Proof of placebo effect ?

[okiemax]

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?

[Rockwell]

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?

\

Proof of the placebo effect? If they aren't hearing real differences, then what are they hearing? People haven't proven that they can hear differences between brands of cables, so one might assume that these percieved audible effects are the result of psychological factors. To some people this is very difficult to assume, and try to attribute this lack of proof to any number of other factors like testing methodolgy, hardware inadequecy, hearing, etc. Most scientific types, however, must assume that people can't hear differences between most cables until its demonstrated. That is the proof you should be focusing on.

Lets say that you devise a listenning test where you tell participants that fancy cable A will play first, and low-grade cable B will play next, and note what they are hearing. But, instead of switching you just leave the same cable in place. You will certainly get positive results from this test with few of the participants stating that the cables are the same. If this isn't "proof," I don't know what you would be willing to accept.


Why is it so difficult to accept the placebo effect? If you look a the overally accuracy of human perception, you will find that it is very easy to fool the senses and for people to fool themselves. Video and audio compression schemes are based heaviliy on fooling your ears and eyes. In some cases 90% of the information is removed, but you can hardly notice. Placebo in medicine can actually produce physical changes in people. Eyewitnesses notoriously inacurrate. People can actually convince themselves that something happened, when it really didn't(false memory syndrome). Your eyes have blindspots, but you don't see them because you brain fills in that missing information without you even knowing it. So, it's not that far fetched to me that people can hear all these different attributes in cables where none exist.

[DrJeff]

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?

There is a huge volume of information available concerning the placebo effect, dating back to the 1950's (Beecher). A search of any medical or psychiatric database will cite numerous studies concerning the placebo effect, as used in medicine. Doctors employ placebo effect when they prescribe antibiotics to treat a cold or flu, which is a viral infection and therefore will not repond to antibiotics. Recently, there has been much debate about whether placebo effect really works in a medical setting. Holistic and mind-body healers say that 1/3 of those treated with a placebo respond to treatment, while some recent studies show a correllation that is much lower.

As an example, see: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/136/6/471

From the Annals of Internal Medicine, "Deconstructing the Placebo Effect and Finding the Meaning Response" by Daniel E. Moerman, PhD and Wayne B. Jonas, MD , 19 March 2002, Volume 136, Issue 6, Pages 471-476.

HOWEVER, "placebo effect" as it applies to audio is a bit of a misnomer. In placebo effect, a patient is given what he believes to be a treatment that will work, and if his condition improves, it is attributed to placebo, and is often cited as the mind's power to heal. There is no doubt that the mind plays a large role in the health of the body, although the direct placebo effect is hotly debated.

In audio, what is mistakenly called placebo effect is more appropriately described as a prejudice or predetermination of expected results. In anything but a DBT, you allow your preconceived notions, prejudices, and assumptions to cloud your judgement. If you expect a $1000 cable to sound better than a RatShack Gold, then it most likely will, WHEN YOU KNOW IT IS CONNECTED. Conversely, when you don't know which cable is connected and must decide which you like better, you are relying ONLY on your ears, and therefore your jujdgement is not biased. If there is truly an AUDIBLE difference in the quality of the sound due to the interconnect, and with all other factors being equal (system, db level, positioning, etc.) then you should be able to consistently identify the better-sounding interconnect.

As in any debate, the burden of proof that something exists lies with the person making the claim. In this case, you say, "prove the placebo effect exists" and I say to you there are many scientific studies that show it exists in a medical capacity, although the extent to which it exists is questionable. But I do not have to prove it exists because I am not asserting that it plays a role in your audio experience. What I am saying is that I question your ability to percieve audible differences in interconnects (as long as they are properly functioning) and so you must prove to me that you can, without knowing which one is connected when you are listening. I am not asking you to measure anything or use a scope, just listen.

In an audio setting, if you claim interconnect A sounds "better" than B, I will say to you, prove it. The only way you can do this is by telling me when it is connected on the basis of your auditory experience only. I hook them up, you listen, you tell me which sounds better, and do it 7 out of 10 times on average, and you have proven that there is an audible difference in the IC's, and that you can identify one as sounding "better" than the other (although your idea of better and mine might be different). Otherwise, any claims you make when you know it is connected are invalid.

