Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 92
  1. #1
    Forum Regular blackraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,421

    Interesting Thesis on IC's

    Here's an interesting read on a Thesis done by an M.I.T student on IC's for what its worth-

    http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/hand...5/41567257.pdf
    Pass Labs X250 amp, BAT Vk-51se Preamp,
    Thorens TD-145 TT, Bellari phono preamp, Nagaoka MP-200 Cartridge
    Magnepan QR1.6 speakers
    Luxman DA-06 DAC
    Van Alstine Ultra Plus Hybrid Tube DAC
    Dual Martin Logan Original Dynamo Subs
    Parasound A21 amp
    Vintage Luxman T-110 tuner
    Magnepan MMG's, Grant Fidelity DAC-11, Class D CDA254 amp
    Monitor Audio S1 speakers, PSB B6 speakers
    Vintage Technic's Integrated amp
    Music Hall 25.2 CDP
    Adcom GFR 700 AVR
    Cables- Cardas, Silnote, BJC
    Velodyne CHT 8 sub

  2. #2
    Suspended atomicAdam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oaktown!
    Posts
    1,774
    YAY another person who thinks they know everything in the world about cables and systems because they have a science degree and tested a couple cables.

    How about this - this was done over 10 years ago and technology in terms of measurements have changed, and if they haven't, than maybe what is being measured isn't what is affecting the sound.

    I do agree that is all about pairing and your own taste - but to say that a $10.95 Rat Shack cable will be a smarter purchase than a $300 whatever cable is retarded. The smartest purchase is whatever sounds good to you and if you think it is worth it.

    Now I've tried and could certainly whip out a range of cables from

    Rat Shack ($10)
    Monoprice ($5)
    Blue Jean Cables ($30)
    Granite Audio ($900)
    WyWires ($1000)
    Monster somethings ($?)
    and those full copper things I think are ($150)

    and we'd hear a range of sound tweaking on the system. What I maybe consider best or worth it might not be what you do.

  3. #3
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicAdam
    How about this - this was done over 10 years ago and technology in terms of measurements have changed...
    Not really. About the only thing technology has done in the past 10 years is the ability to make high resolution measurements much more affordable, largely by way of newer, high resolution sound cards.

    ...and if they haven't, than maybe what is being measured isn't what is affecting the sound.
    Or maybe not.

    When you get right down to it, all that we can hear is the result of changes in air pressure over time in the acoustic domain which is brought about by changes in voltage and current over time in the electrical domain.

    And we've had the capability of measuring such changes and differences to levels far below that which humans are capable of perceiving for quite some time.

    I do agree that is all about pairing and your own taste - but to say that a $10.95 Rat Shack cable will be a smarter purchase than a $300 whatever cable is retarded. The smartest purchase is whatever sounds good to you and if you think it is worth it.
    Nothing to argue there.

    There perhaps wouldn't be such a controversy if people wouldn't make all manner of claims which are either erroneous or lack any meaningful substantiation.

    Personally, I go with what sounds best to me, regardless of what the reasons for it may be. I don't listen to reproduced music for the purpose of satisfying any sort of objective criteria. I listen for my own subjective pleasure and enjoyment. And if something gives me greater pleasure and enjoyment, that's what I use.

    If someone were able to prove beyond all shadow of doubt that competently designed cables aren't capable of producing actual audible differences, I would do absolutely nothing different.

    To take from the old 60's refrain, if it feels good, do it.

    se

  4. #4
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    I still believe there are aspects of sound changes that simply cannot be measured and I have to wonder sometimes if can even be explained. I do agree though, no matter what comes out on paper I'm not taking my cables out to be replaced by budget cables, I heard the improvement, I heard I still prefer my current brand over others I've tried in my budget.

    I suppose there are others who are just the opposite who are convinced there couldn't possibly be any difference so no matter what is said their mind won't change. There have been members here though who have changed positions after at least being convinced to try for themselves. If one at least tries for themselves then I respect their opinion no matter how it turns out.

    And, to be fair a lot of it is experiences and whether we own the type of gear that would allow one to hear a difference.

