Proof of placebo effect ?

[okiemax]

Naysayers argue there is no scientific basis for claims of audible differences in cables, and that listeners who make such claims are experiencing a placebo effect rather than hearing real differences. However, there may be no scientific basis for naysayer's claims about the placebo effect. Can anyone offer proof?

[Rockwell]

Naysayers argue there is no scientific basis for claims of audible differences in cables, and that listeners who make such claims are experiencing a placebo effect rather than hearing real differences. However, there may be no scientific basis for naysayer's claims about the placebo effect. Can anyone offer proof?\

Proof of the placebo effect? If they aren't hearing real differences, then what are they hearing? People haven't proven that they can hear differences between brands of cables, so one might assume that these percieved audible effects are the result of psychological factors. To some people this is very difficult to assume, and try to attribute this lack of proof to any number of other factors like testing methodolgy, hardware inadequecy, hearing, etc. Most scientific types, however, must assume that people can't hear differences between most cables until its demonstrated. That is the proof you should be focusing on.

Lets say that you devise a listenning test where you tell participants that fancy cable A will play first, and low-grade cable B will play next, and note what they are hearing. But, instead of switching you just leave the same cable in place. You will certainly get positive results from this test with few of the participants stating that the cables are the same. If this isn't "proof," I don't know what you would be willing to accept.


Why is it so difficult to accept the placebo effect? If you look a the overally accuracy of human perception, you will find that it is very easy to fool the senses and for people to fool themselves. Video and audio compression schemes are based heaviliy on fooling your ears and eyes. In some cases 90% of the information is removed, but you can hardly notice. Placebo in medicine can actually produce physical changes in people. Eyewitnesses notoriously inacurrate. People can actually convince themselves that something happened, when it really didn't(false memory syndrome). Your eyes have blindspots, but you don't see them because you brain fills in that missing information without you even knowing it. So, it's not that far fetched to me that people can hear all these different attributes in cables where none exist.

[DrJeff]

Naysayers argue there is no scientific basis for claims of audible differences in cables, and that listeners who make such claims are experiencing a placebo effect rather than hearing real differences. However, there may be no scientific basis for naysayer's claims about the placebo effect. Can anyone offer proof?

There is a huge volume of information available concerning the placebo effect, dating back to the 1950's (Beecher). A search of any medical or psychiatric database will cite numerous studies concerning the placebo effect, as used in medicine. Doctors employ placebo effect when they prescribe antibiotics to treat a cold or flu, which is a viral infection and therefore will not repond to antibiotics. Recently, there has been much debate about whether placebo effect really works in a medical setting. Holistic and mind-body healers say that 1/3 of those treated with a placebo respond to treatment, while some recent studies show a correllation that is much lower.

As an example, see: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/136/6/471

From the Annals of Internal Medicine, "Deconstructing the Placebo Effect and Finding the Meaning Response" by Daniel E. Moerman, PhD and Wayne B. Jonas, MD , 19 March 2002, Volume 136, Issue 6, Pages 471-476.

HOWEVER, "placebo effect" as it applies to audio is a bit of a misnomer. In placebo effect, a patient is given what he believes to be a treatment that will work, and if his condition improves, it is attributed to placebo, and is often cited as the mind's power to heal. There is no doubt that the mind plays a large role in the health of the body, although the direct placebo effect is hotly debated.

In audio, what is mistakenly called placebo effect is more appropriately described as a prejudice or predetermination of expected results. In anything but a DBT, you allow your preconceived notions, prejudices, and assumptions to cloud your judgement. If you expect a $1000 cable to sound better than a RatShack Gold, then it most likely will, WHEN YOU KNOW IT IS CONNECTED. Conversely, when you don't know which cable is connected and must decide which you like better, you are relying ONLY on your ears, and therefore your jujdgement is not biased. If there is truly an AUDIBLE difference in the quality of the sound due to the interconnect, and with all other factors being equal (system, db level, positioning, etc.) then you should be able to consistently identify the better-sounding interconnect.

As in any debate, the burden of proof that something exists lies with the person making the claim. In this case, you say, "prove the placebo effect exists" and I say to you there are many scientific studies that show it exists in a medical capacity, although the extent to which it exists is questionable. But I do not have to prove it exists because I am not asserting that it plays a role in your audio experience. What I am saying is that I question your ability to percieve audible differences in interconnects (as long as they are properly functioning) and so you must prove to me that you can, without knowing which one is connected when you are listening. I am not asking you to measure anything or use a scope, just listen.

In an audio setting, if you claim interconnect A sounds "better" than B, I will say to you, prove it. The only way you can do this is by telling me when it is connected on the basis of your auditory experience only. I hook them up, you listen, you tell me which sounds better, and do it 7 out of 10 times on average, and you have proven that there is an audible difference in the IC's, and that you can identify one as sounding "better" than the other (although your idea of better and mine might be different). Otherwise, any claims you make when you know it is connected are invalid.

[okiemax]

Rockwell, you are offering a theory as proof. It is an interesting theory, but we also might consider other theories, such as those that question the testing. I'm not a big fan of the placebo effect in general, believing that far too much is attributed to it both in medicine and audio.

[Swerd]

Thanks to the two replies above, I have little to add other than provide these weblinks:

http://www.tagmclaren.com/members/news/news77.asp

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/wishful_thinking.htm

Both describe listening tests where listeners blindly choose whether they hear a difference between two conditions. Are conditions A and B the same or different? Sometimes A and B were genuinely different and sometimes they were identical. The first link explains the statistics needed to analyze the results.

Both make the point that when the group of listeners get it right about 50% of the time, it is no different than if they had been guessing randomly. Both conclude that the listeners could not hear any difference between the conditions being tested.

There are those who claim that they do hear a difference with sighted listening tests, or when they listen over extended periods of time (days, weeks or longer) in their homes. The only reasonable explanation available, is that they THINK they hear a difference. This is the placebo effect at work.

Listening tests performed using valid scientific controls that eliminate, minimize, or account for conscious or unconscious listener bias cannot reproduce those positive results.

[Rockwell]

Rockwell, you are offering a theory as proof. It is an interesting theory, but we also might consider other theories, such as those that question the testing. I'm not a big fan of the placebo effect in general, believing that far too much is attributed to it both in medicine and audio.

I am not so sure that placebo effect really needs to be proven and I don't think I was trying to really offer proof either but, that example test seems pretty clear cut. If you change none of the variables except what wire you tell the listeners is connected, then whatever positive results are offered must be attributed to what the listener expects from the respective cable, not the sound. This would establish that the placebo effect is real and how easy it is to hear results when none exist. Do you agree?

[pctower]

Question:

In the Tag McLaren tests, two participants scored 11 out of 15 correct on the cable tests. As they point out, the binomial distribution indicates a 5.9% (about 1 in 17) probability of scoring 11 or better by chance.

Why would one not conclude that in all liklihood those two individuals heard true differences in the cables?

[DrJeff]

Question:

In the Tag McLaren tests, two participants scored 11 out of 15 correct on the cable tests. As they point out, the binomial distribution indicates a 5.9% (about 1 in 17) probability of scoring 11 or better by chance.

Why would one not conclude that in all liklihood those two individuals heard true differences in the cables?

You need to understand the science of statistics to understand this. Two people scored 11 out of 15, and there is a 1 in 17 probability they would do this by chance. Therefore, you might say that if there were only 34 people involved in the test, there would be 2 that would guess 11 of 15 correct. But there are only 12 people in this test, so shouldn't there have been only been 0.71 people scoring 11 of 15?

Look at it this way, if I give you a quarter and tell you to flip it 4 times, statistics would seem to dictate that you'll get 2 heads, and 2 tails. In reality though, you are *almost* just as likely to get heads 4 times or tails 2 times. But if I tell you to flip it 10,000 times, you will get alsmost the same number of heads and tails, because your sample group is much larger, and therefore more valid. The Tag McLaren test group is not large enough to be statistically valid.

You have to look at the distribution of the results with respect to statistical analysis. However, I would have taken these 2 people and repeated the test to see if they got similar results the second time around. Then I might attribute that to them being able to hear an audible difference. Otherwise, I wouold have to discount it as an anomoly due to the small number of subjects.

I would also question whether you could gain an accurate representative group from 12 people...

[Swerd]

I would also question whether you could gain an accurate representative group from 12 people...

As a follow-up to this point, clinical trials of new drugs are done in stages involving progressively larger numbers of patients. For example, if laboratory studies suggest that a new drug may work against leukemia, a so-called phase 2 clinical trial is done with a small number (20 to 30) of leukemia patients. If the trial has positive results, this number of patients is large enough only to provide statistical data that SUGGEST the drug may be active. No data from numbers of patients this low can demonstrate any positive result in a statistically significant manner.

With positive phase 2 results, several phase 3 trials would then be started involving many hundreds of patients, in order to generate statistical analysis with real power. It has happened more than once where a drug had some positive phase 2 results, and failed completely when the larger phase 3 trials were done.

To go back to the McLaren study, there was no statistical trend or suggestion in the data from 12 listeners that would warrant a larger study which could provide numbers large enough for definitive conclusions.

[skeptic]

People who have had extensive experience marketing audio equipment know that there are a lot of tricks that can be used to skew the psychology of the unsuspecting listener favorably or unfavorably.

In one famous example, audiophiles were asked to tweak a control on a new circuit that would reduce distortion. Most were very diligent and careful to get it just so. The control was of course wired to nothing.

In another, audiophiles were asked to rate a sound system playing behind an acoustically transparent but visibly opaque curtain. They were quite critical, some complaining of muddy bass and many other deficiencies. They were of course listening to live music.

There a lots of other examples of deliberate trickery but the Japanese experiment described here just a few months ago showed that even carefully designed impartial scientific tests can be flawed and give the wrong results.

That is why only a rigorous careful and extensive testing and retesting by qualified professional audiologists, psychologists, and electrical engineers subject to scrutiny and verification by their peers can facilitate the acquiring of real knowledge. Nobody in this industry has done this or admitted to it if they have to justify the cost of their expensive and sometimes outrageously priced products. Instead they rely on the psychology of expectations to convince their customers. And apparantly, in enough cases it works.

[Bill L]

Sure, there is such thing as placebo effect. That's where the name comes from. But to diagnose everyone who claims to hear the difference between cables as being afflicted, just to win an argument, is unsupported nonsense. I wonder how many could enter a strange room and correctly identify if it had been painted with the exact shade and hue of color as their own room at home, especially with unfamiliar lighting. Not many, I'll bet. But that's what ABX attempts to do with sound - with unfamiliar acoustics and gear. Say, have you ever tried to explain a noise in your cars engine to a mechanic? (Or better yet to your wife/girlfriend?) and they just can't hear it? But you do? Because you're familiar with the sounds of YOUR motor. That's not placebo. That's experience.

[pctower]

You need to understand the science of statistics to understand this. Two people scored 11 out of 15, and there is a 1 in 17 probability they would do this by chance. Therefore, you might say that if there were only 34 people involved in the test, there would be 2 that would guess 11 of 15 correct. But there are only 12 people in this test, so shouldn't there have been only been 0.71 people scoring 11 of 15?

Look at it this way, if I give you a quarter and tell you to flip it 4 times, statistics would seem to dictate that you'll get 2 heads, and 2 tails. In reality though, you are *almost* just as likely to get heads 4 times or tails 2 times. But if I tell you to flip it 10,000 times, you will get alsmost the same number of heads and tails, because your sample group is much larger, and therefore more valid. The Tag McLaren test group is not large enough to be statistically valid.

You have to look at the distribution of the results with respect to statistical analysis. However, I would have taken these 2 people and repeated the test to see if they got similar results the second time around. Then I might attribute that to them being able to hear an audible difference. Otherwise, I wouold have to discount it as an anomoly due to the small number of subjects.

I would also question whether you could gain an accurate representative group from 12 people...

Seems to me that by adopting the coin toss analogy to this situation you are assuming as a given that the hearing ability, training and experience of all the participants are equal.

I don't know statistics, but I know enough to recognize the difference.

As for medical trials with large number of participants and trials, they are attempting to determine the effectiveness of a particular medicine on a large enough segment of the populace as to justify its use. Whether it works or not (it either does or doesn't) on a single individual within the broad group is meaningless, as they are concerned with percentage of effectiveness as to the entire group. They have to do it this way, as they can never be sure that a test subject who received real medicine and appears to have been cured was cured as a result of the medicine or a result of the placebo effect. They can only compare the overall results of the non-placebo group with that of the placebo group

I submit that in audio DBTs you don't have that situation. If the test is conducted properly, the pacebo effect, or the power of suggestion, or the ABE's or whatever you want to call influences that are not actual audible differences, should all be controlled out of the test, with the only thing left to test being actual audible differences. If one person can identify correctly 11 out of 15 times, there's no possible chance that placebo or ABEs could be at work, again assuming the test is properly conducted, so his correct guesses either have to be the result of chance (a very low possibility) or due to actual sonic differences he was able to detect; whereas, as I said, if the medicine seems to work on a single individual there still is no way of determinining if it was due to placebo or the real thing. This is a significant difference between audio DBTs and medical DBTs.

In the McLaren test, it doesn't make sense to me that they would want to know how a large group in general would perform, as each person is different with different capabilities. Seems to me that the important question is whether there are people who hear and can detect under blind conditions actual differences. In this case, there apparently were two.

Let's approach it this way. Let's say that out of 100 test subjects, only two hit the 11 out of 15, and the overall correct results of the group was only 50%.
Seems to me that could be significant data to the cable company whose cables are under test. If the test had been set up so that the distribution of hearing, experience and training adequately represented the general population, then such results might suggest to them that only 2% of the population could hear actual differences. If they were intent on marketing their product only to people who could actually hear the differences (remember, this is just a hypothetical for purpose of illustration and I'm trying to anaolgize to the medical situation), then they would have to decide if manufacturing the product that had been tested would be worthwhile if it could only be marketed to 2% of the general population.

If a medical test with 100 subject (I know - the numbers used are far larger in actual use and that improves the dependability of the results significantly, but I'm trying to keep this as simple as I can) showed that the medicine only worked on 2% of the general population (by comparing the non-placebo group to the placebo group and extrapolating that percentage number - which is the way I assume they do it, which is much more involved that the simple audio DBT test where the placebo can be controlled out at to every test subject), the company and FDA would face the same general question as the cable company. However, their decision might be quite different than the cable company, because the cable company might well decide that they can identify and focus their advertising to that 2% sufficiently to make it worthwhile to market their products. I assume drug companies can do that, although I'll ask my daughter-in-law who is a rapidly rising star with one of the biggies.

[Norm Strong]

There is also a 5.9% chance that a person could be WRONG 11 out of 15 times. What would you say if that were the case? (For all I know it is the case. :-)

[RGA]

Thanks to the two replies above, I have little to add other than provide these weblinks:

http://www.tagmclaren.com/members/news/news77.asp

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/wishful_thinking.htm

Both describe listening tests where listeners blindly choose whether they hear a difference between two conditions. Are conditions A and B the same or different? Sometimes A and B were genuinely different and sometimes they were identical. The first link explains the statistics needed to analyze the results.

Both make the point that when the group of listeners get it right about 50% of the time, it is no different than if they had been guessing randomly. Both conclude that the listeners could not hear any difference between the conditions being tested.

There are those who claim that they do hear a difference with sighted listening tests, or when they listen over extended periods of time (days, weeks or longer) in their homes. The only reasonable explanation available, is that they THINK they hear a difference. This is the placebo effect at work.

Listening tests performed using valid scientific controls that eliminate, minimize, or account for conscious or unconscious listener bias cannot reproduce those positive results.

Just a note...your first link states that the listeners dd not have control of how long they listened which invalidates that entire link...scratch one. Didn'tbother to read link two after you provided link one.

Then you state that people claim to hear differences in their homes over long periods. Yes it is true that they may only THINK they hear that difference...until such time as their is a test to meet that claim of long term in the house differences then no one can assume that there isn't. The test itself introduces its own bias, but it takes awful smart folks to know what these are, and since I don't see them discussed here...then people need a refresher in Psychology 101. And BTW I don't support buying expensive cables because the money should have went to speakers room and better recordings.

[okiemax]

I am not so sure that placebo effect really needs to be proven and I don't think I was trying to really offer proof either but, that example test seems pretty clear cut. If you change none of the variables except what wire you tell the listeners is connected, then whatever positive results are offered must be attributed to what the listener expects from the respective cable, not the sound. This would establish that the placebo effect is real and how easy it is to hear results when none exist. Do you agree?

I don't know of a test where no variable except the two wires has changed, but suppose for the sake of argument you could do such a test, and the listener who previously claimed he could hear a difference could not do so in the test. The result would suggest the placebo effect is a possibility.

[DrJeff]

Seems to me that by adopting the coin toss analogy to this situation you are assuming as a given that the hearing ability, training and experience of all the participants are equal.

Perhaps so, but let's assume for the sake of your argument that we will use only those who describe themselves as "audiophiles" in our next hypothetical test.


I don't know statistics, but I know enough to recognize the difference.

