A question for ex-cable believers

[shokhead]

They are racing against a time. You are spending money. I know what you are saying. I've seen cyclist spend 200 bucks for a new saddle they did'nt need because it was 10g lighter. They did'nt race but got it anyhow and to be that is dumb. For me it would be dumb to spend 100 bucks for a single 3ft cable. I'd rather just get better equipment for more of a benifit then a $$ cable,but thats me. Now if i had high end stuff,then maybe. I kinda lean more on the hype then substance.

[RobotCzar]

It does seem reasonable that a listener who is certain he can hear a difference beween two components in sighted listening should be able to do so in blinded listening. But it also may be reasonable to question the validity of blinded testing used for such a purpose. It would seem fair to ask if the testing does what it is supposed to do. But how do you test the test?

A starting place in taking a critical look at blinded testing might be to look at positive results. What kinds of subtle audible differences in components have been detected through blinded testing? Are any studies available? I'm not entirely sure what I mean by "subtle," but if the difference is very very obvious, the testing isn't being tested.

First, let me point out that blind testing is the only testing that would be consider valid scientifically or legally. The effect of expecation on perception is so strong and so evident that reasonable testing of human perception can only be done with blinded subjects. All of, say, testing of the efficacy of drugs is done using single or, more often double blind tests. There simply is no valid alternative.

You are quite correct in pointing out that positive results are important in judging testing. Note that the high end crowd, which tries to discredit blind testing, act as if blind testing never gives a positive result. Well, that is not true, of course, several quite subtle effects can be discriminated in blind testing. Perhaps the best example is the ability of people to detect small differences in volume. I have read than under the right conditions (with tests tones) people can detect differences of 0.1 dB. The decibel unit was chosen based on what differneces in volume people can relatively easily hear (i.e., 1 dB). The ablility of people to detect such small differences in volume is why tested components MUST be level matched to within a 0.1 of a dB.

The tests that were used to establish limits of human hearing that one hears quoted (such as the ability of some to hear out to 20KHz and/or distortion of 1%) were, of course, established using blind tests. Nothing is more scientifically or logically illiterate than attacks on the validity of blind testing.

You cannot test the test--some high enders have tried that but it is illogical. You can't assume something should be detected and use it to test the test. It is the test itself that determines what can be detected. This is elementary scientific method.

[markw]

Given that prices in cables can go from several single digit dollars well into the four and five digit range, I would expect much, much more than subtle differences.

Your expectation is fine - for you! Certainly the laws of diminishing returns go through the roof on expensive cables. But if something is important enough to someone i.e reproducing the sound of live music in the home, it's not unreasonable that they would spend a lot of money for a small improvement. Look how hard runners work to shave a few 10ths of a second off their time. Would that be worth it to me? Nope. But it is to them.

Well, the more I invested in this tweak, the more I'd try to convince myself that it was worth it. And, with the advertising and hype being what it is, that would be a very easy thing to do.

Without any serious testing I would probably go through life fat, happy and stupid believing that my money was well spent. Of course, after dropping a tremendous amount of $$ on this, I would be loathe to perform the simple test I've descibed many times previously in this forum only to find out that I couldn't tell the difference. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Sometimes, ignorance truly is bliss.

And, that 1/10th of a second time decrease can be measured but, then again, many other factors can easily have made more of an effect as well.

[mystic]

First, let me point out that blind testing is the only testing that would be consider valid scientifically or legally. The effect of expecation on perception is so strong and so evident that reasonable testing of human perception can only be done with blinded subjects. All of, say, testing of the efficacy of drugs is done using single or, more often double blind tests. There simply is no valid alternative.

You are quite correct in pointing out that positive results are important in judging testing. Note that the high end crowd, which tries to discredit blind testing, act as if blind testing never gives a positive result. Well, that is not true, of course, several quite subtle effects can be discriminated in blind testing. Perhaps the best example is the ability of people to detect small differences in volume. I have read than under the right conditions (with tests tones) people can detect differences of 0.1 dB. The decibel unit was chosen based on what differneces in volume people can relatively easily hear (i.e., 1 dB). The ablility of people to detect such small differences in volume is why tested components MUST be level matched to within a 0.1 of a dB.

