Proof of placebo effect ?

[RGA]

Wrong, no one can make any scientific conclusions at all from long term home listening tests performed in the absence of controls.

Never said there would be absense of controls...the long term home listening in the EXACT same environment in the EXACT same listening HABIT can also be done in a controlled environment. But since this would be a GOOD test albeit time consuming and fairly expensive it is not done but rather a slack-jawed quick to conclusion laxy test is done over and over and over. The current testing is not a valid test. Look up Validity in any first year Psych or Stats book related to DBT and you'll see what I'm talking about. It is precisely this issue which causes endless debate. One side completely ignores this piece of science(the most vital) and the other side completely ignores that bias plays a huge part of their buying decisions.

[pctower]

Never said there would be absense of controls...the long term home listening in the EXACT same environment in the EXACT same listening HABIT can also be done in a controlled environment. But since this would be a GOOD test albeit time consuming and fairly expensive it is not done but rather a slack-jawed quick to conclusion laxy test is done over and over and over. The current testing is not a valid test. Look up Validity in any first year Psych or Stats book related to DBT and you'll see what I'm talking about. It is precisely this issue which causes endless debate. One side completely ignores this piece of science(the most vital) and the other side completely ignores that bias plays a huge part of their buying decisions.

By suggesting that one of the self-proclaimed all-knowing scientists on this board might have something more to learn from science you have just committed an unpardonable sin. Don't you know that all cable DBTs that have ever been run are sacred and cannot be questioned or critiqued in any manner whatsoever.

Hopefully, over time you will be foregiven for this grave transgression, but the odds in your favor do not appear good - even during this season of good cheer.

[RGA]

By suggesting that one of the self-proclaimed all-knowing scientists on this board might have something more to learn from science you have just committed an unpardonable sin. Don't you know that all cable DBTs that have ever been run are sacred and cannot be questioned or critiqued in any manner whatsoever.

Hopefully, over time you will be foregiven for this grave transgression, but the odds in your favor do not appear good - even during this season of good cheer.

Scientists don't agree on Null Hypothesis, DBT's effectiveness, and many other things when it comes to the field of psychology. This is the field of psychology too BTW. The previous discussion on Medical science - well not all doctors agree on everything either.

Of course when I bring this up people then assume I support sighted tests - which is also not the case, just the DBT basket holds more air than eggs.

[markw]

Of course when I bring this up people then assume I support sighted tests - which is also not the case, just the DBT basket holds more air than eggs.

So, what form of testing do you support? Sighted or blind? Can't have it both ways now, can ya?

Remember, ya breathe air but ya suck eggs.

[spacedeckman]

I built a new set of interconnects, but won't hook them up until my headache goes away. I think I may have OD'ed on placebos. Is there a 12 step program available for guys like me?

I have yet to figure out why this topic burns up so much bandwidth. It's audio, so the answer is like all the other audio answers...sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes nothing. That has been my experience...but don't listen to me, I'm a convicted placebo addict.

Got to get some more of those placebos, man. Dude, you got any placebos on ya? How much ya want?

[RGA]

So, what form of testing do you support? Sighted or blind? Can't have it both ways now, can ya?

Remember, ya breathe air but ya suck eggs.

actually yes you can have it both ways. A lot of issues one can sit on the fence until such time as there is something remotely conclusive.

If you interview ten people who listened to sytem X sighted and never heard of any of the brands and didn't know the prices and they all felt in a SIGHTED environment that X was brighter than Y then you would have a real world correlational observation.

There is a crossroads between a normal listening environment which is sighted and over weeks and month of listening and a testing environment typically over one day with forced choices in a blind test which is totally different than the former.

Blind sounds nice because it gets rid of OBVIOUS biases, but introduces a whole extra set of biases. For insance I know of nobody that sits at home and flips back and forth between speakers, amps or cd players every 30-45 seconds of song trying to determine if one had a higher pitch than the other etc.

The reason Validity is ignored by the pundits for these tests is because they would rather bypass the most important aspect of science in Validity and would rather stretch the test to actually mean something in the real world. It of course doesn't, but then engineers are not scientists or psychologists...though many seem to be arrogant enough to think they are.

[markw]

actually yes you can have it both ways. A lot of issues one can sit on the fence until such time as there is something remotely conclusive.

