Wire is no Wire: The proof? You decide!

[bturk667]

Brought home identical CD players.
Hook them up to my linestage. CD player one connected to the linestage via a interconnect from a high-end manufacturer. CD player two connected to the linestage via a cheap Radio Shack interconnect. Too bad Home Depoit does not make them!
Placed to indentical CD into each players.
Four friends sitting in room; the test subjects. They had no idea what I was going to do. None of them are even close to being audiophiles! Hell, two do not even own a system, just Boom Boxes. They thought me stranger than usual!
Pressed play on both remotes; made sure that the CD's were timed exactly!
Then I proceeded to switch back and forth between the two Cd players by turning selector knob on my linestage; input one and two.
Would the test subjects hear a difference?


YES, THEY DID!!! Not just one or two of then, but all four!

Take my test for what you will. Those you do not believe in the benefits a interconnect can make to the sound of a system, please, keep believing in what you believe in. I know you will shoot dowm my test because it wasn't a DBT. I'm sure you will find some kind of fault with how I conducted my test; you have to!

For those who are intrested in the notion that interconnects MAY benefit the sound your systems, try this test for yourself. Let YOUR EARS decide for you! DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, PLEASE! Try this test yourselves. Again, what do you have to lose?

[okiemax]

Brought home identical CD players.
Hook them up to my linestage. CD player one connected to the linestage via a interconnect from a high-end manufacturer. CD player two connected to the linestage via a cheap Radio Shack interconnect. Too bad Home Depoit does not make them!
Placed to indentical CD into each players.
Four friends sitting in room; the test subjects. They had no idea what I was going to do. None of them are even close to being audiophiles! Hell, two do not even own a system, just Boom Boxes. They thought me stranger than usual!
Pressed play on both remotes; made sure that the CD's were timed exactly!
Then I proceeded to switch back and forth between the two Cd players by turning selector knob on my linestage; input one and two.
Would the test subjects hear a difference?


YES, THEY DID!!! Not just one or two of then, but all four!

Take my test for what you will. Those you do not believe in the benefits a interconnect can make to the sound of a system, please, keep believing in what you believe in. I know you will shoot dowm my test because it wasn't a DBT. I'm sure you will find some kind of fault with how I conducted my test; you have to!

For those who are intrested in the notion that interconnects MAY benefit the sound your systems, try this test for yourself. Let YOUR EARS decide for you! DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, PLEASE! Try this test yourselves. Again, what do you have to lose?

I believe interconnects can make a difference, and it could be they did in your system. However, your experiment probably won't convince any doubters, since it wasn't double blind. From your description, I can't tell whether it was single-blind. Was the switching just AB,BA or did you try to conceal which interconnect was being used by adding some AA and BB?

[zapr]

...........Why bother? What's the difference?...........Zapr.

[FLZapped]

Brought home identical CD players.
Hook them up to my linestage. CD player one connected to the linestage via a interconnect from a high-end manufacturer. CD player two connected to the linestage via a cheap Radio Shack interconnect. Too bad Home Depoit does not make them!
Placed to indentical CD into each players.
Four friends sitting in room; the test subjects. They had no idea what I was going to do. None of them are even close to being audiophiles! Hell, two do not even own a system, just Boom Boxes. They thought me stranger than usual!
Pressed play on both remotes; made sure that the CD's were timed exactly!
Then I proceeded to switch back and forth between the two Cd players by turning selector knob on my linestage; input one and two.
Would the test subjects hear a difference?


YES, THEY DID!!! Not just one or two of then, but all four!

Take my test for what you will. Those you do not believe in the benefits a interconnect can make to the sound of a system, please, keep believing in what you believe in. I know you will shoot dowm my test because it wasn't a DBT. I'm sure you will find some kind of fault with how I conducted my test; you have to!

For those who are intrested in the notion that interconnects MAY benefit the sound your systems, try this test for yourself. Let YOUR EARS decide for you! DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, PLEASE! Try this test yourselves. Again, what do you have to lose?

You mean besides the fact there is no way you can exactly cue them with a remote, nor were they level matched, nor were they even characterized for frequency response differences.

-Bruce

[Rikki]

I know you will shoot dowm my test because it wasn't a DBT.

sorry, but what does DBT stand for ?

[Bill L]

It means "Done By Them"

[Rockwell]

sorry, but what does DBT stand for ?

Double-Blind Test

See this link for an explanation:
http://skepdic.com/control.html

[Rikki]

Double-Blind Test

See this link for an explanation:
http://skepdic.com/control.html
Thanks for the link Rockwell.

Here's what I got from the article
"A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls."

So I'm assuming a single-blind test would be...
A single-blind test is a control group test where the subject does not know which items are controls but the evaluator does. (my definition) Is it correct ?

Given that, I have the same question about this experiment that another reply did. Was it at least single-blinded ? Or did you lead the witnesses ?

[Rockwell]

Thanks for the link Rockwell.

Here's what I got from the article
"A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls."

So I'm assuming a single-blind test would be...
A single-blind test is a control group test where the subject does not know which items are controls but the evaluator does. (my definition) Is it correct ?

Given that, I have the same question about this experiment that another reply did. Was it at least single-blinded ? Or did you lead the witnesses ?

Yes, with single blind the person running the test knows what is being tested and may communicate with the testers invalidating the results.

[mtrycraft]

Brought home identical CD players.
Hook them up to my linestage. CD player one connected to the linestage via a interconnect from a high-end manufacturer. CD player two connected to the linestage via a cheap Radio Shack interconnect. Too bad Home Depoit does not make them!
Placed to indentical CD into each players.
Four friends sitting in room; the test subjects. They had no idea what I was going to do. None of them are even close to being audiophiles! Hell, two do not even own a system, just Boom Boxes. They thought me stranger than usual!
Pressed play on both remotes; made sure that the CD's were timed exactly!
Then I proceeded to switch back and forth between the two Cd players by turning selector knob on my linestage; input one and two.
Would the test subjects hear a difference?


YES, THEY DID!!! Not just one or two of then, but all four!

Take my test for what you will. Those you do not believe in the benefits a interconnect can make to the sound of a system, please, keep believing in what you believe in. I know you will shoot dowm my test because it wasn't a DBT. I'm sure you will find some kind of fault with how I conducted my test; you have to!

For those who are intrested in the notion that interconnects MAY benefit the sound your systems, try this test for yourself. Let YOUR EARS decide for you! DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, PLEASE! Try this test yourselves. Again, what do you have to lose?

Beside what the others mentioned, how did you make sure the two CDs were in fact identical? Did you do a bit perfect check? Or just relied ont eh fact that the titles are the same?

Sorry, but to date, no DBT has been able to corroborate your findings. Maybe next year, Next century?

[bturk667]

Single blind test. There was no need to conceal the interconnects; they had no idea what was being tested. Okay, well other than themselves.

[bturk667]

Sorry, it is quite easy to cue them with a remote!
Level match? Why?
"Nor were they ever characterized for frequency response differences." How do you know they weren't. I never wrote either way. Would that make a difference it the way they would make my system sound?

[bturk667]

Double Blind Test!

[bturk667]

None of that was done I assure you!

[bturk667]

Trust me, it was no bother. In fact it was quite fun!
The difference is that there is a difference!

[Rockwell]

None of that was done I assure you!

I believe you. :D

[bturk667]

Thank you, that is very nice of you! Most here would not have!?!

[pctower]

Beside what the others mentioned, how did you make sure the two CDs were in fact identical? Did you do a bit perfect check? Or just relied ont eh fact that the titles are the same?

Sorry, but to date, no DBT has been able to corroborate your findings. Maybe next year, Next century?

"Beside what the others mentioned, how did you make sure the two CDs were in fact identical? Did you do a bit perfect check? Or just relied ont eh fact that the titles are the same?"

Are you intentionally attempting to obliterate your credibility, or is it just inadvertent?

[pctower]

Brought home identical CD players.
Hook them up to my linestage. CD player one connected to the linestage via a interconnect from a high-end manufacturer. CD player two connected to the linestage via a cheap Radio Shack interconnect. Too bad Home Depoit does not make them!
Placed to indentical CD into each players.
Four friends sitting in room; the test subjects. They had no idea what I was going to do. None of them are even close to being audiophiles! Hell, two do not even own a system, just Boom Boxes. They thought me stranger than usual!
Pressed play on both remotes; made sure that the CD's were timed exactly!
Then I proceeded to switch back and forth between the two Cd players by turning selector knob on my linestage; input one and two.
Would the test subjects hear a difference?


YES, THEY DID!!! Not just one or two of then, but all four!

Take my test for what you will. Those you do not believe in the benefits a interconnect can make to the sound of a system, please, keep believing in what you believe in. I know you will shoot dowm my test because it wasn't a DBT. I'm sure you will find some kind of fault with how I conducted my test; you have to!

For those who are intrested in the notion that interconnects MAY benefit the sound your systems, try this test for yourself. Let YOUR EARS decide for you! DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, PLEASE! Try this test yourselves. Again, what do you have to lose?

You did simply what the regulars here have been lectururing people to do for years - conduct a simply, at-home blind test.

But ALAS. Your results don't coincide with their religious view of wires and accordingly you are being "crucified". Who needs the Mel Gibson when you've got this group?

[markw]

One might wonder if the cables in question wer of the same length, gauge and construction. Likewise, due to accceptable production differences among hte same units, there is the possibility that one unit is minutely "louder" then the other.

[mtrycraft]

"Beside what the others mentioned, how did you make sure the two CDs were in fact identical? Did you do a bit perfect check? Or just relied ont eh fact that the titles are the same?"

Are you intentionally attempting to obliterate your credibility, or is it just inadvertent?


You never heard of CD with the same title having different EQ applied to it? It happens and one doesn't know when in th epressing a new one is introduced. No, I don't have titles for you. People in the know know.

[mtrycraft]

You did simply what the regulars here have been lectururing people to do for years - conduct a simply, at-home blind test.

But ALAS. Your results don't coincide with their religious view of wires and accordingly you are being "crucified". Who needs the Mel Gibson when you've got this group?


Naw, just questioning his results that no one else have replicated. I wonder if his simple test had a problem? Introduced bias by him? Other basic stuff? After all, the more flaws, the more positive outcomes.

[cam]

One might wonder if the cables in question wer of the same length, gauge and construction. Likewise, due to accceptable production differences among hte same units, there is the possibility that one unit is minutely "louder" then the other.
Usually you would not admit that length, guage or construction would give any audiable difference yet now you question it.

[Thomas_A]

Oh,

I made similar tests with a idential CD and a CD player and a separate DAC with cheap cables from the DAC. Several times. No difference among the listeners. Oh yes, on one occasion by two listeners (including myself) but ascribed to that the DAC had about 0.4 dB higher output level than the CD player.

T

[ROJ]

As I have been reading posts from both sides of the debate, it seems that the research literature does not provide a definitive answer about whether differences in cables exist that can affect sound quality. Given the lack of research evidence, it is difficult for me to understand how people can make such strong definitive statements for either side of the debate since most of us seem to be relying on our own anecdotal evidence. The focus of the debate often seems to be on the internal validity of the listening sessions, i.e., was a DBT performed or not performed, which is an important aspect of a well designed experiment.

It also seems important to consider the external validity of the listening sessions, which does not seem to be discussed that often in the cable debate. The externality validity of the listening sessions seems to be especially important given that there are so many variables that can affect sound quality besides the cables and bias. These variables vary from system to system and include the quality of the speakers, cd players, amps, pre amps, quality of the cd recording, and room acoustics. Just because I can or can not hear a difference in cables in my system may not necessarily predict whether someone else will hear or will not hear a difference in cables in their system because we could have very different systems. Since we are generally relying on anecdotal evidence, the strongest statement that it seems we can make is that cables may make a difference in some system and not in other systems and this can be due to actual cable differences, poor internal validity (no DBT, bias), or poor external validity.

[markw]

Usually you would not admit that length, guage or construction would give any audiable difference yet now you question it.