The tests that were used to establish limits of human hearing that one hears quoted (such as the ability of some to hear out to 20KHz and/or distortion of 1%) were, of course, established using blind tests. Nothing is more scientifically or logically illiterate than attacks on the validity of blind testing.

You cannot test the test--some high enders have tried that but it is illogical. You can't assume something should be detected and use it to test the test. It is the test itself that determines what can be detected. This is elementary scientific method.

For heaven's sake, I feel like you are accusing me of blasphemy for even considering that blinded testing for audible differences in audio components might be less than perfect. I thought science encouraged inquiry. If you are so defensive about the testing, maybe there IS something wrong with it.

I haven't seen a blinded test on cables with positive results, but there are a lot of listeners who claim to hear differences who have not been tested. Hopefully, we will see a few reliable positives in the future and blinded testing will be vindicated among audiophiles. Perhaps the quality of the testing, which has been lacking, also will improve. Unless there are some positive results for cables, the validity of blinded listening tests may continue to be questioned.

How do you test the test? I don't know, but it's interesting to think about. How did those high enders you mentioned try to do it?

[markw]

Let's look at an analogy. Take Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monstor, Aliens or whatever you like.

Some say they exist.

Others say they don't.

Who ya gonna believe?

Answer?

Simple. Whomever you wish.

Now, some canny characters may want more than just heresay and ask for some evidence either way. Again, not a problem.

Throw out tons of money into research. Send out teams of investigators. Spend years lookng for evidence either way.

If, after a period of time, no evidence either way can be produced, you can come to either of two conclusions.

1) The research was faulty and was not adequate to prove or disprove the existence of such phenomona. So, since it failed to prove that it does NOT exist, by default, it must exist.

... or some might see things the other way.

2) Since no evidence could be found that such phenomona does exist, it's most likely that such phenomona does not exist.

In any case, I would let my grandkids swim in Loch Ness with no fears of them being eaten by the monster. I'll also let them hike and camp in the woods (with adequate supervision) and not worry about Sasquatch kidnapping them.

As far as cables go, The companies that manufacturer them DO have a vested interest in this. Any cable company that could prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that their cable was better than anyone else's would have a gold mine.

The downside to this is that what if a "fair" test proved that there actually were NO appreciable differences in cables? A whole sub set of the Hi Fi manufacturing industry would go bust, save for a few diehards who know more than science.

No, I don't think they are in too much of a hurry to put this myth to rest...

[musicoverall]

Well, the more I invested in this tweak, the more I'd try to convince myself that it was worth it..

I've taken the opposite route. Listening to different cables convinced me that it was worth it and THEN I made the investment.

[markw]

I've taken the opposite route. Listening to different cables convinced me that it was worth it and THEN I made the investment.

Unless you are immune to your own personal attitudes, beliefs and expectations, your judgment is clouded* by knowing what you are listening to.

*so sayeth the Shadow.

[E-Stat]

Unless you are immune to your own personal attitudes, beliefs and expectations, your judgment is clouded* by knowing what you are listening to. .

So? I recently heard a power cord that I DID NOT want for it to be better than what I already have. Guess what sparky?

rw

[mystic]

Let's look at an analogy. Take Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monstor, Aliens or whatever you like.

Some say they exist.

Others say they don't.

Who ya gonna believe?

Answer?

Simple. Whomever you wish.

Now, some canny characters may want more than just heresay and ask for some evidence either way. Again, not a problem.

Throw out tons of money into research. Send out teams of investigators. Spend years lookng for evidence either way.

If, after a period of time, no evidence either way can be produced, you can come to either of two conclusions.

