Quote Originally Posted by Steve Eddy
What exactly do you mean by "no trouble"?

Apparently none of the 39 who participated had any "trouble" stating their preference for A or B.

And what exactly makes them "experts"? Just because they write for an audio magazine?

Consider this and then tell me if you truly think MF at least qualifies as an "expert."

The common stated purpose behind high end audio is to preserve the signal and not alter or otherwise damage it in any way. There is endless marketing literature out there about all the pains taken to do this, using the purest conductors, the finest dielectrics, etc.

Some years ago Harmonic Technology introduced their "CyberLight" cables. While intended to be used between analogue components, they were in actually an optical cable. Electro-optical converters built into each end converted the source's electrical signal into an optical signal and at the other end, from optical back to electrical.

However these converters ultimately perform worse than the cheapest opamps you're likely to find in mass market gear. They had a huge hump in the low frequency response and massive amounts of harmonic and intermodulation distortion.

They mangled the signal so badly that when JA ran measurements on them, he wrote "If this were a review of a conventional product, I would dismiss it as being broken."

He further wrote "I am puzzled that Harmonic Technology, which makes good-sounding, reasonably priced conventional cables, would risk their reputation with something as technically flawed as the CyberLight."

And the real nail in the coffin, "I really don't see how the CyberLight P2A and Wave cables can be recommended."

However this is how the "expert," MF, summed them up in his review:

Harmonic Technology's Light Analog Module Photon Transducer is the most significant single technological breakthrough I have experienced in my career as an audio reviewer. It is immediately superior in every way.

So again, what exactly qualifies him as an "expert" if he finds huge frequency response aberrations and gross amounts of distortion to be "superior in every way"?



Yes, I'm familiar with that test as well.

And I stated at the time that just because the average of everyone who took the test wasn't statistically significant, then JA's and MF's results shouldn't have been dismissed out of hand.



No, you can't combine them like that. That's just as flawed as dismissing them because the average of all participants was no better than chance. You can only rightly consider them individually.



While 5 out of 5 may be statistically significant, the confidence level isn't very high.

So while I don't think that result should have been dismissed, neither do I think it provides any sort of conclusive evidence that there were actual audible differences between the cables.

More trials should have been done in order to improve the confidence level in the event there actually were audible differences.



Again, I don't think their results should have been dismissed the way they were. Demonstrating actual audible differences doesn't require some group of individuals all score high. All it takes is one person.



But it's only through adequate controls and statistics that we can establish actual audible differences with any confidence.

Don't be critical of those who ran the test for dismissing JA's and MF's results out of hand and then turn around and be just as dismissive yourself.

se
So let me get this straight, you don't think Fremer and JA's results of 5/5 and 4/5 respectively should have been dismissed, yet you say things like this:

Sure, there have been many people over the past 30 some odd years who have made such claims. But so far, no one has ever demonstrated this ability under controlled conditions.



But as yet, no one has demonstrated actual audible differences under controlled conditions except when the differences were trivially measurable and within known thresholds of audibility.

If someone has, please point me to it so I can check it out.
It seems to me that you are dismissing the possibility that audible differences exist, yet you acknowledge that with (smaller than your ideal sample size of 10 to 20 trials) Fremer and Atkinson have shown that they can determine differences...

Fremer and Atkinson both claim to hear differences in cables, and the limited tests they've taken so far have done nothing to contradict that claim... Actually the results so far have only strengthened their claims...

It's theoretically possible that Fremer or Atkinson would pass tests of 1 and 5 and then turn around and fail a test of 10 or 20. However, I see the limited tests as providing at least enough evidence to make a reasonable person question whether the "accepted science" that there is no audible differences between cables is correct...

IMO. there are 2 unreasonable stances in audio: 1) Every tweak, mod or dollar thrown at a system makes an audible difference & 2) Because we don't know how to measure something or it hasn't been statistically proven, means it doesn't exist.... I find both positions to be equally ridiculous...

Finally let me ask you this: If Atkinson and Fremer agreed to do tests of 20, under scientific conditions you approved of, what would the results have to be for you to believe that they can hear differences in cables? 15/20? 20/20? What if Atkinson got 20/20 and Fremer got 10/20?