    We still have those who believe CD players or amps sound the same so it's no surprise cables are a contraversy. A lot of this is what measurements are shown on paper, so they think why would a $300.00 player that measures 20-20kHz sound any different than a $3k with same specs..... I know why there's a difference but if one can't get past the measurements or be open minded about a cable how will they believe there's a difference in analog output stages.

    I used to be really bothered by the arguments but I figure if one is truly interested they will try for themselves and, if not, possibly their loss. I can only relay my experiences for what they are worth.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    I still believe there are aspects of sound changes that simply cannot be measured...
    Like what?

    What else is going on in our audio equipment beyond changes in voltage and current over time? And that we can measure from DC to RF and down to the thermal noise produced by a length of wire.

    So what's going on that would escape measurement?

    I do agree though, no matter what comes out on paper I'm not taking my cables out to be replaced by budget cables, I heard the improvement, I heard I still prefer my current brand over others I've tried in my budget.
    And I for one am not suggesting you do otherwise. I'm all for people using whatever gives them the greatest pleasure and enjoyment.

    I suppose there are others who are just the opposite who are convinced there couldn't possibly be any difference so no matter what is said their mind won't change.
    I disagree.

    You can't expect their minds to be changed if you never give them any compelling reason to. And simply insisting that there are audible differences isn't terribly compelling.

    There have been members here though who have changed positions after at least being convinced to try for themselves. If one at least tries for themselves then I respect their opinion no matter how it turns out.
    But what's the point? If you can't adequately demonstrate that there's an actual audible difference, then what use is it for someone to try it for themselves? Even if they say they do perceive some difference, that does nothing to establish whether or not there is an actual audible difference.

    And, to be fair a lot of it is experiences and whether we own the type of gear that would allow one to hear a difference.
    How can you say this unless you've first established that there are actual audible differences?

    We still have those who believe CD players or amps sound the same so it's no surprise cables are a contraversy.
    And why would you expect them to change their beliefs when no one to date has established actual audible differences between CD players or amps?

    A lot of this is what measurements are shown on paper, so they think why would a $300.00 player that measures 20-20kHz sound any different than a $3k with same specs..... I know why there's a difference but if one can't get past the measurements or be open minded about a cable how will they believe there's a difference in analog output stages.
    I don't know that anyone's arguing that there are no differences in analogue output stages. What's at issue is whether or not those differences are sufficient to actually be audible.

    I used to be really bothered by the arguments but I figure if one is truly interested they will try for themselves and, if not, possibly their loss. I can only relay my experiences for what they are worth.
    Interested in what exactly?

    It's one thing to be interested in what sounds best to oneself, whatever the reasons for it may be.

    It's another to be interested in whether or not there are actual audible differences.

    And the former does not establish the latter.

    se

  6. #6
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Eddy
    Like what?

    What else is going on in our audio equipment beyond changes in voltage and current over time? And that we can measure from DC to RF and down to the thermal noise produced by a length of wire.

    So what's going on that would escape measurement?

    You tell me but there has to be some reason gear sound different, why a receiver with better specs on paper pales in comparison to a higher end amp in sound quality.

    And I for one am not suggesting you do otherwise. I'm all for people using whatever gives them the greatest pleasure and enjoyment.

    I disagree.

    You can't expect their minds to be changed if you never give them any compelling reason to. And simply insisting that there are audible differences isn't terribly compelling.

    You seem to want to make a philosophical argument, is there or is it not, if you think it is therefore it is. I don't need to compel some one to do anything, if they are in this hobby then they should be compelled on their own. Most in this hobby are anxious to find areas of improvements, especially those that are cost effective. How else would any one know unless they try something for themselves.

    But what's the point? If you can't adequately demonstrate that there's an actual audible difference, then what use is it for someone to try it for themselves? Even if they say they do perceive some difference, that does nothing to establish whether or not there is an actual audible difference.

    See above.

    How can you say this unless you've first established that there are actual audible differences?

    I believe that fact is established by those with experience with different gear and your denial doesn't make it less true. I am confident that one with intelligence and hearing acuity would also be able to do so. So it's on you to establish there, is, no difference.

    And why would you expect them to change their beliefs when no one to date has established actual audible differences between CD players or amps?