1) The research was faulty and was not adequate to prove or disprove the existence of such phenomona. So, since it failed to prove that it does NOT exist, by default, it must exist.

... or some might see things the other way.

2) Since no evidence could be found that such phenomona does exist, it's most likely that such phenomona does not exist.

In any case, I would let my grandkids swim in Loch Ness with no fears of them being eaten by the monster. I'll also let them hike and camp in the woods (with adequate supervision) and not worry about Sasquatch kidnapping them.

As far as cables go, The companies that manufacturer them DO have a vested interest in this. Any cable company that could prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that their cable was better than anyone else's would have a gold mine.

The downside to this is that what if a "fair" test proved that there actually were NO appreciable differences in cables? A whole sub set of the Hi Fi manufacturing industry would go bust, save for a few diehards who know more than science.

No, I don't think they are in too much of a hurry to put this myth to rest...

Wait a minute! Are you saying your skepticisim about cryptozoological creatures makes you smarter than cable believers? If so, I ain't buying it. I know some pretty dim-witted people who don't believe in Big-foot and Nessie. And I know some pretty intelligent people who claim to hear differences in cables. So there!

[markw]

So? I recently heard a power cord that I DID NOT want for it to be better than what I already have. Guess what sparky?

rw

You are working on the presumption that ther e ARE differences in power cords. Another faith based belief without valid proof that keeps a substantial portion of companies in business .

[markw]

Wait a minute! Are you saying your skepticisim about cryptozoological creatures makes you smarter than cable believers?

No, just a bit more discriminating (or less gullible) on knowing what to believe and what not to believe. Through the power of suggestion and illusion I've seen David Copperfield make huge objects disappear. without discriminating thought I might believe that it was real.

Fact... If, in this day and age, knowing how much the mind (and not the ears) controls what we (think we) hear and valid proof cannot be obtained that cable differences are audiable, logical people would rightly think several times before buying into it.

Of course, it's your money. You can buy whatever you want. Howsa bout some $500 wooden knobs with magical lacquer to improve the sound of your equipment?

[E-Stat]

You are working on the presumption that ther e ARE differences in power cords. Another faith based belief without valid proof that keeps a substantial portion of companies in business .

No. You have that bass ackwards. I was hoping to NOT hear any differences.

rw

[RobotCzar]

For heaven's sake, I feel like you are accusing me of blasphemy for even considering that blinded testing for audible differences in audio components might be less than perfect. I thought science encouraged inquiry. If you are so defensive about the testing, maybe there IS something wrong with it.

Science doesn't have blsphemy, that is for true believers. It does, however, have a set of procedural rules and, of course, belief in the rules of logic. So, I guess you can blaspheme against logic, and that is what you have done. I am defensive about testing because it HAS been attacked by the high end--often. In fact, the high end believers in this very forum have used segregation and censorship against scientific testing, so I am not alone in my defensiveness.

I'm also defensive about it because some people think they can offer up opinions without much evidence or logic and then use the openess of scientific inquiry to give some validity to their views. Science does encourage inquiry, I hope you are inquirying about blind testing. I thought I was answering your query: you cannot test the test.

I haven't seen a blinded test on cables with positive results, but there are a lot of listeners who claim to hear differences who have not been tested. Hopefully, we will see a few reliable positives in the future and blinded testing will be vindicated among audiophiles. Perhaps the quality of the testing, which has been lacking, also will improve. Unless there are some positive results for cables, the validity of blinded listening tests may continue to be questioned.

While science is open and encourages inquiry, it doesn't operate on a vote count or majority rule. I can quote several scientists on the uselessness of data from uncontrolled sources. Such data is totally useless, so it really doesn't matter how many people claim to hear differences. Additionally, people may hear differences, but what I (and I believe those with a rational viewpoint) do not believe are the factors these listeners identify and the source of the differences they hear. As they have not controlled potential sources of hearing differences, they do not know what the source is....they just pick the one they want to believe. The point of my other base post is that it is proven that what listeners CLAIM to hear is unreliable. Claims aren't a factor in scientific method, evidence is. It has been over 30 year since people claimed to hear differences in cables or amps, so far none (to may knowledge) had demostrated it. As hearing such differences defies both logic and established data, it is extremely unlikely they every will. Moreover, we have no reason to beieve they can until someone does.

