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

[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?

Null Hypothesis

We approach music appreciation very differently, Mr. Tooth.

rw

[magictooth]

Null Hypothesis

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)?

[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

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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