    Your statement is inaccurate. If there's no difference then all we'd have is one brand with the only difference being cosmetic. And, there are measureable differences aside from the audible differences. Parts with tighter tolerances make a difference, how a manufacturer chooses to deal with certain issues such as jitter, current or feedback all make a difference.

    I don't know that anyone's arguing that there are no differences in analogue output stages. What's at issue is whether or not those differences are sufficient to actually be audible.

    Well they are, it's diffibult to believe the salesman are such good hypnotists that we all spend more money for something that's not there. As I stated, denial doesn't make it so. It's insulting for those like you to incenuate humans are not capable of hearing any difference in gear although one can demonstrate the ability to tune instruments by ear or hear pitch. You can't show that all gear sounds the same, so your request doesn't hold water.

    Interested in what exactly?
    It's one thing to be interested in what sounds best to oneself, whatever the reasons for it may be.
    It's another to be interested in whether or not there are actual audible differences.

    And the former does not establish the latter.

    se
    I suppose if there wasn't any interest then who would be reading this or in the hobby?

  7. #7
    frenchmon frenchmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    St. Charles Mo
    Posts
    3,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    I still believe there are aspects of sound changes that simply cannot be measured and I have to wonder sometimes if can even be explained. I do agree though, no matter what comes out on paper I'm not taking my cables out to be replaced by budget cables, I heard the improvement, I heard I still prefer my current brand over others I've tried in my budget.

    I suppose there are others who are just the opposite who are convinced there couldn't possibly be any difference so no matter what is said their mind won't change. There have been members here though who have changed positions after at least being convinced to try for themselves. If one at least tries for themselves then I respect their opinion no matter how it turns out.

    And, to be fair a lot of it is experiences and whether we own the type of gear that would allow one to hear a difference.

    We still have those who believe CD players or amps sound the same so it's no surprise cables are a contraversy. A lot of this is what measurements are shown on paper, so they think why would a $300.00 player that measures 20-20kHz sound any different than a $3k with same specs..... I know why there's a difference but if one can't get past the measurements or be open minded about a cable how will they believe there's a difference in analog output stages.

    I used to be really bothered by the arguments but I figure if one is truly interested they will try for themselves and, if not, possibly their loss. I can only relay my experiences for what they are worth.
    I hear ya Peabody...and I agree with you. Most of those over at the http://forums.soundandvisionmag.com think cable and speaker wire is all the same. They also think amps all sound the same Their argument is that amps have no sound.

    Look at this thread...its just stupid.http://forums.soundandvisionmag.com/...-Bell-o-cables
    Last edited by frenchmon; 03-21-2011 at 12:23 PM.
    Music...let it into your soul and be moved....with Canton...Pure Music


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    W10 i5 Quad core processor 8GB RAM/Jriver 20/ Fidelizer Optimizer/ iFI Micro DSD DAC-iUSB 3.0/Vincent SA - T1/Vincent SP-331 MK /MMF-7.1/2M BLACK/MS Phenomena ll+/Canton Vento 830.2

  8. #8
    ISCET CET, FCC CTT, USITT Dual-500's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    I still believe there are aspects of sound changes that simply cannot be measured and I have to wonder sometimes if can even be explained. I do agree though, no matter what comes out on paper I'm not taking my cables out to be replaced by budget cables, I heard the improvement, I heard I still prefer my current brand over others I've tried in my budget.

    I suppose there are others who are just the opposite who are convinced there couldn't possibly be any difference so no matter what is said their mind won't change. There have been members here though who have changed positions after at least being convinced to try for themselves. If one at least tries for themselves then I respect their opinion no matter how it turns out.

    And, to be fair a lot of it is experiences and whether we own the type of gear that would allow one to hear a difference.

    We still have those who believe CD players or amps sound the same so it's no surprise cables are a contraversy. A lot of this is what measurements are shown on paper, so they think why would a $300.00 player that measures 20-20kHz sound any different than a $3k with same specs..... I know why there's a difference but if one can't get past the measurements or be open minded about a cable how will they believe there's a difference in analog output stages.

    I used to be really bothered by the arguments but I figure if one is truly interested they will try for themselves and, if not, possibly their loss. I can only relay my experiences for what they are worth.
    Bingo - well stated. I don't get into the arguments any more either.

