This method of cable evaluation, as an alternative to DBT.

[skeptic]

If you wouldn't post so frequently Phil, perhaps I could keep a meal down once in awhile.

[skeptic]

Steve Eddy posted here only once as I recall and that time was to insult people on this message board and tell us he didn't have the time of day to participate here. I think he is a horse's rear end.

[pctower]

Steve Eddy posted here only once as I recall and that time was to insult people on this message board and tell us he didn't have the time of day to participate here. I think he is a horse's rear end.

Do you mean the Steve Eddy who posts under his real name, rather than shooting off his big horse-breath mouth constantly while hiding behind his moniker like the true coward that he is?

Of yea, sure that's who you mean. I know Steve Eddy. Steve Eddy is a friend of mine. I also happen to know you. And believe me, you're no Steve Eddy. Steve is gentleman with class who with less than a 10th grade education could run circles around your engineering rear end.

[Tony_Montana]

How do you know this? Who is the guarantor of these truths? How do you know [bias] can be turend on or off at will? It cannot be, exactely why sighted listening to establish small differences is unreliable. You just don't know when it is or is not reliable. Under DBT you don't have that.

My question is if DBT is such a perfect and flawless protocol, then why this method have not put an end to cable arguments for once an all? The arguments over DBT been going on for over last decade and nobody see an end to it pretty soon. So it is obvious some other type of testing protocol have to be created since we are not getting any where with DBT despite how perfect it is

What I don't understand is why the participant's knowledge of what item is being tested should make any difference when it comes to describing it's nature?

My point exactly. There is too much weight given as to flaws of the test if participant know about the identity of cable before hand.

PCT, I think we both appear to be sitting on the same fence, but we face in different directions. I face the naysayer side and you face the yeasayer side.

I hope the weight of both of you on the fence don't tip over the fence. Then we will not know where naysayer and yeasayer territory begin and ends

I think it is difficult for listeners to detect subtle differences in blinded short-term tests unless they already know what to listen for in the music selected.

If you do a rapid switching, even subtle difference can be detected. The only problem here is that nobody seem to agree how to implement rapid switching testing.

I know Steve Eddy. Steve Eddy is a friend of mine. I also happen to know you. And believe me, you're no Steve Eddy. Steve is gentleman with class who with less than a 10th grade education could run circles around your engineering rear end.

Do I detect some type of idol worshiping

[skeptic]

Don't you like my moniker PC? Maybe I'll just change it...to something like.. "shyster lawyer." hehehehehehe...of the firm Harem, Scarem, Hookem, and Screwem. Formerly of the firm ...Dewy, Cheatem and Howe.

What's the difference between a lady lawyer and a pit bull??? Lipstick!

[JoeW2]

As for any kind of listening tests, that's an accomodation to those whose absurd claim is that they can hear differences which are beyond the ability of engineers to test for. The fact that they can't pick out their own cables in fair Double Blind Tests and some of them won't even discuss them demonstrates that they are full of it.

This is the same tired argument which I just knew I would find here. It's a load of scientific mumbo-jumbo designed more for the purposes of politic than understanding. It's 1/2 baked science, as it purports that science is a record of things known, and never an exploration of things unknown.

Lets be very clear:
If you reject the silly notion that all cables must sound the same, it does not mean you think that more expensive = better. Some of us get (or build) a nice cable and move on.

Music is simply not an objective realm. While it would be very interesting to read some objective liturature about, say, why people fall in love - only a fool would use that liturature as a model, or shopping list. What sounds good to one, sounds bad to another. This is as true of love as it is of bands as it is of equipment. To argue that such perceptions are somehow invented, or victimized by advertising, is to announce your own inability to form a perception.

Trust your ears and what you hear. Our ears are incredible organs which have served us well since we crawled out of the seas. If you cannot hear a difference - TRUST YOUR EARS!!!
If you build your system to please your own ears, you'll do fine. If you build your system to conform to reviews and/or the opinions of others, you will never get anywhere - and give up in disgust.
And avoid ideologues (like the cable nazis) at all cost.