[okiemax]

Rockwell, you are offering a theory as proof. It is an interesting theory, but we also might consider other theories, such as those that question the testing. I'm not a big fan of the placebo effect in general, believing that far too much is attributed to it both in medicine and audio.

[Swerd]

Thanks to the two replies above, I have little to add other than provide these weblinks:

http://www.tagmclaren.com/members/news/news77.asp

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm

Both describe listening tests where listeners blindly choose whether they hear a difference between two conditions. Are conditions A and B the same or different? Sometimes A and B were genuinely different and sometimes they were identical. The first link explains the statistics needed to analyze the results.

Both make the point that when the group of listeners get it right about 50% of the time, it is no different than if they had been guessing randomly. Both conclude that the listeners could not hear any difference between the conditions being tested.

There are those who claim that they do hear a difference with sighted listening tests, or when they listen over extended periods of time (days, weeks or longer) in their homes. The only reasonable explanation available, is that they THINK they hear a difference. This is the placebo effect at work.

Listening tests performed using valid scientific controls that eliminate, minimize, or account for conscious or unconscious listener bias cannot reproduce those positive results.

[Rockwell]

Rockwell, you are offering a theory as proof. It is an interesting theory, but we also might consider other theories, such as those that question the testing. I'm not a big fan of the placebo effect in general, believing that far too much is attributed to it both in medicine and audio.

I am not so sure that placebo effect really needs to be proven and I don't think I was trying to really offer proof either but, that example test seems pretty clear cut. If you change none of the variables except what wire you tell the listeners is connected, then whatever positive results are offered must be attributed to what the listener expects from the respective cable, not the sound. This would establish that the placebo effect is real and how easy it is to hear results when none exist. Do you agree?

[pctower]

Question:

In the Tag McLaren tests, two participants scored 11 out of 15 correct on the cable tests. As they point out, the binomial distribution indicates a 5.9% (about 1 in 17) probability of scoring 11 or better by chance.

Why would one not conclude that in all liklihood those two individuals heard true differences in the cables?

[DrJeff]

Question:

In the Tag McLaren tests, two participants scored 11 out of 15 correct on the cable tests. As they point out, the binomial distribution indicates a 5.9% (about 1 in 17) probability of scoring 11 or better by chance.

Why would one not conclude that in all liklihood those two individuals heard true differences in the cables?

You need to understand the science of statistics to understand this. Two people scored 11 out of 15, and there is a 1 in 17 probability they would do this by chance. Therefore, you might say that if there were only 34 people involved in the test, there would be 2 that would guess 11 of 15 correct. But there are only 12 people in this test, so shouldn't there have been only been 0.71 people scoring 11 of 15?

Look at it this way, if I give you a quarter and tell you to flip it 4 times, statistics would seem to dictate that you'll get 2 heads, and 2 tails. In reality though, you are *almost* just as likely to get heads 4 times or tails 2 times. But if I tell you to flip it 10,000 times, you will get alsmost the same number of heads and tails, because your sample group is much larger, and therefore more valid. The Tag McLaren test group is not large enough to be statistically valid.

You have to look at the distribution of the results with respect to statistical analysis. However, I would have taken these 2 people and repeated the test to see if they got similar results the second time around. Then I might attribute that to them being able to hear an audible difference. Otherwise, I wouold have to discount it as an anomoly due to the small number of subjects.

I would also question whether you could gain an accurate representative group from 12 people...

[Swerd]

I would also question whether you could gain an accurate representative group from 12 people...

As a follow-up to this point, clinical trials of new drugs are done in stages involving progressively larger numbers of patients. For example, if laboratory studies suggest that a new drug may work against leukemia, a so-called phase 2 clinical trial is done with a small number (20 to 30) of leukemia patients. If the trial has positive results, this number of patients is large enough only to provide statistical data that SUGGEST the drug may be active. No data from numbers of patients this low can demonstrate any positive result in a statistically significant manner.

With positive phase 2 results, several phase 3 trials would then be started involving many hundreds of patients, in order to generate statistical analysis with real power. It has happened more than once where a drug had some positive phase 2 results, and failed completely when the larger phase 3 trials were done.