So since there's no concrete proof against it, you say that is proof there IS a Loch Ness Monster?

If you interview ten people who listened to sytem X sighted and never heard of any of the brands and didn't know the prices and they all felt in a SIGHTED environment that X was brighter than Y then you would have a real world correlational observation.

Funny thing, the human mind. They can be swayed by the slightest things. Brand and price may not all that matters.

There is a crossroads between a normal listening environment which is sighted and over weeks and month of listening and a testing environment typically over one day with forced choices in a blind test which is totally different than the former.

Again, you're applying your own rules. It doesn't have to be done in an antiseptic lab, where one's eyes are held open with toothpicks while strrapped to a table. Blind testing can be done in a leisurly environment. Many have done so.

Blind sounds nice because it gets rid of OBVIOUS biases, but introduces a whole extra set of biases.

I'd say it removes a lot more than it introduces.

For insance I know of nobody that sits at home and flips back and forth between speakers, amps or cd players every 30-45 seconds of song trying to determine if one had a higher pitch than the other etc.

No, but if push came to shove, that could be measured. And, it's pretty well assumed by many in the know that electronics can be designed with their own "sonic signature" and that would be considered a preference, or are you forgetting that? Here's a shocker for ya. Even speakers can be designed to sound different! Suuu-prise suuu-prise.

The reason Validity is ignored by the pundits for these tests is because they would rather bypass the most important aspect of science in Validity and would rather stretch the test to actually mean something in the real world. It of course doesn't, but then engineers are not scientists or psychologists...though many seem to be arrogant enough to think they are.

But which side is trying to ignore it here? If one is testing to hear a positive difference and one cannot, that doesn't count? Sounds like a valid response to the negative to me yet it is ignored.

Back to the Loch ness Monster analogy. Even though there is no concrete proof it doesn't exist (crafty guy is pretty durn good at hiding, eh?), I'd feel safe letting my grandkids swim in the lake and not loose a minute's sleep.

Merry Christmas and enjoy your holidays.

[pctower]

But which side is trying to ignore it here? If one is testing to hear a positive difference and one cannot, that doesn't count? Sounds like a valid response to the negative to me yet it is ignored.

He's not talking "sides". He's trying to get beyond that. Jon Risch loves to spend most of his time talking about "sides". Too bad Jon doesn't come here any more so you would have someone to argue with over naysayers and yeasayers.

Your response to him merely illustrates the validity of my initial post in this subthread. Any critical comment or question about DBTs will automatically bring out the Jon-Factor in many of the self-professed "scientists" here who want to immediately label you a yeasayer in order to avoid any meaningful discussion. Jon's the master at employing that technique (coming at it from the opposite side) and will never equaled. But some here could give him a good run for the money.

[mtrycraft]

...the long term home listening in the EXACT same environment in the EXACT same listening HABIT can also be done in a controlled environment. But since this would be a GOOD test albeit time consuming and fairly expensive it is not done but rather a slack-jawed quick to conclusion laxy test is done over and over and over. The current testing is not a valid test. Look up Validity in any first year Psych or Stats book related to DBT and you'll see what I'm talking about. It is precisely this issue which causes endless debate. One side completely ignores this piece of science(the most vital) and the other side completely ignores that bias plays a huge part of their buying decisions.

Of course long term listening has been done and published. No better than short term. Actually, why would it be better? Ones memory is rather short.

"The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double Blind Testing", Shanefield, Daniel, Hi-Fidelity, Mar 80, pg 57-61.

Or, read some of the published papers from Dr. Floyd Toole, or check the CRC research in acoustics. No difference.

[mtrycraft]

If you interview ten people who listened to sytem X sighted and never heard of any of the brands and didn't know the prices and they all felt in a SIGHTED environment that X was brighter than Y then you would have a real world correlational observation.


Nonsense, absolute nonsense. Biase is present regardless of knowledge of price, etc. There is no real world correlation to anything unless it is corroborated under bias controlled conditions. Read the works of Toole on this very issue and how he demonstrates this.

There is a crossroads between a normal listening environment which is sighted and over weeks and month of listening and a testing environment typically over one day with forced choices in a blind test which is totally different than the former.

