Sighted Testing IS King!! Silly me - all those years wasted...

[magictooth]

Well some of the past threads got me thinking about the differences between sighted vs. blind testing, and there was an interesting point made about taste buds et al. I think that the parallels of taste(stimulus of taste buds)/flavour(interpretation of the stimulus) and sound(stimulus of ear apparatus)/hearing(interpretation of the stimulus) are remarkable.

Anyways, we had a party last Saturday with 13 guests. I thought that this might be an interesting time to try out a sighted test. Here's the methodology: The night before, I prepared, as one large batch, an excellent salsa whose recipe I obtained in Mexico. On Saturday, I divided the batch into two separate containers.

When our guests arrived, I eventually steered them around to trying this salsa that I had made. I said that one container had a milder salsa, but that for the other container I had put TWICE the amount of chilies in - thus making it a lot hotter. I asked each guest after they tried both salsas if they liked them and if they found the one salsa too hot. For 6 guests, I let them try the "mild" salsa first; for the other 7 guests, I let them try the "hot" salsa first.

Guess what the results were??








All 13 guests or 100% of the sample said that the "hot" salsa was indeed hotter (they also said that they liked it, but that's beside the point). The range of replies to the "hotter" salsa was from "yeah, it's a bit hotter, but I like to eat spicy food," to "WOW, this is way hotter than the other one," - with most comments somewhere in between. Nobody said they tasted the same and nobody said that the "hot" salsa was milder. The guest who said the last comment was even warning other people that the "hot" salsa was indeed much spicier than the other container for part of the night.

<sarcasm>I guess this proves that basic scientific methodology is incorrect with regards to blind vs. sighted testing. I can now see how sighted testing is truly the king of testing methodologies. I lament all those years of toil in school - all wasted working under false assumptions. What was I thinking?! </sarcasm>

I read recently how a new medical procedure to help severe migraine sufferers had passed the ethics board. Basically what they want to do is to patch a little hole in the heart. Previously, people had said that when they had undergone this operation that as a side effect, the severity, intervals between, and duration of their migraines diminished substantially. In order to patch the hole, a small incision is made in the thigh to gain access to the femoral artery. The surgery is accomplished through this little incision. There's going to be 2 testing groups of 100 people each. The one group will actually have this surgery done; the other group will have the same incision cut into their legs but no actual surgery. The apparent reason being that the researchers want to eliminate any possibility of the results being attributed to psychosomatic effects.

<biting sarcasm>Now as we've seen above in my simple kitchen example, we don't need to do this. IN FACT, what happened to the Hippocratic oath? I mean they're cutting up 100 people for no good reason. I think that they should just simply tell everybody who's getting the surgery that they've had the surgery and be done with it. If it's as good as they say, then everything is going to work out fine. I think that after I open this thread, that I'm going to write to those researchers and their ethics board to tell them that they're going about this "research" in entirely the wrong fashion. </biting sarcasm>

<really biting sarcasm>So there you have it. Blind testing is for the BIRDS. Sighted testing is KING!!!!</really biting sarcasm>

[woodman]

Well some of the past threads got me thinking about the differences between sighted vs. blind testing, and there was an interesting point made about taste buds et al. I think that the parallels of taste(stimulus of taste buds)/flavour(interpretation of the stimulus) and sound(stimulus of ear apparatus)/hearing(interpretation of the stimulus) are remarkable.

.......


All 13 guests or 100% of the sample said that the "hot" salsa was indeed hotter (they also said that they liked it, but that's beside the point). The range of replies to the "hotter" salsa was from "yeah, it's a bit hotter, but I like to eat spicy food," to "WOW, this is way hotter than the other one," - with most comments somewhere in between. Nobody said they tasted the same and nobody said that the "hot" salsa was milder. The guest who said the last comment was even warning other people that the "hot" salsa was indeed much spicier than the other container for part of the night.

<sarcasm>I guess this proves that basic scientific methodology is incorrect with regards to blind vs. sighted testing. I can now see how sighted testing is truly the king of testing methodologies. I lament all those years of toil in school - all wasted working under false assumptions. What was I thinking?! </sarcasm>


My dear Dr.Tooth:
What a marvelous story! I couldn't ask for a better demonstration/verification of what I've been trying to get across to these diehards at this board for several years now. Of course, I don't expect any of them to "cave" and admit how wrong their adamant protestations really are ... I really don't. Firmly held beliefs - especially those that are related to an individual's talents and skills and knowledge and sophistication and wisdom are extremely hard to break down and change. It's just "human nature" to want others to think of us as truly marvelous critters - nearly perfect in every way!

I thought that my example of what takes place in a "stage hypnotist's" performance would be enough to at least sow some seeds of doubt in some minds here ... but alas and alack - NO, it didn't. They still cling valiantly to the notion that their ears are without a doubt, "better" than any scientific instrumentation at detecting sonic differences. What a joke (and a rather sad one at that)! It's probably for the best that they don't realize that their stubborn clinging to a "talent" that simply doesn't exist is costing them untold amounts of money (for no good reason) - otherwise, they just might upchuck their dinner!

[E-Stat]

So there you have it. Blind testing is for the BIRDS. Sighted testing is KING!!!!
Please explain the relevance of a "loaded" taste test evaluated in a manner of seconds to extended listening tests of components devoid of any stated obvious differences where the "information content" is far greater.

rw

[musicoverall]

Great story, Magictooth! And very timely! And about salsa, yet! How coincidental! Here's a true story for you.

Just last night, I took my kiddies to Taco Bell, their favorite fast food joint. I grabbed what I thought was their Fire Sauce and put it on my Beef Grilled Stuft Burrito. After two bites, I thought it tasted funny - not hot enough. It was pretty obvious. I looked down and realized I had been given the mild sauce instead of the fire sauce I asked for.

But of course (biting sarcasm) I had to KNOW that it was the wrong packet, didn't I? God forbid, my SENSES could NOT have been correct! (sarcasm off).

And so Mr Magictooth... your point is...?

[magictooth]

Please explain the relevance of a "loaded" taste test evaluated in a manner of seconds to extended listening tests of components devoid of any stated obvious differences where the "information content" is far greater.

rw
I would guess that you have to be kidding, but I will spell it out for you in plain(er) English.

The following are the rough equivalencies that I see in my flavour test and an IC test.

I made one batch of salsa = IC that conducts well
I divided the batches into 2 containers = one IC packaged as $10 pair; other IC packaged as $200 pair.
I told people that one was regular = I tell a listener that this IC costs $10
I told people that the other container has 2x chilies = I tell a listener that this IC costs $200
I told people that the other container was hotter = I tell a listener that this IC sounds better

The results:

People say that the "hot" salsa is indeed hotter after I've told them it <i>should</i> be hotter = a listener says that the IC sounds better after they've been told it should sound better.
Nobody chose the "mild" salsa as hotter or the same = nobody chooses the $10 IC as sounding the same or better than the expensive one.
People say that one salsa is a bit hotter = some people saying that the expensive IC made the sound more open, airy, etc by a bit
People say that one salsa was WAY hotter = some people saying that the expensive IC made a night and day difference to their system's sound

One other thing that I forgot to say in my original post was that some people said that one salsa tasted better than the other. I forgot that part, and maybe you think that is important. I suppose it is possible for us to infer another result:

People say one salsa tastes better than the other = listener says that one IC is better than the other.

As an aside you are WAY, WAY, WAY off base if you are saying that sound has more interpretive variables than taste. Hearing uses one cranial nerve (VIII); taste uses at least three (I, VII, and IX). At the very least hearing and flavour evaluation are equal, and in all likelihood, taste requires more interpretation than hearing.

As well, E-Stat, you don't address why REAL researchers use blind testing. In the case that I presented from the real world, the parallels are unmistakable. For migraine sufferers, unknown trigger (stimulus) -->nociceptors fire (neural reaction) --> pain is felt (interpretation of stimulus). For listening, sound waves hit the ears (stimulus) --> vestibulocochlear nerve fires (neural reaction) --> hearing (interpretation of stimulus). If sighted testing is the cat's meow, why bother to cut 100 people for no reason?

In any case, just to make my point a bit clearer:

I made a single batch of salsa and then divided the contents in two. By simply telling people that one batch should taste different than the other, 13 out of 13 people said that they could tell that there was a difference in the salsa WHEN IF FACT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. The parallel of this exercise with audio listening tests is that I can very likely take a useable IC, re-badge it, and in a sighted listening test get you to think that it sounds better than an identical other IC.

[magictooth]

Great story, Magictooth! And very timely! And about salsa, yet! How coincidental! Here's a true story for you.

Just last night, I took my kiddies to Taco Bell, their favorite fast food joint. I grabbed what I thought was their Fire Sauce and put it on my Beef Grilled Stuft Burrito. After two bites, I thought it tasted funny - not hot enough. It was pretty obvious. I looked down and realized I had been given the mild sauce instead of the fire sauce I asked for.

But of course (biting sarcasm) I had to KNOW that it was the wrong packet, didn't I? God forbid, my SENSES could NOT have been correct! (sarcasm off).

And so Mr Magictooth... your point is...?
You seem to be someone who is given to hyperbole. Are you sure that you're not TLADINY under a new moniker? You are the one missing the point. You said they gave you mild sauce when you wanted hot sauce. I gave my guests IDENTICAL salsa and said they were different. We'd have a closer parallel if the sauce in the different packages were the same.

[musicoverall]

You seem to be someone who is given to hyperbole. Are you sure that you're not TLADINY under a new moniker? You are the one missing the point. You said they gave you mild sauce when you wanted hot sauce. I gave my guests IDENTICAL salsa and said they were different. We'd have a closer parallel if the sauce in the different packages were the same.

Ok, my bad. I missed that. But I think it's an interesting, if meaningless in the context of cables, exercise you performed. Did it occur to you that your guests might have been trying to please you and were pulling your chain? After all, that's an excuse the naysayers use when an audiophile claims that his wife heard his system's difference when a cable or something was swapped. You're jumping to conclusions here.