To go back to the McLaren study, there was no statistical trend or suggestion in the data from 12 listeners that would warrant a larger study which could provide numbers large enough for definitive conclusions.

[skeptic]

People who have had extensive experience marketing audio equipment know that there are a lot of tricks that can be used to skew the psychology of the unsuspecting listener favorably or unfavorably.

In one famous example, audiophiles were asked to tweak a control on a new circuit that would reduce distortion. Most were very diligent and careful to get it just so. The control was of course wired to nothing.

In another, audiophiles were asked to rate a sound system playing behind an acoustically transparent but visibly opaque curtain. They were quite critical, some complaining of muddy bass and many other deficiencies. They were of course listening to live music.

There a lots of other examples of deliberate trickery but the Japanese experiment described here just a few months ago showed that even carefully designed impartial scientific tests can be flawed and give the wrong results.

That is why only a rigorous careful and extensive testing and retesting by qualified professional audiologists, psychologists, and electrical engineers subject to scrutiny and verification by their peers can facilitate the acquiring of real knowledge. Nobody in this industry has done this or admitted to it if they have to justify the cost of their expensive and sometimes outrageously priced products. Instead they rely on the psychology of expectations to convince their customers. And apparantly, in enough cases it works.

[Bill L]

Sure, there is such thing as placebo effect. That's where the name comes from. But to diagnose everyone who claims to hear the difference between cables as being afflicted, just to win an argument, is unsupported nonsense. I wonder how many could enter a strange room and correctly identify if it had been painted with the exact shade and hue of color as their own room at home, especially with unfamiliar lighting. Not many, I'll bet. But that's what ABX attempts to do with sound - with unfamiliar acoustics and gear. Say, have you ever tried to explain a noise in your cars engine to a mechanic? (Or better yet to your wife/girlfriend?) and they just can't hear it? But you do? Because you're familiar with the sounds of YOUR motor. That's not placebo. That's experience.

[pctower]

You need to understand the science of statistics to understand this. Two people scored 11 out of 15, and there is a 1 in 17 probability they would do this by chance. Therefore, you might say that if there were only 34 people involved in the test, there would be 2 that would guess 11 of 15 correct. But there are only 12 people in this test, so shouldn't there have been only been 0.71 people scoring 11 of 15?

Look at it this way, if I give you a quarter and tell you to flip it 4 times, statistics would seem to dictate that you'll get 2 heads, and 2 tails. In reality though, you are *almost* just as likely to get heads 4 times or tails 2 times. But if I tell you to flip it 10,000 times, you will get alsmost the same number of heads and tails, because your sample group is much larger, and therefore more valid. The Tag McLaren test group is not large enough to be statistically valid.

You have to look at the distribution of the results with respect to statistical analysis. However, I would have taken these 2 people and repeated the test to see if they got similar results the second time around. Then I might attribute that to them being able to hear an audible difference. Otherwise, I wouold have to discount it as an anomoly due to the small number of subjects.

I would also question whether you could gain an accurate representative group from 12 people...

Seems to me that by adopting the coin toss analogy to this situation you are assuming as a given that the hearing ability, training and experience of all the participants are equal.

I don't know statistics, but I know enough to recognize the difference.

As for medical trials with large number of participants and trials, they are attempting to determine the effectiveness of a particular medicine on a large enough segment of the populace as to justify its use. Whether it works or not (it either does or doesn't) on a single individual within the broad group is meaningless, as they are concerned with percentage of effectiveness as to the entire group. They have to do it this way, as they can never be sure that a test subject who received real medicine and appears to have been cured was cured as a result of the medicine or a result of the placebo effect. They can only compare the overall results of the non-placebo group with that of the placebo group

I submit that in audio DBTs you don't have that situation. If the test is conducted properly, the pacebo effect, or the power of suggestion, or the ABE's or whatever you want to call influences that are not actual audible differences, should all be controlled out of the test, with the only thing left to test being actual audible differences. If one person can identify correctly 11 out of 15 times, there's no possible chance that placebo or ABEs could be at work, again assuming the test is properly conducted, so his correct guesses either have to be the result of chance (a very low possibility) or due to actual sonic differences he was able to detect; whereas, as I said, if the medicine seems to work on a single individual there still is no way of determinining if it was due to placebo or the real thing. This is a significant difference between audio DBTs and medical DBTs.