As for medical trials with large number of participants and trials, they are attempting to determine the effectiveness of a particular medicine on a large enough segment of the populace as to justify its use. Whether it works or not (it either does or doesn't) on a single individual within the broad group is meaningless, as they are concerned with percentage of effectiveness as to the entire group. They have to do it this way, as they can never be sure that a test subject who received real medicine and appears to have been cured was cured as a result of the medicine or a result of the placebo effect. They can only compare the overall results of the non-placebo group with that of the placebo group.

I agree with that statement entirely.


I submit that in audio DBTs you don't have that situation. If the test is conducted properly, the pacebo effect, or the power of suggestion, or the ABE's or whatever you want to call influences that are not actual audible differences, should all be controlled out of the test, with the only thing left to test being actual audible differences. If one person can identify correctly 11 out of 15 times, there's no possible chance that placebo or ABEs could be at work, again assuming the test is properly conducted, so his correct guesses either have to be the result of chance (a very low possibility) or due to actual sonic differences he was able to detect; whereas, as I said, if the medicine seems to work on a single individual there still is no way of determinining if it was due to placebo or the real thing. This is a significant difference between audio DBTs and medical DBTs.

I agree that you can have a DBT test that very effectively minimizes placebo effect and other factors, leaving only one variable for the subject to judge. However, I think that a person guessing 11 out of 15 ONCE is just as likely as any other scenario. In irder to make the test valid, you would want to perform multiple runs of the same test. For example, can this person get it right 11 out of 15 times per run, for 5 consecutive runs. Of course the cable selection would be random so no pattern existed in switching. If his correct guesses for all 5 runs were in the 10 to 15 range, then I am convinced he can perceive a diffeence. However, if his guesses came up something like 11, 4, 10, 7, 5 then I would have to say he cannot hear a difference.

It can get very confusing, so I would leave it to people with more time and desire, but I believe a proper test could be conducted, I just haven't seen it yet.....

[okiemax]

I see similarities in placebo theory whether we are discussing it in audio or in medicine, but agree there are differences. But the term is convenient to use and there seems to be general agreement on what it means, so we probably are stuck with it.

I guess I'm just tired of hearing "placebo effect" every time I claim to hear a difference in two cables, two amps, or two of anything else. If I question this knee-jerk explanation, naysayers counter with the medical science card. So it was refreshing for me to see that some researchers have found the placebo effect may have no scientific basis (see "Is the Placebo Powerless? -- An Analysis of Clinical Trials Comparing Placebo With No Treatment," New England Journal of Medicine, May 24, 2001). The study found that subjects receiving placebo treatment fared about the same as subjects receiving no treatment. Apparently, a proportion of ill people will just get better on their own, sugar pill or not.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/344/21/1594

I agree you can question any claim I make about hearing differences in cables without mentioning even the possibility of the placebo effect. But naysayers on this forum frequently do talk about as if it were fact. When I have asked for details on the placebo effect, I have been told it can be short-term or long-term, and maybe intermittent. But the effect can't be cummulative(additional pleasure with each new cable). Why? Because this would make the whole idea seem absurd.

In your comments on burden of proof, you seem to be implying that a claim of detecting a difference with the senses incurrs an obligation to prove the difference. If you prefer Coke to Pepsi, should I ask you to prove you can tell the drinks apart in a blinded test? Well, regardless of your answer, I can claim to hear differences in cables without feeling obligated to offer proof with blinded testing. You can believe the differences are real or imaginary. If you tell another person that what I claim is imaginary, however, you are going beyond what you know. And that frequently is what I witness naysayers doing in this forum.

[skeptic]

And BTW I don't support buying expensive cables because the money should have went to speakers room and better recordings.

I don't support buying them either but for an entirely different reason. In more than 20 years since this cottage industry has been in existance, I have yet to see even one single attempt by the people who manufacture or retail them to make a serious convincing case that they improve the performance of sound reproduction systems. Given the time that has elapsed, the number of people making money from them, and the prices charged for some of them, I presume that they simply can't. Whether or not they sound different to some people under some circumstances hardly begins to demonstrate that they sound better and certainly not to all people in most or all circumstances. Therefore no matter which ones you buy or how much you pay, you have at best, a hit or miss chance of getting anything of value for your money. I know they'll have to do far better to have a chance of geting any of mine.

[DrJeff]

....If you prefer Coke to Pepsi, should I ask you to prove you can tell the drinks apart in a blinded test? Well, regardless of your answer, I can claim to hear differences in cables without feeling obligated to offer proof with blinded testing. You can believe the differences are real or imaginary. If you tell another person that what I claim is imaginary, however, you are going beyond what you know. And that frequently is what I witness naysayers doing in this forum.

If you say you prefer Coke to Pepsi, then absolutely you should be able to identify them in a DBT, IF you prefer it because of the taste. Since Coke is one of my clients, I ALWAYS prefer Coke, even if it's because they pay part of my salary. In that case, it may not be the taste of the product, but a larger issue that steers me toward Coke (loyalty to my client).

The Coke analogy is actually very applicable to the cable issue. If you claim to be able to taste a difference in Coke vs. Pepsi, but cannot identify a difference in a DBT (i.e. you don't have to say "this is Coke" or "this is Pepsi" but you do have to say if both cups contain Coke, or if they are different) then I say you can not taste a difference, and your percieved ability to tell a difference is based on more than just taste.

So if you say you can hear a difference in cables, but cannot prove by listening alone in a DBT that you hear a difference, then your claim is based on things other than the audio signal, just as in the Coke analogy.

[skeptic]

The Coke analogy is actually very applicable to the cable issue.

I can't agree.

The purpose of Coke and Pepsi is almost purely for sensory stimulation in preference to far more effective thirst quenchers such as water.

Cables perform a physical function which is entirely objective and can be precisely measured if anyone cared to. That is the transmission of an electrical signal from one point to another in an electrical system or network with the least distortion. Whether the results of one individual's ability to distinguish the effectiveness of one cable versus another in performing this function unless he can identify which is the less distorted and if he prefers one over another because of subjective reaction is not relevant. Unless you can argue that the shortcomings of one element in the network will predictably offset or negate the shortcomings of another such as frequency response distortion where a cable of high shunt capacitance for example would offset the high frequency peak of an overly bright loudspeaker or a phonograph cartridge with a resonant peak. But how could this be predicted by anyone but the most extraordinarily trained and informed user and what other remedies are there that would be far more effective, predictable in their actions and cost effective? Reducing the arguement over cables to a matter of personal preference disregarding all measurements and objective tests is to turn your back on all of the science that has been used to advance audio technology in the first place.

[DrJeff]

I can't agree.

The purpose of Coke and Pepsi is almost purely for sensory stimulation in preference to far more effective thirst quenchers such as water.

Cables perform a physical function which is entirely objective and can be precisely measured if anyone cared to. That is the transmission of an electrical signal from one point to another in an electrical system or network with the least distortion. Whether the results of one individual's ability to distinguish the effectiveness of one cable versus another in performing this function unless he can identify which is the less distorted and if he prefers one over another because of subjective reaction is not relevant. Unless you can argue that the shortcomings of one element in the network will predictably offset or negate the shortcomings of another such as frequency response distortion where a cable of high shunt capacitance for example would offset the high frequency peak of an overly bright loudspeaker or a phonograph cartridge with a resonant peak. But how could this be predicted by anyone but the most extraordinarily trained and informed user and what other remedies are there that would be far more effective, predictable in their actions and cost effective? Reducing the arguement over cables to a matter of personal preference disregarding all measurements and objective tests is to turn your back on all of the science that has been used to advance audio technology in the first place.

See, now you're opening a can of worms, I had purposely avoided discussing the physical and electrical properties of the cables as they relate to the sound quality.

I agree that you should be able to look at inductance, capacitance, run square and sine waves through the cable and look at them when they come out the other side, and evaluate cables on the basis of their ability to transfer a signal without changing its nature.

However, many cable enthusiasts will claim that some differences are not measurable, and they claim that scientific analysis gets in the way of the listening experience, and that scopes and multimeters won't see the whole picture. For example, I have ohms, ACV, DCV, current, etc. settings on my scope, but there's no "open soundstage" scale, so I can't measure that.

So if I avoid the technical side, and just ask someone to prove (using their ears) in a DBT that they can distinguish between cables, components, etc., there's no need to have the argument of science vs. humanity in the cable debate. Had I talked about that side, someone would have said, "But your scope doesn't feel the music" or something like that.

Personally, I look for an IC with a nice big plug that will stay put, good insulation, and a jacket that will resist chafing. I think I spent about $15 a pair at most on my IC's, and they've worked for years with no complaints.

[skeptic]

However, many cable enthusiasts will claim that some differences are not measurable, and they claim that scientific analysis gets in the way of the listening experience, and that scopes and multimeters won't see the whole picture.

there's no need to have the argument of science vs. humanity in the cable debate.


Not measurable? They are wrong. Of all electrical components in a sound system, cables are the one element most easily, precisely, and thoroughly measurable and describable. Only people with something to hide will tell you there is magical mystery to it. What you call imaging or spaciousness is a consequence of the electrical properties of the wire, the recording, and the rest of the equipment.

If someone were to evaluate which photographic film rendered the color red most accurately, the fact that you liked the photos one film took as opposed to another would not be relevant if the purpose of your photography was the most accurate rendering of what you saw. There would be no doubt after testing which one is most accurate in those respects for which they are tested. Cables are no different.

On the other hand, if you liked the distortion one film created because it shifted colors, changed contrast, added graininess, there there is no objective way to say anything because my preferences might be different.

[Monstrous Mike]

Question:

In the Tag McLaren tests, two participants scored 11 out of 15 correct on the cable tests. As they point out, the binomial distribution indicates a 5.9% (about 1 in 17) probability of scoring 11 or better by chance.

Why would one not conclude that in all liklihood those two individuals heard true differences in the cables?
Umm, because they hit that 1 in 17 chance thingy?

Surely you know that if you flip a coin long enough you are going to get ten heads in a row. Does this mean the coin is imbalanced? Hey, I hit 20 free throws in a row once. Does this mean I have a good shot? No, it means that some days, the sun even shines on a dog's ass.

You can't isolate test results to support your theories. You wouldn't let me do it and I won't let you do it.

[Swerd]

pctower

Your reasoning that medical trials and listening tests are different is faulty. You are correct that medical trials do attempt to determine the effectiveness of a particular medicine on a large enough segment of the populace because there is significant variation among individuals in the population. The same problem exits for audio listening tests, precisely because hearing ability, training and experience of all the participants are NOT equal. It is not possible to perform a test where all non-audible differences are, as you describe, “controlled out of the test, with the only thing left to test being actual audible differences.” If it were, we wouldn’t need to use statistics and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

As you point out from the McLaren test, 2 out of 12 people scored as if they were able to detect differences between cables. Twelve is such a small sample number that making any positive conclusion from those numbers would be wrong. To verify that finding, it would be necessary to test large numbers of people to eliminate a statistically defined problem called sampling error. Does the original test of 12 people truly represent the larger population as a whole? Does their hearing ability, prior training, and experience resemble that of the general population? That larger number people, off the top of my head, would be closer to 1000 than it would be to 100 or less. To put it simply, if we tested 1200 people, would 200 of them be able to detect the differences between cables? If this were the case, then I would support the conclusion that some people, about 1 out of 6, could hear differences in cables. It would then be up to the scientists, both biological and electrical to search for how this happens. At present, no listening test has provided such evidence.

[Monstrous Mike]

I am trying to remember a famous experiment involving an art cynic (notice I didn't say critic). If anybody can find this I would be most apprecative.

Anyways, this guy got hold of some art by school kids or housewives or otherwise fairly amateur artists and gathered them in a gallery. He then attibuted several of them to well known artists and others to anonymous or unknown names. He asked people to rate some of the works and the results turned out that the "art" supposed done by well known artists was rated higher than the other pieces. He even switched the names around when using different testers and results invariably came back that if you slap a well known name on a peice of art, it has a higher chance of being well received and therefore higher priced.

If this has anything to do with this thread, please let me know.

[Monstrous Mike]

However, many cable enthusiasts will claim that some differences are not measurable, and they claim that scientific analysis gets in the way of the listening experience, .....
Science gets in the way of marketing and profits just like any other snake oil product. I think there are plenty of examples of products that sell big but have no merit or value whatsoever.

[Swerd]

Just a note...your first link states that the listeners dd not have control of how long they listened which invalidates that entire link...scratch one. Didn'tbother to read link two after you provided link one.


If you ignored the first one without considering it, and didn't read the second one, why post a reply in this thread?


Then you state that people claim to hear differences in their homes over long periods. Yes it is true that they may only THINK they hear that difference...until such time as their is a test to meet that claim of long term in the house differences then no one can assume that there isn't.

Wrong, no one can make any scientific conclusions at all from long term home listening tests performed in the absence of controls.

[skeptic]

The cable proponents have not even demonstrated that there is statistically significant evidence that there are audible differences when the testers are prescreened to include only individuals of high auditory accuity. The small sample in this case is not significant and if that is the best they can come up with, they still haven't done anything IMO.

I'm not going to relate the story again about the NY Audio Labs demo at the WQXR auditorium in 1983, but IMO, most audiophiles and audio engineers have far less auditory accuity than they would like to think. This is especially true for those who have been exposed to very loud sound for any period at sometime in their lives. Like loud rock music played at deafening levels.

[skeptic]

I agree. The procedure is critical.

The musical passages must be the same and they must be long enough so that the listener has a chance to get a representative sampling of each cable before it is switched. It must also be short enough so that the listener's memory of it hasn't faded. Switching should of course be instantaneous.

[Swerd]

The cable proponents have not even demonstrated that there is statistically significant evidence that there are audible differences when the testers are prescreened to include only individuals of high auditory accuity. The small sample in this case is not significant and if that is the best they can come up with, they still haven't done anything IMO.

I'm not going to relate the story again about the NY Audio Labs demo at the WQXR auditorium in 1983, but IMO, most audiophiles and audio engineers have far less auditory accuity than they would like to think. This is especially true for those who have been exposed to very loud sound for any period at sometime in their lives. Like loud rock music played at deafening levels.

Two thoughts:

It has been my opinion that differences in human audio perception are not so much due to differences in auditory acuity as it is to the less well understood processes that take place between the ears. Its kind of like saying that one's visual acuity determines how one interprets poetry or reacts to paintings. Your eyesight only has to be good enough to read the text or see the painting. Much happens after that initial process take place.

Instead of prescreening listeners to include only individuals of high auditory accuity, or only cable believers, it would be interesting to test all kinds of listeners, both golden- and tin-eared, identify them in a questionaire, and compare the results of the listening tests to see if being a believer or non-believer or a golden- or tin-ear makes any difference.

[pctower]

I agree that you can have a DBT test that very effectively minimizes placebo effect and other factors, leaving only one variable for the subject to judge. However, I think that a person guessing 11 out of 15 ONCE is just as likely as any other scenario. In irder to make the test valid, you would want to perform multiple runs of the same test. For example, can this person get it right 11 out of 15 times per run, for 5 consecutive runs. Of course the cable selection would be random so no pattern existed in switching. If his correct guesses for all 5 runs were in the 10 to 15 range, then I am convinced he can perceive a diffeence. However, if his guesses came up something like 11, 4, 10, 7, 5 then I would have to say he cannot hear a difference.

It can get very confusing, so I would leave it to people with more time and desire, but I believe a proper test could be conducted, I just haven't seen it yet.....

I agree and me too.

[pctower]

pctower

Your reasoning that medical trials and listening tests are different is faulty. You are correct that medical trials do attempt to determine the effectiveness of a particular medicine on a large enough segment of the populace because there is significant variation among individuals in the population. The same problem exits for audio listening tests, precisely because hearing ability, training and experience of all the participants are NOT equal. It is not possible to perform a test where all non-audible differences are, as you describe, “controlled out of the test, with the only thing left to test being actual audible differences.” If it were, we wouldn’t need to use statistics and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

As you point out from the McLaren test, 2 out of 12 people scored as if they were able to detect differences between cables. Twelve is such a small sample number that making any positive conclusion from those numbers would be wrong. To verify that finding, it would be necessary to test large numbers of people to eliminate a statistically defined problem called sampling error. Does the original test of 12 people truly represent the larger population as a whole? Does their hearing ability, prior training, and experience resemble that of the general population? That larger number people, off the top of my head, would be closer to 1000 than it would be to 100 or less. To put it simply, if we tested 1200 people, would 200 of them be able to detect the differences between cables? If this were the case, then I would support the conclusion that some people, about 1 out of 6, could hear differences in cables. It would then be up to the scientists, both biological and electrical to search for how this happens. At present, no listening test has provided such evidence.

All good and valid points. I don't feel my reasoning was faulty. I just didn't go far enough (trying to keep it simple) by stating that many more tests and much broader samples would be required to start drawing any reasonably conclusions. As just one example, I would certainly want the two individuals who scored 11 out of 15 to come back at least 4 or 5 more times to seek if they could duplicate their success. I would also want to test a much broader group of people to see both how the group as a whole does as well as whether any more "golden ears" start to appear.