Nope, not TLADINY. Odd name.

[E-Stat]

The parallel of this exercise with audio listening tests is that I can very likely take a useable IC, re-badge it, and in a sighted listening test get you to think that it sounds better than an identical other IC.
Let's try again. Tell me the relevance of a seconds long determination vs. one ascertained over weeks if not months worth of listening.

rw

[Rycher]

I like salsa, and I like it hot. My wife likes it hotter, my daughter likes it mild, and my best freind can eat chipotle chiles by the whole - one after the other. Each of our ranges of "hot" are irrelevent as we have varying degrees of taste. My freind also has a bit of bad eyes, but he swears to me that my TV is always out of focus, and that I have dead pixels in my plasma! Poor guy, I'd hate to put him thru any kind of blind A/B/X testing. ;)

[musicoverall]

my TV is always out of focus, and that I have dead pixels in my plasma! Poor guy, I'd hate to put him thru any kind of blind A/B/X testing. ;)

That would be a DDT - a double deaf test - since it's dealing with the eyes, wouldn't it? :)

[Rycher]

That would be a DDT - a double deaf test - since it's dealing with the eyes, wouldn't it? :)


LOL, thanks for making my morning! :D

[noddin0ff]

Let's try again. Tell me the relevance of a seconds long determination vs. one ascertained over weeks if not months worth of listening.

rw

Rather than the obvious short answer rebuttal that short sessions and long sessions are equally subjective...

It seems like the best way to address E-stat's objection would be to allow a lengthy trial period until the listerner is convinced the differences are established in his/her mind. Then proceed to the blind test. Could even have lengthy blind sessions, but they shouldn't be necessary since the differences by then should be obvious to the listener. Listener could even pick most revealing passages.

It would be a lot more informative for both sides of the argument

2cents,

noddin0ff

[magictooth]

Let's try again. Tell me the relevance of a seconds long determination vs. one ascertained over weeks if not months worth of listening.

rw
markw gave you a simple yet effective blind testing methodology. I hate to reprint for the umpteenth time, but maybe you didn't read the last X times it's been written out for you.

So E-Stat, why don't you try the following exercise:

1. Select 2 sets of ICs.
2. Teach your wife how to plug the IC from your CDP to your amp.
3. Get her to swap or not swap cords at whatever interval you like. It can be every day, every week, every couple months - whatever you like.
4. Get her to write down which IC she used.
5. You listen to your heart's content and when you've finally determined which pair of ICs you've been listening to for whatever interval YOU choose, then write down your findings.
6. Compare notes at the end of the experiment.

You can do whatever number of trials that you like, but keep in mind that if you do say 25 trials, I think in order to be statistically significant, you'd need to get at least 18-19 correct.

As for the direct answer to your question, the direct relevance is that the mind can do mysterious things. Whether it's over a short 5 second thing or an extended period of time, if you have no reference base, then any findings that you may have are meaningless.

You haven't answered my question either: why do real researchers use blind testing only? There's never a study that uses sighted testing. NOT EVEN A SINGLE ONE. That should tell you something in and of itself.

[magictooth]

I like salsa, and I like it hot. My wife likes it hotter, my daughter likes it mild, and my best freind can eat chipotle chiles by the whole - one after the other. Each of our ranges of "hot" are irrelevent as we have varying degrees of taste. My freind also has a bit of bad eyes, but he swears to me that my TV is always out of focus, and that I have dead pixels in my plasma! Poor guy, I'd hate to put him thru any kind of blind A/B/X testing. ;)
Sorry, let me point out to you that the salsa was IDENTICAL.

[magictooth]

Ok, my bad. I missed that. But I think it's an interesting, if meaningless in the context of cables, exercise you performed. Did it occur to you that your guests might have been trying to please you and were pulling your chain? After all, that's an excuse the naysayers use when an audiophile claims that his wife heard his system's difference when a cable or something was swapped. You're jumping to conclusions here.

Nope, not TLADINY. Odd name.
Not ignoring you, but I will check with them. Will get back ASAP on this issue. I hadn't thought of it actually, but to have 100% of subjects respond in one way is truly remarkable.

[Rycher]

Sorry, let me point out to you that the salsa was IDENTICAL.


Not in my reference. If my daughter was to eat the salsa that I consider mild, it would burn her mouth to high heaven, same as if I was to eat the chipotle chiles - I would destroy my abdomen, but my buddy thinks it's as mild as butter. My point is that we all taste different salsa's differently, just as we all hear things differently and see things differently. That's why we also have certain preferences to manufactures of equipment. If they all sounded the same (something that just as in cables all manufactures "could" build the "same" reference amp, etc.), then there would'nt be so many brands. Some engineer could make one reference design for, let's say an amplifier, and one maker would build it. All other designs would be snake-oil as they would deviate from the reference. I think manufacturers diliberatly make their equipment, and cables, to sound different (whether it be pleasing to one and terrible to another, it would still be "their signature sound"). Am I too far off here? :confused:

[magictooth]

Not in my reference. If my daughter was to eat the salsa that I consider mild, it would burn her mouth to high heaven, same as if I was to eat the chipotle chiles - I would destroy my abdomen, but my buddy thinks it's as mild as butter. My point is that we all taste different salsa's differently, just as we all hear things differently and see things differently. That's why we also have certain preferences to manufactures of equipment. If they all sounded the same (something that just as in cables all manufactures "could" build the "same" reference amp, etc.), then there would'nt be so many brands. Some engineer could make one reference design for, let's say an amplifier, and one maker would build it. All other designs would be snake-oil as they would deviate from the reference. I think manufacturers diliberatly make their equipment, and cables, to sound different (whether it be pleasing to one and terrible to another, it would still be "their signature sound"). Am I too far off here? :confused:
Yeah, sorry you're pretty far off. If you could reread the entire post, you'll find that I used one batch of salsa and divided it into 2 containers. I merely told them that one was hotter when in fact the salsa was IDENTICAL in each container. When asked, 100% of respondents said that the salsa that I had indicated was hotter, was in fact hotter. The salsa shouldn't have tasted hotter because it was THE SAME salsa. I was introducing bias by telling them that one salsa was hotter when in fact they should taste the same.

[Rycher]

Yeah, sorry you're pretty far off. If you could reread the entire post, you'll find that I used one batch of salsa and divided it into 2 containers. I merely told them that one was hotter when in fact the salsa was IDENTICAL in each container. When asked, 100% of respondents said that the salsa that I had indicated was hotter, was in fact hotter. The salsa shouldn't have tasted hotter because it was THE SAME salsa. I was introducing bias by telling them that one salsa was hotter when in fact they should taste the same.


I was talking about my reference to the salsa eaters in my family. :eek: Different salsa's, very different opions.

[musicoverall]

but to have 100% of subjects respond in one way is truly remarkable.

I would think so, too. I would also hazard a guess which you might be able to refute or verify that very few things that are tested blind and ARE truly different are caught 100% of the time by all participants. 100% in anything at all is remarkable.

Have their ever been any tests that you are aware of where the items under test are blatantly different? I'd be interested to see the scores of such a test. It might help in determining just how worthwhile blind testing is. As a silly example, has anyone with normal tastebuds incorrectly guessed "apple" while tasting an orange? Ever?

[magictooth]

I would think so, too. I would also hazard a guess which you might be able to refute or verify that very few things that are tested blind and ARE truly different are caught 100% of the time by all participants. 100% in anything at all is remarkable.

Have their ever been any tests that you are aware of where the items under test are blatantly different? I'd be interested to see the scores of such a test. It might help in determining just how worthwhile blind testing is. As a silly example, has anyone with normal tastebuds incorrectly guessed "apple" while tasting an orange? Ever?
Early email/IM returns on my question, "Did you think that the salsas that you were taste testing were different or were you just pulling my leg?" I've got 8 replies so far, although 2 people were like "Huh?" (I had to refresh their memories). All 8 out of 8 said that they had thought the salsa were different and that they weren't playing along for my benefit. One of the more common refrains was, "you're an *******," or equivalent.

My test was to point out the power of suggestion. This is the power of a sighted test.

You ask if there have been any tests that are blatantly different? Come on, there are thousands and thousands of blind studies out there that have proved that the effect is psychosomatic. All of those Phase III trials that suddenly disappear from a pharm or biotech company's press releases? Those are all failed blind tests. I'm pretty sure that you're serious here, but it's almost all that I can do to stop myself from ROTFLMAO.

Your example of an apple vs. orange is not applicable. A more applicable simile to taste would be detemining the sensitivity of taste buds. My numbers are definitely off, but here's the example. The threshold of sweet taste is say 200 PPM of sugar dissolved in water. If I gave 2 solutions, one containing 200 PPM and the other 220 PPM, but told the test subjects that the 200 PPM was the sweeter one in advance of the test, would you be surprised if most people chose the 200 PPM solution as sweeter? Maybe you would, but I wouldn't be that surprised. The power of suggestion is very strong. That's why all well drafted studies use blind testing.

Let me make a point clear about my stance: I don't believe every cable or piece of equipment sounds the same. I'm not your classic naysayer. My point is that in order to accurately determine whether there's a difference between 2 pieces of audio gear, a blind test needs to be conducted. If it makes you happy to listen to your piece over a 1 week, 1 month or whatever period YOU deem adequate, then you should do so, but take the time and do yourself a favour and perform a blind test.

Doing only sighted testing is cheating yourself, and it is cheating others when you propagate your biased view as fact.