In the McLaren test, it doesn't make sense to me that they would want to know how a large group in general would perform, as each person is different with different capabilities. Seems to me that the important question is whether there are people who hear and can detect under blind conditions actual differences. In this case, there apparently were two.

Let's approach it this way. Let's say that out of 100 test subjects, only two hit the 11 out of 15, and the overall correct results of the group was only 50%.
Seems to me that could be significant data to the cable company whose cables are under test. If the test had been set up so that the distribution of hearing, experience and training adequately represented the general population, then such results might suggest to them that only 2% of the population could hear actual differences. If they were intent on marketing their product only to people who could actually hear the differences (remember, this is just a hypothetical for purpose of illustration and I'm trying to anaolgize to the medical situation), then they would have to decide if manufacturing the product that had been tested would be worthwhile if it could only be marketed to 2% of the general population.

If a medical test with 100 subject (I know - the numbers used are far larger in actual use and that improves the dependability of the results significantly, but I'm trying to keep this as simple as I can) showed that the medicine only worked on 2% of the general population (by comparing the non-placebo group to the placebo group and extrapolating that percentage number - which is the way I assume they do it, which is much more involved that the simple audio DBT test where the placebo can be controlled out at to every test subject), the company and FDA would face the same general question as the cable company. However, their decision might be quite different than the cable company, because the cable company might well decide that they can identify and focus their advertising to that 2% sufficiently to make it worthwhile to market their products. I assume drug companies can do that, although I'll ask my daughter-in-law who is a rapidly rising star with one of the biggies.

[Norm Strong]

There is also a 5.9% chance that a person could be WRONG 11 out of 15 times. What would you say if that were the case? (For all I know it is the case. :-)

[RGA]

Thanks to the two replies above, I have little to add other than provide these weblinks:

http://www.tagmclaren.com/members/news/news77.asp

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm

Both describe listening tests where listeners blindly choose whether they hear a difference between two conditions. Are conditions A and B the same or different? Sometimes A and B were genuinely different and sometimes they were identical. The first link explains the statistics needed to analyze the results.

Both make the point that when the group of listeners get it right about 50% of the time, it is no different than if they had been guessing randomly. Both conclude that the listeners could not hear any difference between the conditions being tested.

There are those who claim that they do hear a difference with sighted listening tests, or when they listen over extended periods of time (days, weeks or longer) in their homes. The only reasonable explanation available, is that they THINK they hear a difference. This is the placebo effect at work.

Listening tests performed using valid scientific controls that eliminate, minimize, or account for conscious or unconscious listener bias cannot reproduce those positive results.

Just a note...your first link states that the listeners dd not have control of how long they listened which invalidates that entire link...scratch one. Didn'tbother to read link two after you provided link one.

Then you state that people claim to hear differences in their homes over long periods. Yes it is true that they may only THINK they hear that difference...until such time as their is a test to meet that claim of long term in the house differences then no one can assume that there isn't. The test itself introduces its own bias, but it takes awful smart folks to know what these are, and since I don't see them discussed here...then people need a refresher in Psychology 101. And BTW I don't support buying expensive cables because the money should have went to speakers room and better recordings.

[okiemax]

I am not so sure that placebo effect really needs to be proven and I don't think I was trying to really offer proof either but, that example test seems pretty clear cut. If you change none of the variables except what wire you tell the listeners is connected, then whatever positive results are offered must be attributed to what the listener expects from the respective cable, not the sound. This would establish that the placebo effect is real and how easy it is to hear results when none exist. Do you agree?

I don't know of a test where no variable except the two wires has changed, but suppose for the sake of argument you could do such a test, and the listener who previously claimed he could hear a difference could not do so in the test. The result would suggest the placebo effect is a possibility.

[DrJeff]

Seems to me that by adopting the coin toss analogy to this situation you are assuming as a given that the hearing ability, training and experience of all the participants are equal.