Blinding removes one possible source of hearing differences (basically, the placebo effect). If you don't blind, you can't be sure what is being heard is not do to this effect. It is that simple.

How do you test the test? I don't know, but it's interesting to think about. How did those high enders you mentioned try to do it?

I suggested that you cannot test the test. An example of an idiotic attempt to do so is when an audiophile group played cassette recordings of CDs to a large group and also played the originals (the group was single blinded). When the group failed to be able to distinguish the two sources of what they heard, the creators of this "experiment" clamed this prooved that blind testing was flawed because "everybody knows" cassette recordings sound worse than CDs. See, they must make an assumption prior to the test and that assumption is the very thing being tested. That is a logical conflict. The scientific view (in my opinion) is that we must believe the results of the test, NOT the assumption. This group simply could not distinguish the sources under the conditions of this test. Their attempt to prove otherwise was misguided, dumb, or both. Probably both.

[mystic]

No, just a bit more discriminating (or less gullible) on knowing what to believe and what not to believe. Through the power of suggestion and illusion I've seen David Copperfield make huge objects disappear. without discriminating thought I might believe that it was real.

Fact... If, in this day and age, knowing how much the mind (and not the ears) controls what we (think we) hear and valid proof cannot be obtained that cable differences are audiable, logical people would rightly think several times before buying into it.

Of course, it's your money. You can buy whatever you want. Howsa bout some $500 wooden knobs with magical lacquer to improve the sound of your equipment?

Still, you seem to think you are superior to the cable believers in some way. You are wise, but they are gullible. You know what to believe and what not to believe, but they don't. You are too savvy to let your mind and senses mislead you. They are naive, and don't know what's going on. You laugh at those chumps (wanna buy some magic nobs? snicker, snicker). And they probably are laughing back, and think they have it over you in some way.

It looks like you want it to be known you take pride in being dupe-proof. The emphasis on that makes me wonder if you have had some bad experiences with placing trust in people. Caution can be right, but being overly cautious can get in the way of experiencing and enjoying new things.

If you tried a new interconnect or other cable in sighted listening and thought it improved the sound of your system, why wouldn't you be content to just let it go at that?

[mystic]

Science doesn't have blsphemy, that is for true believers. It does, however, have a set of procedural rules and, of course, belief in the rules of logic. So, I guess you can blaspheme against logic, and that is what you have done. I am defensive about testing because it HAS been attacked by the high end--often. In fact, the high end believers in this very forum have used segregation and censorship against scientific testing, so I am not alone in my defensiveness.

I'm also defensive about it because some people think they can offer up opinions without much evidence or logic and then use the openess of scientific inquiry to give some validity to their views. Science does encourage inquiry, I hope you are inquirying about blind testing. I thought I was answering your query: you cannot test the test.



While science is open and encourages inquiry, it doesn't operate on a vote count or majority rule. I can quote several scientists on the uselessness of data from uncontrolled sources. Such data is totally useless, so it really doesn't matter how many people claim to hear differences. Additionally, people may hear differences, but what I (and I believe those with a rational viewpoint) do not believe are the factors these listeners identify and the source of the differences they hear. As they have not controlled potential sources of hearing differences, they do not know what the source is....they just pick the one they want to believe. The point of my other base post is that it is proven that what listeners CLAIM to hear is unreliable. Claims aren't a factor in scientific method, evidence is. It has been over 30 year since people claimed to hear differences in cables or amps, so far none (to may knowledge) had demostrated it. As hearing such differences defies both logic and established data, it is extremely unlikely they every will. Moreover, we have no reason to beieve they can until someone does.