[skeptic]

"Music is simply not an objective realm."

But the study of how wires conduct electricity is. And so is the study of determining the threshold of the human perception of differences. That's the distinction between art and science. Denying science for profit treads a fine line between exploiting ignorance and hope on one side and fraud on the other. Lawyers who review advertising claims for snake oil salesmen tell them when they've strayed too far.

[skeptic]

"My question is if DBT is such a perfect and flawless protocol, then why this method have not put an end to cable arguments for once an all? The arguments over DBT been going on for over last decade and nobody see an end to it pretty soon. So it is obvious some other type of testing protocol have to be created since we are not getting any where with DBT despite how perfect it is "

Blind tests in general and double blind tests in particular when performed enough times is a fair way to tell with good confidence that a result is not the consequence of random chance and that all factors which might prejudice the result have been eliminated. Cable Asylum acknowledges that this is the only method which can prove whether small audible differences between audio components actually exists even though they don't allow discussion of them ostensibly because that results in flame wars. If someone else can devise a different kind of test that objective analytical people would say is fair and yields results which also give a high degree of confidence in the results, they should publish it and win a medal for the method.

The only people who should have any real interest in a DBT proving that audible differences exist and that that special cables could improve the performance of a sound system are the people who make and sell them. You would think that if they had such results, they would be only too ready to publish them to prove the worth of their products. There are only two possible explanations of why they don't. One is that they can't. At least some of them almost certainly must have tried at one time or another but unless the results proved a point that was in their best business interest, they do well to keep their mouths shut about it. Second is that they don't have to. Even without such results, they apparantly are able to sell their products to a gullable segment of the market.

"Do I detect some type of idol worshiping "

Steve Eddy is PC Tower's idol, his alter ego. He wishes he could confront Jon Risch and John Curl on their own terms and go mano a mano the way Steve Eddy does. It is not unknown for highly competent people to have been self taught even without much formal education. Therefore in one narrow area of a vast discipline, it is entirely plausible that Steve Eddy has the intellectual equipment to challenge Risch and Curl. This is especially true when you see that although these people may have intimidated most of the others who post at cable asylum, their credentials and their display of real technical knowledge at least in the realm specific to audio cables is quite unimpressive.

[mtrycraft]

[QUOTE=markwIf the identity of the item under test must be known before an evaluation can be made, it seems to me that the test would be invalid. One just might hear what one expects to hear.

Now, after sighted listening to their hearts content, if the identities of the items under test were then concealed from their knowledge, and they then were able to, indepentent from each other, come up with enough similar descriptions, then you might be on to something.

...but that leaves a little too much to chance, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]

One woul dbe able to repeat the stated evaluation for the same product if they know every time what they listen to. How can you miss?

As to the descriptions, that still becomes very subjective what words or phrases are similar enough, or different, to judge same/differences. Too subjective. Harman and NRC grades certain parameters and the grades get the stat treatment. Most likely others as well.

[mtrycraft]

My question is if DBT is such a perfect and flawless protocol, then why this method have not put an end to cable arguments for once an all? The arguments over DBT been going on for over last decade and nobody see an end to it pretty soon. So it is obvious some other type of testing protocol have to be created since we are not getting any where with DBT despite how perfect it is

Well, any excuse to save their belief system, right? Is it any different from other areas such as creation/ intelligent design and evolution? Moon landing hoax? UFO?
Audio is the same. New believers come on sceene and continue the belief system. Humans are too gullible; the marketeers have conditioned the population for centuries.
Some do change though and rarely cause a ripple.

[mtrycraft]

I thought he was suggesting that the objection often heard from the golden ears about test pressure could be countered if a way could be found to conduct "blind" tests under long-term listening conditions where someone could change cables back and forth but wouldn't know if they were all the same, all different or some combination.