Perhaps so, but let's assume for the sake of your argument that we will use only those who describe themselves as "audiophiles" in our next hypothetical test.

I don't know statistics, but I know enough to recognize the difference.

As for medical trials with large number of participants and trials, they are attempting to determine the effectiveness of a particular medicine on a large enough segment of the populace as to justify its use. Whether it works or not (it either does or doesn't) on a single individual within the broad group is meaningless, as they are concerned with percentage of effectiveness as to the entire group. They have to do it this way, as they can never be sure that a test subject who received real medicine and appears to have been cured was cured as a result of the medicine or a result of the placebo effect. They can only compare the overall results of the non-placebo group with that of the placebo group.

I agree with that statement entirely.

I submit that in audio DBTs you don't have that situation. If the test is conducted properly, the pacebo effect, or the power of suggestion, or the ABE's or whatever you want to call influences that are not actual audible differences, should all be controlled out of the test, with the only thing left to test being actual audible differences. If one person can identify correctly 11 out of 15 times, there's no possible chance that placebo or ABEs could be at work, again assuming the test is properly conducted, so his correct guesses either have to be the result of chance (a very low possibility) or due to actual sonic differences he was able to detect; whereas, as I said, if the medicine seems to work on a single individual there still is no way of determinining if it was due to placebo or the real thing. This is a significant difference between audio DBTs and medical DBTs.

I agree that you can have a DBT test that very effectively minimizes placebo effect and other factors, leaving only one variable for the subject to judge. However, I think that a person guessing 11 out of 15 ONCE is just as likely as any other scenario. In irder to make the test valid, you would want to perform multiple runs of the same test. For example, can this person get it right 11 out of 15 times per run, for 5 consecutive runs. Of course the cable selection would be random so no pattern existed in switching. If his correct guesses for all 5 runs were in the 10 to 15 range, then I am convinced he can perceive a diffeence. However, if his guesses came up something like 11, 4, 10, 7, 5 then I would have to say he cannot hear a difference.

It can get very confusing, so I would leave it to people with more time and desire, but I believe a proper test could be conducted, I just haven't seen it yet.....

[okiemax]

I see similarities in placebo theory whether we are discussing it in audio or in medicine, but agree there are differences. But the term is convenient to use and there seems to be general agreement on what it means, so we probably are stuck with it.

I guess I'm just tired of hearing "placebo effect" every time I claim to hear a difference in two cables, two amps, or two of anything else. If I question this knee-jerk explanation, naysayers counter with the medical science card. So it was refreshing for me to see that some researchers have found the placebo effect may have no scientific basis (see "Is the Placebo Powerless? -- An Analysis of Clinical Trials Comparing Placebo With No Treatment," New England Journal of Medicine, May 24, 2001). The study found that subjects receiving placebo treatment fared about the same as subjects receiving no treatment. Apparently, a proportion of ill people will just get better on their own, sugar pill or not.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...ct/344/21/1594

I agree you can question any claim I make about hearing differences in cables without mentioning even the possibility of the placebo effect. But naysayers on this forum frequently do talk about as if it were fact. When I have asked for details on the placebo effect, I have been told it can be short-term or long-term, and maybe intermittent. But the effect can't be cummulative(additional pleasure with each new cable). Why? Because this would make the whole idea seem absurd.

In your comments on burden of proof, you seem to be implying that a claim of detecting a difference with the senses incurrs an obligation to prove the difference. If you prefer Coke to Pepsi, should I ask you to prove you can tell the drinks apart in a blinded test? Well, regardless of your answer, I can claim to hear differences in cables without feeling obligated to offer proof with blinded testing. You can believe the differences are real or imaginary. If you tell another person that what I claim is imaginary, however, you are going beyond what you know. And that frequently is what I witness naysayers doing in this forum.

[skeptic]

And BTW I don't support buying expensive cables because the money should have went to speakers room and better recordings.

I don't support buying them either but for an entirely different reason. In more than 20 years since this cottage industry has been in existance, I have yet to see even one single attempt by the people who manufacture or retail them to make a serious convincing case that they improve the performance of sound reproduction systems. Given the time that has elapsed, the number of people making money from them, and the prices charged for some of them, I presume that they simply can't. Whether or not they sound different to some people under some circumstances hardly begins to demonstrate that they sound better and certainly not to all people in most or all circumstances. Therefore no matter which ones you buy or how much you pay, you have at best, a hit or miss chance of getting anything of value for your money. I know they'll have to do far better to have a chance of geting any of mine.