Now why do you bring in th ebogus 'forced choice' silliness. You don't have a forced choice in a psych test? Invalid.
Sighted evaluation for sonic differences, has no real meaning. A fact of life.

Blind sounds nice because it gets rid of OBVIOUS biases, but introduces a whole extra set of biases. For insance I know of nobody that sits at home and flips back and forth between speakers, amps or cd players every 30-45 seconds of song trying to determine if one had a higher pitch than the other etc.

So, because you don't know anyone, it doesn't happen?
DBT doesn't introduce any bias, it eliminates them. Live with it.

[RGA]

So since there's no concrete proof against it, you say that is proof there IS a Loch Ness Monster?

Where did you get that? Creating a false strawman. People throw the word proof around way too much on this forum. One must prove something one claims...the fact that one uses a bad test and fails to prove his/her claim with a bad test does not mean the claim does NOT exist either. Enter the debate on the null hypothesis. Where you sit on that VAGUE issue and certainly NOT agreed upon or supported by pscyhology will dictate your stance. I have no problem where one leans on it personally because I could care less about cables which I perceive to be the ultimate aluminum siding of our century. That still is not going to make me side on the bad test side just because it happens to be better than biased sighted listening...if it is proven to really be so, which it most certainly isn't other than those touting tests by non Psychologists in non APA documentments. Engineers have NOTHING to do with this issue and are totally irrelevant. Ubnless they can show the graph that there is no difference from 20hz to 20khz. Any half assed engineer can DELIBERATELY make a cable, cd player or amplifier sound different...many of them do. If you can't hear that in a test...look at the test again. many here don't use basic common sense.

Again, you're applying your own rules. It doesn't have to be done in an antiseptic lab, where one's eyes are held open with toothpicks while strrapped to a table. Blind testing can be done in a leisurly environment. Many have done so.

Yes some have nice fake homely environments with a nice soft couch. Some are even done at home. One does not A/B in normal environments one tendes to listen to a full cd or LP not 13 times in a row and back and forth in small seconds and asked to Pick. This is of course assuming there is a difference. It's easy to say well Joe said he could tell the difference between A and B. So let's do a double blind and see if he can statistically significantly do it. Fine. How often did Joe say he could tell the difference at the outset? Did Joe say he could always tell a difference with any segmant of music? Are these kinds of questions even thought of? No.

I'd say it removes a lot more than it introduces.

It removes visual bias and bias introduced by manufacturers through level differences. I bet most on the "naysayer" side can't think of one single induced problem of a DBT. Trouble with being too far on a wing is that the plane spins in circles and people soon tune you out as a religious nut. The thro proofs around with invalid tests supported soley by unprovable statistics. Even when someone does actually pass these tests they are rejected as statistical "flukes" out of hand and NEVER followed up to find out why those 2 people out 15 did what no others did.

No, but if push came to shove, that could be measured. And, it's pretty well assumed by many in the know that electronics can be designed with their own "sonic signature" and that would be considered a preference, or are you forgetting that? Here's a shocker for ya. Even speakers can be designed to sound different! Suuu-prise suuu-prise.

Never said they could not be deliberately altered...a high end cd player may actually be worse from a flat graph point of view than a cheap model and a cable can be made to sound rolled off. This is precisely why when these are NOT detected that there is a problem with the test the ubject and or the motive of the tester.

But which side is trying to ignore it here? If one is testing to hear a positive difference and one cannot, that doesn't count? Sounds like a valid response to the negative to me yet it is ignored.

The people who do the tests tend to be the ones who are looking to disprove the claim...that in itself is a bias. This again depends on the claim. If Joe is claiming perfection that he can walk into a room and tell you EVERY time that he knows that a copper wire is better than a silver wire and Joe only fairs 50% two things can result. Joe can hear a difference 50% of the time and is simply not as good as he thought he was or his selections are mere guesses and there is no way he can tell a difference. The stat however does tell everyone that he isn't nearly as perfect as he thought he was. The actual result is a toss-up for you to decide upon and evaluate in the real of soft science.

Back to the Loch ness Monster analogy. Even though there is no concrete proof it doesn't exist (crafty guy is pretty durn good at hiding, eh?), I'd feel safe letting my grandkids swim in the lake and not loose a minute's sleep.