Perhaps I read too much into what he was saying.

I am sure I have cited one such experiment published, long term listening with amps using a ABX box that randomizes.
I wonder why anyone under pressure performs as well as they do except audiophiles. Why is that? I wonder how well audiophiles perform on closed book exams? Or in athletic events?

[mtrycraft]

Only allow blind people to participate in the test.

They were used in other listeing test. Didn't do any better thgough

[mtrycraft]

If you reject the silly notion that all cables must sound the same,


This must be your unfounded conclusion from who know what and where.
All cables do not sound the same. That has been demonstrated.


it does not mean you think that more expensive = better. Some of us get (or build) a nice cable and move on.

Some audiophiles do though, maybe not you.

Music is simply not an objective realm.

You are right. It is an art. But then, you may be confused about the evaluation of two components for audible differences that is not an art and can be done in an objective manner.

While it would be very interesting to read some objective liturature about, say, why people fall in love - only a fool would use that liturature as a model, or shopping list.


Oh, it is somewhat known why. Evolution, chemistry, etc. Some just blow it up too much. After all, there are many people one can fall in love with. Just depends who is there first. Nothing magical.

What sounds good to one, sounds bad to another.


Really? Would you have real evidence for this? If this were the case, audio could not exist as it woul dbe a horrendous job to find a component you like due to itsa audible issues. Really. Actuall, psychoacoustic reseach indicates that most o fus like the same sound. That doesn't mean the same music though. Don't confuse it.

Just read some of the research into this issue. Not my idea.


To argue that such perceptions are somehow invented, or victimized by advertising, is to announce your own inability to form a perception.

You are confused on this issue but understandable.


Trust your ears and what you hear.


Now we know where you come from, lack of knowledge of the known science. That is also understandable. You are comfortable in your belief system and are afraid of reality as you may have to abandon your belief system. Horrors. No different from most anything in life based on beliefs only.


Our ears are incredible organs which have served us well since we crawled out of the seas.


And, it is highly limited in what it can and cannot do. But your lack of understanding that is understandable as well. One must be interested in reality, the real science of audio and acoustics, not just falsly accepting what others may imply.



And avoid ideologues (like the cable nazis) at all cost.

Oh, would that be those who preach cables are a miracle component with magic?

[Beckman]

This is the same tired argument which I just knew I would find here. It's a load of scientific mumbo-jumbo designed more for the purposes of politic than understanding. It's 1/2 baked science, as it purports that science is a record of things known, and never an exploration of things unknown.

Transmitting a 20 - 20 kHz electric signal 5 feet without audibly effecting the signal is not difficult. Stop trying to make it sound difficult. It is not 1/2 baked science it is reallity

[skeptic]

Beleive it or not, at one time before our advanced equipment was available, it was widely believed that the best piano tuners were blind. They were even referred to as "blind tuners." I guess the theory was that if you lost one of your senses, the others would become more accute.

[Resident Loser]

...now THAT really blew me away(sorry for the hype). It was the same show and room where the Philips guys were being run ragged for having the gall to use nylon bearings in the tonearm gimbals on their 212 Electronic belt-drive turntable...

If I recall correctly, the "Davids" were not only self powered but, EQd and had servo-controlled woofers...HERESY!!!

jimHJJ(...I'm still using my 212 AND the purchased-at-the-show B*I*C Beam box...)

[pctower]

If you wouldn't post so frequently Phil, perhaps I could keep a meal down once in awhile.

I wish you could appreciate the degree of joy I derive from knowing how much power I possess to make you miserable.

[Resident Loser]

...I fear JoKeW2 is the newest incarnation of JoKeW...series two?..new and improved?...or SOS?...

Even I, Resident Loser, must be careful not to incurr his wrath by being obtuse and sarcastic between parentheses!

jimHJJ(...he knowest what he hears!...oops...)

