Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 78
  1. #1
    Forum Regular Tony_Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    184

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

    We all know how controversial DBT protocol has become, and it is even banned for discussion in some audio groups (guess which one ). So lets say we come up with a new method of cable evaluation that does not involve any type of DBT, and it can be done sighted. And to make things simple, this method will be used to see if two cables of similar length, gauge and construction sound different.

    This method would be to setup a room with a good audio system, and then invite few cable savvies and give each participant some times (this can be couple of hours or days) to spend alone in that room evaluating couple of cables and make note of each cable signature (ie..whether it improve the bass, treble, soundstage, etc).

    The main objective here will be to see how different each participant's notes are on each cables. If the notes and comments taken from each participant are all different and don't match up, then we will all know that palacebo effect is definitely at work here since the system and room acoustic has remained the same. If a cable DOES sound different, then the notes and comments taken from each person should match up.

    I believe this method of testing will be good way to find out if two cables do indeed sound different. If each person take on cables are different -for example one person said that it improved the bass and another said the treble-then we will know for sure that there are other factors involved such as own perception when evaluating cables.
    "Say Hello To My Little Friend."

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720


    The main objective here will be to see how different each participant's notes are on each cables. If the notes and comments taken from each participant are all different and don't match up, then we will all know that palacebo effect is definitely at work here since the system and room acoustic has remained the same. If a cable DOES sound different, then the notes and comments taken from each person should match up.


    How are you going to mathe them up? Word for word? Subjectively meaning what they intended to imply? Too much variability in the grading process.


    [b]I believe this method of testing will be good way to find out if two cables do indeed sound different. If each person take on cables are different -for example one person said that it improved the bass and another said the treble-then we will know for sure that there are other factors involved such as own perception when evaluating cables.[/QUOTE]

    Dr. Floyd Toole has al;ready demonstrated in a peer paper this idea is unreliable and bias will enter the evaluation. He used speakers though. Subjects evaluated a number in writing, sighted and DBT. Totally different scores on some and somewhat overall.

    No matter how hard you are trying to justify sighted listening, you just cannot succeed without bias control implementation. That is indisputable.
    mtrycrafts

  3. #3
    Forum Regular Swerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Montana
    setup a room with a good audio system, and then invite few cable savvies and give each participant some times (this can be couple of hours or days) to spend alone in that room evaluating couple of cables and make note of each cable signature (ie..whether it improve the bass, treble, soundstage, etc).

    The main objective here will be to see how different each participant's notes are on each cables. If the notes and comments taken from each participant are all different and don't match up, then we will all know that placebo effect is definitely at work here since the system and room acoustic has remained the same. If a cable DOES sound different, then the notes and comments taken from each person should match up.
    What you describe has more or less already been done. Go see http://www.sonic.net/soundscape/wire_rev.html. While the details were not exactly what you describe, their main objective was the same.

    The reviewers had widely varying opinions, and my overall impression from reading this were that there were no universal favorites or losers common among all the reviewers. Combined with their common observation that trying to compare speaker wires was at best very difficult, a fair interpretation of all this would be that the reviewers were reaching too far to come up with descriptive differences among the wires. Were they hearing real differences, or were they trying too hard to write something for their magazine to print?

    Read the whole article, but here are a few of my favorite quotes:

    Note that our panelists disagreed on some of the cables. In a couple of cases, one panelist's least favorite was another pnaelist's favorite; this from a panel compsoed entirely of longtime serious music listeners.

    This was possibly the most difficult Face Off I've participated in at HT, because the differences between the competing products were so minute and elusive.

    Comparing 10 speaker cables is a lot like listening to the grass grow; what you hear is more psychological than acoustic, especially after the eighth set when you start to suspect that your powers of discernment are getting duller. This is hands-down the most difficult listening comparison I've ever experienced.
    Here's a list of our favorite and least-favorite cables, as ranked by our Face off panelists after auditions with two different amp/ speaker combinations. The panelists ranked the cables in three classes; the overall favorites we called "pythons," the other impressive cables we called "rattlers," and the cables that met with lukewarm response we called "garters." Note that our panelists disagreed on some of the cables. In a couple of cases, one panelist's least-favorite was another panelist's favorite, this from a panel composed entirely of longtime serious music listeners.