Yes and I'll be happy to use the cheapo cables that come with the equipment from the box too. And maybe that Loch Ness Monster has a cloaking device from the Vulcans to spy on us...Ay? Ever think of that? No I bet not. Damn Green blooded pointed eared Logic.

[RGA]

Nonsense, absolute nonsense. Biase is present regardless of knowledge of price, etc. There is no real world correlation to anything unless it is corroborated under bias controlled conditions. Read the works of Toole on this very issue and how he demonstrates this.

Knowing the price is a bias. People will presume more expensive is better. Correlational observation that is uninfluenced is valid in psychology....maybe if you went to university and took a course in the field or Toole took a psych course you would both learn something. Has he got a Psychology degree or a psychoacoustics degree...they are not the same. The latter is worthless. And you are just using heresay because his paper makes NO COMMENT outside of the test and print it on this forum word for word what he actually says instead of referring to things that are not DIRECTLY and specifically on CD players.

Now why do you bring in th ebogus 'forced choice' silliness. You don't have a forced choice in a psych test? Invalid.
Sighted evaluation for sonic differences, has no real meaning. A fact of life.

Define the term Validity. Get out one of those books on your shelf...it's a Psychology book opr stats book right??? and print it here for me so I know that you know what you're talking about. Testing is different for different things not the one size fits all idiocy you're talking about. But then knowing psychology at the level I do tells me this. What engineers know about psychology is irrelevant and typically worng as it is spouted in these forums.

So, because you don't know anyone, it doesn't happen?
DBT doesn't introduce any bias, it eliminates them. Live with it.

Umm DBT reduces bias does not eliminate them that is the funniest thing I've read. It eliminates CERTAIN biases. Yes any TEST environment introduces a bias. If the normal environment is not a test and you introduce a test then you have introduced a bias - the test itself IS a bias. A pressured choice IS a bias. You can reduce the pressured selection...why do you think it is not in a cold sterile lab as a previous poster mentioned???? If there was no INTRODUCED bias then why not in a cold sterile lab...would make no difference according to your idiotic and WRONG information. The reason they make the test as COMFORTABLE as possible is to reduce the Test bias called anxiety.

If it introduced NO Bias none of that would be at all necessary...by doing it they ADMIT their test is invalid. Now it's a matter of degrees. And now it's a line to decide where you want to reside ad hardly the fact you desparately hope it to find. Your polar stance on the issue is puzzling. I find it with a lot of other religiopus people who blindly follow their faith...them in a book and you on stats that may or may not truly say anything about the the actual answers. But since we won't agree there is no point...and No this does not mean I support cable differences or betterments nor do I support biased sighted listening. Failed attempts to prove a difference in an invalid test may SEEM to discount the claim and in some cases do, certainly doesn't mean there isn't that projects to the entire population in all environments with all equipment. Even the Definition does not support what you hope it to support.

[pctower]

Last year, I tried to make the points you are making from a lay perspective and was crucified by the pseudo-scientists here. I was of course immediately accused of defending the Cable Asylum and sighted listening tests, and the entire discussion devolved into my trying to explain how one can critique DBTs as they have been performed without advocating a return to the stone age.

The response was inevitably the canned, condescending lecture on the validity of controll testing, which of course I was never questioning.

Nice to see someone with a professional background in the relevant discipline (which is not engineering) come along.

[okiemax]

Bring us a good positive listening test. Don't have any? Why is that?
No one claimed A=B wich is a mathematical claim. Just that there is no audible difference that you can hear.
That has yet to be demonstrated aftyer 20+ years. Maybe in another 20 years someone will be able to. We'll see. Then we can change our minds on the issue. In the meantime, there are no audible differences.

I don't recall seeing a positive listening test for audible differences in cables. If there haven't been any, does that prove there are no audible differences? No. All the negative tests I have seen are flawed? If there hasn't been a good negative test, does that prove there are audible differences in cables? No.

Even a good negative test is not conclusive. No matter how much you want a non-rejected null hypothesis to prove there is no difference, or as you say,"Just no audible difference that you can hear," you can't draw that conclusion. If you disagree, please show me a statistics text book or any authoritative source that says you can draw that kind of conclusion when the null can't be rejected.

[Beckman]

Speaker cables can sound different.