[DrJeff]

....If you prefer Coke to Pepsi, should I ask you to prove you can tell the drinks apart in a blinded test? Well, regardless of your answer, I can claim to hear differences in cables without feeling obligated to offer proof with blinded testing. You can believe the differences are real or imaginary. If you tell another person that what I claim is imaginary, however, you are going beyond what you know. And that frequently is what I witness naysayers doing in this forum.

If you say you prefer Coke to Pepsi, then absolutely you should be able to identify them in a DBT, IF you prefer it because of the taste. Since Coke is one of my clients, I ALWAYS prefer Coke, even if it's because they pay part of my salary. In that case, it may not be the taste of the product, but a larger issue that steers me toward Coke (loyalty to my client).

The Coke analogy is actually very applicable to the cable issue. If you claim to be able to taste a difference in Coke vs. Pepsi, but cannot identify a difference in a DBT (i.e. you don't have to say "this is Coke" or "this is Pepsi" but you do have to say if both cups contain Coke, or if they are different) then I say you can not taste a difference, and your percieved ability to tell a difference is based on more than just taste.

So if you say you can hear a difference in cables, but cannot prove by listening alone in a DBT that you hear a difference, then your claim is based on things other than the audio signal, just as in the Coke analogy.

[skeptic]

The Coke analogy is actually very applicable to the cable issue.

I can't agree.

The purpose of Coke and Pepsi is almost purely for sensory stimulation in preference to far more effective thirst quenchers such as water.

Cables perform a physical function which is entirely objective and can be precisely measured if anyone cared to. That is the transmission of an electrical signal from one point to another in an electrical system or network with the least distortion. Whether the results of one individual's ability to distinguish the effectiveness of one cable versus another in performing this function unless he can identify which is the less distorted and if he prefers one over another because of subjective reaction is not relevant. Unless you can argue that the shortcomings of one element in the network will predictably offset or negate the shortcomings of another such as frequency response distortion where a cable of high shunt capacitance for example would offset the high frequency peak of an overly bright loudspeaker or a phonograph cartridge with a resonant peak. But how could this be predicted by anyone but the most extraordinarily trained and informed user and what other remedies are there that would be far more effective, predictable in their actions and cost effective? Reducing the arguement over cables to a matter of personal preference disregarding all measurements and objective tests is to turn your back on all of the science that has been used to advance audio technology in the first place.

[DrJeff]

I can't agree.

The purpose of Coke and Pepsi is almost purely for sensory stimulation in preference to far more effective thirst quenchers such as water.

Cables perform a physical function which is entirely objective and can be precisely measured if anyone cared to. That is the transmission of an electrical signal from one point to another in an electrical system or network with the least distortion. Whether the results of one individual's ability to distinguish the effectiveness of one cable versus another in performing this function unless he can identify which is the less distorted and if he prefers one over another because of subjective reaction is not relevant. Unless you can argue that the shortcomings of one element in the network will predictably offset or negate the shortcomings of another such as frequency response distortion where a cable of high shunt capacitance for example would offset the high frequency peak of an overly bright loudspeaker or a phonograph cartridge with a resonant peak. But how could this be predicted by anyone but the most extraordinarily trained and informed user and what other remedies are there that would be far more effective, predictable in their actions and cost effective? Reducing the arguement over cables to a matter of personal preference disregarding all measurements and objective tests is to turn your back on all of the science that has been used to advance audio technology in the first place.

See, now you're opening a can of worms, I had purposely avoided discussing the physical and electrical properties of the cables as they relate to the sound quality.

I agree that you should be able to look at inductance, capacitance, run square and sine waves through the cable and look at them when they come out the other side, and evaluate cables on the basis of their ability to transfer a signal without changing its nature.

However, many cable enthusiasts will claim that some differences are not measurable, and they claim that scientific analysis gets in the way of the listening experience, and that scopes and multimeters won't see the whole picture. For example, I have ohms, ACV, DCV, current, etc. settings on my scope, but there's no "open soundstage" scale, so I can't measure that.