Nobody ever said "wire is wire and it all sounds the same". That's a sound byte manufactured by those that disagree with a basic premise which stattes that wire/cable of similar gauge length and construction are so similar in sound qualities that it causes thus discussion in the first place.

There can easily be differences between different lengths and construction of wires/cable that can affect sound. i.e... 50 feet of 24 gauge speaker cable will most likely sound different thant 10 feet of 12 gauge cable.

If one is comparing apples to oranges, then the results should be questioned.

Actually, my money is on acceptable production variances between the two units.

[Sealed]

The problem with this argument (as stated above) is that there is not complete evidence for either claim.

When someone did an a/b/x exactly what source(s) were used, and exactly what recording, and what speakers? Any one of those items can cause variances on other systems -or- provide an irrelevent signal -or- lack the ability to discern differences.

Cables made form different companies are going to measure differences. Even small differences can manifest themselves audibly. No matter what I use, it it always well insulated, constructed and .2 ohms or less. Anything more and you might get audible impedence problems.

Some high end gear is finicky and will react badly to certain cables. Models of Threshold stasis amps would go into HF oscillations with some cables.

I am convinced, beyond any shadow of a doubt cables can and do make a difference. I completely dismiss any, and all evidence to the contrary. None of it is complete or conclusive.

While this thread goes on, throughout the end of time, I can and have heard differences because my system has exceptional components, I have excellent hearing, and don't need anyone to tell me what is/is not audible based on some testing I wasn't part of.

[Rikki]

While this thread goes on, throughout the end of time...
The thread can't go on throughout the end of time. There is a finitie number of hard drive / database space on the server, and I'm sure the message board software could only handle a billion or so replys to the thread. Even if the message board software could handle 1 billion+ threads, your bandwidth (cable modem, DSL, T1, dialup,etc.) would not be able to handle bringing them all back.

[Rikki]

Just because I can or can not hear a difference in cables in my system may not necessarily predict whether someone else will hear or will not hear a difference in cables in their system
True, but should I still spend money on the cables if I can't hear a difference ?

[Sealed]

The thread can't go on throughout the end of time. There is a finitie number of hard drive / database space on the server, and I'm sure the message board software could only handle a billion or so replys to the thread. Even if the message board software could handle 1 billion+ threads, your bandwidth (cable modem, DSL, T1, dialup,etc.) would not be able to handle bringing them all back.

You are just saying that to cheer me up... but this topic will inhale more bandwidth and drive space and probably continue until there is no more space left.

OTOH, maybe you should brush up on terms such as irony, fecetious, rhetoric and the like. Understanding such concepts will eliminate the need for your pedantic explanations of the obvious.

[pctower]

True, but should I still spend money on the cables if I can't hear a difference ?

HOLY COW!

Who ever suggested that you should?

[pctower]

You never heard of CD with the same title having different EQ applied to it? It happens and one doesn't know when in th epressing a new one is introduced. No, I don't have titles for you. People in the know know.


"People in the know know." In the face of such difinitive authority, who am I to question?

[Rikki]

OTOH, maybe you should brush up on terms such as irony, fecetious, rhetoric and the like. Understanding such concepts will eliminate the need for your pedantic explanations of the obvious.
I'll brush up on those terms if you look up "sarcasim". You'll find it under s :)

[Rikki]

HOLY COW!
Correction, it should read HOLY COW! BATMAN!!

[Swerd]

bturk

Unlike so many others here, you actually performed a test. That’s a great start. I wish others would do the same.

Several things that you did well:
From your description it sounds like you did a single-blind test. There were several posts criticizing you because it wasn’t a double-blind test. This is not a real problem (see more below).

Two of your listeners did not own hifi systems and none of them fit your idea of being audiophiles. Good. Usually yeasayers criticize a listening test unless it is done with experienced audiophiles or even other yeasayers. I say, test all kinds of listeners and see if there is any difference due their prior experience. Certainly the boom box owners may lack any prior exposure to the issue of whether cables make a difference, but maybe not.

It doesn’t really matter whether your test is single- or double-blind as long as you do several control tests to account for or minimize the possibility of bias. For example, did you tell your four listeners in advance the real reason why you were doing the test - to test for audible differences in interconnects? Or did you disguise your intent? From your previous posts on this forum you have made your beliefs about cables very clear. Your friends may have been playing along with you, intentionally or subconsciously. Try eliminate that possibility.

Could your listeners tell which CD player/interconnect combination they were hearing when you switched your preamp back and forth? If so, find a way to hide that information from them. One way to control for bias in a single-blind test is to use several different testers, just like the way gambling casinos keep switching blackjack dealers. If the results do not vary with the different testers, then you will have more confidence that your methods did not introduce unintended bias. Did you test yourself while one of your other listeners performed the switches?

Several things you did not do, but could easily do:
Do a negative control test. Use the same set up but with two identical interconnects. What do your listeners hear? Do they always report them as identical? If they don’t, you should subtract the frequency of false positive reports from the frequency of positive test results. In your test you said 4 out of 4 listeners reported hearing a difference. If 2 out of 4 also report hearing differences in the negative control test, then your corrected results would be 2 out of 4 could hear a difference.

Check the two CD players to see if their output levels are indeed identical. Many listening tests have confirmed that listeners prefer the louder of two sound sources. Small differences in dB may cause this. Check the voltage output from the CD players. Find a way to adjust them to identical voltages. If this is not possible you can also repeat the test after switching the interconnects from one CD player to the other. Do the differences that your listeners report vary with the interconnect cables or the CD players?

Similarly, the possibility exists that the two CDs were not identical. It may be hard to directly measure any possible differences, but you don’t have to - just switch CDs from one player to another and test again.

If you take these kinds of extra efforts, you can attach broader conclusion to your results, and you may actually convince some of the skeptics here (myself included) that you are on to something. You may also find that it is much harder to keep your listeners consistently attentive during all these tedious tests. When I tried doing similar tests, most people reacted by saying this is like listening to paint dry!

[okiemax]

sorry, but what does DBT stand for ?

As you already know from the other posts, DBT or double-blind testing reduces the possibility of bias being introduced by researchers who conduct the test. Triple-blind testing goes even farther and reduces the possibility of bias by those who tabulate and analyze the data from the test. I am not aware any triple-blind test on cables. Because of the possibility of bias and other issues affecting the validity of blinded testing, I do not agree with others on this Forum who say the DBT is the gold standard of cable testing.

You also should know that blinded terminlogy is not precise and can be ambiguous. An article titled "Physician Interpretations and Textbook Definitions of Blinding Terminology in Randomized Controlled Trials" in the April 18, 2001 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) discusses this problem, and goes so far as to recommend that terms such as double-blinded be abandoned and replaced with descriptions of who was blinded for the purpose of the test. An excerpt from the JAMA article is shown below:

"Our study has demonstrated enormous ambiguity in the conventional ways of describing blinding. Our results suggest that authors and journal editors should abandon the terms single, double, and triple blind, and substitute descriptions stating which of the relevant groups were unaware of allocation. This change in reporting would be consistent with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, which calls for reporting of the blinding status of the specific groups involved in RCTs.39 As long as journal reports of RCTs include the term "double blind," clinicians will risk inaccurate inferences about the validity of the studies on which they base their clinical practice."

[DMK]

When blind tests are performed and there is a null outcome, yeasayers blame either the equipment or the test. When blind tests are performed and there is a positive outcome, naysayers blame either the equipment or the test.

Do cables make a difference? That's up to the individual to decide. It's bias either way - the bias of believing science has explained everything about cable sonics or the bias that comes with sighted listening. Those who believe the former will never believe the latter and vice versa. Find the camp that makes you comfortable and go with it.

Phil Tower has the right idea. He makes no bones about not using the scientific method but simply chooses what cables or components give him a subjectively improved experience. Mtrycrafts has the right idea. He follows the scientific method and derives his enjoyment from cables and components that measure well.

If you must perform blind tests to confirm or deny your beliefs, go right ahead. But they are a waste of time in my opinion if your intent is to convince anyone but yourself. And years later, you might find that they perhaps shouldn't have convinced YOU, either!

[okiemax]

bturk

Unlike so many others here, you actually performed a test. That’s a great start. I wish others would do the same.

Several things that you did well:
From your description it sounds like you did a single-blind test. There were several posts criticizing you because it wasn’t a double-blind test. This is not a real problem (see more below).

Two of your listeners did not own hifi systems and none of them fit your idea of being audiophiles. Good. Usually yeasayers criticize a listening test unless it is done with experienced audiophiles or even other yeasayers. I say, test all kinds of listeners and see if there is any difference due their prior experience. Certainly the boom box owners may lack any prior exposure to the issue of whether cables make a difference, but maybe not.

It doesn’t really matter whether your test is single- or double-blind as long as you do several control tests to account for or minimize the possibility of bias. For example, did you tell your four listeners in advance the real reason why you were doing the test - to test for audible differences in interconnects? Or did you disguise your intent? From your previous posts on this forum you have made your beliefs about cables very clear. Your friends may have been playing along with you, intentionally or subconsciously. Try eliminate that possibility.

Could your listeners tell which CD player/interconnect combination they were hearing when you switched your preamp back and forth? If so, find a way to hide that information from them. One way to control for bias in a single-blind test is to use several different testers, just like the way gambling casinos keep switching blackjack dealers. If the results do not vary with the different testers, then you will have more confidence that your methods did not introduce unintended bias. Did you test yourself while one of your other listeners performed the switches?

Several things you did not do, but could easily do:
Do a negative control test. Use the same set up but with two identical interconnects. What do your listeners hear? Do they always report them as identical? If they don’t, you should subtract the frequency of false positive reports from the frequency of positive test results. In your test you said 4 out of 4 listeners reported hearing a difference. If 2 out of 4 also report hearing differences in the negative control test, then your corrected results would be 2 out of 4 could hear a difference.

Check the two CD players to see if their output levels are indeed identical. Many listening tests have confirmed that listeners prefer the louder of two sound sources. Small differences in dB may cause this. Check the voltage output from the CD players. Find a way to adjust them to identical voltages. If this is not possible you can also repeat the test after switching the interconnects from one CD player to the other. Do the differences that your listeners report vary with the interconnect cables or the CD players?

Similarly, the possibility exists that the two CDs were not identical. It may be hard to directly measure any possible differences, but you don’t have to - just switch CDs from one player to another and test again.

If you take these kinds of extra efforts, you can attach broader conclusion to your results, and you may actually convince some of the skeptics here (myself included) that you are on to something. You may also find that it is much harder to keep your listeners consistently attentive during all these tedious tests. When I tried doing similar tests, most people reacted by saying this is like listening to paint dry!

Good post! You make some very useful suggestions. Only the one on the negative control test gives me pause, but I don't have any comments on it right now. I can relate to the "like listening to paint dry" reaction of listeners. Boredom or impatience could bias testing.

[ROJ]

True, but should I still spend money on the cables if I can't hear a difference ?

Nope. In the absence of definitive proof, I think the choice to spend or not spend money on nicer cables is system dependent. I don't doubt those that don't hear differences or those that do hear differences. The only thing I doubt is our ability to definitively tell someone else if cables will make a difference in their system.

[bturk667]

I just wish I could make the kind of money that Mel has made off the Passion!

[bturk667]

Ah, but if what you wrote is true then cables would make a system sound different wouldn't they?
Both cables were 1 meter lenghts.

[bturk667]

As I wrote in my initial post, they have to find fault some how.

[bturk667]

That choice is yours to make!

[Audie Oghaisle]

Brought home identical CD players.
Hook them up to my linestage. CD player one connected to the linestage via a interconnect from a high-end manufacturer. CD player two connected to the linestage via a cheap Radio Shack interconnect. Too bad Home Depoit does not make them!
Placed to indentical CD into each players.
Four friends sitting in room; the test subjects. They had no idea what I was going to do. None of them are even close to being audiophiles! Hell, two do not even own a system, just Boom Boxes. They thought me stranger than usual!
Pressed play on both remotes; made sure that the CD's were timed exactly!
Then I proceeded to switch back and forth between the two Cd players by turning selector knob on my linestage; input one and two.
Would the test subjects hear a difference?