At this point it's all conjecture other than the fact that we certainly know that the cable proponents have never produced any scientific evidence of actual sonic diferences between cables of similar gauge and length. Reasonable inferences might be drawn from that fact alone.

[okiemax]

Thanks to the two replies above, I have little to add other than provide these weblinks:

http://www.tagmclaren.com/members/news/news77.asp

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/wishful_thinking.htm

Both describe listening tests where listeners blindly choose whether they hear a difference between two conditions. Are conditions A and B the same or different? Sometimes A and B were genuinely different and sometimes they were identical. The first link explains the statistics needed to analyze the results.

Both make the point that when the group of listeners get it right about 50% of the time, it is no different than if they had been guessing randomly. Both conclude that the listeners could not hear any difference between the conditions being tested.

There are those who claim that they do hear a difference with sighted listening tests, or when they listen over extended periods of time (days, weeks or longer) in their homes. The only reasonable explanation available, is that they THINK they hear a difference. This is the placebo effect at work.

Listening tests performed using valid scientific controls that eliminate, minimize, or account for conscious or unconscious listener bias cannot reproduce those positive results.

The Tagmaclaren study compared two expensive amps and two expensive interconnects for audible differences using 12 listeners who volunteered for double -blind ABX testing.The null hypothesis for each component (A sounds the same as B) could not be rejected by the results of the tests. The study's conclusion is quoted below:

"We conclude neither the interconnects nor the amplifier were audibly different."

I take issue with this conclusion. It seems to be saying that because the null can't be rejected, it must be true. However, all you can say about the null is it's inconclusive, since another sample of listeners might give different results for these amplifiers and interconnects. The following quote is from the ABX web site:

"No matter what score is achieved, A=B cannot be proven. That is the ABX Double Blind comparison can never be used to prove two audio components sound the same. The notion that ABX can prove components sound the same is a common misconception about ABX."

Previous posters to this thread have commented on other shortcomings of the Tagmclaren study, so I will not go over that ground again. I do have an observation about some of the data presented in the study's tables. I noticed the scores stay within a fairly tight range in the first ten or so test, and then fluctuate greatly. Without seeing the scores of individual participants, I don't know what to make of this, but I think the researchers should have addressed it.

Another oddity can be seen in the table "amplifier test, data reversed." Notice in the scores for Tests 15 and 14 combined, there are 6 correct anwers out of the 24 total, which means 18 answers were incorrect. The chance of 18 out of 24 being random is possible, but makes me wonder about the possibility of errors in recording.

[skeptic]

Sooner or later, a DBT will show a significant result. This could be due to a real audible difference OR it could be due to a flawed test procedure OR it could be due to the law of averages proving that if you perform enough tests, eventually one will give a false positive merely by chance. That is why these tests must be published giving complete procedural details so that others of equal or greater skill can evaluate their validity (fairness) and repeat them to see if they get the same results. The more time that elapses between the first introduction of these products and the time when the first positive result is published, the more convinced I become that it is because the proponents of these products simply can't. But even if they did, that would hardly be rational convincing evidence for someone tp go out and buy them. There would still be a long way to go before any of them could be shown to be superior and offer reliable solutions that no other less expensive or simpler method couldn't perform as well or better. Fortunately for the cable companies, they don't have to. They have enough customers to keep them profitable as it is.

[pctower]

There is also a 5.9% chance that a person could be WRONG 11 out of 15 times. What would you say if that were the case? (For all I know it is the case. :-)

I would say what I said in my other responses in this sub-thread.

[pctower]

Umm, because they hit that 1 in 17 chance thingy?

Surely you know that if you flip a coin long enough you are going to get ten heads in a row. Does this mean the coin is imbalanced? Hey, I hit 20 free throws in a row once. Does this mean I have a good shot? No, it means that some days, the sun even shines on a dog's ass.

You can't isolate test results to support your theories. You wouldn't let me do it and I won't let you do it.

I've already addressed the coin flip analogy, which is not appropriate. I'm surprised you don't see the difference. Or did you just think I would be too stupid not to see it.

That analogy assumes all listeners are identical as to hearing ability, experience and training (remember, your god, Dr. Toole, say training of the listeners is very important). Every flip of the coin is equivalent. But each listener is a unique "packet" and different from all the other "packets". In a coin toss I can pick any interval of 15 tosses I want in order to come up with the particular ratio out of 15 tosses I'm looking for. Can't do that with the individual "packets".

I don't claim the McLaren tests show anything reliable because of the two subjects that hit 11 or 15. However, if they came back 4 or 5 times and repeated that performance, only a few people such as yourself would find some weird way of ignoring those results.

[Swerd]

okiemax, DrJeff, Bill L, and any others who may be new, welcome to the realm of the eternal cable debate. While I speak for myself, I hope all the regulars here agree, thanks for joining in.

This was a good thread. While nothing was settled (that'll be the day!), it was IMO a step above the usual cable debate which typically goes more like this http://cybergifs.com/funny/Tom-Jerry.gif

Happy holidays to all and may you all enjoy whatever kind of signals you transmit through your cables.

[FLZapped]

I'm not going to relate the story again about the NY Audio Labs demo at the WQXR auditorium in 1983, but IMO, most audiophiles and audio engineers have far less auditory accuity than they would like to think. This is especially true for those who have been exposed to very loud sound for any period at sometime in their lives. Like loud rock music played at deafening levels.


Musicians are as well. Think about Violin and Viola players with years of playing with the instrument under their left ear. They all will have a hearing imbalance from left to right as a result.

Drummers are notorious for being deaf.

What about the poor guys who sit in front of the brass section....

I've had my hearing tested and I sure wish I had taken better care of my hearing earlier in life. :rolleyes:

-Bruce

[pctower]

BTW, you're the engineer. Can you answer this:

As I recall, there was a total of 12 listeners. As to the 10 who didn't achieve a level of accuracy of 10 out of 15 or better, the odds are their choices were due to chance and we might reasonable conclude they were unable to actually detect sonic differences.

As to the two who did achieve 11 out of 15, the McLaren site says the odds are 1 in 17 that the 11 correct choices out of 15 was due to chance for each on the two individuals. Obviously for each individual, that leaves a real, if not fairly remote, possibility his score was due to chance (as you suggested in your original post).

However, can you answer this? What are the odds that the result of two listeners, out of a total of 12, getting 11 out of 15 correct being due to chance? Seems to me, the odds would have to be far less than 1 out of 17.

I think my focus on the individuals is entirely appropriate. I don't know statistics, but I suspect it has something to do with distribution or something like that.

In my opinion, we should not be testing the mean or average ability of the entire group to pick correctly. I think what we should be attempting to do is determine if there are certain indivuduals who are actually hearing sonic differences. It's the "packet" thing I discussed above. I believe this is the appropriate focus, because as I have already said, each person's hearing ability, experience and training is different. So averages mean nothing. The proper question in my mind is whether there are certain people who due to experience, training or hearing ability are able to detect actual sonic differences where all possible factors other than actual sonic differences have been properly controlled out of the test.

What I have said should not be interpreted as claiming that these particular test results as to the two individuals are conclusive of anything. However, as I have already said, if these two individuals came back 4 or 5 more times and duplicated their initial scores, it seems to me that would be pretty persuasive evidence that these two individuals are detecting actual sonic differences.

In the words of Bill O'Reily: what say you?

[Monstrous Mike]

What I have said should not be interpreted as claiming that these particular test results as to the two individuals are conclusive of anything. However, as I have already said, if these two individuals came back 4 or 5 more times and duplicated their initial scores, it seems to me that would be pretty persuasive evidence that these two individuals are detecting actual sonic differences.

In the words of Bill O'Reily: what say you?
You are right. And let's say that these guys were better listeners for the sake or arguement. If they were able to repeat (e.g. in 4 or 5 more trials) an 11 out of 15 score then there may be something at work.

But I would still concerned if they consitently get 4 out of 15 wrong. How would one explain that? If there are cable differences I would think you would get it right every single time. I mean isn't there anybody who brought home an exotic cable and didn't hear a difference or are all these home audio enthusiasts noticing cable improvements at a 100% rate? It seems that way to me. This is odd indeed.

[Swerd]

The proper question in my mind is whether there are certain people who due to experience, training or hearing ability are able to detect actual sonic differences where all possible factors other than actual sonic differences have been properly controlled out of the test.

I agree that it is curious that those two scored that way. The Tag McLaren study didn’t address experience, training, hearing ability, or any other reason why listeners could or could not hear differences. It only asked the question “who can?” out of a small sized group of listeners and went through a typical statistical analysis of the numbers.

If those two individuals were retested again to see how reproducible their scores were, I would want to see additional control tests done. The ABX test as described by the Tag McLaren test did not include any controls:


The actual process of the test was to play 30 seconds of A followed by 30 seconds of B then 30 seconds of X, where X could be either A or B. Each time the piece of music was played it was announced as “This is A”, “This is B”, “This is X” etc. The participants in the test had a score card on which to record whether they thought X was A or B. The test was repeated 15 times.

I would do negative control tests, an A–A or B–B test, where the two sounds being compared were identical. Unlike the ABX tests, the listener would respond by saying whether or not he heard a difference. This would ask how often a listener reported, “I heard no difference” when there was none, or to state it conversely, how many false positive responses were made.

Similarly, I would do positive control tests where two genuinely different types of sound reproduction were compared, and again the listener would respond only by saying whether he heard a difference or not. This would ask how often a listener reported, “I did hear a difference” where one really existed, or how many false negatives were there. It would be useful to have an assortment of different reproduction modes that presented the listener with a graded series of comparisons from easy to difficult.

With those controls you could then compare the ABX results to something. How often listeners hear a difference for the positive control and how often they fail would be an important measure of the effectiveness of the experimental apparatus and of variability among individual listeners. A listener who answers yes to most of the positive controls and no to most of the negative controls could be considered as most reliable in the ABX test. Ideally, all listeners would hear a difference in the positive control and none would hear a difference in the negative control. However, it is possible to deviate from the ideal and still make useful conclusions, as long as suitable controls are included for each listener to determine his frequency of false negative and false positive responses.

The number of listeners who pass the control tests, regardless of their answers to the ABX test, might also be considered as a measure of validity for the whole experiment. The use of a positive control could help argue against potential criticism that subtle differences in sound due to different cables can only be heard after long-term listening by providing information of how often people can or cannot hear the differences in the positive control tests. It would be interesting to test golden-ears vs. tin-ears or cable believers vs. naysayers with such controls.

[okiemax]

Happy holidays to you too ! I liked the animation in your post.

[mtrycraft]

Why would there be differences between no treatment and a placebo pill in the first place? a placebo pill has nothing in it to start with. In essence it is also a no treatment pill?

I am not sure what you are asserting here?

Perhaps you didn't read the research right or misunderstanding it and drawing the wrong conclusion from it.

A placebo has no real value other than a control in a DBT.
After all, these protocols are only valid for DBt protocol to account for bias, a placebo in effect.
That is what is the case in audio, the need for DBT to account for bias.

Perhaps you need to read some of these:

"Listening Tests, Turning Opinions Into Facts", Toole, F. E., Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 30, No.6, Jun 1982, pg 431-445.

"Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listening Preference", Toole, F. E., Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 33, No 1/2, Jan/Feb 1985, pg 2-32.

"Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listening Preferences", Toole, F. E., Part 1, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 34, No.4, Apr 1986, pg 227-235; Part two, JAES Vol 34, No.5, May 1986, pg 323-348.

"Listening Tests-Identifying and Controlling the Variables", Toole, F. E., Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, AES, May 1990.

"Hearing is Believeing vs Believing is Hearing: Blind vs Sighted Listening Tests ond Other Interesting Things", Toole, F. E. and Olive, S. E., 97th AES Convention, Nov 1994, Print #3894.

[mtrycraft]

Bring us a good positive listening test. Don't have any? Why is that?
No one claimed A=B wich is a mathematical claim. Just that there is no audible difference that you can hear.
That has yet to be demonstrated aftyer 20+ years. Maybe in another 20 years someone will be able to. We'll see. Then we can change our minds on the issue. In the meantime, there are no audible differences.

[woodman]

Rockwell, you are offering a theory as proof. It is an interesting theory, but we also might consider other theories, such as those that question the testing.[/QUOTE

What Rockwell offers is as much "proof" as should be necessary for anyone that's not been terminally infected with the audiophile virus!

[QUOTE] I'm not a big fan of the placebo effect in general, believing that far too much is attributed to it both in medicine and audio.

Tell me (if you can) how you would explain the mind-boggling demonstrations performed by stage-hypnotists who tell their subjects how delicious the chocolate cake they've given them tastes, when in fact what they've actually given them is a piece of lemon? Or, when the subject is told that everyone in the audience is very sad and crying, the subject joins in and cries (real tears) right along with them, when in fact everyone in the audience is actuall laughing their asses off? Need I go on? Doesn't the hypnotized subject HEAR the laughter? Really?

If you aren't willing to consider the "placebo" effects (which I call ABEs)as they relate to audio, you have my deepest sympathy, for you are the willing victim of all of the scam artists that this beloved hobby is chock-full of, and it's costing you dearly for your stubbornness!

[mtrycraft]

Not long ago I read an interesting analysis of the number pi. As you ma know, the decimal numbers are random, no patterns has been established to hundreds of million decimal place.
Yet, there are two sequences of 10 succeeding odd or even digits in the 1st 1000 decimal places. No matter how small a chance havoing such a sequence, there are two within the 1st 1000 places. Just chance.
Same for this test.
Those two with high scores in one test didn't do as well in the next round.

[mtrycraft]

I wonder how many could enter a strange room and correctly identify if it had been painted with the exact shade and hue of color as their own room at home, especially with unfamiliar lighting. Not many, I'll bet. But that's what ABX attempts to do with sound - with unfamiliar acoustics and gear.


Hogwash.
First, golden eared audiophiles have no problem doing this feat with unfamiliar component. Just ask them.
Second, very poor analogy, not even close.



Say, have you ever tried to explain a noise in your cars engine to a mechanic? (Or better yet to your wife/girlfriend?) and they just can't hear it? But you do? Because you're familiar with the sounds of YOUR motor. That's not placebo. That's experience.

Well, maybe you are hearing things, maybe you don't. But, again, this is not even an analogy to DBT testing, ABX being one such DBT testing.

[okiemax]

Why would there be differences between no treatment and a placebo pill in the first place? a placebo pill has nothing in it to start with. In essence it is also a no treatment pill?

I am not sure what you are asserting here?

Perhaps you didn't read the research right or misunderstanding it and drawing the wrong conclusion from it.

A placebo has no real value other than a control in a DBT.
After all, these protocols are only valid for DBt protocol to account for bias, a placebo in effect.
That is what is the case in audio, the need for DBT to account for bias.

Perhaps you need to read some of these:

"Listening Tests, Turning Opinions Into Facts", Toole, F. E., Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 30, No.6, Jun 1982, pg 431-445.

"Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listening Preference", Toole, F. E., Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 33, No 1/2, Jan/Feb 1985, pg 2-32.

"Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listening Preferences", Toole, F. E., Part 1, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 34, No.4, Apr 1986, pg 227-235; Part two, JAES Vol 34, No.5, May 1986, pg 323-348.

"Listening Tests-Identifying and Controlling the Variables", Toole, F. E., Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, AES, May 1990.

"Hearing is Believeing vs Believing is Hearing: Blind vs Sighted Listening Tests ond Other Interesting Things", Toole, F. E. and Olive, S. E., 97th AES Convention, Nov 1994, Print #3894.

Mtycraft, you seem to be arguing against the placebo theory instead of for it. Referring to the NEJM study, you said," Why would there be a difference between no treatment and a placebo pill in the first place?" I thought you believed a placebo could be a powerful influence on the mind, so powerful as to make an ill person feel healed or a listener hear things that aren't real.

In the study, if the placebo had power, improvement would have been greater in subjects who received the placebo than in those who recieved no treatment. But the study showed improvement was about the same for the two groups. So if the placebo (or power of suggestion) in a medical setting really isn't so powerful, why not question theories about it in other settings?

I don't have any of the referenced papers by Dr. Floyd Toole so I can't comment on them. My guess is they say something to support your believe that audiophile cables are no better than lamp cord and that people can't trust their ears. If that is the case, I wonder why Dr. Toole's employer (assuming he is still with Harman International) has this to say in the owner's manual for their JBL Tik Series speakers:

"Careful selection of of cables and interconnects can have quite a dramatic impact on the dynamic contrasts experienced by listeners."

If you are interested in the manual, do a Google search on the following term: jbl home support. Then choose the Ti10K from the product list -- it's almost at the bottom.

There also is an interesting interview of Dr. Floyd Toole by Melanie Garrett of of HOME CINEMA online. The following quote is from it: "Floyd is of the opinion that technical measurements are not much use unless they can reliably predict what we as listeners will subjectively experience as good or bad sound quality. In a nutshell, he not only has faith in his own ears, but he is also interested in yours and mine as well ..."

You can get to the interview through Google by entering the following term: home cinema online garrett toole.

