Here are some problems when evaluating cables...

[markw]

My stepson, who works in fine dining, tells me that one of their tricks to induce customers to order something additional, such as wine or dessert, is to subtly nod your head up and down while making the suggestion. Naturally, there is no way to DBT this, but on the average, many more people then not do go with the suggestion.

[Bill L]

Yes, but it's a different analogy now. It no longer requires the assumption that cabling has no effect to conclude that cabling has no effect. No-one here, as far as I know, denies the existence of placebo effect in any sensory perception. It's the suggestion that it applies to audio cabling/audiophiles in totality that is obviously unsupported. As such, it is hardly worth mentioning as a defense for your argument.

[okiemax]

If you read Cable Asylum's position on DBTs, they state clearly and emphatically that DBTs are the only reliable way to distinguish subtle differences in the sound of different audio components. Discussion of DBTs is not permitted at that site. The reason given is that it causes too many flame wars. (Given the sharp arguements that sometimes occur there, discussion of DBTs is not the only source of flame wars.)

I didn't know Cable Asylum had an official position regarding the reliability of double-blind testing. Where would I find this position presented?

I agree that in theory blinded testing would appear to be the only way to test without bias. But "only way" doesn't necessarily mean "reliable way." How do we know it is reliable?

[mtrycraft]

How do we know it is reliable?

One only has to check what is used in industry, research and to publish. DBT listening.
Sighted listening for small differences has nothing going for it.

Oh, the official AA stand on DBT is somewhere in ther FAQ about wire or something. So, even they accept the de facto testing methodology. Interesting, isn't it?

[mtrycraft]

Is Nordost Valhalla comparable to 12 gauge zip?

rw

I checked their web site. Its resistance is equivalent to 14 ga, so yes, it is comparable to 12 ga zip.
Bring on the DBT listening data, please.

[mtrycraft]

Thanks. But I don't remember tasting any utensil taste when eating food. Maybe you can with that test. Maybe it needs to be tested with food next. I bet the food will mask it. Similar to perceptual coding in audio.

[RobotCzar]

Well, maybe you are too invested in the idea of blinded testing to consider other possibilities. A recent post at AA gave two possible but opposite reasons why there have been no positive double-blind tests of cables: (1) there are no audible differences in cables, or (2) the tests don't work. It would be easier for me to believe the tests work if there were a few positive results for cables.

This approach is due, in my opinion, to a really bad understanding of scientific method. There are no tests that "don't work", there ARE tests that are faulty for one reason or another. The key point, however, is that the failure or faultiness of any test is in no way some kind of supporting "evidence" for the item being tested. The burden to find a valid test is still on the backs of those making an assertion (such as "I hear differences in cables). There is no supporting evdience to date.

You could (and I do) assume that these people are really trying to say there is NO way to test for cable audibility. They would like to believe that because they can't find any valid tests that supports their claim. Such a claim is simply illogical and irrational. Mysticism.

A final point I'll make is that you can NEVER assume you "know" that answer to a test and then "show" that the tests doesn't work because it doesn't give you the answer you expected. This is non-scientific, it is not a valid scientific procedure--if your test is not telling you what it is designed to test then that is a flaw in the testing procedure not in the test results. Test results are never wrong by definition.


I AM convinced that it is easier for you to deny the test results than it is for you to give up your beliefs. That denial is pretty common and has been tested scientifically.

[okiemax]

One only has to check what is used in industry, research and to publish. DBT listening.
Sighted listening for small differences has nothing going for it.

Oh, the official AA stand on DBT is somewhere in ther FAQ about wire or something. So, even they accept the de facto testing methodology. Interesting, isn't it?

I know double-blind testing has been used in a variety of settings. I wanted to know if there been any studies that took a critical look at the use of this testing for audible differences in hifi components?

Skeptic's comment and my question regarding official position were specifically about CableAsylum, not AudioAsylum. I can't find an official postion on double-blind testing in CableAslum.

[mtrycraft]

But have there been any studies that took a critical look at double-blind testing for audible differences in hifi components. What's wrong with asking whether the test do what they are supposed to do?

Skeptic's comment and my question were specifically about CableAsylum, not AudioAsylum. I can't find an official postion or stand on double-blind testing in CableAslum.

It is obvious to anyone who checks out what is happening in the real audio industry, audio research, acoustic research, is that DBT is a must to account for human bias. Why would audio be given a free pass from science on this? Sighted listeing for these differences is just plain unreliable and has no meaning.

What is the difference between CA or AA? There is one stand on DBT, period. You don't like that stand?

[mtrycraft]

Is Nordost Valhalla comparable to 12 gauge zip?

rw

Fred Davis in his AES paper had 4 cables with less inductance than this Valhalla, that he modeled.

[okiemax]

This approach is due, in my opinion, to a really bad understanding of scientific method. There are no tests that "don't work", there ARE tests that are faulty for one reason or another. The key point, however, is that the failure or faultiness of any test is in no way some kind of supporting "evidence" for the item being tested. The burden to find a valid test is still on the backs of those making an assertion (such as "I hear differences in cables). There is no supporting evdience to date.

You could (and I do) assume that these people are really trying to say there is NO way to test for cable audibility. They would like to believe that because they can't find any valid tests that supports their claim. Such a claim is simply illogical and irrational. Mysticism.

A final point I'll make is that you can NEVER assume you "know" that answer to a test and then "show" that the tests doesn't work because it doesn't give you the answer you expected. This is non-scientific, it is not a valid scientific procedure--if your test is not telling you what it is designed to test then that is a flaw in the testing procedure not in the test results. Test results are never wrong by definition.


I AM convinced that it is easier for you to deny the test results than it is for you to give up your beliefs. That denial is pretty common and has been tested scientifically.

I don't believe it's unscientific to question whether a test can do what it's supposed to do. Why would you object to research on that question? Doesn't science encourage inquiry? But perhaps I'm missing your point.

I'm not sure what you mean by " test results are never wrong by definition." I can think of some instances were results could be wrong, such as when bias has been introduced, or there are errors in recording and tabulating data. Again, maybe I'm missing your point.

Where I see a disregard for scientific method on this forum is the belief by some members that a null result in a DBT is conclusive evidence of no audible difference in two components. Perhaps that issue would be better addressed in a base post.

[pctower]

I don't believe it's unscientific to question whether a test can do what it's supposed to do. Why would you object to research on that question? Doesn't science encourage inquiry? But perhaps I'm missing your point.

You haven't missed his point at all. You've just trampled all over the holy graile of this board, and you will be treated far worse than Mel Gibson's Christ for daring to question the all-holy-of-holy DBT, which no matter how sloppy, and contrary to good scientific protocol a test may be, is beyond all question here just as long as the DBT produces a null result.

Few here, and particularly some of the High Priests you are taking on right now, want to face the fact that there have been few if any scientifically valid cable DBTs ever reported.

This is not a board of science; it is a board of religion.

[mtrycraft]

is beyond all question here just as long as the DBT produces a null result.
.

Oh, please, you have been shown published positive DBT of cables.

[E-Stat]

Fred Davis in his AES paper had 4 cables with less inductance than this Valhalla, that he modeled.

Sorry, I'd much rather see Pamela Anderson model the cables.

rw

[soundhd]

hear, hear