    This Face Off indicates that the same [as is true for cigars] is pretty much true with audio cables. Sure there some absolute truths here. Just as a Cohiba is a better cigar than a Swisher Seet, Wireworld Orbit is better than Tributaries' one third-as-expensive SP2. But just because I like Monster MCX-2s better than XLO ER-16 doesn't mean you will. I see speaker cable as tone controls, and everyone likes to set their tone controls differently.

  4. #4
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    This is a good way to taste wine, not evaluate speaker cables. In wine as in art, there are no absolutes. Anyone's opinion is as valid as anyone elses. As for professional wine reviewers, you try to find one whose palate and preferences are as close to your own as possible and hope that his advice will result in buying more wines you like than you don't like. This has nothing to do with cable testing.

    Audio cables are a physical entity which perform a very specific and limited function that is well understood. Far better understood for example than loudspeakers or even amplifiers, there is little about the physical or electrical properties and behavior of cables that isn't known or can't be found out with bench testing. 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.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    This is a good way to taste wine, not evaluate speaker cables. In wine as in art, there are no absolutes. Anyone's opinion is as valid as anyone elses. As for professional wine reviewers, you try to find one whose palate and preferences are as close to your own as possible and hope that his advice will result in buying more wines you like than you don't like. This has nothing to do with cable testing.

    Audio cables are a physical entity which perform a very specific and limited function that is well understood. Far better understood for example than loudspeakers or even amplifiers, there is little about the physical or electrical properties and behavior of cables that isn't known or can't be found out with bench testing. 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.
    "which are beyond the ability of engineers to test for"

    What particular type of engineer is qualified to conduct audio DBTs? What particular aspect of such an engineer's qualifications, education or background renders him qualified to conduct such tests?

    Seems to me that other disciplines that deal with human testing are much better qualifed to conduct such tests than are engineers.

    I think that's part of the problem with determining the reliability of blind tests that have been reported to date. The people conducting them in the main did not have the necessary knowledge and experience to establish proper test protocol and statistical analysis.

  6. #6
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "Far better understood for example than loudspeakers or even amplifiers, there is little about the physical or electrical properties and behavior of cables that isn't known or can't be found out with bench testing."

    These are the tests I was referring to when I said that cable proponents claim that their ability to hear differences goes beyond what can be tested for...in a lab...on a test bench.

    As for engineers being qualified to set up and execute double blind tests, engineers in general and electrical engineers in particular are highly qualified to set up and conduct such tests. They understand the parameters to be tested, the the equipment to be used and calibrated, the flaws in test procedures that would render the tests unfair, and they even get (believe it or not), rudimentary training in statistics and probability to be able to evaluate the data. At the very least, when psychologists set up and conduct such tests, they often get the assistance of engineers or technicians who can help with the equipment. Contrary to popular belief especially among audiophiles, not all engineers are babbling dummies. Inherent in their training is not rote memorization of what to think but in fact mastering the technique of how to think. And believe it or not, some engineers who graduated many years ago and have been in the working world actually remember how to think independently and critically, sadly a skill not necessary in some other professions...like lawyering.

  7. #7
    Forum Regular Tony_Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    How are you going to mathe them up? Word for word? Subjectively meaning what they intended to imply? Too much variability in the grading process.
    We already have eliminated system and room acoustic variability, so the only variable is left is the listener and notes he/she takes. And we could reduce that variability by imposing some guidelines such as emphasizing that only couple of strong point of a cable be noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    No matter how hard you are trying to justify sighted listening, you just cannot succeed without bias control implementation. That is indisputable.
    Like the James Bond movie title said:"Never Say Never" . I don't know where the notion that [all] sighted testing are unreliable came from, but it have to revised if we want to make progress in evaluating cables. The word "biased" get thrown alot around here, but the fact is that some listeners are not biased toward any cables (at least those who want the truth about cables). All they want to find out is if a cable makes a difference or not. That is all.