[musicoverall]

You ask if there have been any tests that are blatantly different? Come on, there are thousands and thousands of blind studies out there that have proved that the effect is psychosomatic. All of those Phase III trials that suddenly disappear from a pharm or biotech company's press releases? Those are all failed blind tests. I'm pretty sure that you're serious here, but it's almost all that I can do to stop myself from ROTFLMAO.
.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Are there two products that are totally different tasting/sounding/whatever that were subjected to blind testing where the participants voted that they were no differences? Let's say we tested two receivers and we had the treble turned all the way off on one, as a different example from the apple vs orange example. Have participants failed in a blind test where there were in fact differences and differences that should have been obvious?

No need to try and stop yourself from laughing at me. Since you can't hurt my feelings, all you'd succeed in is hurting your own sides! :)

[magictooth]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Are there two products that are totally different tasting/sounding/whatever that were subjected to blind testing where the participants voted that they were no differences? Let's say we tested two receivers and we had the treble turned all the way off on one, as a different example from the apple vs orange example. Have participants failed in a blind test where there were in fact differences and differences that should have been obvious?

No need to try and stop yourself from laughing at me. Since you can't hurt my feelings, all you'd succeed in is hurting your own sides! :)
Can't say that I have heard of that. I've done blind testing with an old CEC TT and my newer Rega P-25 with Benz Micro Low Output Cart. There's a huge difference. I've only tried it with 3 other people and they've been able to pick out the glaring differences right away. The lack of any tests in the literature such as you've delineated above, while not absolutely conclusive, certainly leads you to believe that blind testing has its merits.

In any case, cable sonics proponents are trying to massage little details from the music. When you ask about gross differences such as the situation you listed, or when you ask why can I tell the difference between a trumpet and a violin, these comparisons aren't of the same type as when you say that you can hear more air, musicality, better midrange, or whatever by changing cables.

[FLZapped]

Let's try again. Tell me the relevance of a seconds long determination vs. one ascertained over weeks if not months worth of listening.

rw


It never ceases to amaze me how you can spin things. Nowhere in the original presentation was there any mention of long term testing, nowhere, so why then could you possibly think it relevant to ask such a question that is entirely without merit......or are you telling us that it takes you that long to convince yourself?

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

Nowhere in the original presentation was there any mention of long term testing, nowhere, so why then could you possibly think it relevant to ask such a question that is entirely without merit......or are you telling us that it takes you that long to convince yourself?
Long term evaluations are how most audio reviewers approach (sighted) testing for any component. Likewise, I reserve judgement on any component until I have listened to it for an extended period of time using varied musical material.

If quick audio cowboy comparisons work for you, then so be it.

rw

[magictooth]

Long term evaluations are how most audio reviewers approach (sighted) testing for any component. Likewise, I reserve judgement on any component until I have listened to it for an extended period of time using varied musical material.

If quick audio cowboy comparisons work for you, then so be it.

rw
E-Stat, I posted my reply above, and I see that you've replied to Bruce's comment much later. Do you have anything to say about my comments? Is there any part of that blind test that you can accomplish in your home and at your own pace disagreeable? What about my question with regards to real researchers? Why should they drug and cut up 100 people in the name of science when there really is no need?

[E-Stat]

E-Stat, I posted my reply above, and I see that you've replied to Bruce's comment much later. Do you have anything to say about my comments?
As I mentioned in the other thread, I'm not a researcher and have nothing to prove, much less publish. Consequently, I'd really rather spend my time listening to music (I'm doing that on my computer right now), watching movies on my new HD video system, riding my motorcycle, and ice skating to conducting cable trials. I'm anxiously awaiting the arrival of new speakers that are to be shipped later this month. When I get them, I plan to immerse myself in hearing my music collection anew.

Sorry if that disappoints you.

rw

[magictooth]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'm not a researcher and have nothing to prove, much less publish. Consequently, I'd really rather spend my time listening to music (I'm doing that on my computer right now), watching movies on my new HD video system, riding my motorcycle, and ice skating to conducting cable trials. I'm anxiously awaiting the arrival of new speakers that are to be shipped later this month. When I get them, I plan to immerse myself in hearing my music collection anew.

Sorry if that disappoints you.

rw
No, it doesn't disappoint nor does it surprise. I'm not asking you to do anything you don't want to do. I presented a logical and easy to do experiment but you refuse.

Your reply here is a pathetic cop-out. In any case, E-Stat, you still didn't answer my original question: why is it that you believe that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

[FLZapped]

Long term evaluations are how most audio reviewers approach (sighted) testing for any component. Likewise, I reserve judgement on any component until I have listened to it for an extended period of time using varied musical material.

Take as long as you need to convince yourself. That's fine by me, but don't expect that to ever be accepted scientifically.



If quick audio cowboy comparisons work for you, then so be it.

rw

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA Cowboy, oh is that funny. Wrong, but funny.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'm not a researcher and have nothing to prove,

rw

Not being a researcher, true, nothing to prove, false. -Bruce

[E-Stat]

In any case, E-Stat, you still didn't answer my original question: why is it that you believe that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?
I'll quote an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller who answered the question as to why he believes ABX testing is different from other observational (sighted) testing:

Because when normally listening to music, NO DECISION is involved. Relaxed listening to music is a "right brain" function. To make a decision about X requires switching to a "left brain" function. And this has to be completed in the split seconds that audible memory is quickly fading.

Music is a very insensitive program source for identifying differences because it is dynamic and constantly changing. Audible memory fades quickly. Audibility DBTs for use in psychometrics were designed to be used with test tones, noise artifacts and distortion products where they are very sensitive because the sounds are constant. Even pink noise is more sensitive than music, but is limited in its usefullness.

I have never seen a DBT published which found audible differences between stereo components described as "dynamic contrasts", "tonal color", "imaging", "soundstage reproduction" or any of the many other attributes we as audiophiles listen for.

With music DBTs don't seem to be sensitive enough to differentiate anything but gross differences. Those differences are described as loudness, or large band frequency response differences such as brightness or boominess.

For psychometric use (and new drug trials) DBTs have been scientifically validated and seem to be useful. Just look at all the positive results. For subtle, small differences between audio products, their use is unvalidated, psuedo-scientific and they appear worthless, hence all the null results.

rw

[musicoverall]

I'll quote an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller who answered the question as to why he believes ABX testing is different from other observational (sighted) testing:

Because when normally listening to music, NO DECISION is involved. Relaxed listening to music is a "right brain" function. To make a decision about X requires switching to a "left brain" function. And this has to be completed in the split seconds that audible memory is quickly fading.

Music is a very insensitive program source for identifying differences because it is dynamic and constantly changing. Audible memory fades quickly. Audibility DBTs for use in psychometrics were designed to be used with test tones, noise artifacts and distortion products where they are very sensitive because the sounds are constant. Even pink noise is more sensitive than music, but is limited in its usefullness.

I have never seen a DBT published which found audible differences between stereo components described as "dynamic contrasts", "tonal color", "imaging", "soundstage reproduction" or any of the many other attributes we as audiophiles listen for.

With music DBTs don't seem to be sensitive enough to differentiate anything but gross differences. Those differences are described as loudness, or large band frequency response differences such as brightness or boominess.

For psychometric use (and new drug trials) DBTs have been scientifically validated and seem to be useful. Just look at all the positive results. For subtle, small differences between audio products, their use is unvalidated, psuedo-scientific and they appear worthless, hence all the null results.

rw

Thanks for this quote. Very well said. As I posted elsewhere, blind testing seems pointless to me and now I see a possible explanation why. This makes a lot of sense.

[magictooth]

I'll quote an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller who answered the question as to why he believes ABX testing is different from other observational (sighted) testing

...For subtle, small differences between audio products, their use is unvalidated, psuedo-scientific and they appear worthless, hence all the null results.

rw

Please note the bold that I put in your quote.

Hmm, so an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller is expounding his theories about how the neural pathways interact. That's great science there. Reading the above makes me wonder how we can even walk and talk at the same time.

Has this POV ever been vetted in a professional journal? Is it the Lancet? No, the NEJM? No, how about a specialized journal that most people wouldn't read?

I don't really understand how if you are using your "right brain" function, that it automatically shuts off your "left brain" and that you can't switch back and forth instantaneously. I thought that the neural impulses travel pretty much at the speed of electricity. The only case where this above POV might be applicable is in severe epileptics who've had the surgery to separate both halves of their brains.

Even in the extreme epileptic case, I have serious doubts as to whether there'd be any mental deficit related to "switching between" right and left hemisphere activities.

The idea that for subtle differences, a blind test is not accurate is garbage as well. If it were true, you wouldn't find a convergence of test results to 50% (ie guesswork as to which component is being listened to). His beliefs have yet to be proven. I would be happy to see a real proof on the subject if only to shut everybody up about this debate.

Why don't cable companies hire a group of psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, and whatever others are needed to find out whether hearing needs blind testing or whether sighted testing is the way to go?

[E-Stat]

Why don't cable companies hire a group of psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, and whatever others are needed to find out whether hearing needs blind testing or whether sighted testing is the way to go?
http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=18771&postcount=53

We approach music appreciation very differently, Mr. Tooth.

rw

[magictooth]

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=18771&postcount=53

We approach music appreciation very differently, Mr. Tooth.

rw
Not really we don't. I listen to music especially violin music with a very critical ear. I listen for subtle nuances that most people who haven't played the instrument to a high level would never appreciate. When I have auditioned cables, I haven't been able to distinguish a difference when hearing these nuances in a blind setting. In a sighted setting, I "have" been able to determine which cable it is that I am listening to.

As for why companies don't do it. Well, why doesn't Monster commission a study? They're paying what 1M or is it more for renaming Candelstick Park. A study would be way less than that.

As for your reason that the companies don't commission a study because nobody wants to see it, well, that's just some people saying that they like the reality that they are living in, even if it is just an illusion. This is not a good reason not to have a study.

