBTs you don't like seem to be equivalent as you term them both "anecdotal," as you say of DBTs reported in Stereo Review and other magazines, not to mention some of the audio clubs. In fact, there is simply no comparison, and they are not equivalent in value. Calling them "anecdotal" doesn't make them equivalent.

Worse, you accuse us of not admitting the possibility of Type II errors, which is false. We never deny the possibility that the difference between different speaker cables (this has been proven under some circumstances, BTW) or even interconnects could be audible. This is equivalent to saying that the null could be false, and yet you consistently accuse us of denying this. Indeed, we constantly PLEAD for anyone to show us some evidence that is so, that the differences are audible. Indeed, we have pointed this out to you so often that I wonder why you keep making this false allegation.

For some reason, you seem to think we deny that larger scale studies would be better. This would increase the reliability of the results, and I have no idea why you pretend we deny this. It boggles the mind.

And, you refuse to heed Carl Sagan's advice to quantify the results, which requires measurements, which can be used to define what proves to be audible. You simply stick to the type of material object (i.e., cables) rather than what happens to the signals, an issue which is transferrable, BTW. That would be a more scientific approach and you refuse to go there.
An illustration is that you totally neglect to discuss MM's reference to the comparison of what cables do to signals with what can be heard. Indeed, Florentine, Clark, and others have come up with graphs for this, but you totally ignore this issue.

[Beckman]

If I understand the topic correctly it has something to do with cable differences. I CAN hear cable differences. Some cables do attenuate the signal for a given frequency range. You could do the same thing with an equalizer or inductors/capacitors.

It is not difficult for a cheap copper wire to transmit a 20 to 20 kHz signal. 20 kHz is not that fast. Look at the antenna on your automobile, that is picking up signals at 100 MHz. Your TV antenna, 10 Mhz. Even cat 5 cable that is .10/ft. can handle extremely high frequencies and must maintain the signal's quality (I think).

The FACT still remains, I and many others have listened to high end cables. We have also listened to 12 AWG lamp cord. The sound quality can ONLY get worse from that of lamp cord. All we are doing is providing a path for electrons.

The human mind is very powerful. If someone spends a large sum of money on speaker cables they will hear a difference. I honestly believe people think when they get a new cable it sounds better. Just like when doctors prescribe placebo's people sometimes feel better.