    You yourself is always advising others not to take advice from others since they might be unreliable, and then you turn around and treat whatever Dr Toole have to say about cable as bible that is written on stone. What make you sure that DR Toole is not biased either?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sword
    What you describe has more or less already been done. Go see http://www.sonic.net/soundscape/wire_rev.html. While the details were not exactly what you describe, their main objective was the same.
    I just looked at that link briefly, and it seem that they were trying to evaluating too many cables at once (I thin it was ten). And that might a an impossible task to accomplish.
    In the method I described, we are only interested to find out if two cables of same construction and length sound different or not. For example, one $10 Radioshack cable and $999 cable from Tara. We just want to know how each listener evaluate each cables

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeptic
    Audio cables are a physical entity which perform a very specific and limited function that is well understood. Far better understood for example than loudspeakers or even amplifiers, there is little about the physical or electrical properties and behavior of cables that isn't known or can't be found out with bench testing.
    I agree with that statement. but what about those who do not agree? Shouldn't we create a protocol for testing cables that naysayes and yeasayes could agree on since DBT discussion seem to end up in the gutter anytime it is brought up?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pctower
    What particular type of engineer is qualified to conduct audio DBTs? What particular aspect of such an engineer's qualifications, education or background renders him qualified to conduct such tests?
    There you go again PC, making rocket science out simple testing of cables

    Even ordinary persons can setup a cable testing protocol, as long as variables are reduces to give an accurate result. As you said, human nature does play a role when doing such a test, but as long as that factor eliminated (such as memory factor), then the testing can be done almost by any one and doesn't require a specialist
    "Say Hello To My Little Friend."

  8. #8
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Let's suppose everyone agreed that one cable sounded different from another and for the same reason, it had more high end. That would not come as a shock since we know that there are differences in shunt capacitance and series inductance among cables. So what would it mean. Is the one with the hotter high end right or better and the other one wrong or worse? What if the same effect could be obtained with the cable with the cooler high end and an equalizer with a 1 db boost at 20khz. If that arrangement was indistinguishable from the hot high end cable without the equalizer would it prove anything of value? What if the speaker was designed using the cable with the cooler high end and the designer had rejected the same sound as you get with a 1 db boost at 20khz because it was too shrill? Then what? What is the purpose of this test anyway?

  9. #9
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    We already have eliminated system and room acoustic variability, so the only variable is left is the listener and notes he/she takes.

    That is usually the case if the listeing is done in one room as is the case when 'golden ears' are brave enough to participate in a DBT

    And we could reduce that variability by imposing some guidelines such as emphasizing that only couple of strong point of a cable be noted.

    Then you also need to standardize the words and phrases or else you will impose the subjectivity of the interprter of the test results. And, how many such written trials will you do? Sufficient for a statistical evaluation? If not, then it is very chance based proposition.



    Like the James Bond movie title said:"Never Say Never" .


    I am not Bond

    I don't know where the notion that [all] sighted testing are unreliable came from, but it have to revised if we want to make progress in evaluating cables.


    Why? That is just your belief that a revision or even this will make a difference. The protocol is in concrete, DBT is a must. You need extraordinary proof that your method is better. I seriously doubt you can meet that burden of demonstration.

    The word "biased" get thrown alot around here, but the fact is that some listeners are not biased toward any cables (at least those who want the truth about cables). All they want to find out is if a cable makes a difference or not. That is all.

    How do you know this? Who is the guarantor of these truths? How do you know it 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. You may question the statistics, set up, etc, but not the bias aspect unless htere is a flaw and wasn't really DBT.



    You yourself is always advising others not to take advice from others since they might be unreliable, and then you turn around and treat whatever Dr Toole have to say about cable as bible that is written on stone. What make you sure that DR Toole is not biased either?

    He wasn't when he came to these conclusions at NRC in Canada over his career there. I think he knows how to do DBT

    Mirage has a good story about NRC with no mention of Tooles tenure
    mtrycrafts

  10. #10
    Forum Regular Monstrous Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Montana
    The word "biased" get thrown alot around here, but the fact is that some listeners are not biased toward any cables (at least those who want the truth about cables). All they want to find out is if a cable makes a difference or not. That is all.
    I would consider myself as one who is seeking the truth about cables. But I certainly would never state that I am not biased about cables. I did a cable comparison of my own and found no differences. But I acknowledge that there may have been some subtle differences but since my expectation was that there wouldn't be, therefore I may have missed them. So my home test was unreliable and has no basis in fact. Why did I do it then? I needed to examine the possibility that I could distinctly hear a cable difference. The only chance I had was if the difference was large.