[E-Stat]

Not really we don't. I listen to music especially violin music with a very critical ear. I listen for subtle nuances that most people who haven't played the instrument to a high level would never appreciate. When I have auditioned cables, I haven't been able to distinguish a difference when hearing these nuances in a blind setting.
Congratulations.

rw

[magictooth]

Congratulations.

rw
Nice sidestep of the question I posed earlier. Let me rephrase for you:

E-Stat, is the foundation for your belief in sighted testing based solely on the say so of one especially forward thinking audio reviewer? Do you have any other reason for believing that sighted testing is equivalent to or better than blind testing (other than your own admitted sighted testing experiences)?

[E-Stat]

Why should they drug and cut up 100 people in the name of science when there really is no need?
What an utterly ridiculous comment. Are you trying out for drama class?

rw

[magictooth]

What an utterly ridiculous comment. Are you trying out for drama class?

rw
LOL, another sidestep of a reasonable question (as asked a couple of posts up).

In reply to this post, the comment is taken out of context - as you well know. The reason behind this comment is that if, as you so firmly believe, sighted testing is as good as blind testing, then why should these researchers anesthetize and incise into 100 innocent people in order to eliminate any possibility of psychosomatic response?

[E-Stat]

In reply to this post, the comment is taken out of context - as you well know.
I see no relation to cable sonics and "cutting up" people.


The reason behind this comment is that if, as you so firmly believe, sighted testing is as good as blind testing, then why should these researchers anesthetize and incise into 100 innocent people in order to eliminate any possibility of psychosomatic response?
Reread the last paragraph of Mr. Kuller's comments.

rw

[musicoverall]

Please note the bold that I put in your quote.

Hmm, so an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller is expounding his theories about how the neural pathways interact. That's great science there. Reading the above makes me wonder how we can even walk and talk at the same time.

Has this POV ever been vetted in a professional journal? Is it the Lancet? No, the NEJM? No, how about a specialized journal that most people wouldn't read?

I don't really understand how if you are using your "right brain" function, that it automatically shuts off your "left brain" and that you can't switch back and forth instantaneously. I thought that the neural impulses travel pretty much at the speed of electricity. The only case where this above POV might be applicable is in severe epileptics who've had the surgery to separate both halves of their brains.

Even in the extreme epileptic case, I have serious doubts as to whether there'd be any mental deficit related to "switching between" right and left hemisphere activities.

The idea that for subtle differences, a blind test is not accurate is garbage as well. If it were true, you wouldn't find a convergence of test results to 50% (ie guesswork as to which component is being listened to). His beliefs have yet to be proven. I would be happy to see a real proof on the subject if only to shut everybody up about this debate.

Why don't cable companies hire a group of psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, and whatever others are needed to find out whether hearing needs blind testing or whether sighted testing is the way to go?

I can't speak for all "yeasayers" but I certainly am not discussing science - I'm discussing music and listening. I view that as more of an art than a science. I believe Mr Kuller would agree, hence there is no need for any scientific journal articles.

Have you ever watched, say, a basketball game for pleasure? Then have you ever served as a statistician for a game? You watch it entirely differently. Just an example of how the right brain and left brain work differently while performing the same activity. I can tell you that listening to music for pleasure and listening for component differences is totally different. One is pleasurable, the other is hard work!

As for proof of cable sonics (or proof against), I think those that care about such things are the ones that need to have at it. Why in the world would cable companies go to all the time and expense to perform the experiments you're recommending? They're already convinced of cable sonics! They don't need the proof you seem to require. I can appreciate your POV (even if it seems I don't and even though I don't agree) but cable companies wouldn't appreciate your willingness to spend THEIR money for YOUR satisfaction i.e proof.

Personally speaking, when I feel the need to test every sensory perception I have, such as the tastes of my favorite foods, colors, and other experiences, I'll blind test cables. It's that simple. I either trust my senses or I don't - and I do. BTW, your turntables do not sound different until you blind test them, according to your beliefs. ;)

[magictooth]

I see no relation to cable sonics and "cutting up" people.


Reread the last paragraph of Mr. Kuller's comments.

rw
You need to reread the posts. It is pretty clearly delineated what I was referring to. If you can't get it after a couple more tries, well we probably shouldn't be talking about it anyways.

As for Mr. Kuller's last paragraph (and entire point of view on this subject), this is another self serving pile of junk. This is the classical "my hypothesis makes sense for my point of view, hence it is correct." Take another example: religious leaders condemn a homosexual lifestyle as leading to the moral decay and the descent into the seething morass of the general population. It makes sense if it fits your view of the world. Is it proven? Or how about some people who spout off about video games leading to an elevated level of violence these days. It makes sense because there's lots of violence in some games and that has to rub off on the players. Has this been proven?

The same thing with your esteemed Mr. Kuller. He fits a hypothesis to meet his needs. You take it as gospel. His words aren't proven nor do they, in fact, make sense to somebody a little more versed in science.

As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

[magictooth]

I can't speak for all "yeasayers" but I certainly am not discussing science - I'm discussing music and listening. I view that as more of an art than a science. I believe Mr Kuller would agree, hence there is no need for any scientific journal articles.

Have you ever watched, say, a basketball game for pleasure? Then have you ever served as a statistician for a game? You watch it entirely differently. Just an example of how the right brain and left brain work differently while performing the same activity. I can tell you that listening to music for pleasure and listening for component differences is totally different. One is pleasurable, the other is hard work!

As for proof of cable sonics (or proof against), I think those that care about such things are the ones that need to have at it. Why in the world would cable companies go to all the time and expense to perform the experiments you're recommending? They're already convinced of cable sonics! They don't need the proof you seem to require. I can appreciate your POV (even if it seems I don't and even though I don't agree) but cable companies wouldn't appreciate your willingness to spend THEIR money for YOUR satisfaction i.e proof.

Personally speaking, when I feel the need to test every sensory perception I have, such as the tastes of my favorite foods, colors, and other experiences, I'll blind test cables. It's that simple. I either trust my senses or I don't - and I do. BTW, your turntables do not sound different until you blind test them, according to your beliefs. ;)
Why wouldn't the companies want to pander to my type? If half of audiophiles are yeasayers and half are naysayers that's a huge pick up in business if they can prove a thing because now the naysayers will be buying their product. I have money to spend. If by spending $2k or more on cables would make a noticeable improvement to my systemt then I'd be willing to spend it. However, I need proof in a scientifically verifiable form.

I think a lot of sighted testing problems comes down to the listener wanting to hear the differences when they know that there should be differences. I remember in many of my sighted cable tests, that I would notice the intake of breath of the flautist or the clarinetist clacking on his reed slightly for "the first" time with the new cables, but then when I went to listen with the other cables where these miraculous sounds were absent - whoops they were there all along - I just didn't pay attention to them until I was really listening for the differences. This doesn't mean the sounds were more clear with the new cables; more likely it was me trying a little bit harder to justify a difference in the cables.

My TTs sound different in both blind testing and sighted testing. If cables sound so different they should also sound different in both blind and sighted testing. As of right now, they sound different only when doing sighted testing.

[Monstrous Mike]

The orignal post showed an example, regardless of how unscientific, of how senses and observations can be skewed. Further, there are hundreds of examples of this from all aspects of life.

Yet, not one person who has observed on their own that cables sound different to them will even admit to the possibility that their observations may have been compromised and their conclusions may be wrong.

Yes, I've interpreted my observations incorrectly on many occasions. Sometimes I am aware of it, like when I watch an illusionist, sometimes I am not, like when I grab the wrong beer in the pub.

Conclusions are tricky business and the brain will tend to push us towards the conclusion that we desire. If you are not aware of that or think you can always control it, then you will reach more incorrect conclusions than you should.

[E-Stat]

As for Mr. Kuller's last paragraph...
It simply answers your last objection.

...then why should these researchers anesthetize and incise into 100 innocent people in order to eliminate any possibility of psychosomatic response?

I guess I need to repeat the relevant part of Kuller's comments that preclude your concern.

For psychometric use (and new drug trials) DBTs have been scientifically validated and seem to be useful. Just look at all the positive results.

The reason for your objection is unfounded because both he and I acknowledge that in some cases, (those proven to work), such tests are fine. Sheesh.


As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?
When multiple audio reviewers from multiple publications and I having diverse backgrounds, systems, biases, musical preferences arrive at a similar conclusion as to the audibility of any number of components, I find that a more compelling result than that of any DBT I've seen. Usually the conclusions I draw are not the one that I should draw based upon component cost or ownership. It's that simple. It is evident you care far more about the topic than I.

rw

[magictooth]

The reason for your objection is unfounded because both he and I acknowledge that in some cases, (those proven to work), such tests are fine. Sheesh.


When multiple audio reviewers from multiple publications and I having diverse backgrounds, systems, biases, musical preferences arrive at a similar conclusion as to the audibility of any number of components, I find that a more compelling result than that of any DBT I've seen. Usually the conclusions I draw are not the one that I should draw based upon component cost or ownership. It's that simple. It is evident you care far more about the topic than I.

rw
For your first part, I've repudiated your claims that blind testing is effective for one type of test but not another. You've yet to give me adequate reason to believe what you and another audio reviewer believe to be true.

For the rest, Monstrous Mike just stole my thunder in the other thread. I was going to say (and will say) that while I am doing most of the inquiring, I certainly can empathize with how Copernicans and Galileans felt in the Inquisition times. The hard headed religious judges and censors of the time would not listen to reason, but said that it was God's way or the highway.

You say that you and several audio reviewers share conclusions about the audibility of differences in components. What does this have to do with a sighted test being better than a blind test? It sounds mostly like there's a bunch of old boys sitting around scratching each others' backs. There isn't one iota of sense in what you have just told me.

It's the same scenario as I laid out above with regards to certain religious zealots or anti-gaming big mouths. You (and they) want to fit a conclusion into a hypothesis without first obtaining results. Normally a hypothesis is proposed, test results obtained, and a conclusion drawn.

As well, I've indicated from the start that it is not the cost, but rather the sighted environment that is the determining factor in whether you can hear a difference.