YES, THEY DID!!! Not just one or two of then, but all four!

Take my test for what you will. Those you do not believe in the benefits a interconnect can make to the sound of a system, please, keep believing in what you believe in. I know you will shoot dowm my test because it wasn't a DBT. I'm sure you will find some kind of fault with how I conducted my test; you have to!

For those who are intrested in the notion that interconnects MAY benefit the sound your systems, try this test for yourself. Let YOUR EARS decide for you! DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, PLEASE! Try this test yourselves. Again, what do you have to lose?

...as others may or have not, there can be significant differences in two brand new anythings out-of-the-box. I recently purchased a Marantz cassette deck which seemed to be sonically ok...if not for a disturbing mechanical problem, I wouldn't have returned it to the retailer and discovered its replacement to be superior in imaging and overall sound quality.

Also, you may want to swap ICs and even inputs to your gear...did you ever use the other inputs with any source previous to this? Stranger things have happened.

Audie

[bturk667]

The test as I conducted it was a simple and quick test. Trust me, my test subjects did not come over to sit there for a long time. I still think it was a respectable test with interesting results. Someday I will get more in depth, but for know I still think it was a fair and fairly accurate test.

[bturk667]

I agree with everything that your wrote, well most of what your wrote. The reason I did the test was for fun, and to see "What If." I had the opportunity to do it, so I did. Buy expensive cables or not, I do not care. It is your money spend it as you see fit. The only reason for my post was to read what the naysayers would write. To see how they think I messed up an innocent test. Especially when the results go against what they believe. I find these kind of exchanges fun!

[FLZapped]

Sorry, it is quite easy to cue them with a remote!
Level match? Why?

The louder of the two is almost always interpreted as sounding better.



"Nor were they ever characterized for frequency response differences." How do you know they weren't. I never wrote either way. Would that make a difference it the way they would make my system sound?

Yep.

-Bruce

[bturk667]

My linestage is passive unit. It has three line level inputs, and one tape loop. The two line level inputs that I used during the test I use all the time. My Cd player is connected to number one, while my phono pre-amp is connected to number two. I listen to music everyday; using either my CD player and my truntable, or somtimes both.

The other brand I used were my Nordost Blue Heavens. The Radio Shack interconnects were a copper cable using gold plated RCA connectors. The Blue Heavens are a flat cable, also copper. However, they have a thin layer of silver over the copper. They have gold plated RCA connectors.

The Nordost are a lot more expensive. I would not recommend people spending as much as I did if they have even the slightest reservations. There are much better ways to spend your money on your system!

[bturk667]

My linestage is passive. That being stated, I knew that somone would bring this point up; it is very important to make sure levels match when comparing speakers. So yes, I used my Radio Shack SPL level meter, cat. no. 33-2050. I used the C weighting. My test CD was Sterophile test CD no. 1, track #20 1khz 1/3-octave warble tone, and no.3, tracks 22-27. No problem there! I tried to be somewhat thorough; also trying to predict question having to do with my test. Now I will admitt I could have done more, but why? My test I believe was thorough enough. After all I love my interconnects, and do not regrett any of the choices I have made in assembling my system.

As for your frequency response question; based on manufacturers specifications, this to was not an issue.

The test was fun, the problem is that my friends think I am even stranger that they thought I was before.

So you believe interconnects can affect the sound of ones system?

[DMK]

I agree with everything that your wrote, well most of what your wrote. The reason I did the test was for fun, and to see "What If." I had the opportunity to do it, so I did. Buy expensive cables or not, I do not care. It is your money spend it as you see fit. The only reason for my post was to read what the naysayers would write. To see how they think I messed up an innocent test. Especially when the results go against what they believe. I find these kind of exchanges fun!

That's cool. But I coulda told you what they'd write - nearly word for word :D

Nope, no expensive cables for me! Too much vinyl out there, patiently waiting for my greedy but cash limited fingers!

[mtrycraft]

"People in the know know." In the face of such difinitive authority, who am I to question?


Well, I don't talk to the CD industry, do you?
But those who do and know the right questions to ask have reported what I reported to you. Of course you can take it or leave it, always your choice. I wish I had a defenitive source, time dated, and certified; I don't.
And, if he can synchronize the two CD players to better than a few milli seconds so he won't have a clue as to one being just a bit ahead of the other, He has a new daytime job, I am sure.

[mtrycraft]

I don't doubt those that don't hear differences or those that do hear differences. The only thing I doubt is our ability to definitively tell someone else if cables will make a difference in their system.

But, if there were such cable differences, in a specific system, that would already have been demonstrated by someone, under bias controlled conditions. Yet, when a cable maker with a supposedly high end system, $250K+ cannot hear differences, or refuses to subject himself and his reputation
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

I have very little doubt. But, I certainly can change my mind with evidence.

[mtrycraft]

The problem with this argument (as stated above) is that there is not complete evidence for either claim.



The only relevant evidence that is of any importance is the evidence to show audible difference, period. There is none to date in 20+ YEARS.
Proving a negative is not a burden. So, there is no maybe, only zero evidence for audible differences for comparable cables. Yes, we do know 24 ga is different from 16 ga. That is not comparable.

[mtrycraft]

but for know I still think it was a fair and fairly accurate test.

Then there would be a lot of audible difference citations available if this was so accurate as you think. Why isn't there a single one for comparable cables?

[mtrycraft]

My linestage is passive. That being stated, I knew that somone would bring this point up; it is very important to make sure levels match when comparing speakers. So yes, I used my Radio Shack SPL level meter, cat. no. 33-2050. I used the C weighting. My test CD was Sterophile test CD no. 1, track #20 1khz 1/3-octave warble tone, and no.3, tracks 22-27. No problem there! I tried to be somewhat thorough; also trying to predict question having to do with my test. Now I will admitt I could have done more, but why? My test I believe was thorough enough. After all I love my interconnects, and do not regrett any of the choices I have made in assembling my system.

As for your frequency response question; based on manufacturers specifications, this to was not an issue.

The test was fun, the problem is that my friends think I am even stranger that they thought I was before.

So you believe interconnects can affect the sound of ones system?

WOW. If your line stage is passive, you have a problem right off the bat, especially if the output impedance is variable with the volume control. The passive setup will certainly roll with cable capacitance differences differently.

What else you neglected to mention?

SPL meter is not sufficient to match to .1dB level differences, sorry. You need a volt meter, measuing the voltage difference at the speaker terminal, one that is accurate at such frequencies and is able to do .01 v differences.
But these are some of the small issues.

I bet your passive pre is the culprit!!!

[mtrycraft]

The louder of the two is almost always interpreted as sounding better.



Yep.

-Bruce


Check out his passive preamp. If th eoutput impedance is high, or varies with the volume control which many do, that is the cause of his differences. They are sensitive to cap differences with such high impedance.

[ROJ]

But, if there were such cable differences, in a specific system, that would already have been demonstrated by someone, under bias controlled conditions. Yet, when a cable maker with a supposedly high end system, $250K+ cannot hear differences, or refuses to subject himself and his reputation
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

I have very little doubt. But, I certainly can change my mind with evidence.

Hi mtrycraft,

Thank you for the link. It is an interesting article. Do you happen to know if the paper that Mr. Nousaine presented at the conference was published in a scientific journal? I am new to the audio world. Given my limited readings on this and other message boards, I have read claims by people who reportedly conducted DBT experiments in support of their positions on both sides. My bias, however, is to give more credence to experiments that have been published in peer reviewed journals. The best journals (unfortunately, not all journals are the same) rigorously examine the relevance and validity (internal and external) of experiments before publishing the results. Presenting research at a conference is not the same as publishing in a scientific journal since the criteria for presentation at a conference are often less rigorous than publication in a scientific journal. I am not familiar with the scientific literature regarding cable differences or if the literature even exists. Given the passion of the debate, I assumed that if there were a substantial research literature it would have been cited. Absence a scientific literature, I maintain that it is difficult to definitively state that cables will or will not make a difference. It appears that right now we are basing recommendations on anecdotal evidence and experiments that have not undergone the scientific rigorous of being published in peer reviewed journals.

I hope you realize that I am not trying to change your opinion about cables as I have no doubt that you don’t hear differences in cables. I respect the passion that you and others obviously have for hi-fi audio and the cable debate. I am increasingly becoming more passionate about hi-fi audio as my empty pocketbook and weary wife can attest. The only thing I hope to add to the cable debate is that including DBT in cable experiments is only one component in designing a scientifically rigorous experiment. It appears that we are not basing our recommendation on scientifically rigorous experiment. Given my bias for peer reviewed journals and the absence of peer reviewed experiments, I think we should moderate our positions and allow for the possibility that some people hear differences and other don't, and that it can be difficult to generalize findings from one system to other systems.

-ROJ

[pctower]

Hi mtrycraft,

Thank you for the link. It is an interesting article. Do you happen to know if the paper that Mr. Nousaine presented at the conference was published in a scientific journal? I am new to the audio world. Given my limited readings on this and other message boards, I have read claims by people who reportedly conducted DBT experiments in support of their positions on both sides. My bias, however, is to give more credence to experiments that have been published in peer reviewed journals. The best journals (unfortunately, not all journals are the same) rigorously examine the relevance and validity (internal and external) of experiments before publishing the results. Presenting research at a conference is not the same as publishing in a scientific journal since the criteria for presentation at a conference are often less rigorous than publication in a scientific journal. I am not familiar with the scientific literature regarding cable differences or if the literature even exists. Given the passion of the debate, I assumed that if there were a substantial research literature it would have been cited. Absence a scientific literature, I maintain that it is difficult to definitively state that cables will or will not make a difference. It appears that right now we are basing recommendations on anecdotal evidence and experiments that have not undergone the scientific rigorous of being published in peer reviewed journals.

I hope you realize that I am not trying to change your opinion about cables as I have no doubt that you don’t hear differences in cables. I respect the passion that you and others obviously have for hi-fi audio and the cable debate. I am increasingly becoming more passionate about hi-fi audio as my empty pocketbook and weary wife can attest. The only thing I hope to add to the cable debate is that including DBT in cable experiments is only one component in designing a scientifically rigorous experiment. It appears that we are not basing our recommendation on scientifically rigorous experiment. Given my bias for peer reviewed journals and the absence of peer reviewed experiments, I think we should moderate our positions and allow for the possibility that some people hear differences and other don't, and that it can be difficult to generalize findings from one system to other systems.

-ROJ

Oh man, where have you been for the last two years while I have been pummeled and ridiculed for saying what you have just said?

Perhaps you put it more tactfully than I did or perhaps your writing is more articulate than mine, and perhaps you will be able to open a few minds as a result.

[mtrycraft]

Hi mtrycraft,

Thank you for the link. It is an interesting article. Do you happen to know if the paper that Mr. Nousaine presented at the conference was published in a scientific journal? I am new to the audio world. Given my limited readings on this and other message boards, I have read claims by people who reportedly conducted DBT experiments in support of their positions on both sides. My bias, however, is to give more credence to experiments that have been published in peer reviewed journals. The best journals (unfortunately, not all journals are the same) rigorously examine the relevance and validity (internal and external) of experiments before publishing the results. Presenting research at a conference is not the same as publishing in a scientific journal since the criteria for presentation at a conference are often less rigorous than publication in a scientific journal. I am not familiar with the scientific literature regarding cable differences or if the literature even exists. Given the passion of the debate, I assumed that if there were a substantial research literature it would have been cited. Absence a scientific literature, I maintain that it is difficult to definitively state that cables will or will not make a difference. It appears that right now we are basing recommendations on anecdotal evidence and experiments that have not undergone the scientific rigorous of being published in peer reviewed journals.