    I would say only robots are totally free of bias. One cannot sit down and assess if he is free from bias of any kind since a lot of bias is subconcious. I know people that say they are not racist or homophobic but every once and awhile they will say something (without being aware of it) that shows otherwise. Some people are overtly racist, some are covertly racist and some are subconciously racist.

    Therefore, I would have to agree with pctower that for DBTs there should be a psychologist or someone similar to analyse the listeners and the subjective results.
    Friends help friends move,
    Good friends help friends move bodies....

  11. #11
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    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?

    If differences actually exist, wouldn't they be heard without knowing what item was under test?

    If 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?
    Last edited by markw; 06-17-2004 at 07:16 AM.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular Swerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
    I would say only robots are totally free of bias. One cannot sit down and assess if he is free from bias of any kind since a lot of bias is subconcious. I know people that say they are not racist or homophobic but every once and awhile they will say something (without being aware of it) that shows otherwise. Some people are overtly racist, some are covertly racist and some are subconciously racist.
    I think there is some confusion over the use of the word bias. It has more than one meaning. Bias, as we speak of it in cable listening tests, has a statistical definition. See The Online Medical Dictionary's entry for bias.
    http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/o...ion=Search+OMD

    Bias is any deviation of results or inferences from the truth, or the processes leading to such deviation.

    In a clinical trial, bias refers to effects that may cause a conclusion to be incorrect, for example, when a researcher or patient knows what treatment is being given. To avoid bias, a blinded study may be done.

    Bias can result from several sources: one-sided or systematic variations in measurement from the true value (systematic error); flaws in study design; deviation of inferences, interpretations, or analyses based on flawed data or data collection; etc.

    There is no sense of prejudice or subjectivity implied in the assessment of bias under these conditions.

    I'm not picking on you Mike, I actually agree with your views on cables. I only selected a quote from your post to illustrate my point about the word bias. Maybe we should use a different word, for example: sighted cable tests have been shown to skew the results.

  13. #13
    Forum Regular Monstrous Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by Swerd
    There is no sense of prejudice or subjectivity implied in the assessment of bias under these conditions.
    Using the reference you gave I quote: "Bias can result from several sources: one-sided or systematic variations in measurement from the true value (systematic error); " where one-sided is defined as: "Having one side only, or one side prominent; hence, limited to one side; partial; unjust; unfair; as, a one-sided view or statement. "

    I believe this applies directly to our cable situation. Our source of bias over cables is that we have already chosen a side before any testing begins. I know people would like to think that they can enter any cable test with a complete, unbiased view point but I think this is not possible. And the real point is that since we really don't know what our biases are, they have to be controlled before we can make any valued judgements on comparisons.

    So I personally think it is very logical and reasonable to associate knowledge of the component under test with some sort of bias in addition to any preconceived knowledge like an engineering degree, past experiences, word of mouth, cost of components, etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by Swerd
    I'm not picking on you Mike, I actually agree with your views on cables.
    Since I am never 100% correct in my views, I invite criticism. If I don't feel such criticism is useful or is unecessarily nasty, I will simply move on. I found you and others on both sides of the fence to be particularly civil. And if dare say, this site has become more civil than AA.

    So keep up the good work, don't bring my mother into this and we'll all be just fine.
    Friends help friends move,
    Good friends help friends move bodies....

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "... why the participant's knowledge of what item is being tested should make any difference when it comes to describing it's nature?"

    There is something unique about wire that is different from other elements in an electronic sound system. While other elements are intended to generate or alter an electrical signal in some way and its location is unimportant, wire is intended for exactly the opposite purpose, namely to move it from one location to another without changing it. Therefore, it is an element whose ability to fulfill its function can be assessed by shunting it out. In the evaluation of wire, rather than comparing one real world element which is imperfect with another real world element, I would prefer to compare it to its theoretical ideal or at least very nearly so. Then rather than see its flaws in relative terms, we can see them in absolute terms.

  15. #15
    Forum Regular Swerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    185
    Let's get back to Tony Montana's original question about whether there is an alternative to DBT.

    It seems like it is really two different questions that often appear in great cable debates.