[E-Stat]

You've yet to give me adequate reason to believe what you and another audio reviewer believe to be true.
Fine. I'm content to leave it at that with a difference of opinion.

I need to make preparations for more important issues like shipping arrangements for my new U-1s and selling the 2+2s. :)

rw

[musicoverall]

Why wouldn't the companies want to pander to my type? If half of audiophiles are yeasayers and half are naysayers that's a huge pick up in business if they can prove a thing because now the naysayers will be buying their product. I have money to spend. If by spending $2k or more on cables would make a noticeable improvement to my systemt then I'd be willing to spend it. However, I need proof in a scientifically verifiable form..

... and scientific proof from a cable company will cause you to buy products which by your own blind tests are not differentiated from one another???? Is your position that science and science alone will tell you what you hear? I'm sorry but I just can't subscribe to such a theory.

[magictooth]

... and scientific proof from a cable company will cause you to buy products which by your own blind tests are not differentiated from one another???? Is your position that science and science alone will tell you what you hear? I'm sorry but I just can't subscribe to such a theory.
Yes, I would buy from that company. If a company could prove to me that their cables made a difference, then why wouldn't I buy it? It just happens that there's no company that has shown any kind of evidence that there are differences.

[magictooth]

Fine. I'm content to leave it at that with a difference of opinion.

I need to make preparations for more important issues like shipping arrangements for my new U-1s and selling the 2+2s. :)

rw
Is that a point for the blind testing naysayers out here? A concession that the basis sighted testing in audio is as flimsy as a fashion model's lingerie?

BTW, congrats on the new speakers. I'm sure that they'll make a difference.

[musicoverall]

Yes, I would buy from that company. If a company could prove to me that their cables made a difference, then why wouldn't I buy it? It just happens that there's no company that has shown any kind of evidence that there are differences.

So what you're saying is that under blind test, you could not hear a difference between Cable A and Cable B. But if the Cable A company proved to you that you were wrong, you'd buy Cable A - even though you previously couldn't hear a difference.

Thanks, but I'm going to stick with buying those differences I can hear rather than differences I'm told to hear... or told I can't.

[musicoverall]

Yet, not one person who has observed on their own that cables sound different to them will even admit to the possibility that their observations may have been compromised and their conclusions may be wrong..

Then let me be the first. My conclusions have been wrong before and they will be wrong again. But my conclusions are my reality. I'm pretty sure I prefer certain tastes over others, certain smells over others, certain sounds over others, etc etc. I can enjoy them and live a happy life or I can spend my time second guessing them. I choose the former.

[theaudiohobby]

But my conclusions are my reality. I'm pretty sure I prefer certain tastes over others, certain smells over others, certain sounds over others, etc etc. I can enjoy them and live a happy life or I can spend my time second guessing them. I choose the former.

whao! Some of those that never believed in assisted flight lived happy lives, they just never got to cross the atlantic in less than 6 hours ;)

[musicoverall]

whao! Some of those that never believed in assisted flight lived happy lives, they just never got to cross the atlantic in less than 6 hours ;)

Yes, and some of those who refute cable sonics live happy lives as well - they just aren't maximizing their systems! ;)

[FLZapped]

Nice sidestep of the question I posed earlier. Let me rephrase for you:

E-Stat, is the foundation for your belief in sighted testing based solely on the say so of one especially forward thinking audio reviewer? Do you have any other reason for believing that sighted testing is equivalent to or better than blind testing (other than your own admitted sighted testing experiences)?


You'll find he answers fewer questions than anyone else here, although he may have more replies.

-Bruce

[magictooth]

Then let me be the first. My conclusions have been wrong before and they will be wrong again. But my conclusions are my reality. I'm pretty sure I prefer certain tastes over others, certain smells over others, certain sounds over others, etc etc. I can enjoy them and live a happy life or I can spend my time second guessing them. I choose the former.
You still aren't getting what I'm saying. I am NOT saying that all cables are the same. I AM saying that sighted testing is garbage. There's not been a single piece of evidence presented here that would make a sane man believe that sighted testing is better than blind testing.

So let me repeat that for you: My problem with yeasayers is that they believe that sighted testing is equivalent or better than blind testing for audio purposes. I contend that it is not and would challenge anybody to prove otherwise. I am a very open minded guy. I changed my mind about cables once; there's no reason why I wouldn't again if presented with compelling evidence.

[FLZapped]

Rant mode on


I'll quote an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller who answered the question as to why he believes ABX testing is different from other observational (sighted) testing:

Because when normally listening to music, NO DECISION is involved. Relaxed listening to music is a "right brain" function. To make a decision about X requires switching to a "left brain" function. And this has to be completed in the split seconds that audible memory is quickly fading.

This is not true. You are constantly evaluating what you are listening too, even before you start playing the music. You'll go and pick out different music on different days based on mood. This is an evaluative process. You may find yourself listening to a piece that yesterday was great and today is grating.....an evaluative process.....

Pretty clear indicaton that the brain halves do not function independantly of each other as is being eluded to here. While one hemisphere may dominate, it does not, by any means, ignore the other, unless forced to do so. Enter the DBT and sensory deprivation(damn, you mean science understands this already?).

The writer also doesn't seem(want?) to understand that the differences, if audible, will stand out in a switched test, making the decision process moot. They are different or not, and that is usually the criteria for such a test. Looking for what one prefers requires the use of a MOS test and is a totally different subject matter.



Music is a very insensitive program source for identifying differences because it is dynamic and constantly changing. Audible memory fades quickly. Audibility DBTs for use in psychometrics were designed to be used with test tones, noise artifacts and distortion products where they are very sensitive because the sounds are constant. Even pink noise is more sensitive than music, but is limited in its usefullness.

Music is fairly close to noise as a model and therefore can generally be used as a testing source where noise would be used. No big deal. One just has to understand it's limitations. This argument is only valid to those who don't understand that these limitations are already well known in the scientific community.

One of the oustanding problems is that audiophiles wouldn't accept testing with tones, even though that's all music really is when you get down to it. The scientific community continues to bow to their pressure in order to appease them, which is impossible, they're hopelessly infected with Audio Nervana Nervosa.

Mr. Kuller has done nothing except to spew hyperbole. He only understands enough to apease the audiophile in himself and the crowd he hangs with.

Cables have been tested to death for decades and no one, but no one has been able to find any property that doesn't boil down to L-C-R. Period. This is all very easily predicted by math(oh damn, a science) and so far, no one has proven any of the theories wrong on this. There have been some refinements along the way, but when you get right down to it, the basic formula, or theory if you will, still holds true. Therefore, the selling of cable and/or wire as a needed "sonic upgrade" in one's system is nothing more than psychology. The making of a passive component somehow active against all known physics. Of course, audiophiles reject this notion as easily as they do any test that shows the folly of their supposed wisdom. Heaven forbid that the audiophile community ever accepts that machine testing is orders of magnitude beyond our hearing capability when it comes to measurement of minute differences among components.

If audiphiles were really serious about the truth, they would be beating down the doors of the cables companies to perform tests run by an independant laboratory and freely publish the results. Why won't the cable companies do this voluntarily, because their three-ring marketing manuevers would be exposed for what they are, a circus of psychological manipulation designed to spur impulse buying.

rant mode off

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

The same thing with your esteemed Mr. Kuller. He fits a hypothesis to meet his needs. You take it as gospel. His words aren't proven nor do they, in fact, make sense to somebody a little more versed in science.

As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

Which does point out that E-Stat indeed has something to prove against his own words.

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

Cables have been tested to death for decades and no one, but no one has been able to find any property that doesn't boil down to L-C-R. Period.
Except of course for shielding and noise rejection. Speaking of which, what metric quantifies the shielding characteristics of say Belden 19364 SJT cord or 89259 coax? I just reviewed the specification sheet for each and could not locate any. What did I overlook?

rw

[musicoverall]

You still aren't getting what I'm saying. I am NOT saying that all cables are the same. I AM saying that sighted testing is garbage. There's not been a single piece of evidence presented here that would make a sane man believe that sighted testing is better than blind testing.

So let me repeat that for you: My problem with yeasayers is that they believe that sighted testing is equivalent or better than blind testing for audio purposes. I contend that it is not and would challenge anybody to prove otherwise. I am a very open minded guy. I changed my mind about cables once; there's no reason why I wouldn't again if presented with compelling evidence.

I understand perfectly - I just don't agree. As for proof, I don't need any and as a result I'm not inclined to go through the necessary gyrations to provide it. My problem with naysayers is that they all ask for proof, yet provide none. I know, I know - it's up to the claimant to prove a claim. So why not prove that blind testing is best? Quotes won't do, speculation won't do. Proof is what is required. But my argument goes in another direction, too. I am also not inclined to sit down and test each and every sensory perception I have simply because someone else doesn't like my conclusions. Where would it end? Sorry but if you're going to change your mind about cables, you'll have to do it on your own.

[E-Stat]

Is that a point for the blind testing naysayers out here?
A point? If you like, I'll give you a gold star!


BTW, congrats on the new speakers. I'm sure that they'll make a difference.
Have you heard either electrostat yourself?

rw

[magictooth]

So why not prove that blind testing is best? Quotes won't do, speculation won't do. Proof is what is required.
What???!!!! Every proof in the world has shown that blind testing is the methodology of choice for human studies. I can't think of one study that's been done in the last 100 years that uses sighted testing as its methodology(unless it's been to prove that sighted testing is garbage). What more do you want? The argument by audiophiles is that hearing and enjoyment of music is some type of special sensory brain function that blind testing cannot accurately compare. What proof has there been for this hypothesis? The simpleton mouthings of an audio reviewer is all that I've seen as well as the conspiracy of wire enthusiasts. I'm sorry but the burden of proof for this hypothesis remains squarely on the shoulders of those who believe sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing. I contend that it is not and once again would ask anybody to provide evidence to the contrary.

[magictooth]

A point? If you like, I'll give you a gold star!