[okiemax]

Tell me (if you can) how you would explain the mind-boggling demonstrations performed by stage-hypnotists who tell their subjects how delicious the chocolate cake they've given them tastes, when in fact what they've actually given them is a piece of lemon? Or, when the subject is told that everyone in the audience is very sad and crying, the subject joins in and cries (real tears) right along with them, when in fact everyone in the audience is actuall laughing their asses off? Need I go on? Doesn't the hypnotized subject HEAR the laughter? Really?

If you aren't willing to consider the "placebo" effects (which I call ABEs)as they relate to audio, you have my deepest sympathy, for you are the willing victim of all of the scam artists that this beloved hobby is chock-full of, and it's costing you dearly for your stubbornness!

I never said I wasn't willing to consider that there is such a thing as the placebo effect in audio. It is theory that lacks proof. Despite all the research that has been done in medicine on the subject of the placebo, there is still controversy over it. Are you saying there shouldn't be controversy over it in audio.

I guess there is some relationship between hypnosis and placebo in that both have to do with suggestion, but I don't think you help your case by the examples you use. Demonstrations of hypnosis are easy to fake.

Mmm...this lemon taste like chocolate cake. Can you say S-H-I-L-L ?

On second thought, perhaps there is more to this hypnosis thing than I want to admit. The pretty pictures in those Stereophile mag ads may present subliminal messages: BUY OUR EXPENSIVE CABLES. BUY OUR EXPENSIVE CABLES. BUY OUR EXPENSIVE CABLES.

But I'm a chepskate, so I bought a $42 interconnect instead of one of the $500 advertised models. I didn't like this cable, so I returned it. Now, I think I see the problem. Buy a cheap cable, get a cheap placebo. If you want a REAL PLACEBO, you got to shell out big.

Just kidding ! Hope you have happy holidays!

[RGA]

I don't support buying them either but for an entirely different reason. In more than 20 years since this cottage industry has been in existance, I have yet to see even one single attempt by the people who manufacture or retail them to make a serious convincing case that they improve the performance of sound reproduction systems. Given the time that has elapsed, the number of people making money from them, and the prices charged for some of them, I presume that they simply can't. Whether or not they sound different to some people under some circumstances hardly begins to demonstrate that they sound better and certainly not to all people in most or all circumstances. Therefore no matter which ones you buy or how much you pay, you have at best, a hit or miss chance of getting anything of value for your money. I know they'll have to do far better to have a chance of geting any of mine.

This is of course my point as well. I can't say I've listened to many cables. When I first heard a MIT cable (the one with a box attached) for a $100.00 I did indeed notice a very clear audible difference than whatever the other wire was(cheap though). SO the salesman stands there and says "see how different speaker wires DO in fact make a very noticeable difference." And the salesman was not lying they were different. Better? no, worse in fact. The sound was muddied up rolled off and dulled down. Presumably some sort of resistor is in that box.

I'm not saying some people would not find that better, if perhaps you own the brightest speaker in the brightest room on earth this cable might help.

But $100.00 for "MIGHT" is too much. Then again most places selling cables give you a 30 day full money back gaurantee which surprised me. If they measure differently in the audible spectrum, then maybe given enough time one will notice a difference on some recording or on some instruments. Maybe not, but a 30 day gaurantee what the hell costs you nothing.

[RGA]

Wrong, no one can make any scientific conclusions at all from long term home listening tests performed in the absence of controls.

Never said there would be absense of controls...the long term home listening in the EXACT same environment in the EXACT same listening HABIT can also be done in a controlled environment. But since this would be a GOOD test albeit time consuming and fairly expensive it is not done but rather a slack-jawed quick to conclusion laxy test is done over and over and over. The current testing is not a valid test. Look up Validity in any first year Psych or Stats book related to DBT and you'll see what I'm talking about. It is precisely this issue which causes endless debate. One side completely ignores this piece of science(the most vital) and the other side completely ignores that bias plays a huge part of their buying decisions.

[pctower]

Never said there would be absense of controls...the long term home listening in the EXACT same environment in the EXACT same listening HABIT can also be done in a controlled environment. But since this would be a GOOD test albeit time consuming and fairly expensive it is not done but rather a slack-jawed quick to conclusion laxy test is done over and over and over. The current testing is not a valid test. Look up Validity in any first year Psych or Stats book related to DBT and you'll see what I'm talking about. It is precisely this issue which causes endless debate. One side completely ignores this piece of science(the most vital) and the other side completely ignores that bias plays a huge part of their buying decisions.

By suggesting that one of the self-proclaimed all-knowing scientists on this board might have something more to learn from science you have just committed an unpardonable sin. Don't you know that all cable DBTs that have ever been run are sacred and cannot be questioned or critiqued in any manner whatsoever.

Hopefully, over time you will be foregiven for this grave transgression, but the odds in your favor do not appear good - even during this season of good cheer.

[RGA]

By suggesting that one of the self-proclaimed all-knowing scientists on this board might have something more to learn from science you have just committed an unpardonable sin. Don't you know that all cable DBTs that have ever been run are sacred and cannot be questioned or critiqued in any manner whatsoever.

Hopefully, over time you will be foregiven for this grave transgression, but the odds in your favor do not appear good - even during this season of good cheer.

Scientists don't agree on Null Hypothesis, DBT's effectiveness, and many other things when it comes to the field of psychology. This is the field of psychology too BTW. The previous discussion on Medical science - well not all doctors agree on everything either.

Of course when I bring this up people then assume I support sighted tests - which is also not the case, just the DBT basket holds more air than eggs.

[markw]

Of course when I bring this up people then assume I support sighted tests - which is also not the case, just the DBT basket holds more air than eggs.

So, what form of testing do you support? Sighted or blind? Can't have it both ways now, can ya?

Remember, ya breathe air but ya suck eggs.

[spacedeckman]

I built a new set of interconnects, but won't hook them up until my headache goes away. I think I may have OD'ed on placebos. Is there a 12 step program available for guys like me?

I have yet to figure out why this topic burns up so much bandwidth. It's audio, so the answer is like all the other audio answers...sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes nothing. That has been my experience...but don't listen to me, I'm a convicted placebo addict.

Got to get some more of those placebos, man. Dude, you got any placebos on ya? How much ya want?

[RGA]

So, what form of testing do you support? Sighted or blind? Can't have it both ways now, can ya?

Remember, ya breathe air but ya suck eggs.

actually yes you can have it both ways. A lot of issues one can sit on the fence until such time as there is something remotely conclusive.

If you interview ten people who listened to sytem X sighted and never heard of any of the brands and didn't know the prices and they all felt in a SIGHTED environment that X was brighter than Y then you would have a real world correlational observation.

There is a crossroads between a normal listening environment which is sighted and over weeks and month of listening and a testing environment typically over one day with forced choices in a blind test which is totally different than the former.

Blind sounds nice because it gets rid of OBVIOUS biases, but introduces a whole extra set of biases. For insance I know of nobody that sits at home and flips back and forth between speakers, amps or cd players every 30-45 seconds of song trying to determine if one had a higher pitch than the other etc.

The reason Validity is ignored by the pundits for these tests is because they would rather bypass the most important aspect of science in Validity and would rather stretch the test to actually mean something in the real world. It of course doesn't, but then engineers are not scientists or psychologists...though many seem to be arrogant enough to think they are.

[markw]

actually yes you can have it both ways. A lot of issues one can sit on the fence until such time as there is something remotely conclusive.

So since there's no concrete proof against it, you say that is proof there IS a Loch Ness Monster?


If you interview ten people who listened to sytem X sighted and never heard of any of the brands and didn't know the prices and they all felt in a SIGHTED environment that X was brighter than Y then you would have a real world correlational observation.

Funny thing, the human mind. They can be swayed by the slightest things. Brand and price may not all that matters.


There is a crossroads between a normal listening environment which is sighted and over weeks and month of listening and a testing environment typically over one day with forced choices in a blind test which is totally different than the former.

Again, you're applying your own rules. It doesn't have to be done in an antiseptic lab, where one's eyes are held open with toothpicks while strrapped to a table. Blind testing can be done in a leisurly environment. Many have done so.


Blind sounds nice because it gets rid of OBVIOUS biases, but introduces a whole extra set of biases.

I'd say it removes a lot more than it introduces.


For insance I know of nobody that sits at home and flips back and forth between speakers, amps or cd players every 30-45 seconds of song trying to determine if one had a higher pitch than the other etc.

No, but if push came to shove, that could be measured. And, it's pretty well assumed by many in the know that electronics can be designed with their own "sonic signature" and that would be considered a preference, or are you forgetting that? Here's a shocker for ya. Even speakers can be designed to sound different! Suuu-prise suuu-prise.


The reason Validity is ignored by the pundits for these tests is because they would rather bypass the most important aspect of science in Validity and would rather stretch the test to actually mean something in the real world. It of course doesn't, but then engineers are not scientists or psychologists...though many seem to be arrogant enough to think they are.

But which side is trying to ignore it here? If one is testing to hear a positive difference and one cannot, that doesn't count? Sounds like a valid response to the negative to me yet it is ignored.

Back to the Loch ness Monster analogy. Even though there is no concrete proof it doesn't exist (crafty guy is pretty durn good at hiding, eh?), I'd feel safe letting my grandkids swim in the lake and not loose a minute's sleep.

Merry Christmas and enjoy your holidays.

[pctower]

But which side is trying to ignore it here? If one is testing to hear a positive difference and one cannot, that doesn't count? Sounds like a valid response to the negative to me yet it is ignored.

He's not talking "sides". He's trying to get beyond that. Jon Risch loves to spend most of his time talking about "sides". Too bad Jon doesn't come here any more so you would have someone to argue with over naysayers and yeasayers.

Your response to him merely illustrates the validity of my initial post in this subthread. Any critical comment or question about DBTs will automatically bring out the Jon-Factor in many of the self-professed "scientists" here who want to immediately label you a yeasayer in order to avoid any meaningful discussion. Jon's the master at employing that technique (coming at it from the opposite side) and will never equaled. But some here could give him a good run for the money.

[mtrycraft]

...the long term home listening in the EXACT same environment in the EXACT same listening HABIT can also be done in a controlled environment. But since this would be a GOOD test albeit time consuming and fairly expensive it is not done but rather a slack-jawed quick to conclusion laxy test is done over and over and over. The current testing is not a valid test. Look up Validity in any first year Psych or Stats book related to DBT and you'll see what I'm talking about. It is precisely this issue which causes endless debate. One side completely ignores this piece of science(the most vital) and the other side completely ignores that bias plays a huge part of their buying decisions.

Of course long term listening has been done and published. No better than short term. Actually, why would it be better? Ones memory is rather short.

"The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double Blind Testing", Shanefield, Daniel, Hi-Fidelity, Mar 80, pg 57-61.

Or, read some of the published papers from Dr. Floyd Toole, or check the CRC research in acoustics. No difference.

[mtrycraft]

If you interview ten people who listened to sytem X sighted and never heard of any of the brands and didn't know the prices and they all felt in a SIGHTED environment that X was brighter than Y then you would have a real world correlational observation.


Nonsense, absolute nonsense. Biase is present regardless of knowledge of price, etc. There is no real world correlation to anything unless it is corroborated under bias controlled conditions. Read the works of Toole on this very issue and how he demonstrates this.

There is a crossroads between a normal listening environment which is sighted and over weeks and month of listening and a testing environment typically over one day with forced choices in a blind test which is totally different than the former.

Now why do you bring in th ebogus 'forced choice' silliness. You don't have a forced choice in a psych test? Invalid.
Sighted evaluation for sonic differences, has no real meaning. A fact of life.

Blind sounds nice because it gets rid of OBVIOUS biases, but introduces a whole extra set of biases. For insance I know of nobody that sits at home and flips back and forth between speakers, amps or cd players every 30-45 seconds of song trying to determine if one had a higher pitch than the other etc.

So, because you don't know anyone, it doesn't happen?
DBT doesn't introduce any bias, it eliminates them. Live with it.

[RGA]

So since there's no concrete proof against it, you say that is proof there IS a Loch Ness Monster?

Where did you get that? Creating a false strawman. People throw the word proof around way too much on this forum. One must prove something one claims...the fact that one uses a bad test and fails to prove his/her claim with a bad test does not mean the claim does NOT exist either. Enter the debate on the null hypothesis. Where you sit on that VAGUE issue and certainly NOT agreed upon or supported by pscyhology will dictate your stance. I have no problem where one leans on it personally because I could care less about cables which I perceive to be the ultimate aluminum siding of our century. That still is not going to make me side on the bad test side just because it happens to be better than biased sighted listening...if it is proven to really be so, which it most certainly isn't other than those touting tests by non Psychologists in non APA documentments. Engineers have NOTHING to do with this issue and are totally irrelevant. Ubnless they can show the graph that there is no difference from 20hz to 20khz. Any half assed engineer can DELIBERATELY make a cable, cd player or amplifier sound different...many of them do. If you can't hear that in a test...look at the test again. many here don't use basic common sense.


Again, you're applying your own rules. It doesn't have to be done in an antiseptic lab, where one's eyes are held open with toothpicks while strrapped to a table. Blind testing can be done in a leisurly environment. Many have done so.

Yes some have nice fake homely environments with a nice soft couch. Some are even done at home. One does not A/B in normal environments one tendes to listen to a full cd or LP not 13 times in a row and back and forth in small seconds and asked to Pick. This is of course assuming there is a difference. It's easy to say well Joe said he could tell the difference between A and B. So let's do a double blind and see if he can statistically significantly do it. Fine. How often did Joe say he could tell the difference at the outset? Did Joe say he could always tell a difference with any segmant of music? Are these kinds of questions even thought of? No.



I'd say it removes a lot more than it introduces.

It removes visual bias and bias introduced by manufacturers through level differences. I bet most on the "naysayer" side can't think of one single induced problem of a DBT. Trouble with being too far on a wing is that the plane spins in circles and people soon tune you out as a religious nut. The thro proofs around with invalid tests supported soley by unprovable statistics. Even when someone does actually pass these tests they are rejected as statistical "flukes" out of hand and NEVER followed up to find out why those 2 people out 15 did what no others did.




No, but if push came to shove, that could be measured. And, it's pretty well assumed by many in the know that electronics can be designed with their own "sonic signature" and that would be considered a preference, or are you forgetting that? Here's a shocker for ya. Even speakers can be designed to sound different! Suuu-prise suuu-prise.

Never said they could not be deliberately altered...a high end cd player may actually be worse from a flat graph point of view than a cheap model and a cable can be made to sound rolled off. This is precisely why when these are NOT detected that there is a problem with the test the ubject and or the motive of the tester.




But which side is trying to ignore it here? If one is testing to hear a positive difference and one cannot, that doesn't count? Sounds like a valid response to the negative to me yet it is ignored.

The people who do the tests tend to be the ones who are looking to disprove the claim...that in itself is a bias. This again depends on the claim. If Joe is claiming perfection that he can walk into a room and tell you EVERY time that he knows that a copper wire is better than a silver wire and Joe only fairs 50% two things can result. Joe can hear a difference 50% of the time and is simply not as good as he thought he was or his selections are mere guesses and there is no way he can tell a difference. The stat however does tell everyone that he isn't nearly as perfect as he thought he was. The actual result is a toss-up for you to decide upon and evaluate in the real of soft science.



Back to the Loch ness Monster analogy. Even though there is no concrete proof it doesn't exist (crafty guy is pretty durn good at hiding, eh?), I'd feel safe letting my grandkids swim in the lake and not loose a minute's sleep.

Yes and I'll be happy to use the cheapo cables that come with the equipment from the box too. And maybe that Loch Ness Monster has a cloaking device from the Vulcans to spy on us...Ay? Ever think of that? No I bet not. Damn Green blooded pointed eared Logic.

[RGA]

Nonsense, absolute nonsense. Biase is present regardless of knowledge of price, etc. There is no real world correlation to anything unless it is corroborated under bias controlled conditions. Read the works of Toole on this very issue and how he demonstrates this.

Knowing the price is a bias. People will presume more expensive is better. Correlational observation that is uninfluenced is valid in psychology....maybe if you went to university and took a course in the field or Toole took a psych course you would both learn something. Has he got a Psychology degree or a psychoacoustics degree...they are not the same. The latter is worthless. And you are just using heresay because his paper makes NO COMMENT outside of the test and print it on this forum word for word what he actually says instead of referring to things that are not DIRECTLY and specifically on CD players.



Now why do you bring in th ebogus 'forced choice' silliness. You don't have a forced choice in a psych test? Invalid.
Sighted evaluation for sonic differences, has no real meaning. A fact of life.

Define the term Validity. Get out one of those books on your shelf...it's a Psychology book opr stats book right??? and print it here for me so I know that you know what you're talking about. Testing is different for different things not the one size fits all idiocy you're talking about. But then knowing psychology at the level I do tells me this. What engineers know about psychology is irrelevant and typically worng as it is spouted in these forums.



So, because you don't know anyone, it doesn't happen?
DBT doesn't introduce any bias, it eliminates them. Live with it.