I hope you realize that I am not trying to change your opinion about cables as I have no doubt that you don’t hear differences in cables. I respect the passion that you and others obviously have for hi-fi audio and the cable debate. I am increasingly becoming more passionate about hi-fi audio as my empty pocketbook and weary wife can attest. The only thing I hope to add to the cable debate is that including DBT in cable experiments is only one component in designing a scientifically rigorous experiment. It appears that we are not basing our recommendation on scientifically rigorous experiment. Given my bias for peer reviewed journals and the absence of peer reviewed experiments, I think we should moderate our positions and allow for the possibility that some people hear differences and other don't, and that it can be difficult to generalize findings from one system to other systems.

-ROJ


No, there are no peer reviewed Journal articles on any audio component, cables to amps. I never indicated there were. The closest ones I can recommend are the ones done by Dr Floyd Toole in JAES about speaker listening and the power of DBT in audio listening and the vagaries of everything else, especially sighted listening for small differences.
All there are are commercial magazine publications. DBT Journal articles would not serve the component makers well, so why would they do any? There is no magic or mistery in audio.

My citation list which can be also found included in the links here:

http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioandhometheaterhomepage/id3.html

this may help as well:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_lit.htm

If Journal articles are what you are after, you are out of luck. You will need to conduct your own rigorous trials :)

As to the possibility of people hearing differences, that is not denied. Differences have been demonstrated under DBT conditions for well know reasons.
What is questioned are their protocols why they think they heard such differences, what is know based on the best information available over the past 20+ years. Empty claims are always challenged, or should be and must be so the urban legend doesn't become a fact simply on an unsupported testable claim.

[ROJ]

No, there are no peer reviewed Journal articles on any audio component, cables to amps. I never indicated there were. The closest ones I can recommend are the ones done by Dr Floyd Toole in JAES about speaker listening and the power of DBT in audio listening and the vagaries of everything else, especially sighted listening for small differences.
All there are are commercial magazine publications. DBT Journal articles would not serve the component makers well, so why would they do any? There is no magic or mistery in audio.

My citation list which can be also found included in the links here:

http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioandhometheaterhomepage/id3.html

this may help as well:

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_lit.htm

If Journal articles are what you are after, you are out of luck. You will need to conduct your own rigorous trials :)

As to the possibility of people hearing differences, that is not denied. Differences have been demonstrated under DBT conditions for well know reasons.
What is questioned are their protocols why they think they heard such differences, what is know based on the best information available over the past 20+ years. Empty claims are always challenged, or should be and must be so the urban legend doesn't become a fact simply on an unsupported testable claim.

Hi mtrycrafts,

Is this your home theater system from the links that you provided? http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioandhometheaterhomepage/index.html
That is a great looking system. I hope to some day have a system like that once I am done with graduate school. I am a doctoral student in clinical psychology, which is why the cable debate caught my interest. I understand how powerful bias can be in our perceptions. I also understand the importance of examining and controlling for bias (as much as possible) in experimental studies. For the cable debate, it appears that there is not much of a research literature and I am out of luck. I won’t do any studies myself as I doubt my advisor (or wife, who is the real boss) will let me change my dissertation to look at cable differences.

You raised a good point that empty claims should be challenged so that urban legends do not become fact. I would further argue that even generally accepted facts should be continually challenged. In my field (child clinical), there was once a commonly accepted belief that autism (a severe development disorder) was caused by poor maternal parenting. Fortunately, further research showed that autism has a genetic component and that the prior belief caused unnecessary guilt in mothers of autistic children. The nature of science is to continually try and challenge existing beliefs by advancing the knowledge base with well designed experiments. In a sense, it is difficultly to say that we can definitively know anything in the social sciences (which for me includes cable differences since we are talking about perceived differences) as future research can challenge our existing beliefs. I have been trained to qualify my statements, e.g., given the current state of the literature we know this..., while understanding that it can change in the future. Given that I came from this background, it interested me to see such strong statements emanating from both sides of the cable debate given the lack of empirical studies. Even when empirical studies exist, there can be genuine disagreements, which require further research for clarification (for example, the current literature on spanking has some findings that can appear contradictory).

As far as the cable debate, I guess the take home message for me is that people are passionate about this topic and that having peer reviewed studies to answer the debate does not exist or maybe should not necessarily exist. I always enjoy a good debate even if I am arguing without any empirical support such as how the Dallas Cowboys are returning to dominance. So once I try a few more cables, maybe I'll join the fun and starting arguing for or against cable differences.


Thank you for the links and for the interesting exchanges.

-ROJ

[Norm Strong]

How do you know all 4 guests heard a difference? Did you ask them if they could hear a difference? There seems to be a gap in your report. We found out how you switched from one cable to another, and the next thing we find out is that all 4 guests heard a difference. How did you go about determining that?

[mtrycraft]

Hi mtrycrafts,

Is this your home theater system from the links that you provided? http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioandhometheaterhomepage/index.html

No, tit is not mine. It belongs to eyespy who used to post here for a long time. He created that web site and collected all th ecitations, including my contributions.


I am a doctoral student in clinical psychology, which is why the cable debate caught my interest. I understand how powerful bias can be in our perceptions. I also understand the importance of examining and controlling for bias (as much as possible) in experimental studies.

You have a leg up on most all here then:)


For the cable debate, it appears that there is not much of a research literature and I am out of luck.


Yes, wire is too simple to research beyond its electrical parameters. What unpublished research that has been done and I am not talking about the commertial publications but by others in the industry such as Dr Floyd Toole now of Harman or John Dunlavy of Dunlavy speakers, wire is well understood how and what will affect sonic differnces that boils down to the basics, resistance, inductance and capacitance.




I won’t do any studies myself as I doubt my advisor (or wife, who is the real boss) will let me change my dissertation to look at cable differences.

That can be your next project when you are bored :)

You raised a good point that empty claims should be challenged so that urban legends do not become fact. I would further argue that even generally accepted facts should be continually challenged.


I cannot disagree with this and don't think I have. But, simply to offer more of the same unreliable anecdotes will not advance knowledge for more understanding :)

In my field (child clinical), there was once a commonly accepted belief that autism (a severe development disorder) was caused by poor maternal parenting. Fortunately, further research showed that autism has a genetic component and that the prior belief caused unnecessary guilt in mothers of autistic children. The nature of science is to continually try and challenge existing beliefs by advancing the knowledge base with well designed experiments.[b]

Well designed experiments, yes, by all means. Wire companies are not interested, neither are independent researchers as the knowledge of what we can detect from peer Journals and correlation to measurements do tell us a lot. Dr Tool's work goes a long way in combination with all the other Journals on detection capability.

I just don't see any improvement over the 'I heard it, I trust my ears" attitude. Or, " but thousands hear the same" without credible evidence. No better than the thousands of alien abduction reports or other such things.


[b] In a sense, it is difficultly to say that we can definitively know anything in the social sciences (which for me includes cable differences since we are talking about perceived differences) as future research can challenge our existing beliefs.[b]

That may be but current knowledge can tell us what, how much we can detect and our hearing accuity is not evolving for the better, which would take a long time anyhow ; it gets worse with all the noise pollution.

[b]I have been trained to qualify my statements, e.g., given the current state of the literature we know this..., while understanding that it can change in the future. Given that I came from this background, it interested me to see such strong statements emanating from both sides of the cable debate given the lack of empirical studies. Even when empirical studies exist, there can be genuine disagreements, which require further research for clarification (for example, the current literature on spanking has some findings that can appear contradictory).

That is a very good postition to take. Maybe you can continue to contribute this when time permits :) Keeps everyone honest :)

As far as the cable debate, I guess the take home message for me is that people are passionate about this topic and that having peer reviewed studies to answer the debate does not exist or maybe should not necessarily exist. I always enjoy a good debate even if I am arguing without any empirical support such as how the Dallas Cowboys are returning to dominance. So once I try a few more cables, maybe I'll join the fun and starting arguing for or against cable differences.

Just try to eliminate bias, use statistics and depending on the circumstances, a few other technical check may be necessary.


Thank you for the links and for the interesting exchanges.

-ROJ

The pleasure is all mine:) Don't be a stranger around here:) We don't have to agree with everything to post and exchange :D

[mtrycraft]

How do you know all 4 guests heard a difference? Did you ask them if they could hear a difference? There seems to be a gap in your report. We found out how you switched from one cable to another, and the next thing we find out is that all 4 guests heard a difference. How did you go about determining that?


Check out his passive pre amp that would explain a lot.

[ROJ]

The pleasure is all mine:) Don't be a stranger around here:) We don't have to agree with everything to post and exchange :D

I'll be back. I have learned a lot from this forum and the speaker forum. In fact, I recently upgraded to Dynaudio Audience speakers (52s and 42C) in large part because of the positive comments and recommendations on the speaker forum. The speakers are great and will keep my happy for a long time or at least until I graduate and I can convince my wife I need another upgrade to celebrate finishing. :D

[bturk667]

I asked then if they could hear any kind of a difference. Thay all said they could; as could I.

[gonefishin]

Oh man, where have you been for the last two years while I have been pummeled and ridiculed for saying what you have just said?

Perhaps you put it more tactfully than I did or perhaps your writing is more articulate than mine, and perhaps you will be able to open a few minds as a result.


:p Pc...you always seemed like a nice enough guy. Do you remember the advice I gave you when you first came to AR? lol


Don't think that another voice of reason (with similar thoughts to yourself) will help the cable debate here at AR. Only thing it could do is fuel it! Believe me.


'course, I don't view fueling the debate as a bad thing either...just keep it civil.






The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. The wheels on the bus go round and round... ;)


take care>>>>>>>>>>

[ROJ]

I asked then if they could hear any kind of a difference. Thay all said they could; as could I.

Since a research literature does not exists, I argue that no one can tell you whether you did or did not hear differences. We don't have a strong foundational basis to doubt that you or your friends heard actual differences rather than perceived differences because of bias. We also can't discount the fact that your observations may have been due to bias and that differences do not actually exist. This is not to say that an actual truth does not exist, but at this point in the debate it appears that we are all basically relying on our own personal experiences or experiments that are not scientifically rigorous. Again, by scientifically rigorous I include other important aspects of well designed studies in addition to DBT such as how good is the external validity of the study, how was the experiment administered and so forth.

[pctower]

:p Pc...you always seemed like a nice enough guy. Do you remember the advice I gave you when you first came to AR? lol
Don't think that another voice of reason (with similar thoughts to yourself) will help the cable debate here at AR. Only thing it could do is fuel it! Believe me.
'course, I don't view fueling the debate as a bad thing either...just keep it civil.

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. The wheels on the bus go round and round... ;)

take care>>>>>>>>>>

Oh, I remember quite well. Hotel California and all that...

After I posted, I read an earlier post of ROJ's I had missed. What I find interesting about him is that he is pursuing a doctoral degree in clinical psychology, which probably makes him the only person posting here who is really qualified to discuss audio DBTs. Just because the DBTs we discuss involve electronics does not mean (as much as they like to think they do) that engineers necessarily possess the professional expertise to evaluate published results (or lack thereof) and suggest proper protocols for conducting audio DBTs.

It's refreshing to see someone like ROJ come along who has actually has the academic qualifications to discuss the subject we all spend so much time flapping our jaws in the wind about .

It is people like him who, if they are willing to stick around and share their knowledge with us, really could bring rationality to our debates. Bringing the proper background and expertise to bear upon the whole subject of audio DBTs would be a truly unique and special occurence within the universe of all audio web sites. Bruce seems to have some background, but apparently is limited by concerns over protecting Motorola proprietary secrets from getting into much detail. jj used to post over at AA, but quickly grew tired of all the BS over there.

I would just like to see someone with the background, qualifications and necessary moxie put in their place those who believe that merely spouting off using the term "DBT" and referring to dusty articles in decades old archives of the popular audio press somehow makes them right, scientific and above criticism.

[Thomas_A]

Oh, I remember quite well. Hotel California and all that...