14 AWG zip cable has no audible affect(effect?) on music in the audible frequency range.

Some high-end cables attenuate(lower) the magnitude of the signal for certain frequency ranges.

ANY CABLE ON THE MARKET CAN BE REPLACED WITH CHEAP ZIP CABLE, INDUCTORS, AND CAPACITORS. THE IMPEDANCE OF THE CABLE IS WHAT AFFECTS(EFFECTS?) THE SOUND.

[mtrycraft]

I don't recall seeing a positive listening test for audible differences in cables. If there haven't been any, does that prove there are no audible differences? No. All the negative tests I have seen are flawed? If there hasn't been a good negative test, does that prove there are audible differences in cables? No.

Even a good negative test is not conclusive. No matter how much you want a non-rejected null hypothesis to prove there is no difference, or as you say,"Just no audible difference that you can hear," you can't draw that conclusion. If you disagree, please show me a statistics text book or any authoritative source that says you can draw that kind of conclusion when the null can't be rejected.

Why do I keep citing if it is disregarded.
"Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?", Greenhill, Larry, Stereo Review, Aug 83, pg 46-51.

There is a positive result for some small, 24ga cable and 16 ga.

Testing has been conducted for 30 years. Well know what causes differences and what doesn't. No mystery, not rocket science but some turn it into voodoo, hype, bs and speculations.

Oh, you may want to read this about Null acceptance.

Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and Cognition, Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138, (1995).

[Chuck]

Naysayers argue there is no scientific basis for claims of audible differences in cables, and that listeners who make such claims are experiencing a placebo effect rather than hearing real differences. However, there may be no scientific basis for naysayer's claims about the placebo effect. Can anyone offer proof?

This seems to be an issue over which some people are extremely polarized. At one extreme there are a few people who totally reject the value of any subjective experience, and at the other extreme there are a few people who totally reject any attempt to apply objective methods. Everyone tends to lean one way or the other, probably because most realize that the truth is usually found somewhere between the two extremes.

At one extreme there are those who say that all the differences people hear between components are the result of a placebo effect. Anyone who has ever sold high-end audio equipment has seen the power of suggestion at work, so it is easy to understand where this idea comes from. A good audio salesman first qualifies his customer, then guides him to a decision, and finally closes the sale. To guide the customer to purchase what the salesman wants to sell, the salesman uses the power of suggestion. The customer will always be persuaded to hear "better sound" from whatever gear the salesman is pushing. It is easy enough to direct the subjective experience, but it takes a huge leap of faith to get from that fact to the idea that all perceived differences are due to expectations or a placebo effect. Our biases do effect our perceptions, so it is valid to question subjective evaluations if they have any chance of being biased, but some take it too far.

At the other extreme there are those who say that measurements and controlled tests tell us nothing. This group often makes claims about how limited measurements are, including claims that we don't measure in the time domain (an untrue claim) or that we only measure THD (also untrue). Other false claims by this group include the assertion that those who measure don't listen, which of course is as absurd as thinking that all perceived differences are the result of a placebo effect. While it is true that the subjective extreme will not participate in any kind of controlled objective tests, it is not true that those who do such testing refuse to listen to music. That conclusion also takes a huge leap of faith. Measurements tell us a great deal, but they don't tell us everything. That which measures poorly never sounds good, so measurements are far from useless. The same can be said for controlled listening tests. They help answer some questions, just as measurements help answer some questions. Both of the extreme views that reject information to support an extreme position are conspicuously flawed.

A proof of the placebo effect is beyond the scope of this forum, but there is some related evidence that has relevance. Perhaps Mtrycrafts, Skpetic, or one of the other regulars, can post a link. Some years ago a group of "experienced listeners" participated in a cable test. During the first part of the test they were allowed to compare a high-end cable to a common cable, in sighted tests, just to insure that the system they were using had the resolution to expose the difference. While this first part of the test was "blind" in the sense that they could not see the cables being swapped, they were told which cable was in use, and allowed to discuss the differences they heard. The entire panel heard the same differences they had heard in the past on their "reference systems." The second part of the test was fully blind, with the usual results, but it was the first part of the test that lends strong weight to the placebo effect argument. You see, during the first part of the test, the cables were not actually swapped, and the panel still heard a difference, because they THOUGHT the cables had been swapped. That is clearly a placebo effect. It absolutely DOES NOT prove that all differences heard are the result of placebo effect, but it does prove that with that particular group of listeners, the suggestion was enough to make them hear a difference when there was none.

The following links also show that the placebo effect is very real.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/health/sto...740505,00.html

http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/.../28/34995.html

http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/placebo.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/livin...ebo020102.html

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_plac.htm

http://dermatology.jwatch.org/cgi/co...ll/1993/1001/1

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...5E1702,00.html

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issue...ceboeffect.php

http://www.bcx.net/hypnosis/placebo.htm

http://dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=130

http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/nocebo.html

http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/11/27/ethics.matters/

"Placebo: Theory Research and Mechanisms" edited by Leonard White, Bernard Tursky, and Gary Schwartz, Guilford Press, New York, 1985

"Placebo Effects in Health and Disease: Index of New Information with Authors, Subjects and References" by Joseph Hartwick, ABBE Publications, Washington DC, 1996

[RGA]

Last year, I tried to make the points you are making from a lay perspective and was crucified by the pseudo-scientists here. I was of course immediately accused of defending the Cable Asylum and sighted listening tests, and the entire discussion devolved into my trying to explain how one can critique DBTs as they have been performed without advocating a return to the stone age.

The response was inevitably the canned, condescending lecture on the validity of controll testing, which of course I was never questioning.

Nice to see someone with a professional background in the relevant discipline (which is not engineering) come along.

Just so you know blind testing is not really the part of the debate or argument. There is no argument about the merrit of a double blind test which I have previously erred on, because most people argue against DBT when it is really the 'conclusion' drawn from the statistics and the A/B nature of the test. The Naysayers think we're against DBT, when in fact it is not - it is the colnclusion drawn to to the real world.

I am not a psychologist by the way. I was going down the path to become one but switched majors and will be a teacher. Excuse my hurried typing and poor grammar as I don't usually ever proof read what I type. LOL, the major is English and History now with Liberal Studies, Psychology and Philosophy as possible minors if I can fit them in.

The definition of validity is clearly stated in Psych and Stats books even in year one. It is ignored by those who have an agenda.

I don't understand why when someone points out the none facts these DBTs produce suddenly implay that people who point out the flaws are suddenly ASSUMED to support Sighted listening. But then these people assume a lot and jump to conclusions without all of the facts or proof.... so it is not surprising then that they jump to conclusions and make assumptions beyond the test environments they read.

[Beckman]

The entire cable argument on this forum seems to based around people who have invested large sums of money on cables wanting to justify their purchases. It is very rare to here someone say that they have purchased expensive cabes and heard no difference. Proof of placebo effect? Proove there isn't a placebo effect?

It is not that I need proof that high end cables sound better, I need proof that .50/ft. cable sounds bad. I am not willing to spend hundreds of dollars on cables that at most will attenuate the signal, when I could do the same thing with some capacitors and inductors.

[Chuck]

The entire cable argument on this forum seems to based around people who have invested large sums of money on cables wanting to justify their purchases.

It is hard to imagine that some might feel a need to justify the money they spend on their hobby. Where is the fun in a hobby that has to be justified?

The polarization seems to be more a matter people trying to justify their beliefs than their expenditures.

[okiemax]

Why do I keep citing if it is disregarded.
"Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?", Greenhill, Larry, Stereo Review, Aug 83, pg 46-51.

There is a positive result for some small, 24ga cable and 16 ga.

Testing has been conducted for 30 years. Well know what causes differences and what doesn't. No mystery, not rocket science but some turn it into voodoo, hype, bs and speculations.

Oh, you may want to read this about Null acceptance.

Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and Cognition, Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138, (1995).

Statistical hypothesis testing for audible dfferences in cables was the subject. If Greenhill's Stereo Review article gives positive results for audiophile cables in such a test, you have answered your own request("bring us a good positive"). If his article is not about hypothesis testing for audible differences in audiophile cables, why bring it up?

The following excerpt is from an abstract of Frick's article, published in the Journal of Statistics Education, v. 3, n. 1 (1995): "The author concludes that the null hypothesis should sometimes be accepted (where the methodology he presents is followed), and that the rules of psychology(or science in general) should be changed to allow the null hypothesis to be accepted."