Umm DBT reduces bias does not eliminate them that is the funniest thing I've read. It eliminates CERTAIN biases. Yes any TEST environment introduces a bias. If the normal environment is not a test and you introduce a test then you have introduced a bias - the test itself IS a bias. A pressured choice IS a bias. You can reduce the pressured selection...why do you think it is not in a cold sterile lab as a previous poster mentioned???? If there was no INTRODUCED bias then why not in a cold sterile lab...would make no difference according to your idiotic and WRONG information. The reason they make the test as COMFORTABLE as possible is to reduce the Test bias called anxiety.

If it introduced NO Bias none of that would be at all necessary...by doing it they ADMIT their test is invalid. Now it's a matter of degrees. And now it's a line to decide where you want to reside ad hardly the fact you desparately hope it to find. Your polar stance on the issue is puzzling. I find it with a lot of other religiopus people who blindly follow their faith...them in a book and you on stats that may or may not truly say anything about the the actual answers. But since we won't agree there is no point...and No this does not mean I support cable differences or betterments nor do I support biased sighted listening. Failed attempts to prove a difference in an invalid test may SEEM to discount the claim and in some cases do, certainly doesn't mean there isn't that projects to the entire population in all environments with all equipment. Even the Definition does not support what you hope it to support.

[pctower]

Last year, I tried to make the points you are making from a lay perspective and was crucified by the pseudo-scientists here. I was of course immediately accused of defending the Cable Asylum and sighted listening tests, and the entire discussion devolved into my trying to explain how one can critique DBTs as they have been performed without advocating a return to the stone age.

The response was inevitably the canned, condescending lecture on the validity of controll testing, which of course I was never questioning.

Nice to see someone with a professional background in the relevant discipline (which is not engineering) come along.

[okiemax]

Bring us a good positive listening test. Don't have any? Why is that?
No one claimed A=B wich is a mathematical claim. Just that there is no audible difference that you can hear.
That has yet to be demonstrated aftyer 20+ years. Maybe in another 20 years someone will be able to. We'll see. Then we can change our minds on the issue. In the meantime, there are no audible differences.

I don't recall seeing a positive listening test for audible differences in cables. If there haven't been any, does that prove there are no audible differences? No. All the negative tests I have seen are flawed? If there hasn't been a good negative test, does that prove there are audible differences in cables? No.

Even a good negative test is not conclusive. No matter how much you want a non-rejected null hypothesis to prove there is no difference, or as you say,"Just no audible difference that you can hear," you can't draw that conclusion. If you disagree, please show me a statistics text book or any authoritative source that says you can draw that kind of conclusion when the null can't be rejected.

[Beckman]

Speaker cables can sound different.

14 AWG zip cable has no audible affect(effect?) on music in the audible frequency range.

Some high-end cables attenuate(lower) the magnitude of the signal for certain frequency ranges.

ANY CABLE ON THE MARKET CAN BE REPLACED WITH CHEAP ZIP CABLE, INDUCTORS, AND CAPACITORS. THE IMPEDANCE OF THE CABLE IS WHAT AFFECTS(EFFECTS?) THE SOUND.

[mtrycraft]

I don't recall seeing a positive listening test for audible differences in cables. If there haven't been any, does that prove there are no audible differences? No. All the negative tests I have seen are flawed? If there hasn't been a good negative test, does that prove there are audible differences in cables? No.

Even a good negative test is not conclusive. No matter how much you want a non-rejected null hypothesis to prove there is no difference, or as you say,"Just no audible difference that you can hear," you can't draw that conclusion. If you disagree, please show me a statistics text book or any authoritative source that says you can draw that kind of conclusion when the null can't be rejected.

Why do I keep citing if it is disregarded.
"Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?", Greenhill, Larry, Stereo Review, Aug 83, pg 46-51.

There is a positive result for some small, 24ga cable and 16 ga.

Testing has been conducted for 30 years. Well know what causes differences and what doesn't. No mystery, not rocket science but some turn it into voodoo, hype, bs and speculations.

Oh, you may want to read this about Null acceptance.

Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and Cognition, Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138, (1995).

[Chuck]

Naysayers argue there is no scientific basis for claims of audible differences in cables, and that listeners who make such claims are experiencing a placebo effect rather than hearing real differences. However, there may be no scientific basis for naysayer's claims about the placebo effect. Can anyone offer proof?
This seems to be an issue over which some people are extremely polarized. At one extreme there are a few people who totally reject the value of any subjective experience, and at the other extreme there are a few people who totally reject any attempt to apply objective methods. Everyone tends to lean one way or the other, probably because most realize that the truth is usually found somewhere between the two extremes.

At one extreme there are those who say that all the differences people hear between components are the result of a placebo effect. Anyone who has ever sold high-end audio equipment has seen the power of suggestion at work, so it is easy to understand where this idea comes from. A good audio salesman first qualifies his customer, then guides him to a decision, and finally closes the sale. To guide the customer to purchase what the salesman wants to sell, the salesman uses the power of suggestion. The customer will always be persuaded to hear "better sound" from whatever gear the salesman is pushing. It is easy enough to direct the subjective experience, but it takes a huge leap of faith to get from that fact to the idea that all perceived differences are due to expectations or a placebo effect. Our biases do effect our perceptions, so it is valid to question subjective evaluations if they have any chance of being biased, but some take it too far.

At the other extreme there are those who say that measurements and controlled tests tell us nothing. This group often makes claims about how limited measurements are, including claims that we don't measure in the time domain (an untrue claim) or that we only measure THD (also untrue). Other false claims by this group include the assertion that those who measure don't listen, which of course is as absurd as thinking that all perceived differences are the result of a placebo effect. While it is true that the subjective extreme will not participate in any kind of controlled objective tests, it is not true that those who do such testing refuse to listen to music. That conclusion also takes a huge leap of faith. Measurements tell us a great deal, but they don't tell us everything. That which measures poorly never sounds good, so measurements are far from useless. The same can be said for controlled listening tests. They help answer some questions, just as measurements help answer some questions. Both of the extreme views that reject information to support an extreme position are conspicuously flawed.

A proof of the placebo effect is beyond the scope of this forum, but there is some related evidence that has relevance. Perhaps Mtrycrafts, Skpetic, or one of the other regulars, can post a link. Some years ago a group of "experienced listeners" participated in a cable test. During the first part of the test they were allowed to compare a high-end cable to a common cable, in sighted tests, just to insure that the system they were using had the resolution to expose the difference. While this first part of the test was "blind" in the sense that they could not see the cables being swapped, they were told which cable was in use, and allowed to discuss the differences they heard. The entire panel heard the same differences they had heard in the past on their "reference systems." The second part of the test was fully blind, with the usual results, but it was the first part of the test that lends strong weight to the placebo effect argument. You see, during the first part of the test, the cables were not actually swapped, and the panel still heard a difference, because they THOUGHT the cables had been swapped. That is clearly a placebo effect. It absolutely DOES NOT prove that all differences heard are the result of placebo effect, but it does prove that with that particular group of listeners, the suggestion was enough to make them hear a difference when there was none.

The following links also show that the placebo effect is very real.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,3605,740505,00.html

http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2003/4/28/34995.html

http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/placebo.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/depression_placebo020102.html

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

http://dermatology.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/1993/1001/1

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,2534536%255E1702,00.html

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/8/theplaceboeffect.php

http://www.bcx.net/hypnosis/placebo.htm

http://dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=130

http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/nocebo.html

http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/11/27/ethics.matters/

"Placebo: Theory Research and Mechanisms" edited by Leonard White, Bernard Tursky, and Gary Schwartz, Guilford Press, New York, 1985

"Placebo Effects in Health and Disease: Index of New Information with Authors, Subjects and References" by Joseph Hartwick, ABBE Publications, Washington DC, 1996

[RGA]

Last year, I tried to make the points you are making from a lay perspective and was crucified by the pseudo-scientists here. I was of course immediately accused of defending the Cable Asylum and sighted listening tests, and the entire discussion devolved into my trying to explain how one can critique DBTs as they have been performed without advocating a return to the stone age.

The response was inevitably the canned, condescending lecture on the validity of controll testing, which of course I was never questioning.

Nice to see someone with a professional background in the relevant discipline (which is not engineering) come along.

Just so you know blind testing is not really the part of the debate or argument. There is no argument about the merrit of a double blind test which I have previously erred on, because most people argue against DBT when it is really the 'conclusion' drawn from the statistics and the A/B nature of the test. The Naysayers think we're against DBT, when in fact it is not - it is the colnclusion drawn to to the real world.

I am not a psychologist by the way. I was going down the path to become one but switched majors and will be a teacher. Excuse my hurried typing and poor grammar as I don't usually ever proof read what I type. LOL, the major is English and History now with Liberal Studies, Psychology and Philosophy as possible minors if I can fit them in.

The definition of validity is clearly stated in Psych and Stats books even in year one. It is ignored by those who have an agenda.

I don't understand why when someone points out the none facts these DBTs produce suddenly implay that people who point out the flaws are suddenly ASSUMED to support Sighted listening. But then these people assume a lot and jump to conclusions without all of the facts or proof.... so it is not surprising then that they jump to conclusions and make assumptions beyond the test environments they read.

[Beckman]

The entire cable argument on this forum seems to based around people who have invested large sums of money on cables wanting to justify their purchases. It is very rare to here someone say that they have purchased expensive cabes and heard no difference. Proof of placebo effect? Proove there isn't a placebo effect?

It is not that I need proof that high end cables sound better, I need proof that .50/ft. cable sounds bad. I am not willing to spend hundreds of dollars on cables that at most will attenuate the signal, when I could do the same thing with some capacitors and inductors.

[Chuck]

The entire cable argument on this forum seems to based around people who have invested large sums of money on cables wanting to justify their purchases.

It is hard to imagine that some might feel a need to justify the money they spend on their hobby. Where is the fun in a hobby that has to be justified?

The polarization seems to be more a matter people trying to justify their beliefs than their expenditures.

[okiemax]

Why do I keep citing if it is disregarded.
"Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?", Greenhill, Larry, Stereo Review, Aug 83, pg 46-51.

There is a positive result for some small, 24ga cable and 16 ga.

Testing has been conducted for 30 years. Well know what causes differences and what doesn't. No mystery, not rocket science but some turn it into voodoo, hype, bs and speculations.

Oh, you may want to read this about Null acceptance.

Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and Cognition, Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138, (1995).

Statistical hypothesis testing for audible dfferences in cables was the subject. If Greenhill's Stereo Review article gives positive results for audiophile cables in such a test, you have answered your own request("bring us a good positive"). If his article is not about hypothesis testing for audible differences in audiophile cables, why bring it up?

The following excerpt is from an abstract of Frick's article, published in the Journal of Statistics Education, v. 3, n. 1 (1995): "The author concludes that the null hypothesis should sometimes be accepted (where the methodology he presents is followed), and that the rules of psychology(or science in general) should be changed to allow the null hypothesis to be accepted."

Have the rules of psychology or science in general been changed to conform to Frick's belief about the null?

[Beckman]

It is hard to imagine that some might feel a need to justify the money they spend on their hobby. Where is the fun in a hobby that has to be justified?

The polarization seems to be more a matter people trying to justify their beliefs than their expenditures.

It's not the hobby that needs to be justified. It's the hundreds of dollars spent on speaker cables that could have been spent on other things like music that needs to be justified.

[Chuck]

It's not the hobby that needs to be justified. It's the hundreds of dollars spent on speaker cables that could have been spent on other things like music that needs to be justified.

My comments related to what people are trying to justify, while your comments relate to what you believe people need to justify. Totally different topic. Do you think that one person should care what another thinks he should justify?

Frankly, it's none of your business how someone else spends their money. If they want to gamble it away or spend it on wild-women, or in any other way, that's their business, and only their business, as long as it is their money that they're spending. Do you think we must all drive practical automobiles or justify our reasons for doing otherwise? Who put you in charge of making such decisions? :)

[okiemax]

The entire cable argument on this forum seems to based around people who have invested large sums of money on cables wanting to justify their purchases. It is very rare to here someone say that they have purchased expensive cabes and heard no difference. Proof of placebo effect? Proove there isn't a placebo effect?

It is not that I need proof that high end cables sound better, I need proof that .50/ft. cable sounds bad. I am not willing to spend hundreds of dollars on cables that at most will attenuate the signal, when I could do the same thing with some capacitors and inductors.


Being a yeasayer doesn't necessarily mean spending large sums of money on audiophile cables, nor does it mean believing inexpensive cables sound bad. And it doesn't mean believing performance is determined by price.

My Carol 12 awg silver-plated copper speaker cable, which I was lucky enough to buy on close-out at Home Depot for about .15/ft, sounds pretty good to me. I prefer my Zu Julian cable (about $5.50/ft), but not by a wide margin. I tried a relatively expensive silver interconnect a few months ago, but I didn't like it as much as my $40 Signal and $25 Radio Shack models. I could give more examples of cables I have tried, but my point is I don't spend a lot on cables and I don't like or buy everything I try.

Of course I don't speak for all the yeasayers who frequent this forum, but there may be others who don't spend large amounts on cables, or at least not as much as naysayers like to believe. You may see more of the big spenders over at the AA cable forum, but even there you will find that many posts are about DIY cables, which usually are inexpensive.

So what is the cable argument here at the AR based on? Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, I would say it's based mostly on a liking for argument, and a particular liking for argument over an issue that most people would think unimportant if not downright silly. But what do most people know?

You also need to take a position, although a few members fence straddle, and some even jump back and forth. As a yeasayer, you would need to believe what you hear, and distrust measurements and other objective tests if they conflict with what you hear. As a naysayer, you would do just the opposite --- i.e., don't believe what you hear unless you have confirmed it objectively. These labels will not fit everyone, but give an idea of what the two sides are like.

[mtrycraft]

Statistical hypothesis testing for audible dfferences in cables was the subject. If Greenhill's Stereo Review article gives positive results for audiophile cables in such a test, you have answered your own request("bring us a good positive"). If his article is not about hypothesis testing for audible differences in audiophile cables, why bring it up?

The following excerpt is from an abstract of Frick's article, published in the Journal of Statistics Education, v. 3, n. 1 (1995): "The author concludes that the null hypothesis should sometimes be accepted (where the methodology he presents is followed), and that the rules of psychology(or science in general) should be changed to allow the null hypothesis to be accepted."

Have the rules of psychology or science in general been changed to conform to Frick's belief about the null?

Nope, I didn't answer my own question. We know that 24 ga and 16 ga sound different. That is not the issue, is it?
Claims for differences are not between such a poor cable, 24ga and zip cord of 12ga-16ga. 24 ga is not even close in equivalance, is it now?
Greenhill demonstrates when cables sound different, under what circumastances and when they do not. Rather simple if one reads the paper. 24 ga is inferior cable for speakers and is not recommended. It takes such poor cables to be audibly different. Simple.

Frick believs so. He has no problem accepting the null. As to the rest of the community, you need to ask them. I have no problem with accepting the Null. One can always change position with better data that so far is not available after all these decades.

[mtrycraft]

Being a yeasayer doesn't necessarily mean spending large sums of money on audiophile cables, nor does it mean believing inexpensive cables sound bad. And it doesn't mean believing performance is determined by price.

then what does it mean to you as it will be only your deffinition, not universal.

My Carol 12 awg silver-plated copper speaker cable, which I was lucky enough to buy on close-out at Home Depot for about .15/ft, sounds pretty good to me.

Good. You got a steal.

I prefer my Zu Julian cable (about $5.50/ft), but not by a wide margin.

And how can one argue agains a preference?




I tried a relatively expensive silver interconnect a few months ago, but I didn't like it as much as my $40 Signal and $25 Radio Shack models. I could give more examples of cables I have tried, but my point is I don't spend a lot on cables and I don't like or buy everything I try.


No you don't. But you keep trying cables. A waste of time.


Of course I don't speak for all the yeasayers who frequent this forum, but there may be others who don't spend large amounts on cables, or at least not as much as naysayers like to believe.

Nothing to believe. Belief is without evidence. One only has to read what people use and buy.


You may see more of the big spenders over at the AA cable forum, but even there you will find that many posts are about DIY cables, which usually are inexpensive.

Yep, they do spend. Why even waste the time on DIY? Only thing one could get out is that it was self made.

So what is the cable argument here at the AR based on?[/]

You need to read the posts. Obviously you must not be reading the posts. When peopl make testable claims, the discussions begin, and an accounting of that claim is asked for. Simple.


[b]Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, I would say it's based mostly on a liking for argument, and a particular liking for argument over an issue that most people would think unimportant if not downright silly. But what do most people know?


You need to read the posts and the claims made. Then, you may see it different, or not.

[Chuck]

So what is the cable argument here at the AR based on? Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, I would say it's based mostly on a liking for argument, and a particular liking for argument over an issue that most people would think unimportant if not downright silly. But what do most people know?

I had not considered it, but that is no doubt the case with at least a few people. I will change my thinking accordingly. :)


You also need to take a position, although a few members fence straddle, and some even jump back and forth. As a yeasayer, you would need to believe what you hear, and distrust measurements and other objective tests if they conflict with what you hear. As a naysayer, you would do just the opposite --- i.e., don't believe what you hear unless you have confirmed it objectively. These labels will not fit everyone, but give an idea of what the two sides are like.