After I posted, I read an earlier post of ROJ's I had missed. What I find interesting about him is that he is pursuing a doctoral degree in clinical psychology, which probably makes him the only person posting here who is really qualified to discuss audio DBTs. Just because the DBTs we discuss involve electronics does not mean (as much as they like to think they do) that engineers necessarily possess the professional expertise to evaluate published results (or lack thereof) and suggest proper protocols for conducting audio DBTs.

It's refreshing to see someone like ROJ come along who has actually has the academic qualifications to discuss the subject we all spend so much time flapping our jaws in the wind about .

It is people like him who, if they are willing to stick around and share their knowledge with us, really could bring rationality to our debates. Bringing the proper background and expertise to bear upon the whole subject of audio DBTs would be a truly unique and special occurence within the universe of all audio web sites. Bruce seems to have some background, but apparently is limited by concerns over protecting Motorola proprietary secrets from getting into much detail. jj used to post over at AA, but quickly grew tired of all the BS over there.

I would just like to see someone with the background, qualifications and necessary moxie put in their place those who believe that merely spouting off using the term "DBT" and referring to dusty articles in decades old archives of the popular audio press somehow makes them right, scientific and above criticism.


I am quite sure there are others that can discuss science here, when it comes to audibility of cables. I both review and write papers regarding molecular biology, epidemiololgy and is part of trials for new drugs in the medical industry, but although it might help, I doubt that this is really nessecary knowledge for the scientific discussion. All what is needed is some insight in double-blind testing and binomial statistics. Perhaps also some correction statistics for small sample numbers.

[CyberStoic]

I am quite sure there are others that can discuss science here, when it comes to audibility of cables. I both review and write papers regarding molecular biology, epidemiololgy and is part of trials for new drugs in the medical industry, but although it might help, I doubt that this is really nessecary knowledge for the scientific discussion. All what is needed is some insight in double-blind testing and binomial statistics. Perhaps also some correction statistics for small sample numbers.


Hi Thomas;

I agree, there are probably many here with enough background in rudimentary statistics or the scientific method to be able to discuss :)

Like ROJ, I am a clinical psychologist, trained in Cognitive-Behavioral Psychology. Had more than my fair share of Sadistics (statistics) classes. In the example study that bturk667 performed, there are two concerns I have regarding it's ability to make any kind of generalization due to design errors and sample size.

First, having all people listen at the same time and report at the same time introduces a serious confounding error. It is well known in social psychology regarding group dynamics that people tend to conform to group expectations and can easily read the social cues that others provide regarding expectations. An evaluator presenting a stimuli can easily cue the respondant as to the socially desirable or expected answer. In addition, group members tend to conform their behavior and stories to meet the group demands and dynamics. In this case, since all were in the same listening situation, and some endorse hearing differences, it may well be that the social expectation or expectation (either verbally, visually, non-verbally, etc,) leads people to endorse the idea that they hear differences. This is nothing new to group dynamics and the phenemona is well studied. For example, alcoholics in recovery groups tend to conform their stories to those that predominate the group they attend (i.e., report additional symptoms, blackouts, etc.) because it elicits higher group approval.

The second confounding variable is the extremely small sample size. In order to do a decent study involving differences in perception that you could actually generalize from, you would need hundreds, if not thousands of subjects. You would need to control for hearing, age, equipment, and probably a lot of other factors in order to really be able to draw meaningful results. A sample size of "4" could be nothing other than a statistical abberation. It is impossible to generalize from such a small sample.

Large studies of this type cost money. Big money. A decent, well controlled study, with a large sample size can cost upwards of $300K or more. Most people don't have that kind of money and generally studies of this type get money from grants or industry. I would think it self evident that the wire industry will never be sponsoring such studies because if they failed to show a demonstrable benefit from their wire it would be cutting their own throats. The risks are simply to great to fund such a study.

Take care

[okiemax]

Hi Thomas;

I agree, there are probably many here with enough background in rudimentary statistics or the scientific method to be able to discuss :)

Like ROJ, I am a clinical psychologist, trained in Cognitive-Behavioral Psychology. Had more than my fair share of Sadistics (statistics) classes. In the example study that bturk667 performed, there are two concerns I have regarding it's ability to make any kind of generalization due to design errors and sample size.

First, having all people listen at the same time and report at the same time introduces a serious confounding error. It is well known in social psychology regarding group dynamics that people tend to conform to group expectations and can easily read the social cues that others provide regarding expectations. An evaluator presenting a stimuli can easily cue the respondant as to the socially desirable or expected answer. In addition, group members tend to conform their behavior and stories to meet the group demands and dynamics. In this case, since all were in the same listening situation, and some endorse hearing differences, it may well be that the social expectation or expectation (either verbally, visually, non-verbally, etc,) leads people to endorse the idea that they hear differences. This is nothing new to group dynamics and the phenemona is well studied. For example, alcoholics in recovery groups tend to conform their stories to those that predominate the group they attend (i.e., report additional symptoms, blackouts, etc.) because it elicits higher group approval.

The second confounding variable is the extremely small sample size. In order to do a decent study involving differences in perception that you could actually generalize from, you would need hundreds, if not thousands of subjects. You would need to control for hearing, age, equipment, and probably a lot of other factors in order to really be able to draw meaningful results. A sample size of "4" could be nothing other than a statistical abberation. It is impossible to generalize from such a small sample.

Large studies of this type cost money. Big money. A decent, well controlled study, with a large sample size can cost upwards of $300K or more. Most people don't have that kind of money and generally studies of this type get money from grants or industry. I would think it self evident that the wire industry will never be sponsoring such studies because if they failed to show a demonstrable benefit from their wire it would be cutting their own throats. The risks are simply to great to fund such a study.

Take care

I am not aware of any study using blinded testing for audile differences in cables that was done with a scientific sample of listeners. You could obtain a sample if you knew what population you wanted the sample to represent, but I don't think any of the cable studies have gone that far.

Most of the cable studies that look for statistical significance don't even state the hypothesis that is being tested. However, here is what usually is implied: hypothesis --the cables are audibly different: null hypothesis -- the cables are not audibly different.
Note that the hypothesis does not say audibly different to most listeners or a certain proportion oof listeners. It just says audibly different. Therefore, just one listener could do well enough to prove the hypothesis.

The few blinded studies that have been done on "comparable" cables have their flaws, but to my knowlrdge no listeners so far have proved the hypothesis in such studies. This has been enough evidence for some to conclude there are no audible differences in cables. I am among those who don't find such evidence convincing.

You are right about decent studies being expensive. I doubt we will be seeing many on cables.

[bturk667]

First of all, I think DBT are worth about as much as the paper that they are written on! I believe in my test-I call the instant switch test- as much more reliable. If you, like so many like the DBT, great, more power to you.

What bias would four people have who could care less what my, or any audio system for that matter sounds like, have? They are the PERFECT test subjects! They know nothing about home audio what so ever, or do they want to! Take my wife for an example; all my she cares about is that my system plays loud, which it can. Other than that she give give a crap about it. Trust me, my four friends could care less, as well! As I wrote, two of the use "Boom Boxes." The other two hardly ever listen to music. They use their cheap "Home Theaters in a Box" for watching movies!

Why don't you try a more rigouris scientific study and let me know how it turns out! I will admitt, mine was simple, but I believe effective.

Let me point one thing out to you. In all the testing I have done; I have found that many interconnects do in fact sound the same. If there is a difference, it is such as small one, that I do not consider it a difference at all. However, some interconnects did in fact make a noticeable difference in the sound of MY system. Would they make a difference to the sound of everyones system; I think not! This is why, for people who are willing to entertain the possibilty that interconnects might in fact change the sound of their system, they must experiment!

See, I have always been a person who like to hear and see things for myself. I could care less what some DBT, performed by others, says, or what some scientist found out about a particular subject withtheir tests. If I could do some kind testing myself, that I feel is accurate, well then, I do it! Do you think I care if you or anyone else find it valid? Hell NO! It is my system and my money, not yours or theirs. You spend your as you see fit, and I will spend mine as I see fit!

I love my Nordost Blue Heavens!!!
Please, answer my question that I possed to you about my test sugjects. I am very interested in your response!

[ROJ]

I am quite sure there are others that can discuss science here, when it comes to audibility of cables. I both review and write papers regarding molecular biology, epidemiololgy and is part of trials for new drugs in the medical industry, but although it might help, I doubt that this is really nessecary knowledge for the scientific discussion. All what is needed is some insight in double-blind testing and binomial statistics. Perhaps also some correction statistics for small sample numbers.

I hope I did not give the impression that I thought others on this board can not discuss science since that was not my intent. With all due respect, I have to disagree with your assertion that all that is required to answer the cable debate is DBT and knowledge of statistics (binomial and correcting for small sample sizes). Both of those issues are important, however, the external validity of experiments is also an important issue that has to be addressed in psychology and in the cable debate since we are dealing with perceived differences. In your field this may not be a significant issue as I understand that natural and social sciences sometimes have different methodology issues to confront.

To illustrate my concern about external validity, suppose I were to design a study to examine the efficacy of a treatment for aggression in first grade children, but I limited the study to only boys, which has often occurred. Further suppose that I designed an internally valid study with solid statistical analysis and found that the treatment did not work. I could conclude that the results suggest that my treatment may not be an appropriate treatment for first grade boys. However, these results may not extrapolate to first grade girls. Gender could be a confounding variable since there is a rich literature that has found significant differences in aggression in elementary school boys and girls. Thus, the experiment may have a low external validity since it did not control for gender despite the solid statistical analysis and strong internal validity.

In the cable debate, I contend that this issue has not been addressed because potential confounding variables have not been controlled. Many would agree that there are many variables (quality and type of speaker, room acoustics, and quality of cd recording to name a few) that can affect sound quality and vary from system to system. I suggest that these variables may partially explain why some people find differences and other do not, but in reality we don’t know since the variables have not been controlled. An interesting study to conduct would be to include the internal controls and statistical analysis you suggested. To address the external validity and control for known variables that correlate to sound quality, we could also include different male and female test participants of difference ages and with different hearing acuity. The participants could then listen to different cables in different rooms with different systems. I posit that this may offer more scientifically rigorous evidence to the cable debate than only examining DBT and statistical analysis. As some have suggested, however, this would be expensive and there does not appear to be an impetus to conduct this research.

[mtrycraft]

I'll be back. I have learned a lot from this forum and the speaker forum. In fact, I recently upgraded to Dynaudio Audience speakers (52s and 42C) in large part because of the positive comments and recommendations on the speaker forum. The speakers are great and will keep my happy for a long time or at least until I graduate and I can convince my wife I need another upgrade to celebrate finishing. :D


Upgrade-itis can be habit forming like a cocaine habit :)

[CyberStoic]

Greetings bturk667;

you shared:
" First of all, I think DBT are worth about as much as the paper that they are written on! I believe in my test-I call the instant switch test- as much more reliable. If you, like so many like the DBT, great, more power to you."

Believe what you like, I do not recall saying you should do otherwise. Just that your test contains many methodological errors. Double Blind tests, do not depend on belief, they are based on science. Oddly, you seem to like the benefits of science, namely your audio system, yet scoff at similar methods to ascertain whether or not something can be proven true or untrue. I have no position on cables whatsoever, hence no agenda. I could care less if your cables sound better or not. But I am interested in whether or not there is some demonstrable difference that does not depend on religiosity or belief. I think it was the Buddha that once prattled that there is no greater bondage than beliefs.... once held they must be defended. People generally do not take science personally (well except this neurology professor I had once, but on the other hand, people take beliefs *very* personally. Attacks to one's beliefs are often perceived as an attack on oneself and must be defended.

Neither here nor there, I suppose.


your question, that you wanted me to answer was:
What bias would four people have who could care less what my, or any audio system for that matter sounds like, have? They are the PERFECT test subjects! They know nothing about home audio what so ever, or do they want to!"