Blinding removes one possible source of hearing differences (basically, the placebo effect). If you don't blind, you can't be sure what is being heard is not do to this effect. It is that simple.



I suggested that you cannot test the test. An example of an idiotic attempt to do so is when an audiophile group played cassette recordings of CDs to a large group and also played the originals (the group was single blinded). When the group failed to be able to distinguish the two sources of what they heard, the creators of this "experiment" clamed this prooved that blind testing was flawed because "everybody knows" cassette recordings sound worse than CDs. See, they must make an assumption prior to the test and that assumption is the very thing being tested. That is a logical conflict. The scientific view (in my opinion) is that we must believe the results of the test, NOT the assumption. This group simply could not distinguish the sources under the conditions of this test. Their attempt to prove otherwise was misguided, dumb, or both. Probably both.

I know there is a conflict between what large numbers of people report they hear and the results of a small number of listening test. I also know the quality of these experiments has been questioned here on AR. I am not comfortable extrapolating the results of these tests, and concluding that all wires sound the same and always will. If you see my position as illogical, please explain why. In my opinion, the correct view is the evidence is inconclusive.

In looking at possible reasons for the conflict, I don't see why anything should be off limits. However, perhaps "test the test" is not the best way to say that I thought blinded testing in audio should be examined. It might be better to ask if blinded testing for audible differences in equipment, as it has been practiced, does what it is supposed to do. This could be a broader and more interesting subject. Obviously, it is supposed to be an unbiased way of determining what the listener hears. But there could be more. Is it supposed to change the behavior of test subjects, for example, or do listeners who fail to verify their sighted listening claims in blinded tests go back to the same claims when they return to sighted listening?


I hadn't heard about the CD/tape experiment. I don't see anything wrong with that kind of test if it's done right, although it would have been better double blind. However, it is not a "test of the test," but a test of the listener's ability to tell the difference between CD and tape recordings. If the subjects were from the general population, and took the test cold, I'm not surprised they couldn't tell the difference. I would be surprised if results were negative for listeners with some practice who claimed they could hear a difference before being tested.

Thank you for a thorough reply. I appreciate your taking the time to talk.

[markw]

If you tried a new interconnect or other cable in sighted listening and thought it improved the sound of your system, why wouldn't you be content to just let it go at that?

MAny years ago I DID pick up a hi glitz cable for a pretty penny. I was impressed and inviterd my neighbor/friend, also a hi fi buff, in for a listen.

Can you imagine? The fool could not hear the obvious glaring improvements I heard!

We discussed the matter and came up with a simple test. Since he already had a key to my place (we fed each other's cats and took in the mail when we were away) and we worked different shifts, he proposed I keep a notepad and note, every day what speaker cable I was listening to. His part of thge bargain was to slip in when I wasn't home and switch the cables (or not) and note in HIS notebook what cable was hooked up.

After three weeks we compared notes. Guess what? almost exactly 50/50, or what I precieved to be hearing had no relevance to which cable was in use.

So, in answer to your question, because I admit that I am only human and subject to my attitudes, beliefs and expectations. Any sighted listening is subject to these. This simple, free, no cost, no pressure test proved that quite easily.

Anyone who claims to be immune to their attitudes, beliefs and expectations when dealing with subtleties is so full of hubris that their opinion is not worthy of the cost of reading it.

[shokhead]

Only real test is in your hearing. Lab tests for the most part are of no use if you cant hear the difference and for me,never heard any difference. Having said that,if there were to be any difference,i think it would be in video cables much more then audio.

[Monstrous Mike]

It looks like you want it to be known you take pride in being dupe-proof.

Nobody is dupe-proof and nobody is saying they are. The message is to be cautious when you are wandering down a path that appears to have no evidence of truthfulness other than peoples' testimonials. This applies to cables as well as all the products normally sold in the last 50 pages of popular magazines.