It seems that you are using the terms "yeasayer" and "naysayer" to describe what I would call the "poles" of the polarization. In one case we have the rejection of "measurements and other objective tests," and in the other case we have those who reject any claims of audible differences. Hopefully the labels fit only a small minority or a few individuals. Those who adopt extreme positions are typically more outspoken, and this can give the appearance that they are in the majority, when in fact they are only a small and insignificant, but very vocal, minority.

There really is no "fence" to "straddle." The situation is not simply black-and-white. Those who reject information as out of hand simply because they don't like what it might indicate tend to see it that way; Either you are with them, or you are against them; If you're not polarized, then you are "jumping back and forth" or "straddling the fence." I think that is wrong; Those who reject information of any kind, to avoid having to change their positions, are the ones who end up adopting extreme positions that don't stand up well to close examination.

[Chuck]

[b]Nothing to believe. Belief is without evidence. One only has to read what people use and buy.

This thread has drifted way off topic, but in the context of the original discussion your statement here seems obtuse. A placebo is, in effect, a belief. A placebo effect is an effect that is the result of a belief. The original post asked for proof of a commonly stated belief. I don't see how reading "what people use and buy" can provide proof of the placebo effect (not in audio or any other area where it might be encountered).

So Mtrycrafts, more to the point of the topic at hand, can you post a link to the test where the panel was told that the wires were being swapped, and heard differences, even though the wires were not actually swapped? That's the placebo effect at work in audio, and proves that it does happen, at least on occasion. Do you have any links?
(And how the heck did this thread get so far off topic?) :)

[RGA]

The entire cable argument on this forum seems to based around people who have invested large sums of money on cables wanting to justify their purchases. It is very rare to here someone say that they have purchased expensive cabes and heard no difference. Proof of placebo effect? Proove there isn't a placebo effect?

It is not that I need proof that high end cables sound better, I need proof that .50/ft. cable sounds bad. I am not willing to spend hundreds of dollars on cables that at most will attenuate the signal, when I could do the same thing with some capacitors and inductors.

Well yes people will justify an expensive cable cd player amplifier or speaker for that matter. And while this does occur the reverse is also the case. People who are envious because they don't have the money for such things will argue that their cheap item is every bit as good or better. Occasionally the cheaper is equal or better.

I have seen $70.00 Toasters. People with money have to have something to spend their money on...otherwise why enter into high pressure souless careers? Surely they don't put themselves through hell just to own a B&W over a Honda Civic. Then again maybe they do.

I have highly rated Tara Labs Prizm 11 interconnect Cables(given to me for free). I have never really closely evaluated them against the ones that came in the box. But in passing...I have noticed no difference and this is sighted supposedly biased environment. I should be raving about how great the cable is because of the reviews, the looks, the price(which was close to $100.00)....all that bias didn't effect me...there is no major difference or even a small one that I can hear. Have had em for 4 years.

[RGA]

This thread has drifted way off topic, but in the context of the original discussion your statement here seems obtuse. A placebo is, in effect, a belief. A placebo effect is an effect that is the result of a belief. The original post asked for proof of a commonly stated belief. I don't see how reading "what people use and buy" can provide proof of the placebo effect (not in audio or any other area where it might be encountered).

So Mtrycrafts, more to the point of the topic at hand, can you post a link to the test where the panel was told that the wires were being swapped, and heard differences, even though the wires were not actually swapped? That's the placebo effect at work in audio, and proves that it does happen, at least on occasion. Do you have any links?
(And how the heck did this thread get so far off topic?) :)

The brain is a decision maker...if presented two identical sections of music in a Double blind test from the SAME player and the SAME part of the music our brain will try and PICK one. It has nothing to do with the auditory system. The brain is unreliable. You say "Make a selection" our brain assumes a selection needs to be made even if the two are the same. And this is the system we choose to differentiate difference. An unreliable test and unreliable brains. Of course normal listening does not ask you to choose between two as a test. But then one is a test environment the other is not.

[mtrycraft]

So Mtrycrafts, more to the point of the topic at hand, can you post a link to the test where the panel was told that the wires were being swapped, and heard differences, even though the wires were not actually swapped? That's the placebo effect at work in audio, and proves that it does happen, at least on occasion.


Nope, I don't think I have a link but one only needs to ask John Dunalvy or Tom Nousaine how many times they have fooled their subjects. If I find one, I will post it :)

I need to tell James Randi that next time they test a psychic, they need to do something similar, not change subjects and see if they get the same reading, or, not even have a subject behind the curtin and see if there is silence or a reading to an empty chair :)

Good to see good old chuck back

[Chuck]

Good to see good old chuck back

It's good to be back. Seems this place has changed quite a lot during my extended absence.

At one time I had a link to an article in which John D. described his "placebo: experiment, but either I've lost it or the article is no longer available.

Where's Eyespy?

[okiemax]

Well yes people will justify an expensive cable cd player amplifier or speaker for that matter. And while this does occur the reverse is also the case. People who are envious because they don't have the money for such things will argue that their cheap item is every bit as good or better. Occasionally the cheaper is equal or better.

I have seen $70.00 Toasters. People with money have to have something to spend their money on...otherwise why enter into high pressure souless careers? Surely they don't put themselves through hell just to own a B&W over a Honda Civic. Then again maybe they do.

I have highly rated Tara Labs Prizm 11 interconnect Cables(given to me for free). I have never really closely evaluated them against the ones that came in the box. But in passing...I have noticed no difference and this is sighted supposedly biased environment. I should be raving about how great the cable is because of the reviews, the looks, the price(which was close to $100.00)....all that bias didn't effect me...there is no major difference or even a small one that I can hear. Have had em for 4 years.

Perhaps you didn't experience the placebo effect with the Prizm 11 because this interconnect didn't cost you anything. This brings to mind the 1979 movie "Love at First Bite," a spoof on Dracula starring George Hamilton, Richard Benjamin, and Susan St. James. Susan is a patient of psychiatrist Richard, and she is behind on her bill, so he tells her the therapy only works if you pay your bill.

If you ever do pay $100 dollars for cables and don't experience the placebo effect, hurry up and return them before the money-back guarantee expires. The problem could be you didn't pay enough, so your expectations were too low for any audible improvement that you would really notice( you might need $500 cables), or the power of suggestion just doesn't like you.

But If you do believe the new cable is audibly better than the old one, you could be experiencing the placebo effect! Or, the difference you are hearing may be (gasp) real. Or, if you are really lucky, you may be getting the benefit of both, which is called "PLACEBO PLUS." Sure, there will be doubters who will demand that you blind yourself twice, hang upside down while handcuffed, and subject yourself to other discomforts while listening with your new cables, insisting that you have an obligation to prove to the World that you are not making all this up. Pay them no mind. These people envy your pleasure.

[okiemax]

It's good to be back. Seems this place has changed quite a lot during my extended absence.

At one time I had a link to an article in which John D. described his "placebo: experiment, but either I've lost it or the article is no longer available.

Where's Eyespy?

Regarding John Dunlavy, I don't know if it's what you are seeking, but you can find his "Wire:Facts and Fraud," at the Audio Society of Minnesota web site. Just do a Google search with the following: Minnesota Dunlavy wire.

In your other post you referred to the Dulavy's wire experiments demonstrating the power of suggestion on the participants. It may be more a demonstration of participants trying to please or gain acceptance, with peer pressure also a possible factor, but I'm not sure as I don't know exactly what was done in the experiments.

[okiemax]

Geez, mtrycraft ! Isn't it enough for you to tell me what I can and can't hear? Now, you also want to tell me how to spend my time.

I like playing around with cables and other audio stuff. Hobbies are supposed to be a way to pass time or, if you prefer, waste time.

[RGA]

Geez, mtrycraft ! Isn't it enough for you to tell me what I can and can't hear? Now, you also want to tell me how to spend my time.

I like playing around with cables and other audio stuff. Hobbies are supposed to be a way to pass time or, if you prefer, waste time.

Course Dunlavy's speakers were crap and they went under so I would not trust him as a source. Was he a psychologist? he wasn't a good engineer - he might have built some good speakers if he was.

I have heard a difference in cables all of one time. $100.00 set of Mit's with a box attached to them...what's in the box? A resistor perhaps. Yes they sounded different - they sounded worse. Whatever it did made the sound quiter and rolled off. I can only presume it was trying to immitate the MYTH of what they THINK tubes sound like.

I have done single blind tests of cd players through line level heaphone amps. Youcan connect up to 8 cd players each with a volume control connected to one set of headphones and switch the cd players while you listen. You can adjust each volume control for level matching if you wish of course and make 8 copies of your cd and place a copy in each player. You also get no room acoustics problems with headphones and generally makes it far more detailed and easy to pick things out. You'd be surprised at how many actually sound so very close if not identical to each other...not all of them though. Some will undoubtedly complain about the quality of the line level amp...but nothing is perfect.

It is not hard to deliberately make something sound different. If these tests were truly valid Pioneer could advertise the following:

"Here at pioneer Electronic we have created a great new receiver that, through controllled testing and with the support of the scientific community, established that people cannot tell our Pioneer AVR XXX receiver at $199.00 apart from the Krell YYY at $70k" [at 90db with any speaker rated at 8ohms 87db(1w/m) or better] - this bit in brackets could be the ultra small print at the bottom of the page. "Yes Pioneer engineers have found that we can create the reference level of amplification far cheaper than any other manufacturer equalling the Rolls Royce of Solid stage equipment in Krell...etc ad nauseum".

And why is it not advertised...because they'd be 1) sued because 2)it's not supported and 3) it's BS myth and pseudo sicence as a conclusion to real world applications. Pioneer may be a bad example because then it would discredit their own high end units after all all receivers are indistinguishable as well so why buy the 3k receiver over the $199.00. All they would have is features to sell. But then again they make no claim that their expensive models sound better..just more watts and features. No they could advertise that...it would be a good new shrewd campaign...afraid they'll get sued. Pioneer has deeper pockets for lawyers than Krell. C'Mon let me see the adverts and the irrifutable proof that Pionner is indistinguishable from Krell. After surely the sample sizes done so far are accepted as 100% correlational to discredit the claims and support the null right?

They deliberately make it sound different - it's safer to do that just in case. If they don't turn up in the test the test is crap.

[Beckman]

Geez, mtrycraft ! Isn't it enough for you to tell me what I can and can't hear? Now, you also want to tell me how to spend my time.

I like playing around with cables and other audio stuff. Hobbies are supposed to be a way to pass time or, if you prefer, waste time.

Mtry was simply stating his opinion.

And now I will state mine, again. The great cable debate comes down to one thing. Do cables IMPROVE sound. I KNOW they can CHANGE the sound the same way a filter can.

I also KNOW 50cent or less per foot 14 gauge zip cord neither adds or takes anything away from the audio signal as it leaves the amplifier and enters the speakers for runs of less than 20 ft.

At one time I stated that I though after maket cables improved sound quality, but after extensive research I found that any cable "effects" can be achieved with resistors capacitos and inductors. That is the sound produced by any cable on the market can be duplicated with $15 or $20 worth of parts.

[Pat D]

Naysayers argue there is no scientific basis for claims of audible differences in cables, and that listeners who make such claims are experiencing a placebo effect rather than hearing real differences. However, there may be no scientific basis for naysayer's claims about the placebo effect. Can anyone offer proof?

You have simply misconceived the whole matter. Some, notably Dr. Jeff, have tried to explain this to you but you are not biting.

The point is that it is up to those who claim audible differences between proper cables to prove they exist. In other words, can they establish that anyone can hear the claimed differences under controlled blind conditions? People often report differences between products under sighted conditions, but it often turns out they are not able to establish statistically that they hear such differences under blind conditions.

There, I stated the problem without using the term "placebo effect," or for that matter, "experience." If you don't like the term, don't use it. I seldom do in audio matters because it just tends to confuse matters.

So, in fact, we do not claim people are experiencing a placebo effect, though just what they experience and the processes involved may well be interesting topics. However, they are not part of a DBT.

[mtrycraft]

Regarding John Dunlavy, I don't know if it's what you are seeking, but you can find his "Wire:Facts and Fraud," at the Audio Society of Minnesota web site. Just do a Google search with the following: Minnesota Dunlavy wire.

In your other post you referred to the Dulavy's wire experiments demonstrating the power of suggestion on the participants. It may be more a demonstration of participants trying to please or gain acceptance, with peer pressure also a possible factor, but I'm not sure as I don't know exactly what was done in the experiments.

Any such experiment is easy to conduct. One just switches the same component for the listener to listen for differences, Only A is listened to in all the trials without telling the listener, of course. 75% of participants will hear differences from the same component presented.
The link doesn't seem to work; it takes you to an ad?

[okiemax]

Any such experiment is easy to conduct. One just switches the same component for the listener to listen for differences, Only A is listened to in all the trials without telling the listener, of course. 75% of participants will hear differences from the same component presented.
The link doesn't seem to work; it takes you to an ad?

Try a Google search using the following term: minnesota dunlavy wire. Go to the first item found by the search. What you will see is the Feb. 1997 ASM Bulletin with the Dunlavy article. I just tried it again, and it worked. I didn't get an ad.

Yes, I think you are right about how such tests are conducted, but what I am curious about is what were the participants told going into the test.

[okiemax]

You have simply misconceived the whole matter. Some, notably Dr. Jeff, have tried to explain this to you but you are not biting.

The point is that it is up to those who claim audible differences between proper cables to prove they exist. In other words, can they establish that anyone can hear the claimed differences under controlled blind conditions? People often report differences between products under sighted conditions, but it often turns out they are not able to establish statistically that they hear such differences under blind conditions.

There, I stated the problem without using the term "placebo effect," or for that matter, "experience." If you don't like the term, don't use it. I seldom do in audio matters because it just tends to confuse matters.

So, in fact, we do not claim people are experiencing a placebo effect, though just what they experience and the processes involved may well be interesting topics. However, they are not part of a DBT.

If I believe I hear a difference in two cables, why is it up to me to prove it to you under a controlled test? Unless I say you are deaf or crazy if you can't hear the difference, why do I owe you a test? You are free to try these cables on your own ( sighted, blinded or however you like), and reach your own conclusions. Whatever you thought would be OK with me. However, if you nulled in a blinded test, I might be tempted to raise the possibility of negative expectations biasing the results.

[Chuck]

The brain is a decision maker...if presented two identical sections of music in a Double blind test from the SAME player and the SAME part of the music our brain will try and PICK one. It has nothing to do with the auditory system. The brain is unreliable. You say "Make a selection" our brain assumes a selection needs to be made even if the two are the same. And this is the system we choose to differentiate difference. An unreliable test and unreliable brains. Of course normal listening does not ask you to choose between two as a test. But then one is a test environment the other is not.

Certainly we do use our brains when we make decisions (in theory at least). :) It can certainly be seen as one of the primary function of all brains. Our brains also tend to find patterns, even when there is no real pattern. There are major disconnects between the way our brains and sensory systems work, and the way we experience reality. As a result (and for other reasons) every test is potentially "an unreliable test" due to the involvement of "unreliable brains." When tests produce conflicting results there are at least three possibilities. Either one of the tests is invalid, both tests are invalid, or neither test is invalid. There is ONLY one *rational* way to resolve test discrepancies, and the key to successful resolution is cooperation and further investigation. However, we often see people who would prefer to accept one set of test results over another without any rational justification. The tattle-tale sign of this is that those who do it will totally reject any suggestion that the conflicting data has any meaning at all. If we look at the transcripts and letters that were circulated when cold fusion was a hot topic this kind of thinking is all too obvious.

When two or more people get together to do listening tests (blind or otherwise) it is always a bit of a competitive event. Avoiding bias in the results is extremely difficult. A while back I was involved in some listening test run by Roger Sanders (http://hitechnetworks.net/bwaldron/rogersandersbio.htm). The products being evaluated included a Raven R-2 pure-ribbon driver, which of course uses a very thin aluminum ribbon to produce sound. It only took a few moments for me to detect a coloration in the R-2. There was a very subtle, almost metallic sound, as if the tweeter were ringing slightly. Before it even occurred ot me that the fact that I knew that the moving element was metal might be affecting my perceptions, I asked if I was the only one on the panel who was hearing the ringing. One of the other panelists also heard it, another was unsure but thought that they probably heard it, but Sanders was skeptical. The ringing was so obvious to me that when he didn't immediately hear it I had to consider other possibilities, and it was only then that I realized that it might be a subconscious effect of my knowing that the moving element was metal. Of course by saying something about it to the listening panel I'd biased the others to hear the same thing. Having seen this same thing so many times when working as an audio salesman I knew full well that the fact that others had agreed that they heard what I'd heard meant absolutely nothing. Interestingly, when we ran some measurements on the R-2 there was a very obvious problem due to a cavity resonance. The amplitude, center-frequency, and bandwidth, of the "problem" was not enough to think it might be "obvious" but it *might* be audible, so we all left the first test session scratching our heads. Within a day or two, Sanders was also reporting that he'd now also heard the ringing, and that it was indeed a very real problem. It took nearly a year to develop a pure-ribbon driver with easily adjustable cavity damping, and in the end all that we learned was that the cavity resonance we could measure wasn't actually audible at all. I'd been stupid, and biased the listening test. Then the measurements biased Sanders. Once we had the ability to build ribbons with varying degrees of cavity damping, we were able to test to determine the level the ringing had to reach to be audible, and it was WAY above the level of ringing found in the R-2. It still amazes me that I heard an "obvious metallic" coloration because I was not consciously aware of even considering the ribbon material. Aluminum isn't horribly resonant, and the mass of the ribbon is minimal and well damped by the air-load. I was totally unaware that I actually expected (at some level) to hear a coloration, but that is the only explanation that makes any sense. Everyone else also heard it, but only after they had some reason to expect to hear it.

