Interesting Thesis on IC's

[Steve Eddy]

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...

Not at all.

I'm simply saying that to date, no one has demonstrated that there are. At least not when the measured differences are below known audible thresholds.

...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...

I acknowledged no such thing.

Neither MF nor JA showed that they could determine differences.

What I said was, their results shouldn't have been dismissed out of hand. By that I mean that they could very well have been due to pure guessing. But five trials is too few to rule that out and that more trials were warranted to find out.

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...

The results so far are too ambiguous to strengthen anything.

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...

The "accepted science" is simply that no one to date has demonstrated to any reasonable level of confidence that there are. That's not the same as saying there are none.

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...

As do I.

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?

I would like to see something on the order of 90%. And preferably I'd like to have a bit more than 20 trials.

What if Atkinson got 20/20 and Fremer got 10/20?

As I said earlier, it only takes one person to demonstrate audible differences. So it wouldn't matter that MF got 20/20.

se

[Ajani]

I would like to see something on the order of 90%. And preferably I'd like to have a bit more than 20 trials.



As I said earlier, it only takes one person to demonstrate audible differences.

So back to the question: how many trials to satisfy you then? 30? 100? What if the person only got 85% in 100 trials?

[Steve Eddy]

So back to the question: how many trials to satisfy you then? 30? 100?

I'd like to see about 50 trials at about 90%.

What if the person only got 85% in 100 trials?

I could accept that as being a pretty good indication that there is an audible difference.

se

[Ajani]

I'd like to see about 50 trials at about 90%.



I could accept that as being a pretty good indication that there is an audible difference.

se

So 50 trials at 90% would be a yes differences exist, and 85% in 100 trials would be less conclusive?

OK then.... So is it possible that even if John Atkinson agreed to do 100 trials and scored 85%, that many DBT fans would still not be satisfied that he can hear differences in cables?

[Steve Eddy]

So 50 trials at 90% would be a yes differences exist, and 85% in 100 trials would be less conclusive?

My statistics is a bit rusty, so I don't know exactly how the two would compare in terms of confidence level.

OK then.... So is it possible that even if John Atkinson agreed to do 100 trials and scored 85%, that many DBT fans would still not be satisfied that he can hear differences in cables?

I can't speak for anyone else.

se

[Ajani]

I can't speak for anyone else.

se

I didn't ask you to... but I think you see my point with DBT and statistics... There are no clear rules about the number of trials required, number of participants required, the makeup of participants (whether experts or the average man or even what exactly makes someone an expert) and the percentage of answers that need to be correct...

So while 90% in 50 trials, with just one participant might satisfy you, it is possible that other persons would not be satisfied with such a test...

[atomicAdam]

Ok -

Let try this.

If we can't measure the difference, if all we can measure is the voltage and amplitude over time - comparing what is in the cable to what is coming out of the speaker - might be the wrong test.

What if we take what comes out of the cable/speaker and compare that to what is on the original source?

It could be a better cable aligns better if you were to overlay the two graphs. It would seem, comparing what going on in the cable and out of the speaker is apples to apples, where what we really want to compare is apples to oranges, and the differences are the changes that we hear.