Have you heard either electrostat yourself?

rw
I actually haven't gone speaker auditioning in a while. I'm not sure if any of the local stores would carry such an upscale model in stock. As an example, the most expensive speakers that I heard were Tannoy Churchills that were going on a nation wide tour of dealers. The highest model of Tannoy that this dealer normally carries is the Dimension series. Admittedly, I haven't looked in a while.

[E-Stat]

I actually haven't gone speaker auditioning in a while. I'm not sure if any of the local stores would carry such an upscale model in stock. ...Admittedly, I haven't looked in a while.
That's cool. Just wondered how you were sure I had made a good decision given my weakness for trusting my ears! I happen to think the Sound Labs Ultimates are downright awesome.

rw

[musicoverall]

What more do you want?.

Absolute proof that blind testing is the only way to reliably discern differences among audio components. I'm not talking about drug testing. I want proof that DBT's are sufficient to allow the subtleties of cables to pass through. I want proof that NO ONE has been able to tell one cable from another under blind test. I want proof of your entire POV. You ask for proof? It's hard to be motivated because you're asking for something you haven't provided. I personally don't feel the need to prove everything such as my own sensory perceptions. I have too many and it would take too long and there's too much good music out there to listen to and other things to do. If you want proof and you have the time, be my guest and attempt to prove it. You made the claim the blind testing is the best way to test differences in audio gear. Can you back up that claim with proof? Specific proof ONLY related to audio gear, please.

Ok, back to reason. I hope you know that I don't expect you to go through all that. I also hope you know that I don't intend to, either. But if doing so is your inclination, have at it. I'll be happy to review any "proof" you have.

[musicoverall]

...my weakness for trusting my ears! rw

As far as I've been able to tell so far, it's ok to trust your ears as long as someone somewhere has passed a blind test on the type of component you're trusting your ears on, i.e speakers. Blind tests rule. In fact, even when they can't hear a difference between two cables, they'd buy a specific one if it was picked out in a blind test, so I read in this forum. In other words, the buying decision is made with someone else's ears. And they find our POV unreliable??!!??! :)

[magictooth]

Ok, back to reason. I hope you know that I don't expect you to go through all that. I also hope you know that I don't intend to, either. But if doing so is your inclination, have at it. I'll be happy to review any "proof" you have.
As you've indicated here, you are not interested in getting to the heart of the matter. You are interested in keeping your head in the sand. Every proof that has been laid out over the last century regarding human studies indicates that blind testing is the methodology of choice. The fallibility of human senses in sighted testing has been proven over and over and over again.

As you are also aware, there are very few absolutes in science. You can't say with absolute conviction that something isn't possible because you haven't tested all the different possibilities. You can say with absolute conviction, though, that something is 99.99999% certain. Given the evidence presented in the literature, I would contend that hearing is no different than any of the other senses, and hence requires blind testing to accurately measure.

[magictooth]

That's cool. Just wondered how you were sure I had made a good decision given my weakness for trusting my ears! I happen to think the Sound Labs Ultimates are downright awesome.

rw
Well, nobody is claiming that all speakers sound the same. You would normally be able to pick out in a blind test which speaker you prefer.

[musicoverall]

[QUOTE=magictooth]As you've indicated here, you are not interested in getting to the heart of the matter. You are interested in keeping your head in the sand.

Well, if that's how you see it, I have no problem with that. I have a lot more things to worry about than saving the newbie from the Evil Wire Gods. You, on the other hand, seem quite passionate about it. Yet, I've seen no proof from you, just a lot of speculation. Sorry, I'm just not interested in proving your claim for you.

[magictooth]

As far as I've been able to tell so far, it's ok to trust your ears as long as someone somewhere has passed a blind test on the type of component you're trusting your ears on, i.e speakers. Blind tests rule. In fact, even when they can't hear a difference between two cables, they'd buy a specific one if it was picked out in a blind test, so I read in this forum. In other words, the buying decision is made with someone else's ears. And they find our POV unreliable??!!??! :)
Sorry, but you are giving in to your excessive need for hyperbole and you are misinterpreting what I wrote:


Yes, I would buy from that company. If a company could prove to me that their cables made a difference, then why wouldn't I buy it? It just happens that there's no company that has shown any kind of evidence that there are differences.
I should perhaps been clearer in that I haven't tried all sorts of cables (van den hul, Nordost, Maple Audio and a couple other high end are all that I've listened to in addition to custom made and cheaper brands). If a company could show that their particular cables made a difference in a credible scientific way, then I would certainly buy them at least to try and make my own judgments. It's the same with any other component - I'm willing to try it, but not all components are going to be pleasing to everybody. It just so happens that there isn't a cable company who has shown the least inclination to try and prove that their product works.

[magictooth]

[QUOTE=magictooth]As you've indicated here, you are not interested in getting to the heart of the matter. You are interested in keeping your head in the sand.

Well, if that's how you see it, I have no problem with that. I have a lot more things to worry about than saving the newbie from the Evil Wire Gods. You, on the other hand, seem quite passionate about it. Yet, I've seen no proof from you, just a lot of speculation. Sorry, I'm just not interested in proving your claim for you.
No, it's you who doesn't get it. The roles are reversed. I have the proof, you have the speculation (from no less authority than an audio reviewer). Like I said before, the burden of proof lies with cable companies to prove that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing for their product only. Their unwillingness to do so stems either from 1) the fact that they want to keep a certain segment of the population in the dark or from 2)that they are unable to design a test that would show their products in a positive light.

[musicoverall]

No, it's you who doesn't get it. The roles are reversed. I have the proof, you have the speculation (from no less authority than an audio reviewer). Like I said before, the burden of proof lies with cable companies to prove that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing for their product only. Their unwillingness to do so stems either from 1) the fact that they want to keep a certain segment of the population in the dark or from 2)that they are unable to design a test that would show their products in a positive light.

Or 3) they see no need to waste the money to try to prove anything to a group of naysayers. Are you so naive that you think a cable company's test is going to satisfy the objectivist crowd? Hell, they'd have to spend more money and repeat it ad nauseum. And where are your studies to show what their ROI would be? Why do you think it would be worth their time? These companies have already given you up for lost! They don't want or need you back! I honestly think that no proof is going to satisfy you (speaking as a group). Your science is your religion and you'll go to great lengths to protect it - and you don't mind using someone else's money!

The cable companies apparently see no such burden of proof as that which you've placed on them. If you can convince them to do so, I salute you. You certainly haven't convinced me.

[magictooth]

Or 3) they see no need to waste the money to try to prove anything to a group of naysayers. Are you so naive that you think a cable company's test is going to satisfy the objectivist crowd? Hell, they'd have to spend more money and repeat it ad nauseum. And where are your studies to show what their ROI would be? Why do you think it would be worth their time? These companies have already given you up for lost! They don't want or need you back! I honestly think that no proof is going to satisfy you (speaking as a group). Your science is your religion and you'll go to great lengths to protect it - and you don't mind using someone else's money!

The cable companies apparently see no such burden of proof as that which you've placed on them. If you can convince them to do so, I salute you. You certainly haven't convinced me.
LOL, like I said before, anything is possible - it's just not probable. #3 reason is extremely far fetched. If they could show any meaningful evidence of the truth of their products, they would have done so long ago. There is no business in the world that wouldn't want further product penetration. It's just that their ROI, given the current state of testing, isn't going to be good. The nature of R&D in any reputable group of companies is to spend money to improve the product. R&D is also there to prove that their product actually does what the company says that it does.

[E-Stat]

#3 reason is extremely far fetched. If they could show any meaningful evidence of the truth of their products, they would have done so long ago. There is no business in the world that wouldn't want further product penetration.
Not far fetched at all. As I pointed out some time ago (and referenced to you in post #33), you would be hard pressed to find ANY manufacturer of ANY audio component who "proves" their advertising claims with scientific studies. Why?

A. Such testing is expensive to conduct
B. Most folks couldn't care less as to the outcome of statistical studies (admittedly, you are among those who do. I had to chuckle with musicoverall's observation that you would buy a given cable if other folks "proved" it to be better)
C. Buyers of high end gear evaluate performance in their own systems

rw

[magictooth]

Not far fetched at all. As I pointed out some time ago (and referenced to you in post #33), you would be hard pressed to find ANY manufacturer of ANY audio component who "proves" their advertising claims with scientific studies. Why?

A. Such testing is expensive to conduct
B. Most folks couldn't care less as to the outcome of statistical studies (admittedly, you are among those who do. I had to chuckle with musicoverall's observation that you would buy a given cable if other folks "proved" it to be better)
C. Buyers of high end gear evaluate performance in their own systems

rw
It is far fetched. As for any manufacture of any audio component proving anything, you just need to look at specs that most manufacturers put out. Take speakers for example, is it a coincidence that the ratings are usually given as +/-3db? The limits of audibility have been shown to be approximately +/-3db for most normal people. How about THD? The specs given by speaker, amp, and other manufacturers are generally given below what a normal human being would consider objectionable THD. The proof is there if you look for it. It isn't there for cables.

As for you points:

A. This is incorrect. A scientifically correct study need not be expensive. I would agree that it would be expensive if the results received showed your product did nothing beneficial - in which case sales should go down.
B. I've also found most people wish to remain ignorant about the hows and wherefores of how a conclusion was reached. I doubt that many people have ever read about the Phase III clinical trials of xxx drug, but it is important nonetheless that these trials have been conducted.
C. Sure, under sighted, biased conditions. If the differences are so marked as has been claimed, then a blind test should yield the same results. I'm sure that you would be able to pass your blind test comparing a set of Sound Lab U1 to Bose Jewel Cube quite easily.

[E-Stat]

It is far fetched. As for any manufacture of any audio component proving anything, you just need to look at specs that most manufacturers put out.
The manufacturer of my cables publishes all their specifications. So? You seem to assume that specifications really convey meaningful knowledge as opposed to simply information. My experience is that by and large they do not. For any component.