    I can say this - take any musical instrument - keyboard, guitar, violin, horn and analyze it with test equipment. What do you get? Not the whole picture.

    Same holds true for speakers, amps, etc. Take gear that sounds good. No two amps sound the same and for certain no two speakers sound the same - yet, many sound good.

    But, not the same.

  9. #9
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by frenchmon
    I hear ya Peabody...and I agree with you. Most of those over at the http://forums.soundandvisionmag.com think cable and speaker wire is all the same. They also think amps all sound the same Their argument is that amps have no sound.
    Given that to date no one has demonstrated actual audible differences, what makes their thinking that so absurd?

    se

  10. #10
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Dual-500
    I can say this - take any musical instrument - keyboard, guitar, violin, horn and analyze it with test equipment. What do you get? Not the whole picture.
    What exactly don't you get?

    Same holds true for speakers, amps, etc. Take gear that sounds good. No two amps sound the same...
    How something "sounds" to a given individual is quite subjective. And just because two amps may "sound different" to a given individual it doesn't inherently mean that there are any audible differences between them.

    ...and for certain no two speakers sound the same...
    Speakers are another matter. The differences between them can be quite significant and well within known thresholds of audibility.

    The same doesn't hold true for most electronics.

    se

  11. #11
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Helotes,TX
    Posts
    771

    Hello BR

    Quote Originally Posted by blackraven
    Here's an interesting read on a Thesis done by an M.I.T student on IC's for what its worth-

    http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/hand...5/41567257.pdf
    That was an interesting read. I suppose if all he had to test back in the day was R.S. -vs- Monster...then I may have also reached the same conclusion...lol

  12. #12
    ISCET CET, FCC CTT, USITT Dual-500's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Eddy
    1) What exactly don't you get?

    2) How something "sounds" to a given individual is quite subjective. And just because two amps may "sound different" to a given individual it doesn't inherently mean that there are any audible differences between them.

    3) Speakers are another matter. The differences between them can be quite significant and well within known thresholds of audibility.

    4) The same doesn't hold true for most electronics.

    se
    1) Nothing - I do get it. Test gear won't discern a Bundy tenor saxophone from a Yamaha. Let alone who is playing either. I can tell you the difference as I played a Bundy for years. They don't sound the same.

    Different heads on the same drum sound differently. There is no electronics available that I know of that can detect that and quantify it in terms of test results.

    2) Agreed. However, many can tell audible differences between amplifiers and other components that others cannot perceive. Our entire perception of sight and sound is mapped individually. The psychologists have proven that. You and I will both agree on red, but won't be perceiving the same thing. They have tested individuals with inverting lenses in front of their eyes where the world is upside down - takes about 2 weeks for their brains to re-map the vision processing and then everything is perceived as normal. Take the lenses off and they are screwed - everything then goes upside down. Takes another 2 weeks to remap vison processing back to normal. Same with hearing. We don't have the stereophonic doppler discering capabilities at birth. That's all learned and unique to each of us.

    3) Agreed again. So, would you not agree that two diffeerent pairs of speakers may test out to the same basic specifications - yet, clearly sound differently. That being said, many would agree on the differences and be able to reliably tell which they were listening to - yet, there would also be many others that couldn't tell the difference, let alone care.

    4) True again. But not an absolute. I can tell one amp from another - some have glaring differences, some subtle. I'm not talking comparing tubes to solid state here. Tube to tube and SS to SS amps - apples to apples. There are many on this and other audio forums that can readily discern differences between amplifiers and other electronic front end components. Differences that don't always show up on test gear.

    Put two different drummers on the same kit. Tuned the same. Have them play the same material at the same tempo. They won't sound the same - I guarantee it. They will not strike the drums the same. And even more obvious will be the sound of the cymbals.

    That's why music is taught in the School of Fine Arts and not the School of Engineering Math and Science Lab.

    Cheers!
    Last edited by Dual-500; 03-21-2011 at 07:14 PM.

  13. #13
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Dual-500
    1) Nothing - I do get it.
    That's not what I meant. You said "...take any musical instrument - keyboard, guitar, violin, horn and analyze it with test equipment. What do you get? Not the whole picture."

    I was asking you what don't you get that doesn't leave you with the whole picture?