Somewhat less than perfect I am afraid. First, what they know, or do not know of audio is irrelevant. What they know of you, their desire to please you, their familiarity with you, their familiarity and reading of your non-verbal cues, all play a factor in their reaction to your "test" and hence any data gleaned is not material. If an independent, non-involved, unknown third party was to administer it, separately to each individual, then it might clean some of the confounding variables here up. But as you wrote above, you are not interested in that as you said something about studies not being worth the paper that they are printed on. So my quesiton is, do you want to know the truth one way or another, or simply have something that validates your beliefs?

And I think you misunderstand the concept of bias in research. The confounding variable is not so much that they have any bias what any audio system has (although it could) but the bias that *YOU* as the experimenter clearly have and how that effects their responces.


You shared:
" Take my wife for an example; all my she cares about is that my system plays loud, which it can. Other than that she give give a crap about it. Trust me, my four friends could care less, as well! As I wrote, two of the use "Boom Boxes." The other two hardly ever listen to music. They use their cheap "Home Theaters in a Box" for watching movies!"

What was that old Rodney Dangerfield Joke..... "take my wife... please".... Sorry...

And goodness me, the bohemians using HTIB's!!!!



you asked:
" Why don't you try a more rigouris scientific study and let me know how it turns out! I will admitt, mine was simple, but I believe effective."

Hmmmm conducting a more rigorous scientific study. Well I suppose I could get a government grant. Of course you are more likely to get a government grant these days when your research includes studies of sex. Perhaps I can include the two somehow.... Hmmmm I need a catchy study name for this to get the grant committee's attention.... How about "The effects of orgasmic pleasure rates from improved audio performance from enhanced interconnects". Or "Improved Sexual Pleasure Derived from Increased Audio enhancement derived from increased wire efficiency". I'll work on it and get back to you.


you shared:
" Let me point one thing out to you. In all the testing I have done; I have found that many interconnects do in fact sound the same. If there is a difference, it is such as small one, that I do not consider it a difference at all. However, some interconnects did in fact make a noticeable difference in the sound of MY system. Would they make a difference to the sound of everyones system; I think not! This is why, for people who are willing to entertain the possibilty that interconnects might in fact change the sound of their system, they must experiment!"


Excellent, truly excellent. That is at the crux of this. If you find that it makes a difference in *your* system, isn't that what matters, at least to you? And who says that you should not do so? Certainly not I. Isn't that what playing this audio game is about? Screwing around with this stuff and getting it closer and closer to some approximation of what you perceive to be perfect within the limitations of your equiptment? Like any good addiction the rush of getting the next fix of audio stuff is very great. Enjoy it, hahaha, I certainly do, and nothing to get so serious about. If the better wires get you the next fix, then enjoy! And in this context, who cares if there is evidence that it is better, it is simply part of the audio game.



you wrote:
" See, I have always been a person who like to hear and see things for myself. I could care less what some DBT, performed by others, says, or what some scientist found out about a particular subject withtheir tests. If I could do some kind testing myself, that I feel is accurate, well then, I do it! Do you think I care if you or anyone else find it valid? Hell NO! It is my system and my money, not yours or theirs. You spend your as you see fit, and I will spend mine as I see fit!"


Who is saying you should not spend your money as you see fit? Certainly not I. I just don't want to be one of the "suckers born every minute" as P.T. Barnum used to say (unless of course you are a new ager and then it would be a sucker *reborn* every minute).

And again, your study is crucially flawed. Nothing personal... or as Tony Soprano was known to say, "Nothing personal, strictly business".

And again you seem to be stating (correct me If i misunderstand) that your beliefs regarding wire superiority are such that you do not care if careful scientific evidence proved evidence to the contrary. That is the nature of belief and that is fine as well, as long as you understand that you are acting from a belief, not from any science......

An interesting thing I read the other day.... That "Maori tribesman believed there was a man on the moon." The scientists at NASA and JPL developed research that put a man on the moon. One is a belief, the other a series of scientific studies, research and practices. Which you feel has more validity to you, is entirely up to you.

Hope that answered your questions.

Take gentle care. And try not to take all this so seriously. It is supposed to be fun.

[CyberStoic]

I am not aware of any study using blinded testing for audile differences in cables that was done with a scientific sample of listeners. You could obtain a sample if you knew what population you wanted the sample to represent, but I don't think any of the cable studies have gone that far.

Now that is truly interesting. It might be interesting to have a group of self-proclaimed audiophiles in one group and see if there was statistical differences between groups of HTIB users, and those that like BOSE wave radios. Or something. Just typing/thinking out loud, sorry. But really, you are on to something here, getting a representative sample.

Thanks for the thought. On another note entirely, there is the HBO special "Real Sex" coming on the tv right now about Enhancing Woman's Orgasms. Perhaps I can watch and see if the show sounds better with better interconnects and wires, purely as part of my research, of course. I'll report back on this.

Take gentle care

[mtrycraft]

In the cable debate, I contend that this issue has not been addressed because potential confounding variables have not been controlled. Many would agree that there are many variables (quality and type of speaker, room acoustics, and quality of cd recording to name a few) that can affect sound quality and vary from system to system.


Sound quality yes, but does it affect the ability to deliver the small differences to be differentiated? We are interested in small audible differences, not sound quality although the differences are translated into sound quality. If there is no detectable difference, sound quality difference cannot happen. Dr Floyd Toole is after sound quality in speakers. :)

Tom Nousaine did such a test, certainly not peer reviewed as no one is interested in that, and found nothing. Same speakers and room, different setups, DBT.
If you controlled for these variables, you would in essencce need to test all combinations. You think that is reasonable?





I suggest that these variables may partially explain why some people find differences and other do not, but in reality we don’t know since the variables have not been controlled.

No, I disagree if you are suggesting that any of the reports by audiophiles have some merit. Rarely are they done bias controlled and the ones that claim to are as the lead thread. That by itself negates everything. Perception is unreliabel for finding facts without proper controls.



An interesting study to conduct would be to include the internal controls and statistical analysis you suggested. To address the external validity and control for known variables that correlate to sound quality, we could also include different male and female test participants of difference ages and with different hearing acuity. The participants could then listen to different cables in different rooms with different systems. I posit that this may offer more scientifically rigorous evidence to the cable debate than only examining DBT and statistical analysis. As some have suggested, however, this would be expensive and there does not appear to be an impetus to conduct this research.

Yes, this would be an interesting undertaking. But seeing that the commercial published DBTs are on different systems, , not many/any females, but interested audiophiles to whom this is of interest, not a general population, I think this has been explored to some extent but not as rigorous as you or we would like. At least this can give some indications what is going on or not.

[mtrycraft]

Thanks for the thought. On another note entirely, there is the HBO special "Real Sex" coming on the tv right now about Enhancing Woman's Orgasms. Perhaps I can watch and see if the show sounds better with better interconnects and wires, purely as part of my research, of course. I'll report back on this.

Take gentle care

You need better video cables, really. You might see something more :D

[mtrycraft]

The few blinded studies that have been done on "comparable" cables have their flaws, but to my knowlrdge no listeners so far have proved the hypothesis in such studies. This has been enough evidence for some to conclude there are no audible differences in cables. I am among those who don't find such evidence convincing.

You are right about decent studies being expensive. I doubt we will be seeing many on cables.


Interesting you make no mention of the flaws when people report audible differences? Or, did I miss those posts?

[mtrycraft]

I asked then if they could hear any kind of a difference. Thay all said they could; as could I.


Why should anyone accept what you claimed? You didn't even do a simple statistical trial and analysis.

[mtrycraft]

First of all, I think DBT are worth about as much as the paper that they are written on!

That is your first mistake, disregarding the scientific method. Then, it is only a religion to you, nothing more.


I believe in my test-

Mistake number two. You are not interested in knowing if your method has flaws or not.
As is, you have no idea one way or another.

I call the instant switch test- as much more reliable.

It certainly is. Who claimed otherwise? Only some other misguided audiophiles.

If you, like so many like the DBT, great, more power to you.

Is someone being hostile here?

What bias would four people have who could care less what my, or any audio system for that matter sounds like, have?

What is this, mistake number 3? We have at least two people here who are professionals in th efield of human psychology and bias and you still write this?


They are the PERFECT test subjects!

No one knows this yet. We don't even know if they can hear well or poorly, know what to listen for or not, and on it goes. You just assumed they would be.

They know nothing about home audio what so ever, or do they want to! Take my wife for an example; all my she cares about is that my system plays loud, which it can. Other than that she give give a crap about it. Trust me, my four friends could care less, as well! As I wrote, two of the use "Boom Boxes." The other two hardly ever listen to music. They use their cheap "Home Theaters in a Box" for watching movies!

How can we trust you. You dislike the scientific methods, being questioned about your protocol, etc.

Why don't you try a more rigouris scientific study and let me know how it turns out!

Will you really accept its findings? You may have to change your belief system in cables. Can you do that?

I will admitt, mine was simple, but I believe effective.

Well, it was indeed effective. It convinced you. Does John Edwards or Sylvia Brown convince you? David Copperfield?


In all the testing I have done; I have found that many interconnects do in fact sound the same. If there is a difference, it is such as small one, that I do not consider it a difference at all. However, some interconnects did in fact make a noticeable difference in the sound of MY system.


Well, as I pointed out above, you could be right if you are using a passive preamp whose output impedance is variable with the volume control. So, that is not the fault of the cable but the broken preamp. This doesn't mean you cannot enjoy it; don't get me wrong. People do like SET amps too.




[

[mtrycraft]

I think it was the Buddha that once prattled that there is no greater bondage than beliefs.... once held they must be defended.

If he did, then he knew that he is placing his follower in bondage?



Hmmmm I need a catchy study name for this to get the grant committee's attention.... How about "The effects of orgasmic pleasure rates from improved audio performance from enhanced interconnects". Or "Improved Sexual Pleasure Derived from Increased Audio enhancement derived from increased wire efficiency". I'll work on it and get back to you.

Don't count on that grant.
Ashcroft is cracking down on sex. Not appropriate for a consrvative government.
:D

[Thomas_A]

I hope I did not give the impression that I thought others on this board can not discuss science since that was not my intent. With all due respect, I have to disagree with your assertion that all that is required to answer the cable debate is DBT and knowledge of statistics (binomial and correcting for small sample sizes). Both of those issues are important, however, the external validity of experiments is also an important issue that has to be addressed in psychology and in the cable debate since we are dealing with perceived differences. In your field this may not be a significant issue as I understand that natural and social sciences sometimes have different methodology issues to confront.

To illustrate my concern about external validity, suppose I were to design a study to examine the efficacy of a treatment for aggression in first grade children, but I limited the study to only boys, which has often occurred. Further suppose that I designed an internally valid study with solid statistical analysis and found that the treatment did not work. I could conclude that the results suggest that my treatment may not be an appropriate treatment for first grade boys. However, these results may not extrapolate to first grade girls. Gender could be a confounding variable since there is a rich literature that has found significant differences in aggression in elementary school boys and girls. Thus, the experiment may have a low external validity since it did not control for gender despite the solid statistical analysis and strong internal validity.

In the cable debate, I contend that this issue has not been addressed because potential confounding variables have not been controlled. Many would agree that there are many variables (quality and type of speaker, room acoustics, and quality of cd recording to name a few) that can affect sound quality and vary from system to system. I suggest that these variables may partially explain why some people find differences and other do not, but in reality we don’t know since the variables have not been controlled. An interesting study to conduct would be to include the internal controls and statistical analysis you suggested. To address the external validity and control for known variables that correlate to sound quality, we could also include different male and female test participants of difference ages and with different hearing acuity. The participants could then listen to different cables in different rooms with different systems. I posit that this may offer more scientifically rigorous evidence to the cable debate than only examining DBT and statistical analysis. As some have suggested, however, this would be expensive and there does not appear to be an impetus to conduct this research.

ROJ,

I can assure you that confounders are thought of in medical science, in e.g. case-controlled studies where patients are matched as close as possible.