Take five speakers with similar +-3db responses from x to y and you will find five completely different sounding products.

rw

[musicoverall]

LOL, like I said before, anything is possible - it's just not probable. #3 reason is extremely far fetched. If they could show any meaningful evidence of the truth of their products, they would have done so long ago. There is no business in the world that wouldn't want further product penetration. It's just that their ROI, given the current state of testing, isn't going to be good. The nature of R&D in any reputable group of companies is to spend money to improve the product. R&D is also there to prove that their product actually does what the company says that it does.

Well, whether you think it's meaningful or not, these companies evidence is X number of satisfied customers i.e the word of mouth evidence. It's reviews in audio mags and on internet sites. They reach their target market this way and their target market is likely never to be those who think the sound of cables (should there be any at all) is limited to its LCR parameters.

Here's a question that's been asked here before and I've seen no good answer. It doesn't have to do with cables but it does have to do with blind testing. If blind testing is such a great way to distinguish (or not) two products and you seem to think people actually care about the outcomes of such tests, why wouldn't Pioneer set up blind tests with their cheap receivers against expensive separates? If the naysayer population is so convinced that all amps sound basically alike, I would think this would be good for Pioneer's business. Speaking generally, why don't ALL manufacturers of cheap items use blind testing to "prove" their cheap products perform as well as more expensive products? Even cable companies could do this. So why don't they? Could it be that they are too expensive to set up, no one will care about the outcome, and they won't be relevant to their target market? Or could it be that blind tests aren't the best way to go???

E-Stat's points are well taken. Who's going to care that a few testers couldn't tell the difference between Cable A (amp A) and Cable B? After all, you and markw took blind tests and couldn't tell differences. Have you changed anyone's opinion on this board?

[musicoverall]

I'm sure that you would be able to pass your blind test comparing a set of Sound Lab U1 to Bose Jewel Cube quite easily.

There are zero components (aside from speakers) that exhibit this broad of a difference. I think blind testing is fine for gross, obvious differences. I remain unconvinced that it is of any use for subtle differences.

[magictooth]

The manufacturer of my cables publishes all their specifications. So? You seem to assume that specifications really convey meaningful knowledge as opposed to simply information. My experience is that by and large they do not. For any component.

Take five speakers with similar +-3db responses from x to y and you will find five completely different sounding products.

rw
Most cable manufacturers that I've ever seen do not provide any meaningful specs. I don't assume that specs are useful. I use the example as when you see a product that doesn't give any specs (as most cable manufacturers are wont to do) such as Nuance speakers, then you need to approach them with more caution than you would with another type of speaker which does provide +/-3db specs. Take it another step when you compare those little minisytems. They purport to produce 300W, but at 20%THD. Specs aren't everything, but they can give an indication, however slight, about how a particular component will sound.

[magictooth]

Well, whether you think it's meaningful or not, these companies evidence is X number of satisfied customers i.e the word of mouth evidence. It's reviews in audio mags and on internet sites. They reach their target market this way and their target market is likely never to be those who think the sound of cables (should there be any at all) is limited to its LCR parameters.

Here's a question that's been asked here before and I've seen no good answer. It doesn't have to do with cables but it does have to do with blind testing. If blind testing is such a great way to distinguish (or not) two products and you seem to think people actually care about the outcomes of such tests, why wouldn't Pioneer set up blind tests with their cheap receivers against expensive separates? If the naysayer population is so convinced that all amps sound basically alike, I would think this would be good for Pioneer's business. Speaking generally, why don't ALL manufacturers of cheap items use blind testing to "prove" their cheap products perform as well as more expensive products? Even cable companies could do this. So why don't they? Could it be that they are too expensive to set up, no one will care about the outcome, and they won't be relevant to their target market? Or could it be that blind tests aren't the best way to go???

E-Stat's points are well taken. Who's going to care that a few testers couldn't tell the difference between Cable A (amp A) and Cable B? After all, you and markw took blind tests and couldn't tell differences. Have you changed anyone's opinion on this board?
The fact that somebody does something or doesn't do something doesn't make it right. The fact that cable companies refuse to do even a modicum of real testing doesn't make it right. Your (yeasayer) reasons for why they refuse to test are specious. Your (yeasayer)logic for refusing to test is circular. As I've said before, I've never contended that all cables, amps and CDPs sound the same. I do hold forth that blind testing is the only reliable means of testing for differences when human senses and frailties are involved.

[magictooth]

There are zero components (aside from speakers) that exhibit this broad of a difference. I think blind testing is fine for gross, obvious differences. I remain unconvinced that it is of any use for subtle differences.
And so what is the basis for this thought? Your own and other audiophile observations.

The common way of advancing knowledge is to take a hypothesis (belief) --> obtain results --> foment a conclusion. In audiophile-land (la-la-land or the land of the delusional), the way things are determined is by taking a hypothesis (belief) --> drawing a conclusion. Thankfully this type of thinking is only prevalent in audio.

[musicoverall]

The common way of advancing knowledge is to take a hypothesis (belief) --> obtain results --> foment a conclusion. In audiophile-land (la-la-land or the land of the delusional), the way things are determined is by taking a hypothesis (belief) --> drawing a conclusion. Thankfully this type of thinking is only prevalent in audio.

Absolutely wrong. It appears YOU are the one who's delusional. "obtain results" - sounds like listening to me. It's always the listening that allows us to draw conclusions. You simply don't like my style of listening. You think I have to shut my eyes. Ridiculous.

[musicoverall]

The fact that somebody does something or doesn't do something doesn't make it right. The fact that cable companies refuse to do even a modicum of real testing doesn't make it right. Your (yeasayer) reasons for why they refuse to test are specious. Your (yeasayer)logic for refusing to test is circular. As I've said before, I've never contended that all cables, amps and CDPs sound the same. I do hold forth that blind testing is the only reliable means of testing for differences when human senses and frailties are involved.

You should write to some of these cable companies and find out the real reasons they don't want to test. I doubt you'll trust their answers, either, but at least you'll hear it from the source. Better, why don't you go to work for one of them and start your own testing? If you feel like these companies are doing such a horrible disservice to the audiophile community, why not do something besides complain on an audio site?

[E-Stat]

Most cable manufacturers that I've ever seen do not provide any meaningful specs.
I guess you're not looking at the right cables. Here are the specs for mine:

http://www.jpslabs.com/PDF/instsuperint.pdf


Specs aren't everything, but they can give an indication, however slight, about how a particular component will sound.
Let's return to an earlier point you made about the lack of "proof" cable manufacturers provide. If specs provide only a "slight" indication of real world performance (ain't that the truth!), then what the heck do manufacturers of every other components provide as the "proof" of their respective claims? I find precious few ads for ANY components that talk about DBT testing to support the verity of their claims.

rw

[magictooth]

I guess you're not looking at the right cables. Here are the specs for mine:

http://www.jpslabs.com/PDF/instsuperint.pdf


Let's return to an earlier point you made about the lack of "proof" cable manufacturers provide. If specs provide only a "slight" indication of real world performance (ain't that the truth!), then what the heck do manufacturers of every other components provide as the "proof" of their respective claims? I find precious few ads for ANY components that talk about DBT testing to support the verity of their claims.

rw
Well, I should've specified specs with regards to audibility as in how much it could change your frequency response not just a simple resitance, cap, etc. Maybe there's some electrical inclined people who would care to comment?

In any case, whoever said that most companies provide blind testing to prove their claims? Does this mean anything at all? Certainly not. As I pointed out before, just because people do or don't do something doesn't make it right. In the case of other components, the line of (blind) tests that have been done as to the threshold of audibility with respect to loudness, THD, et al has a long and distinguished pedigree. The R&D sections of these companies use these studies to make better product (hopefully anyways).

[FLZapped]

Well, I should've specified specs with regards to audibility as in how much it could change your frequency response not just a simple resitance, cap, etc. Maybe there's some electrical inclined people who would care to comment?

In any case, whoever said that most companies provide blind testing to prove their claims? Does this mean anything at all? Certainly not. As I pointed out before, just because people do or don't do something doesn't make it right. In the case of other components, the line of (blind) tests that have been done as to the threshold of audibility with respect to loudness, THD, et al has a long and distinguished pedigree. The R&D sections of these companies use these studies to make better product (hopefully anyways).

The BS detector went off right away.....

The whole installation information section is utter BS, save for the bending radius. Further, they don't even tell you what changes when they DO burn in! Shippiing something in an anti-static pouch doesn't keep them from being impinged by electromagnetic fields, which is a far greater likelyhood. So how culd you expect them to be "maintained" in their pre-burned-in condidtion if you cannot protect them from ALL possible environmental variables? What about UV light? Temerature variations? Those will have an effect on the dielectric polymers used in manufacturing, no?

Then they list the electrical parameters in base units, instead of using industry standard units:

0.00000000004 F instead of 40pF.....an indication they DON'T know what the hell they are doing. Further, there is no such thing as analog and digital capacitance, inductance, or resistance.

As far as I can tell, you can disregard their specifications as meaningful. They could have just pulled the numbers outta their sphincters based on their obvious lack of knowledge of the basic electrical parameters and environmental influences, electrical or physical.

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

Further, there is no such thing as analog and digital capacitance, inductance, or resistance.
Other than stating the obvious, you suffer from making unfounded assumptions. There are separate analog and digital flavors of that interconnect having different build construction and different specifications. Duh.



As far as I can tell...
Which evidently isn't much given your propensity to assume instead of asking or finding out the correct answer...


...you can disregard their specifications as meaningful.
Aside from the fact that they answer the question posed.

rw

[FLZapped]

Other than stating the obvious, you suffer from making unfounded assumptions. There are separate analog and digital flavors of that interconnect having different build construction and different specifications. Duh..