No doubt that our senses and our brains are unreliable sources if we want objective data. This is true no matter how objective we try to be or think we are. In the final analysis it's clear that any search for truth has to assimilate, rather than reject or ignore, conflicting information and data.

[Beckman]

If I believe I hear a difference in two cables, why is it up to me to prove it to you under a controlled test? Unless I say you are deaf or crazy if you can't hear the difference, why do I owe you a test? You are free to try these cables on your own ( sighted, blinded or however you like), and reach your own conclusions. Whatever you thought would be OK with me. However, if you nulled in a blinded test, I might be tempted to raise the possibility of negative expectations biasing the results.

I believe you can here a difference. I just think there are a lot better ways of changing the sound quality. $10 - $15 worth of parts to produce cables with the exact same transfer function(charecteristics).

[Pat D]

If I believe I hear a difference in two cables, why is it up to me to prove it to you under a controlled test? Unless I say you are deaf or crazy if you can't hear the difference, why do I owe you a test? You are free to try these cables on your own ( sighted, blinded or however you like), and reach your own conclusions. Whatever you thought would be OK with me. However, if you nulled in a blinded test, I might be tempted to raise the possibility of negative expectations biasing the results.

I say one thing, you make it say something else. You can believe what you want. However, when you make a claim, it is not up to anyone else to disprove it, it is up to you to prove your claim.

You can raise all sorts of abstract difficulties. However, it still remains that you would not have established your claim to be able to hear the presumably tiny differences between proper cables. Whether I can hear them or not, or what biases I might have are irrelevant to your claim.

You certainly are trying to avoid the problem. I notice that you have managed to get along without talking about experiencing placebo effects, so I take it I have established my point there.

[Chuck]

In your other post you referred to the Dulavy's wire experiments demonstrating the power of suggestion on the participants. It may be more a demonstration of participants trying to please or gain acceptance, with peer pressure also a possible factor, but I'm not sure as I don't know exactly what was done in the experiments.

Agreed. Also true of drug testing, where the patient may worry about disappointing the enthusiastic health care professional that has devoted so much time. Might be a placebo effect, or just might be the patient trying to please the doctor.

Further, listening tests do tend to be competitive events. Likely this also applies on the sales-floor. Saying something like "notice how much tighter the bass in on this system" or "listen to how gritty those cymbals sound" gives the customer a problem. He wouldn't be in the high-end salon if he didn't have aspirations of being a golden-ear. I have NEVER seen anyone (in a high-end audio salon) tell the salesman, "Nope, I don't hear what you're claiming to hear." When unsure, the customer tends to listen "harder," actually putting effort into hearing what he now thinks he is supposed to hear. In every case I've ever seen this has but one effect. The customer hears what he wants to hear, and that is whatever the salesman is telling him to hear. In spite of these contributing factors, it is still true that the customer, or people on a listening panel, do hear what they hear. It is very real to them, even if it is only real because the salesman heard it and they force themselves to hear it too. It's still very real, once it is heard. That's the part of the situation that seems to be a type of placebo effect.

The more I read here on the topic the less I like the term "placebo" as it is being used here. It isn't an incorrect term, but since it generates so much resistance and confusion it's probably either too broad or too remote. In the context of cables (for example) if we test with a control group that doesn't get their cables swapped (as our control) then the claim of a swap is a placebo. Restricting the use of term to that particular type of (conventional) usage is probably advisable. When we bring home a new component and have our evaluations biased by expectations there really is no placebo involved. This is like the situation in the lab where we're looking for some expected results, and we see patterns in the measurements that make us think we've found the results we expected to find. Different labs and different fields tend to use different terms to describe this, but terms like "experimenter bias" or "expectation bias" seem far more appropriate than "placebo effect" (since there is no placebo involved, only the expectations of the experimenter).

[Pat D]

Perhaps you didn't experience the placebo effect with the Prizm 11 because this interconnect didn't cost you anything. This brings to mind the 1979 movie "Love at First Bite," a spoof on Dracula starring George Hamilton, Richard Benjamin, and Susan St. James. Susan is a patient of psychiatrist Richard, and she is behind on her bill, so he tells her the therapy only works if you pay your bill. .

My aren't you inventive. But, alas, while you may have eliminated one specific source of bias, you haven't eliminated all bias. All you need to introduce bias is to know which component is being auditioned. Nothing more.

Again, none of these explanations is needed to show two things are audibly different. We don't need to know the mechanisms to establish that, only that things reported under sighted auditioning often don't show up statistically during blind auditions.

What Dunlavy and others have noted is that people often report perceiving differences when there is no change. And, there is no need to suppose they do not. For example, the second time you hear some music you may notice something you did not notice before. You have given no reason to suppose this is not so during sighted auditioning. Your arguments from social pressure or the desire to please are all part of the mix, just another source of bias. As has been pointed out, we are built to perceive differences.

Since you like recommending searches, why don't you look up the story of Jean Buridan's donkey?

[Pat D]

Any such experiment is easy to conduct. One just switches the same component for the listener to listen for differences, Only A is listened to in all the trials without telling the listener, of course. 75% of participants will hear differences from the same component presented.
The link doesn't seem to work; it takes you to an ad?

Maybe this will work.

http://www.visi.com/~asm/Newsletters/asm_feb_97.PDF

[mtrycraft]

Maybe this will work.

http://www.visi.com/~asm/Newsletters/asm_feb_97.PDF


Great, thanks. It works :)

Here is an older one that still works too:)

http://www.verber.com/mark/cables.html

[mtrycraft]

Yes, I think you are right about how such tests are conducted, but what I am curious about is what were the participants told going into the test.

They were certainly not told to not listen for differences :)

Of course they are told as in any such DBT, which one is different? Except the presentration in reality is the same. So, if th elistener doesn't hear differences, that is the answer to put. Why would anyone hear differences between the same component presented twice? Human nature looks for differences, even if there is none, many will still claim one. Human psychology.

[Pat D]

The more I read here on the topic the less I like the term "placebo" as it is being used here. It isn't an incorrect term, but since it generates so much resistance and confusion it's probably either too broad or too remote. In the context of cables (for example) if we test with a control group that doesn't get their cables swapped (as our control) then the claim of a swap is a placebo. Restricting the use of term to that particular type of (conventional) usage is probably advisable. When we bring home a new component and have our evaluations biased by expectations there really is no placebo involved. This is like the situation in the lab where we're looking for some expected results, and we see patterns in the measurements that make us think we've found the results we expected to find. Different labs and different fields tend to use different terms to describe this, but terms like "experimenter bias" or "expectation bias" seem far more appropriate than "placebo effect" (since there is no placebo involved, only the expectations of the experimenter).

Yes,I agree it tends to cause confusion. Some people get the idea that somehow we must prove there is a placebo effect in a given situation! In other words, they try to shift the burden of proof rather than getting the point that person making the claim is the one with the burden of proof.

[DMK]

However, when you make a claim, it is not up to anyone else to disprove it, it is up to you to prove your claim.
.

In the scientific community, perhaps, but I don't agree that anyone making a claim of cable differences is thereby compelled to prove it to anyone. Why does anyone need to convince you? You're free to believe what you want. the fact that I personally do not believe these claims has no bearing on the claimant. Why should he care what I think?

OTOH, I would think that someone who makes such a claim in light of the evidence would want to at least prove it to themselves by way of some bias controlled testing. You know... prove to themselves that it isn't just their imagination at work. I can tell you this much: doing such a test would cut down on these claims by an awful lot! :)

[Pat D]

In the scientific community, perhaps, but I don't agree that anyone making a claim of cable differences is thereby compelled to prove it to anyone. Why does anyone need to convince you? You're free to believe what you want. the fact that I personally do not believe these claims has no bearing on the claimant. Why should he care what I think?

OTOH, I would think that someone who makes such a claim in light of the evidence would want to at least prove it to themselves by way of some bias controlled testing. You know... prove to themselves that it isn't just their imagination at work. I can tell you this much: doing such a test would cut down on these claims by an awful lot! :)

Making a claim goes beyond private belief. No one is compelled to prove much of anything, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. We simply point out that such claims are doubtful. Now, if they do not care whether others are convinced or not, why do so many object? Clearly, some expect their claims to be accepted as a universal truth.:cool:

[DMK]

Making a claim goes beyond private belief. No one is compelled to prove much of anything, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. We simply point out that such claims are doubtful. Now, if they do not care whether others are convinced or not, why do so many object? Clearly, some expect their claims to be accepted as a universal truth.:cool:

They object because you're in effect telling them that they didn't hear what they "know" they heard. Most of the objections made by naysayers that I read on this board have been accepted as a universal truth and it flies in the face of what cable believers "hear". Consequently, they challenge back and say "if you want proof, prove I didn't hear it. I have no need to prove it to anyone".

I find some validity in that, at least conceptually. I think the reason is that I don't view audio reproduction scientifically as those who are qualified to do so view it. I view it as a hobby, a subjective experience. But even so, if I've proven something to myself in a scientific manner, I do not feel the need to do it again in front of an audience but instead, I'm comfortable with my knowledge as well as the protocol, since the latter IS accepted by the scientific community.

Universal truth in cables? Man, if you read some of the reviews, no two people seem to hear the same things in these cables. The same dang one is bright, mellow, rolled off, extended, veiled, clear, etc, etc etc. So they use the term "system dependent" to explain those inconsistencies.

I wonder if many of these cables are simply engineered to sound different and the manufacturers don't worry so much about passing a pure signal. As a result, they WOULD be system dependent. But how do you add capacitance to a wire? Does it come in a little jar and you just spoon in two teaspoons instead of one? :)

I'd prefer to give a tone control a slight wrist flick - it'd be one hell of a lot more predictable!

[Woochifer]

Course Dunlavy's speakers were crap and they went under so I would not trust him as a source. Was he a psychologist? he wasn't a good engineer - he might have built some good speakers if he was.

I typically don't chime in on these threads because they always revert back to the alien abduction and Loch Ness Monster analogies (been there, done that). But, this comment about John Dunlavy is so incredibly ignorant, I had to chime in. If you think Dunlavy wasn't a good engineer, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Dunlavy is a widely respected speaker designer (aside from the now defunct DAL, he also founded two other audio companies, one of which still operates as Duntech) whose speakers are still frequently used in professional settings and as reference systems, and holds several patents for time-aligned speaker baffles and various antenna designs.

Where he fell short was with his marketing chutzpah and ability to run a profitable business. Plenty of examples out there of competent engineers who were incompetent at marketing and running a business. And he's one of the few players in the audio business who had the guts to speak the truth about the cable industry, even if it meant alienating himself from everybody who practically printed money by peddling overpriced cables. You're welcome to disparage his business acumen all you want since DAL did go bust, but to attack his credentials as an engineer and speaker designer is pure ignorance since I can tell that you've never listened to one of his speakers.

Crappy speakers means that your business goes under and you suck as an engineer, and great speakers means that your business is profitable and you're an engineering deity, right? If you use business and marketing success as a gauge for whom you trust as an engineering expert, then I guess that Dr. Bose is the utmost authority on all audio topics, and I'm pretty sure that you don't believe that.

[mtrycraft]

Geez, mtrycraft ! Isn't it enough for you to tell me what I can and can't hear? Now, you also want to tell me how to spend my time.


Tell you what you hear? Hardly. I question what you claim to hear. After all, humans are great at imagining things with their senses and at times conflicting.

[mtrycraft]

I typically don't chime in on these threads because they always revert back to the alien abduction and Loch Ness Monster analogies (been there, done that). But, this comment about John Dunlavy is so incredibly ignorant, I had to chime in. If you think Dunlavy wasn't a good engineer, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Dunlavy is a widely respected speaker designer (aside from the now defunct DAL, he also founded two other audio companies, one of which still operates as Duntech) whose speakers are still frequently used in professional settings and as reference systems, and holds several patents for time-aligned speaker baffles and various antenna designs.

Where he fell short was with his marketing chutzpah and ability to run a profitable business. Plenty of examples out there of competent engineers who were incompetent at marketing and running a business. And he's one of the few players in the audio business who had the guts to speak the truth about the cable industry, even if it meant alienating himself from everybody who practically printed money by peddling overpriced cables. You're welcome to disparage his business acumen all you want since DAL did go bust, but to attack his credentials as an engineer and speaker designer is pure ignorance since I can tell that you've never listened to one of his speakers.

Crappy speakers means that your business goes under and you suck as an engineer, and great speakers means that your business is profitable and you're an engineering deity, right? If you use business and marketing success as a gauge for whom you trust as an engineering expert, then I guess that Dr. Bose is the utmost authority on all audio topics, and I'm pretty sure that you don't believe that.


Thanks, woochifer. Incredible how low some stoop to denigrade someone they have zero clue about.

[Chuck]

Crappy speakers means that your business goes under and you suck as an engineer, and great speakers means that your business is profitable and you're an engineering deity, right? If you use business and marketing success as a gauge for whom you trust as an engineering expert, then I guess that Dr. Bose is the utmost authority on all audio topics, and I'm pretty sure that you don't believe that.

Logic dictates that anyone who disagrees with a golden-ear is incompetent. Try disagreeing with one and you'll see for yourself. Obviously some of the really dumb ears put Bose and Dunlavy in the same class for this very reason. Ignorance knows no bounds.

[Chuck]

Thanks, woochifer. Incredible how low some stoop to denigrade someone they have zero clue about.

Odd that a thread discussing the truth about AA and JR gets shut down here, but one slamming a dedicated audio engineer like Dunlavy is perfectly acceptable. Our moderator is apparently also very biased against anyone who disagrees with the golden-ears. Ignorance knows no bounds.
(Mine included.)

[jneutron]

Odd that a thread discussing the truth about AA and JR gets shut down here, but one slamming a dedicated audio engineer like Dunlavy is perfectly acceptable. Our moderator is apparently also very biased against anyone who disagrees with the golden-ears. Ignorance knows no bounds.
(Mine included.)

Hi Chuck..
I also live in a no bounds world...

Your observation of the moderator's application of the rules is certainly consistent with mine. I hope the earlier shutdown of a thread was just a hiccup in a learning curve..but fear you are correct..

John

[markw]

while I see your point, I'd give it a little time to see how it shakes out. I don't really thinh Mr. Dunleavy really concerns himself with the workings of us paeons. He's on a different level and cares less if one or two people disagree with him. Also, he's got enough basis in sound, scientific facts that most arguments against him will probably collapse of their own (septic) waste.

To put it more simply, he's earned enough respect from his peers and those "in the know" that he doesn't need to stump the chat room circuit to drum up name recognition.

Now, that other guy...

[Chuck]

Hi Chuck..
I also live in a no bounds world...

Your observation of the moderator's application of the rules is certainly consistent with mine. I hope the earlier shutdown of a thread was just a hiccup in a learning curve..but fear you are correct..

John

Hi John,

I'm sure you noticed my use of the word "apparently." I intended for my comments to apply ONLY to the two threads I was discussing. Personally, I think the forum needs (or needed) a little more control, and saw the shut-down of the earlier thread as a plus. There is a fine line between what constitutes a personal attack, and simple criticism, but the only reason I registered here is because I though the new moderation rules might make this a decent place to post. I'm disappointed to see a post slamming Dr. Dunlavy remain unchallenged.

It is not enough to convince me that we have biased moderation, but I was hoping that Chris would comment.

[Bill L]

Ho hum. neener neener yourself.

[Chuck]

Yes,I agree it tends to cause confusion. Some people get the idea that somehow we must prove there is a placebo effect in a given situation! In other words, they try to shift the burden of proof rather than getting the point that person making the claim is the one with the burden of proof.

It isn't unreasonable for a layperson to ask for "proof" of something like the placebo effect. It is in our nature to trust our perceptions. Since our perceptions are effective functionally, it flies in the face of experience to assert that they are actually disconnected from reality in any way. We're all prone to saying or thinking things like, "I saw it with my own eyes, so I know it's true." Anything that brings our perceptions into question tends to be rejected, so asking for "proof" is a natural response.

Think about it in a more general context. If we've had first-hand experience with something, repeatedly, over a period of years, and someone suggests that our experiences are totally disconnected from reality, how will we react? It is likely that we will first react badly, but if we're on our best behavior we'll be polite and simply ask them to prove their claim(s). Isn't that what you'd do?