If you tried a new interconnect or other cable in sighted listening and thought it improved the sound of your system, why wouldn't you be content to just let it go at that?

There are lots of things that I let go. For example, I dip my hockey stick in the toilet before each game and I have pretty good success. I really don't care what anybody thinks about that. However, it is free and it is harmless. On the other hand, there are things that people do with no good reason other than they think it improves their lives but it is actually harmful to their health.

Getting to cables, if you are happy with spending wads of money then the only thing it is really affecting is your household budget.

Personally, when it comes to participating in activities that may affect my health or cause me to spend money uneccessarily, I take a little bit more of a critical, objective look at and don't "let it go" quite so easily.

And further, as you well know, there is a very large industry of people selling sugar pills, bottled water, penis enlargement systems, etc. that prey on the vanity of the consumer. The idea of the magic potion is really quite old and many of these shucksters realize people want that magic potion and are willing to suspend normal objective thinking to take that chance. It's really a societal issue that goes beyond audio cables.

Oh yeah, and the final note is that the person seeking out the potion may even think every other product is crap except the one he is using or persuing.

I see you read my post on the psychology of choosing beliefs. It looked your answer was designed to fit your belief. Read the definition for Post-decisional Dissonance again.

[shokhead]

Nobody is dupe-proof and nobody is saying they are. The message is to be cautious when you are wandering down a path that appears to have no evidence of truthfulness other than peoples' testimonials. This applies to cables as well as all the products normally sold in the last 50 pages of popular magazines.




There are lots of things that I let go. For example, I dip my hockey stick in the toilet before each game and I have pretty good success. I really don't care what anybody thinks about that. However, it is free and it is harmless. On the other hand, there are things that people do with no good reason other than they think it improves their lives but it is actually harmful to their health.

Getting to cables, if you are happy with spending wads of money then the only thing it is really affecting is your household budget.

Personally, when it comes to participating in activities that may affect my health or cause me to spend money uneccessarily, I take a little bit more of a critical, objective look at and don't "let it go" quite so easily.

And further, as you well know, there is a very large industry of people selling sugar pills, bottled water, penis enlargement systems, etc. that prey on the vanity of the consumer. The idea of the magic potion is really quite old and many of these shucksters realize people want that magic potion and are willing to suspend normal objective thinking to take that chance. It's really a societal issue that goes beyond audio cables.

Oh yeah, and the final note is that the person seeking out the potion may even think every other product is crap except the one he is using or persuing.

I see you read my post on the psychology of choosing beliefs. It looked your answer was designed to fit your belief. Read the definition for Post-decisional Dissonance again.

Not that i need any but a friend of mine would like to know more about the penis enlargement systems. Sounds interesting,er for my friend of course.

[RobotCzar]

I know there is a conflict between what large numbers of people report they hear and the results of a small number of listening test. I also know the quality of these experiments has been questioned here on AR. I am not comfortable extrapolating the results of these tests, and concluding that all wires sound the same and always will. If you see my position as illogical, please explain why. In my opinion, the correct view is the evidence is inconclusive. .

Your postition is illogical because there is NO evidence people can hear, say, cable differences. What evidence that does exist, even if it is not perfect, clearly supports the idea that people can't hear differences in cables. I have taken a lot of time to explain that uncontrolled reports are not evidence. So, assuming a position that we have "inconclusive" evidence is not logical. I have also taken pains to explain that electric theory and evdience of the limits of human hearing ALSO indicate that people cannot distinguish cables (as used in home audio systems).

In looking at possible reasons for the conflict, I don't see why anything should be off limits. However, perhaps "test the test" is not the best way to say that I thought blinded testing in audio should be examined. It might be better to ask if blinded testing for audible differences in equipment, as it has been practiced, does what it is supposed to do. This could be a broader and more interesting subject. Obviously, it is supposed to be an unbiased way of determining what the listener hears. But there could be more. Is it supposed to change the behavior of test subjects, for example, or do listeners who fail to verify their sighted listening claims in blinded tests go back to the same claims when they return to sighted listening?