    Test gear won't discern a Bundy tenor saxophone from a Yamaha.
    2) Agreed. However, many can tell audible differences between amplifiers...
    I must have missed it. When was this established?

    Our entire perception of sight and sound is mapped individually. The psychologists have proven that.
    Yes. But they've also proven that our perceptions can be highly unreliable, which is why it's trivially easy to get people to perceive differences even when there are none.

    3) Argeed again. So, would you not agree that two diffeerent pairs of speakers may test out to the same basic specifications - yet, clearly sound differently.
    What do you mean by "basic specifications"? If you mean "basic specs" as in what's typically listed on a spec sheet, then sure, they could very well sound different. But "basic specifications" is a far far cry from a full measurement suite.

    That being said, many would agree on the differences and be able to reliably tell which they were listening to - yet, there would also be many others that couldn't tell the difference, let alone care.
    Sure.

    4) True again. But not an absolute. I can tell one amp from another - some have glaring differences, some subtle. I'm not talking comparing tubes to solid state here. Tube to tube and SS to SS amps - apples to apples.
    Then you should step up and demonstrate this. I believe there are still some cash prizes being offered to those who can do this without peeking.

    There are many on this and other audio forums that can readily discern differences between amplifiers and other electronic front end components.
    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.

    Differences that don't always show up on test gear.
    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.

    se

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by LeRoy
    That was an interesting read. I suppose if all he had to test back in the day was R.S. -vs- Monster...then I may have also reached the same conclusion...lol
    Back in the day? We're talking just 13 years ago. There were dozens if not hundreds of high end cable offerings available at the time. Thirteen years ago Monster wasn't even taken very seriously by the high end.

    Hell, in 1998, Kimber had already been in business for more than 10 years.

    se

  15. #15
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    se, I'd be interested in knowing what is in a "measurement suite" that goes beyond what is shown on a spec sheet.

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Helotes,TX
    Posts
    771

    Hello se

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Eddy
    Back in the day? We're talking just 13 years ago. There were dozens if not hundreds of high end cable offerings available at the time. Thirteen years ago Monster wasn't even taken very seriously by the high end.

    Hell, in 1998, Kimber had already been in business for more than 10 years.

    se
    Ya, 13 years ago doesn't seem like a long time ago, however, given all the advancements/progress in audio technology since then it does feel like "back in the day" to me.

    Good info on the Kimber though I never really kept in mind when any Hi-Fi company got it's start.

    Is Monster taken seriously now? All I know is that I never took Monster seriously and I did try one of their sub-woofer cables that I had to wrestle off the sub inputs just to get it off both the amp and the sub. That was enough to keep me clear of Monster. I don't recall the audio difference that the Monster was suppose to indulge me in so I guess it did not leave a favorable impression with me.

  17. #17
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    se, I'd be interested in knowing what is in a "measurement suite" that goes beyond what is shown on a spec sheet.
    Full frequency response, impulse response, impedance plots, group delay plots, waterfall plots, distortion plots, distortion spectra, etc.

    se

  18. #18
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by LeRoy
    Is Monster taken seriously now?
    Are you kidding? They're being sold at Radio Shack now.

    se
    Last edited by Steve Eddy; 03-21-2011 at 07:34 PM.

  19. #19
    ISCET CET, FCC CTT, USITT Dual-500's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Eddy
    Full frequency response, impulse response, impedance plots, group delay plots, waterfall plots, distortion plots, distortion spectra, etc.

    se
    Why, one could ascertain the meaning of life with such a comprehensive battery of tests.

    So who's right, Darwin or the Creationists?
    Last edited by Dual-500; 03-22-2011 at 06:17 AM.

  20. #20
    Suspended Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    3,959
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicAdam
    The smartest purchase is whatever sounds good to you and if you think it is worth it.
    Although that sound like a good advice on the surface, but it is really not.

    For example four or five years ago in AudioAsylum where Steve hangs out, there was this yellow extension cord from HomeDepot which many poeple recommended because it sounded good to them.

    But if you look at extension cord electrically, it is a nightmare. Crappy insulation, dielectric insulator and cable geometry. Would you buy such a cable if it sound good to you?