[pctower]

My question is if DBT is such a perfect and flawless protocol, then why this method have not put an end to cable arguments for once an all? The arguments over DBT been going on for over last decade and nobody see an end to it pretty soon. So it is obvious some other type of testing protocol have to be created since we are not getting any where with DBT despite how perfect it is



My point exactly. There is too much weight given as to flaws of the test if participant know about the identity of cable before hand.



I hope the weight of both of you on the fence don't tip over the fence. Then we will not know where naysayer and yeasayer territory begin and ends



If you do a rapid switching, even subtle difference can be detected. The only problem here is that nobody seem to agree how to implement rapid switching testing.



Do I detect some type of idol worshiping

My question is if DBT is such a perfect and flawless protocol, then why this method have not put an end to cable arguments for once an all?

DBT is a very broad term. It really can describe any particular method of ensuring the removal of all bias. The devil is in the details. There are any number of ways a double blind test of audio cables could be conducted.

The problem is not with trying to conduct double blind tests on audio cables. The problem is that very few have ever been reported, and most if not all of those have been conducted by amateurs or don't include sufficient information to determine if they were properly conducted.

But let's assume for a moment that we could all agree on the scientific validity of 100 specific, separate double blind audio cable tests that produced null results. I am quite certain the debate would rage on. What drives the cable market has nothing to do with scientific tests. Only a few anal engineers really care about that.

The market is driven by advertising and what people experience at home (from whatever cause). The industry seems to have an enviable record of almost 100% customer satisfaction. The people who demand DBTs and grouse about the cable industry either openly proclaim they have never tried after-market cables or won't even say whether they have a systems or have ever heard one (Richard Greene being a refreshing exception).

As long as people buy cables and seem to enjoy the fruits of their purchases the industry will continue to thrive. I know of no market that is more competitive than the audio cable market. Yet I can not think of a single cable company that has ever gone out of business. This is a remarkable situation. Very few industries enjoy this kind of persistent consumer support.

The naysayers lost the battle in the marketplace of products before the battle was even joined. They are relegated to competing only in the marketplace of ideas. Because of the lack of evidence of cable differences they thrive in that marketplace. But only a small gaggle of nerds and geeks care about that marketplace.

In high end audio the consumer has spoken loud and clear - they say to the naysayers: "Go back home, close yourself in your bedroom, whip out your sliderule and start playing with it. Just leave us alone."

Do I detect some type of idol worshiping

I'm not much into worship, but I have no problem saying that I have tremendous respect for Steve's intellect, knowledge and reasoning abilities - and I can count on one hand the number of people I know personally who I would say that about.

[skeptic]

At least you always give me a laugh.

[skeptic]

"What drives the cable market has nothing to do with scientific tests. Only a few anal engineers really care about that."

Maybe that's true of the consumer audiophile cable market. But that is just a tiny fraction of the overall market for wire and cable. In the real world, virtually every engineer who is confronted with getting signals or power from one point to another has the scientifically proven suitability of the wire he selects for his application as his number one concern. His second concern is his client's money. His job depends on it.

"The naysayers lost the battle in the marketplace of products before the battle was even joined."

As far as "naysayers" are concerned, as long as 16 gage zip cord and $1 RS interconnects are available for them to buy, they haven't lost anything. They are not forced to buy any of the more expensive alternatives no matter how hard the salesmen try to twist their arms. As far as beginners are concerned, they will be left to the mercy of their own ignorance until the FTC steps in which just might be never. As far as convinced audiophiles are concerned, they will recklessly throw their money in any direction that flashes the brightest light at that moment, whether it's fancy cables, 8 watt per channel vacuum tube amplifiers, $5000 phonograph cartridges carved out of wood in Japan, or two way eight inch speaker systems for $10,000 a pair. I don't care what other people do with their money. I just come here to stick my two cents in like everybody else.