Your ignorance is showing again. Please, please, please show me ANY reference defining digital resistance, capacitance, or inductance. Regardless of whether the signal is analog or digital, the cable could care less. Impedance is impedance, group delay is group delay and resistance, is resistance. ...need I continue?



Which evidently isn't much given your propensity to assume instead of asking or finding out the correct answer...


Aside from the fact that they answer the question posed.

rw

I have no need to find the "correct" answer you seek, that wasn't the question posed by the person I was responding too. I am able to tell, however, with the information contained in that PDF is bovine scat. Marketing speak. Nothing more. One does not need to assume anything when they know the topic at hand and recognize the worth of what JPS has published: Nothing.

I really am sorry you're so technologically deficient not to be able to see through the smoke screen.

Have YOU sent a set of cables to be measured to verify if their stated specs are correct to either listing in their document? Of course not, you weren't able to spot the fallicy in their ad.

Maybe they felt that because their meter had a digital readout, it was digital resistance......
I'd really, really, really, like to see you measure digital resistance. hahahahahahhahahahahhaha....

Digital resistance, brother, that's rich. It's like that reference Jon Risch had on his webpage once showing 180 degree phase reversals in a cable that was less than 10 degrees in electrical length.....sorry, bad information. That's what you have here, bad information.

You can beat your chest all you want, attempt to impune my character all you want, but at the end of the day, your ignorance shines brightly here.

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

Your ignorance is showing again. Please, please, please show me ANY reference defining digital resistance, capacitance, or inductance. Regardless of whether the signal is analog or digital, the cable could care less. Impedance is impedance, group delay is group delay and resistance, is resistance. ...need I continue?
Ready, shoot, aim, right? :) . Take a deep breath, slow down and read the doc and my reply again. I'll say this again. There are multiple cables in the product line having different specifications. I'll say this again. Obviously there is no such thing as digital specific parameters. You failed to pick up the clues in the document and made a wild assumption. The second sentence begins with:

The Superconductor line of cables...

Most folks would correctly understand the concept of a product line having multiple products. If that wasn't enough, there is a more specific reference:

The RCA ends of a locking style (except on The Digital Superconductor)...

Which means A DIFFERENT MODEL.


I really am sorry you're so technologically deficient not to be able to see through the smoke screen.
I'm really sorry you didn't take the time to read the document and decided instead to make a ludicrous assumption. Did you get it this time , Bruce?

rw

[FLZapped]

Ready, shoot, aim, right? :) . Take a deep breath, slow down and read the doc and my reply again. I'll say this again. There are multiple cables in the product line having different specifications. I'll say this again. Obviously there is no such thing as digital specific parameters. You failed to pick up the clues in the document and made a wild assumption. The second sentence begins with:

The Superconductor line of cables...

Most folks would correctly understand the concept of a product line having multiple products. If that wasn't enough, there is a more specific reference:

The RCA ends of a locking style (except on The Digital Superconductor)...

Which means A DIFFERENT MODEL.


I'm really sorry you didn't take the time to read the document and decided instead to make a ludicrous assumption. Did you get it this time , Bruce?

rw

I see what you are saying, but it is so poorly written that is is completely misleading. a couple days from now, I would STILL come to my earliier conclusions it is so bad.

The title does not meniton, hint, or elude to multiple models, does it? The broad mention of a lineage of cables in the introduction certainly doesn't clarify that they are indeed trying to speak to multiple models. Especially when they go on to say, "The Superconductor is literally....." - matches the title entirely. the crap in parenthases is not intended to be in the main body of the document, which would lead most readers to assume there is another document somewhere else.

Okay, so lets go from there. Is the resistance inclusive of the shield, or is it just the center conductor?

Same for the inductance.

Still would like to know why they didn't include protection from UV, temperature extremes and magnetic fields if they were soooooo concerned about keeping the pre burn-in condition intact(not that I could understand why it would matter). What changes when they break in?

Woeful friggin document.

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

I see what you are saying, but it is so poorly written that is is completely misleading. a couple days from now, I would STILL come to my earliier conclusions it is so bad.
Indeed that is the consequence of speed reading over the first two sentences and choosing to draw conclusions instead. The first sentence uses the plural case and the second mentions the product line.


Okay, so lets go from there. Is the resistance inclusive of the shield, or is it just the center conductor? Same for the inductance.
I will be happy to email Mr. Skubinski for the answer.


Still would like to know why they didn't include protection from UV, temperature extremes and magnetic fields if they were soooooo concerned about keeping the pre burn-in condition intact(not that I could understand why it would matter). What changes when they break in?
I have no idea. As for you last question, there is a period of time where they sound very dark before opening up. As that occurs over a period of a week or so, I never really thought much about it. Similarly, I will be breaking in my new 'stats shortly and will take the same approach. I'm just going to play them and not worry about it.

rw

[mystic]

Well some of the past threads got me thinking about the differences between sighted vs. blind testing, and there was an interesting point made about taste buds et al. I think that the parallels of taste(stimulus of taste buds)/flavour(interpretation of the stimulus) and sound(stimulus of ear apparatus)/hearing(interpretation of the stimulus) are remarkable.

Anyways, we had a party last Saturday with 13 guests. I thought that this might be an interesting time to try out a sighted test. Here's the methodology: The night before, I prepared, as one large batch, an excellent salsa whose recipe I obtained in Mexico. On Saturday, I divided the batch into two separate containers.

When our guests arrived, I eventually steered them around to trying this salsa that I had made. I said that one container had a milder salsa, but that for the other container I had put TWICE the amount of chilies in - thus making it a lot hotter. I asked each guest after they tried both salsas if they liked them and if they found the one salsa too hot. For 6 guests, I let them try the "mild" salsa first; for the other 7 guests, I let them try the "hot" salsa first.

Guess what the results were??








All 13 guests or 100% of the sample said that the "hot" salsa was indeed hotter (they also said that they liked it, but that's beside the point). The range of replies to the "hotter" salsa was from "yeah, it's a bit hotter, but I like to eat spicy food," to "WOW, this is way hotter than the other one," - with most comments somewhere in between. Nobody said they tasted the same and nobody said that the "hot" salsa was milder. The guest who said the last comment was even warning other people that the "hot" salsa was indeed much spicier than the other container for part of the night.

<sarcasm>I guess this proves that basic scientific methodology is incorrect with regards to blind vs. sighted testing. I can now see how sighted testing is truly the king of testing methodologies. I lament all those years of toil in school - all wasted working under false assumptions. What was I thinking?! </sarcasm>

I read recently how a new medical procedure to help severe migraine sufferers had passed the ethics board. Basically what they want to do is to patch a little hole in the heart. Previously, people had said that when they had undergone this operation that as a side effect, the severity, intervals between, and duration of their migraines diminished substantially. In order to patch the hole, a small incision is made in the thigh to gain access to the femoral artery. The surgery is accomplished through this little incision. There's going to be 2 testing groups of 100 people each. The one group will actually have this surgery done; the other group will have the same incision cut into their legs but no actual surgery. The apparent reason being that the researchers want to eliminate any possibility of the results being attributed to psychosomatic effects.

<biting sarcasm>Now as we've seen above in my simple kitchen example, we don't need to do this. IN FACT, what happened to the Hippocratic oath? I mean they're cutting up 100 people for no good reason. I think that they should just simply tell everybody who's getting the surgery that they've had the surgery and be done with it. If it's as good as they say, then everything is going to work out fine. I think that after I open this thread, that I'm going to write to those researchers and their ethics board to tell them that they're going about this "research" in entirely the wrong fashion. </biting sarcasm>

<really biting sarcasm>So there you have it. Blind testing is for the BIRDS. Sighted testing is KING!!!!</really biting sarcasm>

Sure, guests could be misled. But all 13 of them? Some guests might consider it ill mannered to disagree with the host. Perhaps after the party, some guest were thinking you made a mistake(e.g., he forgot to add the hot stuff or didn't add enough).

I recently bought a jar of salsa con queso labeled mild. Holy frijole, it sure didn't taste mild! I didn't say anything and waited for my girldfriend to try it(I had told her previously it was labeled mild). Without knowing I thought it was too hot, she said if this is the mild kind I sure wouldn't want the hot kind. Obviously our taste buds were not agreeing with the label on the jar. The power of suggestion was not working.

Had I attended your party I doubt I would have thought one salsa much different than the other. But it would have been rude for me to suggest that you were a forgetful cook or didn't know hot from mild.

[markw]

Who's going to care that a few testers couldn't tell the difference between Cable A (amp A) and Cable B? After all, you and markw took blind tests and couldn't tell differences. Have you changed anyone's opinion on this board?If you are asking if we succeeded in changing your mind, and a few others thgat believe like you, then the answer is a resounding no.

But, then again, none of us really expected to.

Remember, a lot of lurkers read this site and use what's posted here to help them make up their minds on what' makes sense and what doesn't. Then, they will take the opinions expressed here, weigh them against whatever their logical brain says and use that to make their decisions

[musicoverall]

Remember, a lot of lurkers read this site and use what's posted here to help them make up their minds on what' makes sense and what doesn't. Then, they will take the opinions expressed here, weigh them against whatever their logical brain says and use that to make their decisions

Then it's nice that regardless of which decision they make, it'll be the right one - for them. It seems the one thing we all have in common is we're comfortable with our stance.

[E-Stat]

Then, they will take the opinions expressed here, weigh them against whatever their logical brain says and use that to make their decisions
Hopefully, they will do better than that. Rather than merely speculate as to what is "logical", they will take the opportuniy to evaluate the performace of various components in their own systems and make their decision upon that experience.

rw

[musicoverall]

Hopefully, they will do better than that. Rather than merely speculate as to what is "logical", they will take the opportuniy to evaluate the performace of various components in their own systems and make their decision upon that experience.

rw

Wow! Why didn't I think of that??? ;)

[markw]

Wow! Why didn't I think of that??? ;)I think we all took that as a given.