    Blind vs. sighted testing

    Short term vs. long term testing

    There is a simple answer for the blind vs. sighted question. Numerous studies in medical clinical trials and in the psychology of human perception have clearly demonstrated that when a subject can visually identify the item being tested (sighted testing) the results of the test are skewed (aka biased). How do we know that? It's very simple to run the same test under blinded and sighted conditions and compare the results. They are almost always significantly different. That's what Floyd Toole did with speakers a number of years ago. He showed that listeners' selections of speakers they preferred varied when they could hear and see them compared to when they could only hear them. There is no reason to believe that peoples perception of the effects of cables would be any different. So to answer Tony, I think that blinded testing is the preferred method. It matters much less whether it is single or double blind. If the testing is not blinded, the tester has to go to great lengths to show that his method does not introduce the sources of bias known to accompany sighted testing. This is very hard to do.

    The other question of short- vs. long-term testing has no simple answer that I know of. I've heard yeasayers who claim that long-term listening is necessary to hear the differences due to cables. Short-term A/B type tests do not allow them the time to hear all the subtle nuances.

    My problem with this is how do you do long-term testing (say one month in one's own home) while maintaining blinded conditions? If there is some way to guarantee that listeners never know the identity of the test cables while they are unsupervised in their homes, then there might be a way to settle this question. Until then, I maintian that it is far more important to have blinded tests than it is to have long-term tests.

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Swerd
    Let's get back to Tony Montana's original question about whether there is an alternative to DBT.

    It seems like it is really two different questions that often appear in great cable debates.

    Blind vs. sighted testing

    Short term vs. long term testing

    There is a simple answer for the blind vs. sighted question. Numerous studies in medical clinical trials and in the psychology of human perception have clearly demonstrated that when a subject can visually identify the item being tested (sighted testing) the results of the test are skewed (aka biased). How do we know that? It's very simple to run the same test under blinded and sighted conditions and compare the results. They are almost always significantly different. That's what Floyd Toole did with speakers a number of years ago. He showed that listeners' selections of speakers they preferred varied when they could hear and see them compared to when they could only hear them. There is no reason to believe that peoples perception of the effects of cables would be any different. So to answer Tony, I think that blinded testing is the preferred method. It matters much less whether it is single or double blind. If the testing is not blinded, the tester has to go to great lengths to show that his method does not introduce the sources of bias known to accompany sighted testing. This is very hard to do.

    The other question of short- vs. long-term testing has no simple answer that I know of. I've heard yeasayers who claim that long-term listening is necessary to hear the differences due to cables. Short-term A/B type tests do not allow them the time to hear all the subtle nuances.

    My problem with this is how do you do long-term testing (say one month in one's own home) while maintaining blinded conditions? If there is some way to guarantee that listeners never know the identity of the test cables while they are unsupervised in their homes, then there might be a way to settle this question. Until then, I maintian that it is far more important to have blinded tests than it is to have long-term tests.
    Hey!

    Who allowed someone like you who makes a lot of sense to get onto this board?

  17. #17
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Out fishing again Phil?

    ...I don't see much difference from that position in overall terms and generally speaking, to the usual banter around these parts.

    Any subjective long-term analysis first requires that there is viable, repeatable evidence that there is actually being something worthy of analysis. My mother-in-law's ability to detect the clarity of a rim-shot while tooling down the driveway does not qualify.

    jimHJJ(...at least not IMO...)

  18. #18
    Forum Regular Swerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    Hey!

    Who allowed someone like you who makes a lot of sense to get onto this board?
    I'm really Jon Risch's evil twin, but our medication is working much better now.

    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'm unwilling to say the naysayers are 100% right untill there is some unimpeachable listening test evidence that they are. At the same time, I'm strongly inclined to believe that the yeasayers are imagining things.

  19. #19
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "My problem with this is how do you do long-term testing (say one month in one's own home) while maintaining blinded conditions?"

    Only allow blind people to participate in the test.

  20. #20
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "Hey!

    Who allowed someone like you who makes a lot of sense to get onto this board?"

    I think I am going to throw up!

  21. #21
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by Swerd
    Let's get back to Tony Montana's original question about whether there is an alternative to DBT.