Have the rules of psychology or science in general been changed to conform to Frick's belief about the null?

[Beckman]

It is hard to imagine that some might feel a need to justify the money they spend on their hobby. Where is the fun in a hobby that has to be justified?

The polarization seems to be more a matter people trying to justify their beliefs than their expenditures.

It's not the hobby that needs to be justified. It's the hundreds of dollars spent on speaker cables that could have been spent on other things like music that needs to be justified.

[Chuck]

It's not the hobby that needs to be justified. It's the hundreds of dollars spent on speaker cables that could have been spent on other things like music that needs to be justified.

My comments related to what people are trying to justify, while your comments relate to what you believe people need to justify. Totally different topic. Do you think that one person should care what another thinks he should justify?

Frankly, it's none of your business how someone else spends their money. If they want to gamble it away or spend it on wild-women, or in any other way, that's their business, and only their business, as long as it is their money that they're spending. Do you think we must all drive practical automobiles or justify our reasons for doing otherwise? Who put you in charge of making such decisions?

[okiemax]

The entire cable argument on this forum seems to based around people who have invested large sums of money on cables wanting to justify their purchases. It is very rare to here someone say that they have purchased expensive cabes and heard no difference. Proof of placebo effect? Proove there isn't a placebo effect?

It is not that I need proof that high end cables sound better, I need proof that .50/ft. cable sounds bad. I am not willing to spend hundreds of dollars on cables that at most will attenuate the signal, when I could do the same thing with some capacitors and inductors.

Being a yeasayer doesn't necessarily mean spending large sums of money on audiophile cables, nor does it mean believing inexpensive cables sound bad. And it doesn't mean believing performance is determined by price.

My Carol 12 awg silver-plated copper speaker cable, which I was lucky enough to buy on close-out at Home Depot for about .15/ft, sounds pretty good to me. I prefer my Zu Julian cable (about $5.50/ft), but not by a wide margin. I tried a relatively expensive silver interconnect a few months ago, but I didn't like it as much as my $40 Signal and $25 Radio Shack models. I could give more examples of cables I have tried, but my point is I don't spend a lot on cables and I don't like or buy everything I try.

Of course I don't speak for all the yeasayers who frequent this forum, but there may be others who don't spend large amounts on cables, or at least not as much as naysayers like to believe. You may see more of the big spenders over at the AA cable forum, but even there you will find that many posts are about DIY cables, which usually are inexpensive.

So what is the cable argument here at the AR based on? Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, I would say it's based mostly on a liking for argument, and a particular liking for argument over an issue that most people would think unimportant if not downright silly. But what do most people know?

You also need to take a position, although a few members fence straddle, and some even jump back and forth. As a yeasayer, you would need to believe what you hear, and distrust measurements and other objective tests if they conflict with what you hear. As a naysayer, you would do just the opposite --- i.e., don't believe what you hear unless you have confirmed it objectively. These labels will not fit everyone, but give an idea of what the two sides are like.

[mtrycraft]

Statistical hypothesis testing for audible dfferences in cables was the subject. If Greenhill's Stereo Review article gives positive results for audiophile cables in such a test, you have answered your own request("bring us a good positive"). If his article is not about hypothesis testing for audible differences in audiophile cables, why bring it up?

The following excerpt is from an abstract of Frick's article, published in the Journal of Statistics Education, v. 3, n. 1 (1995): "The author concludes that the null hypothesis should sometimes be accepted (where the methodology he presents is followed), and that the rules of psychology(or science in general) should be changed to allow the null hypothesis to be accepted."

Have the rules of psychology or science in general been changed to conform to Frick's belief about the null?

Nope, I didn't answer my own question. We know that 24 ga and 16 ga sound different. That is not the issue, is it?
Claims for differences are not between such a poor cable, 24ga and zip cord of 12ga-16ga. 24 ga is not even close in equivalance, is it now?
Greenhill demonstrates when cables sound different, under what circumastances and when they do not. Rather simple if one reads the paper. 24 ga is inferior cable for speakers and is not recommended. It takes such poor cables to be audibly different. Simple.

Frick believs so. He has no problem accepting the null. As to the rest of the community, you need to ask them. I have no problem with accepting the Null. One can always change position with better data that so far is not available after all these decades.