But I agree with you that controlled environment is needed. Many "home-made" studies cannot be extrapolated to studies made in a controlled environment. Since I have been participating in DBTs of audio compoments in what I think is the finest audio system in the world, "Studio Blue" in Stockholm, I can agree that certain effects that is percieved can never be percieved in most home equipments. E.g. roll-offs in the low bass (around 10 Hz) can be percieved as differences in vibration in the body, a phenomenon that has been shown (not peer-reviewed) to vary between individuals. Some people are more sensitive to low-frequency vibrations, and may feel e.g. nausea. The studies have also indicated that females are more sensitive to low frequency sound.

Now with respect to cables, there have been controlled blind and double-blind tests of cables in this studio, all with negative outcome. I can also say that most reported cases of audible difference have not been blinded, and if they have, the statistical issue or level-matching has not been adressed.

T

[ROJ]

[QUOTE=mtrycraft][
"Sound quality yes, but does it affect the ability to deliver the small differences to be differentiated? We are interested in small audible differences, not sound quality although the differences are translated into sound quality. If there is no detectable difference, sound quality difference cannot happen. Dr Floyd Toole is after sound quality in speakers. :)

Tom Nousaine did such a test, certainly not peer reviewed as no one is interested in that, and found nothing. Same speakers and room, different setups, DBT.
If you controlled for these variables, you would in essencce need to test all combinations. You think that is reasonable?"

I don't think that it is reasonable to control for all potential confounding variables in the cable debate. My main point is that it is important to acknowledge that it is a neglected issue in the cable debate and steps should be taken to address this issue before definitive statements can be made, for either side of the debate. In order to do this, as many potential confounding variables should be controlled, appropriate statistical analysis should be conducted (some types of analysis attempt to mitigate the impact of confounds), and an appropriate research methodology should be designed (again, some research designs can help minimize confounds).

The problem of confounds exists in much of the psychology literature. As the research and statistical methodology improved, confounds were increasingly controlled and the research literature benefited. Back to my example of aggression in elementary school children, many studies today include girls in the studies as research suggests that girls can sometimes be as aggression as boys, but in different ways. Previously most of the research only focused on boys because they were the most visibly disruptive. The research is stronger now as studies are controlling for gender. I suggest that we need not be able to control for all confounds in the cable debate for it to be a worthwhile endeavor. Any attempts to control for confounds would be beneficial and take the debate closer to answering the question.



"No, I disagree if you are suggesting that any of the reports by audiophiles have some merit. Rarely are they done bias controlled and the ones that claim to are as the lead thread. That by itself negates everything. Perception is unreliabel for finding facts without proper controls."

This is when I wish there were a peer reviewed literature to examine. I have no reason to doubt your assertion that most people who have found differences did not use DBT. However, I have frequented other forums in which posters claimed to have conducted DBT and found differences. Similarly, I don’t have a research foundation to doubt their claims either. This brings me back to the fundamental problem that the debate seems to be relying on anecdotal evidence and experimentation with methodological shortcomings (not addressing external validity in addition to those to do not address internal validity). My point is that in the current situation we can not rule out the possibility that confounding variables explain why some found differences and other did not.

I suppose that one could conduct an exhaustive search to locate all reports of those who have conduct DBT and examine the results. Such a review, however, can not answer the question. We could only say that given the current state of the methodology and its shortcoming the results suggest that there is/is not a difference in cables. Then we would need to advance the research by addressing the external validity issues and potential confounds to see if the findings persist. An empirical examination of the cable debate appears to be in its infancy, but some of the rhetoric appears to suggest that the research process is completed.

-ROJ

[ROJ]

I can assure you that confounders are thought of in medical science, in e.g. case-controlled studies where patients are matched as close as possible.

But I agree with you that controlled environment is needed. Many "home-made" studies cannot be extrapolated to studies made in a controlled environment. Since I have been participating in DBTs of audio compoments in what I think is the finest audio system in the world, "Studio Blue" in Stockholm, I can agree that certain effects that is percieved can never be percieved in most home equipments. E.g. roll-offs in the low bass (around 10 Hz) can be percieved as differences in vibration in the body, a phenomenon that has been shown (not peer-reviewed) to vary between individuals. Some people are more sensitive to low-frequency vibrations, and may feel e.g. nausea. The studies have also indicated that females are more sensitive to low frequency sound.

Now with respect to cables, there have been controlled blind and double-blind tests of cables in this studio, all with negative outcome. I can also say that most reported cases of audible difference have not been blinded, and if they have, the statistical issue or level-matching has not been adressed.

T

I am familiar with some of the medical literature and know that attempts are made to control for confounding variables. It seems, however, that some methodological issues may differ by discipline, e.g., the methodological concerns of physicists may differ from developmental psychologist. I was not sure if confounding variables were a signficant issue in your current research (they can be difficult in psychology).

10 Hz? Now this would be interesting experiments to conduct. I can't imagine how 10 Hz would sound and feel.

I wish you the best of luck in your medical and audio research.

-ROJ

[rb122]

I think it was the Buddha that once prattled that there is no greater bondage than beliefs.... once held they must be defended.

If he did, then he knew that he is placing his follower in bondage?



ROTFL! Yes, he must have! I wonder how many of them caught the gist of this little piece of philosophy! :D

[CyberStoic]

I think it was the Buddha that once prattled that there is no greater bondage than beliefs.... once held they must be defended.

If he did, then he knew that he is placing his follower in bondage?




:) As I recall, he sought to teach people to remove all beliefs and attachments so that they could see the truth free of their conditionings. The point was that they remove beliefs, because when people hold beliefs they often demand that themselves, others and the world be other than they are, the cause of their suffering. Or so it would seem.

In any case, since his whole premise is that people place themselves in bondage, one might say that they have placed themselves in bondage, hahahahaha, but now I run the risk of offending 850,000,000 buddhists. Lucky their into that non-attachment thingy and don't blow up buildings when angry, so I am probably ok. But then I am no expert in buddhism. Although this is way way way off topic, a good book on the subject is Steve Hagan's "Buddhism Plain and Simple". But perhaps another story for another post.

Well, speaking of wire (see I am back on topic) I am off to go rewire the wire going to my surrounds. When I originally put them in, I had to wire the back right run (which is about 60 feet as it has to go around 3/4 of the room to get there) and only had 16 guage available. I ended up running two lengths of 16 guage and twisting the ends together making it something like 13 guage or so. It sounded fine but my wife, whose tolerance for all this is pretty low, found the two wires messy and visually unappealing. So I have some 12 guage now and am going to remove the baseboard trim and hide them. Hopefully this will pass muster. Wish me luck

[pctower]

:) As I recall, he sought to teach people to remove all beliefs and attachments so that they could see the truth free of their conditionings. The point was that they remove beliefs, because when people hold beliefs they often demand that themselves, others and the world be other than they are, the cause of their suffering. Or so it would seem.

In any case, since his whole premise is that people place themselves in bondage, one might say that they have placed themselves in bondage, hahahahaha, but now I run the risk of offending 850,000,000 buddhists. Lucky their into that non-attachment thingy and don't blow up buildings when angry, so I am probably ok. But then I am no expert in buddhism. Although this is way way way off topic, a good book on the subject is Steve Hagan's "Buddhism Plain and Simple". But perhaps another story for another post.

Well, speaking of wire (see I am back on topic) I am off to go rewire the wire going to my surrounds. When I originally put them in, I had to wire the back right run (which is about 60 feet as it has to go around 3/4 of the room to get there) and only had 16 guage available. I ended up running two lengths of 16 guage and twisting the ends together making it something like 13 guage or so. It sounded fine but my wife, whose tolerance for all this is pretty low, found the two wires messy and visually unappealing. So I have some 12 guage now and am going to remove the baseboard trim and hide them. Hopefully this will pass muster. Wish me luck

Virtually every major world religion has contorted and subverted the message of its founder beyond recognition. Why should Buddhism be any different?

[pctower]

First of all, I think DBT are worth about as much as the paper that they are written on!

That is your first mistake, disregarding the scientific method. Then, it is only a religion to you, nothing more.

I believe in my test-

Mistake number two. You are not interested in knowing if your method has flaws or not.
As is, you have no idea one way or another.

I call the instant switch test- as much more reliable.

It certainly is. Who claimed otherwise? Only some other misguided audiophiles.

If you, like so many like the DBT, great, more power to you.

Is someone being hostile here?

What bias would four people have who could care less what my, or any audio system for that matter sounds like, have?

What is this, mistake number 3? We have at least two people here who are professionals in th efield of human psychology and bias and you still write this?

They are the PERFECT test subjects!

No one knows this yet. We don't even know if they can hear well or poorly, know what to listen for or not, and on it goes. You just assumed they would be.

They know nothing about home audio what so ever, or do they want to! Take my wife for an example; all my she cares about is that my system plays loud, which it can. Other than that she give give a crap about it. Trust me, my four friends could care less, as well! As I wrote, two of the use "Boom Boxes." The other two hardly ever listen to music. They use their cheap "Home Theaters in a Box" for watching movies!

How can we trust you. You dislike the scientific methods, being questioned about your protocol, etc.

Why don't you try a more rigouris scientific study and let me know how it turns out!

Will you really accept its findings? You may have to change your belief system in cables. Can you do that?

I will admitt, mine was simple, but I believe effective.

Well, it was indeed effective. It convinced you. Does John Edwards or Sylvia Brown convince you? David Copperfield?


In all the testing I have done; I have found that many interconnects do in fact sound the same. If there is a difference, it is such as small one, that I do not consider it a difference at all. However, some interconnects did in fact make a noticeable difference in the sound of MY system.

Well, as I pointed out above, you could be right if you are using a passive preamp whose output impedance is variable with the volume control. So, that is not the fault of the cable but the broken preamp. This doesn't mean you cannot enjoy it; don't get me wrong. People do like SET amps too.

[

Mtrycrafts would never dream of subjecting a test which produces a null result to this degree of scrutiny. In fact, he readily accepts all such null result tests at face value, because they produce a result that is consistent with his rigid dogma.

There are certainly problems from a scientific standpoint with your test. Yet, as I mentioned earlier, you did exactly what the regulars here constantly tell us to do - you conducted a simple at home test. They just don't like the fact that you produced results at variance with their own unconditional biases.

Welcome to the world of pseudo-science and pseudo-scientists - "objectivist" style.

[bturk667]

On the test was fun and it proves to me that some people can in fact hear differences between cables, period!
Have a great day!

[FLZapped]

10 Hz? Now this would be interesting experiments to conduct. I can't imagine how 10 Hz would sound and feel.

-ROJ

Ask an elephant.

-Bruce
:D

[bturk667]

First off I never read what Mtrycrafts posts. Why would I, he has nothing worth reading. It is always the same old BLAH BLAH BLAH! I suggest you not pay attention to him. However the choice is yours.

I knew my test could have been more thorough. However, no matter how thorough the close minded naysayers still would have found fault. But hey, I believe my test was a fairly accurate one. At least in real world terms: A test that we all can conduct to enlighten us, just a little, on a number of subjects, one of which are cables.

My intention was never to make up the minds of others. We all have to do that ourselves. MY montra: Let your ears decide!

Have you ever noticed that if a person does a test that has almost no or little scientific merit, but comes to the conclusion that they agree with, they never knock it ? Of course not. For they can not possibly do this! If I had stated that none of the people in my test heard a difference they would not have knocked my test very much, if at all! Why should they, it helps their view.

This is why I give what ever they write with as much merit that I give a DBT, which is not much!
Have a fantastic day!

[Thomas_A]

ROJ,

10 Hz is not audible, but there is some very funny feelings in the gut when playing 5-15 hz at high SPL. :)

T

[Audie Oghaisle]

ROJ,

10 Hz is not audible, but there is some very funny feelings in the gut when playing 5-15 hz at high SPL. :)

T

it can be used as a weapon...

Audie

[okiemax]

Interesting you make no mention of the flaws when people report audible differences? Or, did I miss those posts?

Here is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[DMK]

First off I never read what Mtrycrafts posts. Why would I, he has nothing worth reading. It is always the same old BLAH BLAH BLAH! I suggest you not pay attention to him. However the choice is yours.