I hadn't heard about the CD/tape experiment. I don't see anything wrong with that kind of test if it's done right, although it would have been better double blind. However, it is not a "test of the test," but a test of the listener's ability to tell the difference between CD and tape recordings. If the subjects were from the general population, and took the test cold, I'm not surprised they couldn't tell the difference. I would be surprised if results were negative for listeners with some practice who claimed they could hear a difference before being tested.

Thank you for a thorough reply. I appreciate your taking the time to talk.

The fact that you don't understand why you can't test the test merely indicates a incomplete understanding of scientific method and logic. Of course blinding does what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to remove conscious and unconscious bias. One cannot be biased if one doesn't know which component (or cable) is which. Why should one have to know in order to tell a difference? Your questioning blind testing is merely questioning the logical conclusion I have just mentioned. Where is flaw in the logic?

I am sorry you can't pretest the test, but that is the case. You use a test to see if people can tell a difference, you don't simply assume that can and then test. Sorry if that doesn't make sense to you. Do not be offended if I say the problem is your understanding, not the test. I recommend you find out more.

[mystic]

MAny years ago I DID pick up a hi glitz cable for a pretty penny. I was impressed and inviterd my neighbor/friend, also a hi fi buff, in for a listen.

Can you imagine? The fool could not hear the obvious glaring improvements I heard!

We discussed the matter and came up with a simple test. Since he already had a key to my place (we fed each other's cats and took in the mail when we were away) and we worked different shifts, he proposed I keep a notepad and note, every day what speaker cable I was listening to. His part of thge bargain was to slip in when I wasn't home and switch the cables (or not) and note in HIS notebook what cable was hooked up.

After three weeks we compared notes. Guess what? almost exactly 50/50, or what I precieved to be hearing had no relevance to which cable was in use.

So, in answer to your question, because I admit that I am only human and subject to my attitudes, beliefs and expectations. Any sighted listening is subject to these. This simple, free, no cost, no pressure test proved that quite easily.

Anyone who claims to be immune to their attitudes, beliefs and expectations when dealing with subtleties is so full of hubris that their opinion is not worthy of the cost of reading it.

Your experiment wasn't double-blind,so bias was possible and you weren't able to do rapid switching between the two wires, so a lot depended on your memory. Also, your friend's opinion may have affected you. My guess is you let him talk you out of hearing an improvement. Unfortunely, because he altered your attitudes, beliefs, and expectations, you will never again be able to enjoy that little bit of improvement a change in wires might bring. Tell that guy to feed his own cats from now on. If it's any consolation, you may save some money.

.

[mystic]

Nobody is dupe-proof and nobody is saying they are. The message is to be cautious when you are wandering down a path that appears to have no evidence of truthfulness other than peoples' testimonials. This applies to cables as well as all the products normally sold in the last 50 pages of popular magazines.




There are lots of things that I let go. For example, I dip my hockey stick in the toilet before each game and I have pretty good success. I really don't care what anybody thinks about that. However, it is free and it is harmless. On the other hand, there are things that people do with no good reason other than they think it improves their lives but it is actually harmful to their health.

Getting to cables, if you are happy with spending wads of money then the only thing it is really affecting is your household budget.

Personally, when it comes to participating in activities that may affect my health or cause me to spend money uneccessarily, I take a little bit more of a critical, objective look at and don't "let it go" quite so easily.

And further, as you well know, there is a very large industry of people selling sugar pills, bottled water, penis enlargement systems, etc. that prey on the vanity of the consumer. The idea of the magic potion is really quite old and many of these shucksters realize people want that magic potion and are willing to suspend normal objective thinking to take that chance. It's really a societal issue that goes beyond audio cables.

Oh yeah, and the final note is that the person seeking out the potion may even think every other product is crap except the one he is using or persuing.