  21. #21
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Smokey
    But if you look at extension cord electrically, it is a nightmare. Crappy insulation, dielectric insulator and cable geometry. Would you buy such a cable if it sound good to you?
    Why would you buy any cable if it didn't sound good to you?

    What's the goal here? Winning some numbers game or enjoying reproduced music?

    se

  22. #22
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Eddy
    Then you should step up and demonstrate this. I believe there are still some cash prizes being offered to those who can do this without peeking.



    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.

    se
    The idea that no one has ever passed a blind test is a myth. In fact here's a test published in the Wall Street Journal. Both John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile were able to identify the more expensive speaker cable in a blind test:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...p_us_inside_to

    Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker cable. Many audiophiles say they are equally good. I couldn't hear a difference and was a wee bit suspicious that anyone else could. But of the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable.

    That may not be much of a margin for two products with such drastically different prices, but I was struck by how the best-informed people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable.
    Its sound was described as "richer," "crisper" and "more coherent." Like some wines, come to think of it.


    In absolute terms, though, the differences weren't great. Mr. Atkinson guesstimated the expensive cables sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound.
    More info on the testing is provided by John Atkinson in post #7 here:
    http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...comment-334228
    Last edited by Ajani; 03-22-2011 at 05:55 AM.

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    The idea that no one has ever passed a blind test is a myth. In fact here's a test published in the Wall Street Journal. Both John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile were able to identify the more expensive speaker cable in a blind test:
    Yes, I'm familiar with that.

    However it wasn't a test so much as a dog and pony show and did absolutely nothing to establish whether there were any audible differences between the cables.

    Each listener simply switched between A and B and then stated their preference if any. So even if there was no real difference at all, each listener had a 50/50 chance of saying they preferred the Monster cable.

    That's it. One trial, 50/50 chance of picking the Monster. That JA and MF both happened to say they preferred what ended up being the Monster cable is ultimately meaningless.

    Even JA admits it lacked any sort of scientific rigor.

    Now, if JA or MF had gone through say 10 or 20 trials, with the cables being randomly assigned to A or B for each trial, and they consistently preferred the Monster cable, or at least enough to be statistically significant, then you might have something.

    But that's not what happened here.

    se

  24. #24
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Eddy
    Yes, I'm familiar with that.

    However it wasn't a test so much as a dog and pony show and did absolutely nothing to establish whether there were any audible differences between the cables.

    Each listener simply switched between A and B and then stated their preference if any. So even if there was no real difference at all, each listener had a 50/50 chance of saying they preferred the Monster cable.

    That's it. One trial, 50/50 chance of picking the Monster. That JA and MF both happened to say they preferred what ended up being the Monster cable is ultimately meaningless.

    Even JA admits it lacked any sort of scientific rigor.

    Now, if JA or MF had gone through say 10 or 20 trials, with the cables being randomly assigned to A or B for each trial, and they consistently preferred the Monster cable, or at least enough to be statistically significant, then you might have something.

    But that's not what happened here.

    se
    So it's mere coincidence that the experts had no trouble then?

    Also JA has mentioned on the Stereophile forums, taking another blind test with MF, where he got 4 out 5 and Fremer got 5 out 5 correct... yet their results were seen as statistically insignificant because the 'average person' in the test didn't do well.... (I'll post the link later, if I can find it again)... So the combined results of 2 experts was 9 out of 10, but I'm sure that is also coincidence, until they both submit to around 20 trials each, right? Then their results would likely still be thrown out if the 'average man' doesn't score that well....

    DBT relies way too much on statistics for me to take it that seriously...

  25. #25
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    So it's mere coincidence that the experts had no trouble then?
    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"?

    Also JA has mentioned on the Stereophile forums, taking another blind test with MF, where he got 4 out 5 and Fremer got 5 out 5 correct... yet their results were seen as statistically insignificant because the 'average person' in the test didn't do well.... (I'll post the link later, if I can find it again)...
    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.

    So the combined results of 2 experts was 9 out of 10...
    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.

    ...but I'm sure that is also coincidence, until they both submit to around 20 trials each, right?
    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.

    Then their results would likely still be thrown out if the 'average man' doesn't score that well....
    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.

    DBT relies way too much on statistics for me to take it that seriously...
    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

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)

Posting Permissions

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