    It seems like it is really two different questions that often appear in great cable debates.

    Blind vs. sighted testing

    Short term vs. long term testing

    There is a simple answer for the blind vs. sighted question. Numerous studies in medical clinical trials and in the psychology of human perception have clearly demonstrated that when a subject can visually identify the item being tested (sighted testing) the results of the test are skewed (aka biased). How do we know that? It's very simple to run the same test under blinded and sighted conditions and compare the results. They are almost always significantly different. That's what Floyd Toole did with speakers a number of years ago. He showed that listeners' selections of speakers they preferred varied when they could hear and see them compared to when they could only hear them. There is no reason to believe that peoples perception of the effects of cables would be any different. So to answer Tony, I think that blinded testing is the preferred method. It matters much less whether it is single or double blind. If the testing is not blinded, the tester has to go to great lengths to show that his method does not introduce the sources of bias known to accompany sighted testing. This is very hard to do.

    The other question of short- vs. long-term testing has no simple answer that I know of. I've heard yeasayers who claim that long-term listening is necessary to hear the differences due to cables. Short-term A/B type tests do not allow them the time to hear all the subtle nuances.

    My problem with this is how do you do long-term testing (say one month in one's own home) while maintaining blinded conditions? If there is some way to guarantee that listeners never know the identity of the test cables while they are unsupervised in their homes, then there might be a way to settle this question. Until then, I maintian that it is far more important to have blinded tests than it is to have long-term tests.
    Yes, maintaining blinded conditions in a long-term test could be a problem. However, couldn't you get around that with long-term sighted listening of the cables being tested, followed by short-term blinded testing, or am I missing something? 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.

    On a different subject, I believe Dr. Toole's study showed his test subjects(not everyone) could be biased by the appearance of some speakers, but the study didn't go as far as it could in testing the strength of their bias. Would the subjects have changed their preference again, for example, if a sighted test had followed the blinded test. And if so, what might that mean?

  22. #22
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188

    The great hoax and sighted bias.

    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.

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ...I don't see much difference from that position in overall terms and generally speaking, to the usual banter around these parts.

    Any subjective long-term analysis first requires that there is viable, repeatable evidence that there is actually being something worthy of analysis. My mother-in-law's ability to detect the clarity of a rim-shot while tooling down the driveway does not qualify.

    jimHJJ(...at least not IMO...)
    I didn't read him as advocating long-term subjective listening. 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.

  24. #24
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    "Hey!

    Who allowed someone like you who makes a lot of sense to get onto this board?"

    I think I am going to throw up!
    What's new. You throw up daily - all over this board.

  25. #25
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Swerd
    I'm really Jon Risch's evil twin, but our medication is working much better now.

    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'm unwilling to say the naysayers are 100% right untill there is some unimpeachable listening test evidence that they are. At the same time, I'm strongly inclined to believe that the yeasayers are imagining things.
    Intellectually, I think I actually lean pretty heavily to the naysayer side. I certainly accept that anything short of valid control testing is unreliable. I merely attack test results that are often reported without the type of support required to determine if valid protocol and statistical analysis was applied. I believe I am actually MORE demanding of good science than most people on this board.

    I also raise the question of whether anyone ever has established a solid basis for concluding that the typical rapid-switching, blind test is a valid method for determing if the differences people experience at home during long-term sighted listening are the result solely of bias or reflect some degree of actual audible differences. This may be just the flip side of raising the question of whether there is something inherrent such as pressure or lack of familiarity in the typical reported blind cable test that skews the results.

    In addition, I refuse to allow that to control personal choices I make when my intellect isn't in control - choices such as the cables I use. If a particular cable improves my listening enjoyment I'll go with what improves my enjoyment - not what my intellect is telling me.

    What I find interesting is how few people can grasp that distinction. Steve Eddy is the only person I know who really has a handle on the difference between what one

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. bi-wiring
    By sleeper_red in forum Cables
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-19-2004, 02:47 PM
  2. Audio cable, video cable...
    By Demetrio in forum Cables
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-18-2004, 10:53 AM
  3. Does video cable length degrade a video signal?
    By Widowmaker in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-19-2004, 08:28 AM
  4. DVD Player question
    By Brian68 in forum General Audio
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-13-2004, 07:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •