Interesting Thesis on IC's

[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.

[Steve Eddy]

If we can't measure the difference...

Can't measure what difference?

...if all we can measure is the voltage and amplitude over time...

In the electrical domain, what else is there but voltage and current versus time?

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

Yeah, I suppose you could do that.

It could be a better cable aligns better if you were to overlay the two graphs.

Could be. Though wouldn't it be much easier to simply look at how the cable itself modifies the signal fed through it?

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.

But there's no point in doing that until you first establish that the changes you hear are actually changes which are heard.

In other words, first you need to establish that there are actual audible differences. Then you can go looking for the cause.

Otherwise, if the difference is nothing more than "placebo effect" (I'm using the term very broadly, hence the quotes), then you just end up chasing a phantom.

se