I see you read my post on the psychology of choosing beliefs. It looked your answer was designed to fit your belief. Read the definition for Post-decisional Dissonance again.

I'm lost. Which of my answers are you talking about?

Just speaking hypothetically, suppose someone ordered one of those penis enlargement systems. Would it come in a plain brown wrapper? Could someone get their money back if it didn't work?

[mystic]

Your postition is illogical because there is NO evidence people can hear, say, cable differences. What evidence that does exist, even if it is not perfect, clearly supports the idea that people can't hear differences in cables. I have taken a lot of time to explain that uncontrolled reports are not evidence. So, assuming a position that we have "inconclusive" evidence is not logical. I have also taken pains to explain that electric theory and evdience of the limits of human hearing ALSO indicate that people cannot distinguish cables (as used in home audio systems).



The fact that you don't understand why you can't test the test merely indicates a incomplete understanding of scientific method and logic. Of course blinding does what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to remove conscious and unconscious bias. One cannot be biased if one doesn't know which component (or cable) is which. Why should one have to know in order to tell a difference? Your questioning blind testing is merely questioning the logical conclusion I have just mentioned. Where is flaw in the logic?

I am sorry you can't pretest the test, but that is the case. You use a test to see if people can tell a difference, you don't simply assume that can and then test. Sorry if that doesn't make sense to you. Do not be offended if I say the problem is your understanding, not the test. I recommend you find out more.

Yes, I would like to find out more. I am interested in evaluating scientific listening studies on cable differences. Despite all the talk at AR about the blinded testing that has been done on cables, I can't find a complete study on line. I find results of tests, but you can't evaluate a result. A scientific study should provide a complete methodological description and present all the information and data needed for an evaluation. The TagMclaren study on two interconnects which used to be online was better documented than anything else I have seen so far. Do you know of others?

[markw]

Your experiment wasn't double-blind,so bias was possible and you weren't able to do rapid switching between the two wires, so a lot depended on your memory. Also, your friend's opinion may have affected you. My guess is you let him talk you out of hearing an improvement. Unfortunely, because he altered your attitudes, beliefs, and expectations, you will never again be able to enjoy that little bit of improvement a change in wires might bring. Tell that guy to feed his own cats from now on. If it's any consolation, you may save some money..

There's that river in China again. ...and you wonder why cable afficionadios are looked upon with amusement ?

Oh well, if you think your rebuttal looks convincing to any and all that are sitting on the fence reading this, then enjoy your self serving bubble of mysticism. That balloon has been pricked.

Actually, it answers virtually all of the major objections to the traditional scientific testing. I was able to listen with no pressure, on equipment I was familiar with, to music I was familiar with and in an environment I was comfortable in. And, most importantly, no pressure of time constraints in which to arrive at a forced decision.

...just simply listen to whatever music I choose in a leisurly environment and let my ears (and only my ears) tell me what's what.

All you really proved is simply that that you will never be satisfied unless you know which item is being tested at the moment.

Still, it's more of a test than you have ever tried...or ever will. I was sure enough of myself to put my money where my mouth was. My guess is that's more than I can say about you.

[musicoverall]

There's that river in China again. ...and you wonder why cable afficionadios are looked upon with amusement ?.

Amusing anecdotes aside, Mystic has a point regarding your test methodology. He's looking to test the test, as he's pointed out. Your test wouldn't be considered scientific, correct? Too many variables left unattended such as what Mystic mentioned.

On the other hand, it should be sufficient to satisfy you as the test taker (sorry, I have trouble using the term "testee") But let me ask... how many cables did you test? Two? Is it then possible that those two cables sound identical and that's all you "proved"? How is it then that you are able to extrapolate your test results to ALL cables and ALL people in ALL systems? I mean, if you want to view us with amusement, that's ok with me. But unless I'm missing a point or two of yours, I'm sorry but I'm chuckling myself! I think I see what Mystic is getting at. Sounds like that river flows in both directions!