So if I avoid the technical side, and just ask someone to prove (using their ears) in a DBT that they can distinguish between cables, components, etc., there's no need to have the argument of science vs. humanity in the cable debate. Had I talked about that side, someone would have said, "But your scope doesn't feel the music" or something like that.

Personally, I look for an IC with a nice big plug that will stay put, good insulation, and a jacket that will resist chafing. I think I spent about $15 a pair at most on my IC's, and they've worked for years with no complaints.

[skeptic]

However, many cable enthusiasts will claim that some differences are not measurable, and they claim that scientific analysis gets in the way of the listening experience, and that scopes and multimeters won't see the whole picture.

there's no need to have the argument of science vs. humanity in the cable debate.

Not measurable? They are wrong. Of all electrical components in a sound system, cables are the one element most easily, precisely, and thoroughly measurable and describable. Only people with something to hide will tell you there is magical mystery to it. What you call imaging or spaciousness is a consequence of the electrical properties of the wire, the recording, and the rest of the equipment.

If someone were to evaluate which photographic film rendered the color red most accurately, the fact that you liked the photos one film took as opposed to another would not be relevant if the purpose of your photography was the most accurate rendering of what you saw. There would be no doubt after testing which one is most accurate in those respects for which they are tested. Cables are no different.

On the other hand, if you liked the distortion one film created because it shifted colors, changed contrast, added graininess, there there is no objective way to say anything because my preferences might be different.

[Monstrous Mike]

Question:

In the Tag McLaren tests, two participants scored 11 out of 15 correct on the cable tests. As they point out, the binomial distribution indicates a 5.9% (about 1 in 17) probability of scoring 11 or better by chance.

Why would one not conclude that in all liklihood those two individuals heard true differences in the cables?

Umm, because they hit that 1 in 17 chance thingy?

Surely you know that if you flip a coin long enough you are going to get ten heads in a row. Does this mean the coin is imbalanced? Hey, I hit 20 free throws in a row once. Does this mean I have a good shot? No, it means that some days, the sun even shines on a dog's ass.

You can't isolate test results to support your theories. You wouldn't let me do it and I won't let you do it.

[Swerd]

pctower

Your reasoning that medical trials and listening tests are different is faulty. You are correct that medical trials do attempt to determine the effectiveness of a particular medicine on a large enough segment of the populace because there is significant variation among individuals in the population. The same problem exits for audio listening tests, precisely because hearing ability, training and experience of all the participants are NOT equal. It is not possible to perform a test where all non-audible differences are, as you describe, “controlled out of the test, with the only thing left to test being actual audible differences.” If it were, we wouldn’t need to use statistics and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

As you point out from the McLaren test, 2 out of 12 people scored as if they were able to detect differences between cables. Twelve is such a small sample number that making any positive conclusion from those numbers would be wrong. To verify that finding, it would be necessary to test large numbers of people to eliminate a statistically defined problem called sampling error. Does the original test of 12 people truly represent the larger population as a whole? Does their hearing ability, prior training, and experience resemble that of the general population? That larger number people, off the top of my head, would be closer to 1000 than it would be to 100 or less. To put it simply, if we tested 1200 people, would 200 of them be able to detect the differences between cables? If this were the case, then I would support the conclusion that some people, about 1 out of 6, could hear differences in cables. It would then be up to the scientists, both biological and electrical to search for how this happens. At present, no listening test has provided such evidence.

[Monstrous Mike]

I am trying to remember a famous experiment involving an art cynic (notice I didn't say critic). If anybody can find this I would be most apprecative.

Anyways, this guy got hold of some art by school kids or housewives or otherwise fairly amateur artists and gathered them in a gallery. He then attibuted several of them to well known artists and others to anonymous or unknown names. He asked people to rate some of the works and the results turned out that the "art" supposed done by well known artists was rated higher than the other pieces. He even switched the names around when using different testers and results invariably came back that if you slap a well known name on a peice of art, it has a higher chance of being well received and therefore higher priced.

If this has anything to do with this thread, please let me know.