[Richard Greene]

DEAF = what Golden Ear's think of you if you are unable to hear a difference between two components or are not sure you hear a difference

DUMB = what Wire Police think of you if you think listening to wires in an audio store will provide objective information for a purchase decision

BLIND = Those pesky tests that PC thinks are never good enough because the person running the test is incompetent, and couldn't be trusted unless his name was PC Tower
... which brings us back to incompetent to run a test

The belief that one's ears are so good that sound quality differences among audio components are virtually always audible has never been supported by data.

Not even one person has been located whose hearing ability was proven to be much better than the average audiophile.

So the belief in one's Golden Ears is nothing more than a fantasy primarily used to differentiate onself from the "mid-fi masses", increase self-esteem among the believers and mainly to justify spending large quantities of money on audio equipment ...
without getting hollered at for wasting money by the wife.

PC: That Dumbocracy you predicted for Iraq is less than two weeks away !
How foolish I was to argue with you over that issue.
heh heh

[pctower]

DEAF = what Golden Ear's think of you if you are unable to hear a difference between two components or are not sure you hear a difference

DUMB = what Wire Police think of you if you think listening to wires in an audio store will provide objective information for a purchase decision

BLIND = Those pesky tests that PC thinks are never good enough because the person running the test is incompetent, and couldn't be trusted unless his name was PC Tower
... which brings us back to incompetent to run a test

The belief that one's ears are so good that sound quality differences among audio components are virtually always audible has never been supported by data.

Not even one person has been located whose hearing ability was proven to be much better than the average audiophile.

So the belief in one's Golden Ears is nothing more than a fantasy primarily used to differentiate onself from the "mid-fi masses", increase self-esteem among the believers and mainly to justify spending large quantities of money on audio equipment ...
without getting hollered at for wasting money by the wife.

PC: That Dumbocracy you predicted for Iraq is less than two weeks away !
How foolish I was to argue with you over that issue.
heh heh

And just exactly why is it that we can expect Iraq to establish democracy over night when it took us and every other democracy just a little longer?

As far as your pointless ramblings about what Golden Ears believe and don't believe - I'll just have to let you meander about on your own. I don't recall ever meeting a person who fit your description of a Golden Ear.

Most people I know who use after-market cables aren't really concerned about their cable beliefs. They simply want something that improves their perceived quality of enjoyment of their listening. It's only you eggheads that get all huffy and concerned about "beliefs".

[pctower]

I am sure I have cited one such experiment published, long term listening with amps using a ABX box that randomizes.
I wonder why anyone under pressure performs as well as they do except audiophiles. Why is that? I wonder how well audiophiles perform on closed book exams? Or in athletic events?

I wonder why anyone under pressure performs as well as they do except audiophiles.

I can't answer that. I'm not as up to date on the most recent scholarship dealing with performance under pressure as you apparently are.

I have never made the claim that performance under pressure is an established defect in the cable DBTs that have been reported to date, nor do I recall anyone else making that claim. I have simply asked whether such pressure could be a limiting factor and if someone claims it could not I would ask on what evidence they base such a claim.

[okiemax]

It must have been in the early 70s when this happened at a trade show in New York City probably at the Statler Hilton. I entered a huge triple room with fold away walls that had been opened to accomodate a large number of people. Two monster speakers almost as tall as the room were playing jazz quite loud and it was very impressive. After a large crowd had entered, an emcee came in to talk about Philips' new loudspeaker system. After a short while a very strange thing happened. Lights went on inside the huge speaker enclosures and revealed that they were completely empty. They were nothing more than huge frames with cloth around them. Inside each one on the floor was a small speaker system, the tri amplified "Little David." It was an incredibly surprising and dramatic presentation. I have a friend who acquired and still owns the originals used for the demo.

Talk about sighted bias.

You must have left something out of the story. Otherwise, it seems like you are suggesting Phillips' disguise biased everyone who walked into the room. But how could you know what everyone there was thinking?