Anyone who has studied psychology has learned about placebo, experimenter bias, self-fulfilling prophesy, and so on. Anyone who has studied neuropsychology has learned of the disconnects between the senses and the sensing. Even so, it all tends to be seen as theory until one is bitten a few times. After a few decades in research environments I'm convinced that nobody every fully internalizes the full extent of the disconnects. If we did, I'm not sure we could function.

Pat, I've seen scattered comments involving "the burden of proof," and they leave me scratching my head. This thread started with a request for proof of the placebo effect. That certainly isn't an unreasonable question considering how few people are familiar with such things. There is no "burden" unless one decides to respond to a question that asks for proof. By responding to the post I took on the burden, of my own free will, and I believe that the links I posted were sufficient to fully answer the original question. Asking the question certainly didn't impose any burden on the person doing the asking.

The other context where some seem to want to assign a burden to others is that in which someone reports having heard differences when changing cables (or other components). Such claims are often greeted by demands for proof and assignment of burden. All such claims stand or fall entirely on the credibility of the claimant. Unless the claimant is lying then it is a given that they did indeed hear what they claim to have heard. If they are not lying then they are simply stating a fact. Certainly the act of recounting a personal experience does NOT incur any burden (yet that is the claim some seem to be making). The proper way to address such claims is to investigate the cause of the differences, but the person recounting a factual account of personal experience should not be expected to have an interest in such an investigation. He has real-world experience and feels no need for further investigation. Those who want to question his experience have many valid questions to raise, but by raising them they themselves open an investigation. In so doing, THEY assume a role that includes burdens and proofs. That some who do this will then turn around and try to dump the burden of proof of their claims onto someone who has only recounted an experience is, at the very least, non-productive. It also irritates those who have done nothing more than shared a very real personal experience.

There also seems to be a tendency (at least at the extremes) to jump to invalid conclusions based on little or no information. If anyone says that they've used a speaker wire that made an audible difference there are a few here who will insist that it is purely a function of their imagination. This assumption is made without bothering to find out any of the details needed to draw such a conclusion. Several years ago I played around with a loudspeaker wire construction that made obvious differences in the "sound quality." Subjectively, the sound was "less harsh" at all times, and one might say that at times "it lacked air" or "sparkle." Most consumer-audiophiles experiencing the same thing will think that the guys here who say that all wire sounds the same are dead wrong, and they would in fact be correct. At this point many of the regulars here are probably ready to tell me that what I heard was a the result of a "placebo effect." (However, Mtrycrafts and a few others know better, because they've heard this story before. :) )

What surprised me about the wire was that the difference was NOT subtle. It was slap-in-the-face obvious. How many times have you heard golden-ears make that same claim? How many times have you seen others tell them that they were imagining things? How many of the people reading this are certain that I too was imagining things? In point of fact, I haven't provided enough information for anyone to have a clue what might have been going on, and anyone who has already reached some conclusion, given only the information provided, is guilty of jumping to premature conclusions based on FAR too little information.

The difference the wire made was so obvious that it shocked me. I contacted the guy who designed my loudspeakers (and the wire formulation I was playing around with), to get his take on what I was hearing. If I'd done the same thing here there would have been demands for a DBT, and I'd have had to respond that if you could hear the magnitude of the difference you would realize that there is no need for a DBT. Fortunately, I wasn't dealing with an extremist, and I wasn't treated like a fool. Instead, I was asked if I'd measured the frequency response of the speakers using the wire. I actually responded that I hadn't bothered, because the high-frequency response was obviously rolled off, to the point that I didn't need measurements to confirm. When it was suggested that the loudspeaker output was probably down at least 3dB by 14kHz. with the wire configuration I was using, I was extremely skeptical, so ultimately I did measure the system response using the wire. Sure enough, the response was down almost exactly 3dB at 14k. That is enough for almost anyone to hea, and I don't think we need a DBT to prove it. Anyone who does think we need a DBT to prove that -3dB at 14k is audible can assume the burden of proof, if they are so inclined, but I am content to take it as a given.

For those who are (rightly) skeptical of any and all audio claims I'll provide a brief discussion of why the wire made such a huge difference in the loudspeakers response. This is typical of the kind of information that was missing earlier when some were ready to say this was another "placebo effect." The loudspeakers were electrostatic, driven directly by the amplifier (no passive crossover), and the wire had a resistance of 1/2 ohm. Since the guys who jump to conclusions so quickly seem to think they know it all I'll leave it to them to explore the mechanisms further. Just take a look at the way serial resistance affects the transformer/panel Q.

Don't know whether or not I've made the point I was trying to make here. To summarize, the burden of proof is something someone accepts, not something that is assigned or that one takes on by asking a question or citing some personal experience. I really don't understand the way some here try to assign this burden to others. There is a big difference between asking for confirmation and demanding proof, and some here don't seem to understand that difference.

"Placebo" is an unfortunate term, at least in this context. At this point it seems that a better term would be "bias." Someone reports a personal experience, that of hearing a difference after changing speaker wire. The difference WAS heard, and the only valid question involves the cause of the difference. It may have been the result of biased perception, but that is not a given. To assume so exposes an opposite (but equal) bias. We are all biased, this way and that, and it's not the kind of thing that is easy (or natural) to control.

Subjective reports aren't really any more suspect than the subjective analysis of objective measurements. "Proof," in the context of science, involves formalization, and verification of the formalization through experimentation. Before it can be taken seriously, such work requires independent validation and verification (IV&V). Our biases affect the way we read our instruments with our eyes just as surely as they affect everything else. Seems to me that this means that the burden of proof can NEVER reside with an individual. How would that work? Such demands seem senseless to me. More like a pissing-contest than a search for truth. The proper question seems to be "Where's the IV&V?"

Without IV&V we're talking cold fusion, but where is the logic in demanding "proof" from some audiophile-consumer who has no interest in proving anything, other than his honesty (and the truth of his claims, which are in fact true). Here people seem to prefer to argue, but results can only come from cooperation.

[DMK]

Excellent post, Chuck! I'm in complete agreement, at least as it pertains to audio since I'm not holding any secrets that might save the world! :) Yours is a refreshing POV on this board. Well done!

On the other hand, if I were to make a statement that cable A sounded different than cable B and all measurable properties were the same, I might feel compelled to put myself under close scrutiny. I cannot detect even the mildest and most subtle difference in any cables I've tried. But the audio components that I can and do hear differences between, even those with like measurements, are diffs that I believe could be heard by most anyone with decent hearing, good listening skills and a good attention span. As a result, when I am challenged to prove I hear these diffs, I only ask that the challenger try the test for themselves first as I believe they could also hear the diffs. If they refuse, they are not seeking the truth, IMHO - they are merely challenging a perceived violation to their belief system. If I'm willing to prove something to myself and in fact DO prove it to myself, I do not feel compelled to prove it to someone who won't do so for themselves.

[mtrycraft]

Excellent post, Chuck! I'm in complete agreement, at least as it pertains to audio since I'm not holding any secrets that might save the world! :) Yours is a refreshing POV on this board. Well done!

He has that effct on people :)

But the audio components that I can and do hear differences between, even those with like measurements, are diffs that I believe could be heard by most anyone with decent hearing, good listening skills and a good attention span. As a result, when I am challenged to prove I hear these diffs, I only ask that the challenger try the test for themselves first as I believe they could also hear the diffs. If they refuse, they are not seeking the truth, IMHO - they are merely challenging a perceived violation to their belief system. If I'm willing to prove something to myself and in fact DO prove it to myself, I do not feel compelled to prove it to someone who won't do so for themselves.[/QUOTE]

I wonder what you would say about the late Steve Zipser +2 amp challenge, an old $300 Yam integrated and a $12K Pass Aphen.
They are probably not even close but I have not measured eithe rone :)
This happened a few years ago in Miami Beach. Steve was an audio dealer for many years. 3 people, 3 null outcome.

[Pat D]

It isn't unreasonable for a layperson to ask for "proof" of something like the placebo effect. It is in our nature to trust our perceptions. Since our perceptions are effective functionally, it flies in the face of experience to assert that they are actually disconnected from reality in any way. We're all prone to saying or thinking things like, "I saw it with my own eyes, so I know it's true." Anything that brings our perceptions into question tends to be rejected, so asking for "proof" is a natural response.

That's a lot of verbiage to miss a very simple point. One of my points in this thread is that I don't much talk about placebo effect in audio because it itends to be misleading. It tends to be thought of as some sort of obstacle, whereas it is simply a result of the variability of perception.

Now, if the measured results of two pieces of equipment are greater than the Just Noticeable Differences, then we may reasonably suppose that the diffrences will be audible, at least under some circumstances. If they are below them, the JNDs, then a request for proof is reasonable. Here is a level matching table from the old ABX site:

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

Anyway, if a person makes a claim, then if there is any proof to be done, the burden of proof is on that person. No one says they have to prove something if they do not wish to, but it is reasonable to point it out where their claim is doubtful. It is too bad that many people regard this as calling their integrity into question. But in fact, we are subject to the same sorts of biases as anyone else, and our own perception is unreliable for small differences.

What the demand for proof of a placebo effect amounts to here is simply an attempt to shift the burden of proof. In other words, it is a demand that someone else prove the claimant wrong, whereas the burden of proof is on the person claiming a difference. It is as simple as that.

[okiemax]

If cable forum members are ever asked to vote for "best post of 2004," yours will get my consideration. Thank you for the contribution.

[okiemax]

As Lewis Carrol's Tweedledum might say, I know what you think I'm thinking, but it isn't so, nohow. My asking for proof of the placebo effect was not, as you claim, an attempt to shift the burden of proof from listeners who report hearing differences in cables to those who question these claims. Nor was my request meant to be an indirect attack on that sacred cow called "double-blind testing," although it seemed to be interpreted that way by some Forum members. I never claimed that the validity of controlled experiments depends on proof of the placebo effect. Blinded-testing of cables, as it has been practiced, can be questioned, but that is another subject.

[rb122]

[QUOTE=mtrycraft
I wonder what you would say about the late Steve Zipser +2 amp challenge, an old $300 Yam integrated and a $12K Pass Aphen.
They are probably not even close but I have not measured eithe rone :)
This happened a few years ago in Miami Beach. Steve was an audio dealer for many years. 3 people, 3 null outcome.[/QUOTE]

I know what I'd say. Buy the $300 and save $11,700! :)

Did Steve cease to be an audio dealer after this? :)

[Swerd]

Great post Chuck. You said what I had been thinking (and wished I had said) before I lost patience with this lengthy thread. Your patience, clearheaded point of view, and skill with writing are admirable.

I sometimes give up trying to make a point because it seems that too large a gap exists in the education or background among posters. Some here have been educated or exposed to the formal thinking on what constitutes good scientific evidence and what conclusions can be fairly made from that evidence. Most people who work in scientific or engineering fields have had their knuckles rapped at some point in their career for violating those rules. Others clearly have never wrestled with that. And then there are the lawyers, who have a completely different set of rules about what kind of evidence is valid for the court room!

[E-Stat]

The loudspeakers were electrostatic, driven directly by the amplifier (no passive crossover), and the wire had a resistance of 1/2 ohm... Just take a look at the way serial resistance affects the transformer/panel Q.

Great post Chuck. I also believe that providing such level of detail as to componentry used, along with program material is essential to providing any kind of useful information. There is a dearth of such information provided with almost every DBT test that has been touted here (I know of ONE exception). As you might guess from my moniker, I use ES speakers and have also found improved sound quality with cables other than generic zip.

rw

[DMK]

[
I wonder what you would say about the late Steve Zipser +2 amp challenge, an old $300 Yam integrated and a $12K Pass Aphen.
They are probably not even close but I have not measured eithe rone :)
This happened a few years ago in Miami Beach. Steve was an audio dealer for many years. 3 people, 3 null outcome.

Wonder no more! I'd say ol' Steve and his two cohorts are happy campers! Sell that Pass amp and buy some new music (along with an old Yamaha integrated!).

I'm not familiar with the test and really all I can say is that the three of them heard no differences during those trials. Not much else can be inferred from one set of tests, at least by me. OTOH, Steve should probably reconsider his allegiance to his amp! He can always use it as a space heater! :)

[DMK]

Where you been hiding? I thought you gave all this gloriousness up or something!

Good to see you back! :)

[Pat D]

As Lewis Carrol's Tweedledum might say, I know what you think I'm thinking, but it isn't so, nohow. My asking for proof of the placebo effect was not, as you claim, an attempt to shift the burden of proof from listeners who report hearing differences in cables to those who question these claims. Nor was my request meant to be an indirect attack on that sacred cow called "double-blind testing," although it seemed to be interpreted that way by some Forum members. I never claimed that the validity of controlled experiments depends on proof of the placebo effect. Blinded-testing of cables, as it has been practiced, can be questioned, but that is another subject.

Well, here's you're original post. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted it but I still don't see how I did so. Nor, in light of the quote above, do I understand the point of your post.


Naysayers argue there is no scientific basis for claims of audible differences in cables, and that listeners who make such claims are experiencing a placebo effect rather than hearing real differences. However, there may be no scientific basis for naysayer's claims about the placebo effect. Can anyone offer proof?

[okiemax]

Well, here's you're original post. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted it but I still don't see how I did so. Nor, in light of the quote above, do I understand the point of your post.

I read my base post again, and I still think you have tried to read between the lines, and speculate on my motives rather than just going by the content of the post. I will try to clarify my position.

Suppose the difference in two cables heard by a listener can't be verified objectively through measurements or blinded testing. The placebo effect may or may not play a part in this discrepancy. Accepting the discrepancy does not necessarily mean accepting the placebo effect as an explanation.

What I have just tried to explain has been my position all along. You may have overlooked my 12-17-03 reply to Dr. Jeff's 12-16-03 post. Here is what I said: "I agree you can question any claim I make about hearing differences in cables without mentioning even the possibility of the placebo effect."

[mtrycraft]

I use ES speakers and have also found improved sound quality with cables other than generic zip.

rw

You'd need 300ft of 12 ga generic to have a 1/2 ohm resistance.
Your other cables perhaps roll off the upper frequency even more that you seem to prefer more.

[E-Stat]

Your other cables perhaps roll off the upper frequency even more that you seem to prefer more.

You sentence doesn't make sense. What are you trying to suggest?

BTW, the JPS Labs Superconductor+ are of very low capacitance design and do NOT roll off the high end vs. 12 gauge zip.

rw

[FLZapped]

You sentence doesn't make sense. What are you trying to suggest?

BTW, the JPS Labs Superconductor+ are of very low capacitance design and do NOT roll off the high end vs. 12 gauge zip.

rw

Except that inductance is tha parameter to worry about in speaker cables, not the capacitance.

-Bruce

[Pat D]

I read my base post again, and I still think you have tried to read between the lines, and speculate on my motives rather than just going by the content of post. I will try to clarify my position.

Suppose the difference in two cables heard by a listener can't be verified objectively through measurements or blinded testing. The placebo effect may or may not play a part in this discrepency. Accepting the discrepency does not necessarily mean accepting the placebo effect as an explanation.

What I have just tried to explain has been my position all along. You may have overlooked my 12-17-03 reply to Dr. Jeff's 12-16-03 post. Here is what I said: "I agree you can question any claim I make about hearing differences in cables without mentioning even the possibility of the placebo effect."

Then why mention placebo effect in the first place? How do you conceive the placebo effect? And how does it become an explanation?

[okiemax]

Then why mention placebo effect in the first place? How do you conceive the placebo effect? And how does it become an explanation?

I'm not sure I understand why you are asking me why I mentioned the placebo effect in the first place. I mentioned the placebo effect because it frequently is given as the explanation for the discrepancy between subjective and objective listening results. If the placebo effect is claimed to be the reason for the discrepancy, what is wrong with asking for proof that it's the reason? Haven't you said the burden of proof is on the claimant?

Nor do I understand why you are asking me the other two questions.
By doing so, you are in effect asking me to answer my own questions.

[Pat D]

I'm not sure I understand why you are asking me why I mentioned the placebo effect in the first place. I mentioned the placebo effect because it frequently is given as the explanation for the discrepancy between subjective and objective listening results. If the placebo effect is claimed to be the reason for the discrepancy, what is wrong with asking for proof that it's the reason? Haven't you said the burden of proof is on the claimant?

Nor do I understand why you are asking me the other two questions.
By doing so, you are in effect asking me to answer my own questions.

Not really. Look at it this way: the placebo effect is an effect, not an explanation. It is an effect in need of explanation. Just to call something a placebo effect is to put it in a class, not to explain something. Putting it into a familiar class may domesticate it but is not really an explanation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=placebo
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=placebo%20effect

For example, Dictionary.com gives the explanation of reported improvement as resulting from the patient's expectation, which is is an explanation of sorts for the effect.

[okiemax]

I believe you can here a difference. I just think there are a lot better ways of changing the sound quality. $10 - $15 worth of parts to produce cables with the exact same transfer function(charecteristics).

I apologize for the late reply.Yes, I believe you could get close to the results of some audiophile cables by the means you have described. Tone controls also might be used with similar results. The goal of some designs, however, is a neutral cable.

[E-Stat]

Except that inductance is tha parameter to worry about in speaker cables, not the capacitance.

Inductance for same is ~480 nH for my 8 foot run.

rw