I knew my test could have been more thorough. However, no matter how thorough the close minded naysayers still would have found fault. But hey, I believe my test was a fairly accurate one. At least in real world terms: A test that we all can conduct to enlighten us, just a little, on a number of subjects, one of which are cables.

My intention was never to make up the minds of others. We all have to do that ourselves. MY montra: Let your ears decide!

Have you ever noticed that if a person does a test that has almost no or little scientific merit, but comes to the conclusion that they agree with, they never knock it ? Of course not. For they can not possibly do this! If I had stated that none of the people in my test heard a difference they would not have knocked my test very much, if at all! Why should they, it helps their view.

This is why I give what ever they write with as much merit that I give a DBT, which is not much!
Have a fantastic day!

My experiences with cable testing turned out decidedly different but who am I to argue if you and your friends heard the difference? Enjoy your cables, say I! Whatever gets you closer to the real thing. And I wholeheartedly agree with "let your ears decide". As I've said many times, measured accuracy has proven to me something horrible to behold and not even within shouting distance of sonic accuracy.

[mtrycraft]

Mtrycrafts would never dream of subjecting a test which produces a null result to this degree of scrutiny. In fact, he readily accepts all such null result tests at face value, because they produce a result that is consistent with his rigid dogma.

There are certainly problems from a scientific standpoint with your test. Yet, as I mentioned earlier, you did exactly what the regulars here constantly tell us to do - you conducted a simple at home test. They just don't like the fact that you produced results at variance with their own unconditional biases.

Welcome to the world of pseudo-science and pseudo-scientists - "objectivist" style.

His testing was rather too simple. How is it reliable to a degree that it can be?

What is there to scrutinize on a null? What evidence dictates that it may not be a null? I don't think you have any such evidence, right? So, nulls just correspond the the lousy citations at hand. But you knew all this, just testing us.

[mtrycraft]

First off I never read what Mtrycrafts posts.

How intelligent.

Why would I, he has nothing worth reading.

that is your mistake n, you fail to know and dismiss anything that does not support your faith.

It is always the same old BLAH BLAH BLAH!

Well, when thwere is something new discovered, cutting edge research at hand, I will try to post it. But, what good will that do based on your post here. The one who needs to read it most will not.

I suggest you not pay attention to him.

Ah, is is a bit smarter than you to do that.

But hey, I believe my test was a fairly accurate one. At least in real world terms:


Hardly.

MY montra: Let your ears decide!

Hey, we agree. You failed in your own mantra though. Other distractions interfered and you didn't let your ears decide.

[mtrycraft]

[QUOTE=CyberStoic So I have some 12 guage now and am going to remove the baseboard trim and hide them. Hopefully this will pass muster. Wish me luck[/QUOTE]

Good luck :)

Too late to put trim around the two existing pairs?

[pctower]

His testing was rather too simple. How is it reliable to a degree that it can be?

What is there to scrutinize on a null? What evidence dictates that it may not be a null? I don't think you have any such evidence, right? So, nulls just correspond the the lousy citations at hand. But you knew all this, just testing us.

His testing was rather too simple. How is it reliable to a degree that it can be?


Please show me where I claimed his test was reliable. It's no more reliable than the amateur tests on which you base your unqualified pronouncements and advice to newcomers.

What evidence dictates that it may not be a null? I don't think you have any such evidence, right?

I never claimed to have such evidence, nor did I say anything where that would even be an issue. We're talking about protocol. Apparently you don't know the difference.

What is there to scrutinize on a null?

This question really says it all. What there is to criticize is the protocol for the test that produced that result - something that would never occur to you because the null satisfies your particular dogmatic view of the world.

Have you been feeling ok? You've really started to slip lately and allow your bias to hang out all over the place.

[bturk667]

When you did your testing; how many cables from different manufacturers did you use during the testing?
Did you use cables comprised of different materials? Example: Copper vs. Silver.

[CyberStoic]

Good luck :)

Too late to put trim around the two existing pairs?


I am glad I saw this as I scanned the site this morning. An excellent suggestion, thank you. I stopped next door and asked my neighbour the retired carpenter how he would hide them. He had some oak stock and we cut slightly larger that normal 1/4 rounds with a routed groove in the back for the wire to fit in. The groove is large enough that I could pull the wire out if I ever needed to rewire it. This saved me a substantial amount of work removing the existing trim and the 1/4 round gave the whole thing a more finished appearance that the wife liked even better.

And I suppose the best part, she asks, "where did all that wire go?" hahahahaha

Thanks much!
Take gentle care

[DMK]

When you did your testing; how many cables from different manufacturers did you use during the testing?
Did you use cables comprised of different materials? Example: Copper vs. Silver.

I put the protocol and the results on my computer and the dang thing crashed so my test is lost for good unless someone I sent a copy to still has it. I sent about 15 copies to people on this board but that was years ago and I think Mtry may be the only one left. Not much to read, though - null result except for one that proved defective.

I think I used 8 cables and the ones I remember are:

Cheapo zip cord from Radio Shack
DH Labs silver - their least expensive, $90 I think
Straight Wire Virtuoso - the broken one
Tara Labs Prism 22

Gad, that's all I remember but I think my old Monster M1000 Mk II was in there, one I still use. And an Audioquest but I can't recall which one - may have been the Ruby. I tested all against each other in something like 12 trials each. It was rigorous and time consuming, not to mention boring as hell. The possible conclusions were many, one being that there were no discernible diffs in cables. I do recall even missing the defective one in one trial. Weird. It was painfully obvious in all the others. I think the most expensive interconnect was $250/meter, certainly not even approaching an exhaustive test. But it was good enough to convince me to get out of the cable wars, although not immediately which I find odd in retrospect.

Bottom line is, my experience isn't your experience and shouldn't be. If your cables bring you an improvement, real or perceived, more power to you. Far be it from me to argue and attempt to deprive you of listening pleasure.

[mtrycraft]

I looked through my files as best I could. Changed a few computers since. Don't have it anymore.
But as I remember you had a variety of the stuff.

[mtrycraft]

I am glad I saw this as I scanned the site this morning. An excellent suggestion, thank you. I stopped next door and asked my neighbour the retired carpenter how he would hide them. He had some oak stock and we cut slightly larger that normal 1/4 rounds with a routed groove in the back for the wire to fit in. The groove is large enough that I could pull the wire out if I ever needed to rewire it. This saved me a substantial amount of work removing the existing trim and the 1/4 round gave the whole thing a more finished appearance that the wife liked even better.

And I suppose the best part, she asks, "where did all that wire go?" hahahahaha

Thanks much!
Take gentle care


Great :) And if it works, not silence, the wire wasn't hit with a nail :D

[brigrizzme]

It's all poop. Go to Lowes or Home Depot and buy new wires.

[brigrizzme]

Read John Dunvaly's article on wires.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's all poop. Go to Lowes or Home Depot and buy new wires.

[bturk667]

Did he or did he not offer cables?

[okiemax]

Read John Dunvaly's article on wires.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's all poop. Go to Lowes or Home Depot and buy new wires.


I'm not sure which article you have in mind. I believe there were experiments where subjects were asked to listen to (1)a zip cord, and (2)a zip cord disguised as a fancy cable. Although the subjects didn't know the latter was just a zip cord, they thought it sounded better.

I don't know the details of these experiments, but I have reservations about drawing conclusions from the testing if what happened is similar to what I fear may have happened. Consider the following possibility of a conversation between a researcher and a subject.

Researcher: "I would like for you to listen to recorded music using this small cord and this large cable, and tell me which you think sounds best, if you prefer one."

Subject: Agrees to do the test, but thinks to himself "He probably wants me to choose the large cable because he already knows it sounds best."

Researcher: "Now that you have completed the experiment, which one did you think sounds best?"

Subject:"I liked the large cable better than the small cord."

Researcher: " Why did you like it better?"

Subject: "There was more detail, the bass went lower, and the soundstage seemed wider and deeper."

Researcher: "Thank you for participating." The researcher never tells the subject that both the small cords and the large cables are the same.


If an experiment was like this example, what conclusions could be made?

[mtrycraft]

I'm not sure which article you have in mind. I believe there were experiments where subjects were asked to listen to (1)a zip cord, and (2)a zip cord disguised as a fancy cable. Although the subjects didn't know the latter was just a zip cord, they thought it sounded better.

I don't know the details of these experiments, but I have reservations about drawing conclusions from the testing if what happened is similar to what I fear may have happened. Consider the following possibility of a conversation between a researcher and a subject.

Researcher: "I would like for you to listen to recorded music using this small cord and this large cable, and tell me which you think sounds best, if you prefer one."

Subject: Agrees to do the test, but thinks to himself "He probably wants me to choose the large cable because he already knows it sounds best."

Researcher: "Now that you have completed the experiment, which one did you think sounds best?"

Subject:"I liked the large cable better than the small cord."

Researcher: " Why did you like it better?"

Subject: "There was more detail, the bass went lower, and the soundstage seemed wider and deeper."

Researcher: "Thank you for participating." The researcher never tells the subject that both the small cords and the large cables are the same.


If an experiment was like this example, what conclusions could be made?

That is simple. It shows how biased humans are, that experimentally, as has been demonstrated time and time again, people will claim to detect a difference 75% rate when in fact the same component was presented over and over.
This is exactely why DBT listening is conducted. While some will say foul, this is a legitimate test method.

John Dunlavy has also tested his cable to the 12 ga zip with null results.

[okiemax]

That is simple. It shows how biased humans are, that experimentally, as has been demonstrated time and time again, people will claim to detect a difference 75% rate when in fact the same component was presented over and over.
This is exactely why DBT listening is conducted. While some will say foul, this is a legitimate test method.

John Dunlavy has also tested his cable to the 12 ga zip with null results.

WRONG! Whatever was used to cover the zip cord to make it look bigger also made it sound better.

Seriously, the test may have its own bias. It could be the participant is just doing what he thinks he is supposed to do in choosing the big cable as sounding best rather than the small one. After all, isn't bigger supposed to be better? And wasn't the participant asked to make a decision? It also could be the participant feels the researcher prefers the big cable, and he wants to agree with the researcher or please him.

Wife buys a dozen brownies at bakery and serves them to husband on two plates. "Honey, the brownies on this plate I made myself, and those on the other plate are from the bakery. Which do you prefer? Husband tries each, and then remarks "Oh, yours are much better." Wife: Why do you like them better? Husband: "Well, they are richer and have more chocolate flavor."

[mtrycraft]

WRONG! Whatever was used to cover the zip cord to make it look bigger also made it sound better.

Seriously, the test may have its own bias. It could be the participant is just doing what he thinks he is supposed to do in choosing the big cable as sounding best rather than the small one. After all, isn't bigger supposed to be better? And wasn't the participant asked to make a decision? It also could be the participant feels the researcher prefers the big cable, and he wants to agree with the researcher or please him.

Wife buys a dozen brownies at bakery and serves them to husband on two plates. "Honey, the brownies on this plate I made myself, and those on the other plate are from the bakery. Which do you prefer? Husband tries each, and then remarks "Oh, yours are much better." Wife: Why do you like them better? Husband: "Well, they are richer and have more chocolate flavor."


Exactely, shows his bias, or is afraid to offend wife:) Same cookies, yet he claimed a difference for one, no matter that his wife claimed she made one. Yes, he is pleasing someone.
This would not happen in a DBT.

[okiemax]

Exactely, shows his bias, or is afraid to offend wife:) Same cookies, yet he claimed a difference for one, no matter that his wife claimed she made one. Yes, he is pleasing someone.
This would not happen in a DBT.

My subject was not blinded testing, but sighted testing comparing a zip cord and zip cord disguised as a fat cable. It was my understanding Dunlavey's test was similar. Given the nature of this kind of sighted testing, a participant's choice of the fat cable as the better sounding one, may be based on a desire to make a right choice or please the researcher, rather than on what he actually heard. Because these motives can be powerful, I would not conclude the choice was based just on the fat cable's looks.

[lumiere]

http://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/165/index.html

[bturk667]

Thanks!