Testing and the Scientific Method

[pctower]

Some different perspectives:

http://www.rationalmagic.com/RMS/rms-jamacrit.html

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/daubert.htm

http://www.uww.edu/Lettsc/core/STS/m...ocs/method.htm

http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plan...n/scimeth.html

http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/scientific.html

http://www.nafi.org/archives/archive0013.htm

http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html#1.1

[Pat D]

Some different perspectives:

http://www.rationalmagic.com/RMS/rms-jamacrit.html

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/daubert.htm

http://www.uww.edu/Lettsc/core/STS/m...ocs/method.htm

http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plan...n/scimeth.html

http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/scientific.html

http://www.nafi.org/archives/archive0013.htm

http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html#1.1

Well, now, those are very interesting, though not at a very high level.

Let's look at the "dreadful secret" little secret about falsification, as Philip Kitcher calls it. One cannot verify a theory, as Popper said, but then one can't really falsify it, either. Suppose we find a phenomenon that does not obey Newton's law of gravity--does that disprove them? Well, no, because one can always hypothesize some other forces were at work that caused the phenomenon not to behave as predicted by the theory. As Kitcher points out, "historians philosophers of science have been trying to let this particular cat out of the bag" for decades. (See Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science, The Case Against Creationism, MIT Press, 1984, p. 42.

And, as Pierre Duhem pointed out, rather than being tested alone, "Hypotheses are tested in bundles." (Kitcher, op. cit., p. 44)

[Monstrous Mike]

Here is a quote from: http://home.xnet.com/%7Eblatura/skep_1.html#1.1

"On the other hand the theory that "there is an invisible snorg reading this over your shoulder" is not falsifiable. There is no experiment or possible evidence that could prove that invisible snorgs do not exist. So the Snorg Hypothesis is not scientific. On the other hand, the "Negative Snorg Hypothesis" (that they do not exist) is scientific. You can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to yetis, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster. See also question 5.2 on the age of the Universe."

I would have to say that audio cables fit the Snorg Hypothesis quite well. It is interesting that it appears the negative of this hypothesis is actually the scientific one, i.e. cables do not sound different. So it looks like you have to catch one (i.e. show that cables can sound different) to disprove this Negative Snorg Hypothesis that I for one hold onto as the front-running candidate for the Truth.

[okiemax]

Here is a quote from: http://home.xnet.com/%7Eblatura/skep_1.html#1.1

"On the other hand the theory that "there is an invisible snorg reading this over your shoulder" is not falsifiable. There is no experiment or possible evidence that could prove that invisible snorgs do not exist. So the Snorg Hypothesis is not scientific. On the other hand, the "Negative Snorg Hypothesis" (that they do not exist) is scientific. You can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to yetis, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster. See also question 5.2 on the age of the Universe."

I would have to say that audio cables fit the Snorg Hypothesis quite well. It is interesting that it appears the negative of this hypothesis is actually the scientific one, i.e. cables do not sound different. So it looks like you have to catch one (i.e. show that cables can sound different) to disprove this Negative Snorg Hypothesis that I for one hold onto as the front-running candidate for the Truth.

The kind of hypothesis we are discussing has to be statistically testable if a scientific experiment is to be done. A "cables sound different" hypothesis might be tested, but unless I'm too sleepy to think straight, hypotheses regarding the existence of invisible Snorgs, UFO's, and the Loch Ness Monster can't be tested. Why attempt to discredit testable claims by association with untestable absurdities?

I take back what I said about the existence of invisible Snorgs being untestable. I just experimented by glancing over my left shoulder to see if one was there. I did it 15 times to assure statistical significance, and never saw the Snorg once. If that doesn't proove an invisible Snorg was there, I don't know what does.

[skeptic]

Scientific method can be explained in many ways but regardless of how you do it, in the end, it boils down to this, you are going to make some tentative conclusions about the physical universe as the result of a theory and a test to see if you can prove the theory wrong through logical conclusions from observations of the test. It isn't possible to prove that a notion is right, only that within the limited scope of the test (experiment), it is not wrong and that is an entirely different thing. That is why scientific theories no matter how well accepted are ALWAYS open to challenge. When a scientist accepts something as absolute, he is no longer a scientist. Sometimes this happens and it can be caused by ego, profit motive, prejudice, religious conviction, but for whatver reason it happens, it is not science.

The concept of randomness is a non scientific human invention. If you believe in cause and effect, in other words in a rational universe, then no event is random. Randomness expresses the human need to generalize especially a large number of events or a large number of samples, or something that occurs over a very long time. For example, we say that atoms of gas are randomly dispersed in a container but each atom or molecule was the subject of a specific history of collisions which set them on their exact course and it is in a specific location with a specific velocity at any given time because it cannot be anywhere else. Were a meteorite to hit earth over the next million years, the size, speed, and time of the collision will not be random, merely the result of variables beyond current human capacity to predict accurately.

The atoms which make up our body, our brains, our surroundings behave in the same way. The notion of free will is a complete illusion. No matter how strongly you believe you have choices in what you do, what you say, what you think, you are wrong. That is strictly a religious notion. The only other alternative explanation of existance to science or religion is existentialism.

As for the scientific testing of audio reproduction equipment, it looks to demonstrate that two pieces of audio gear which perform the same general function don't sound alike and to understand why by integrating the observed differences with accepted theories of electrical engineering and acoustics. That is about all that can be done. That these electrical and acoustical theories are incomplete or contain inaccuracies at the current state of knowledge is highly likely but it is the best we can do. The alternative is to take claims on blind faith, a method that for most people has been relatively unreliable.

[Monstrous Mike]

The kind of hypothesis we are discussing has to be statistically testable if a scientific experiment is to be done. A "cables sound different" hypothesis might be tested, but unless I'm too sleepy to think straight, hypotheses regarding the existence of invisible Snorgs, UFO's, and the Loch Ness Monster can't be tested. Why attempt to discredit testable claims by association with untestable absurdities?

I take back what I said about the existence of invisible Snorgs being untestable. I just experimented by glancing over my left shoulder to see if one was there. I did it 15 times to assure statistical significance, and never saw the Snorg once. If that doesn't proove an invisible Snorg was there, I don't know what does.

I honestly don't understand your reply.

That author was saying that null hypotheses for Snorgs, UFOs, Bigfoot, etc. can be proven to be false. All you have to do is catch a Snorg or a Bigfoot or shoot down an alien craft. Bingo, the null hypothesis is falsified and these things do exist. We can go from there to find out details like where they came from, how long they've been around, why they were so hard to catch, etc.

I feel the null hypothesis for cables fits right into this line of thinking. We need to show conclusively that cables do sound different and then we can go about discovering why they sound different, in what circumstances they sound different, how different they sound to different people and how to improve the difference so it is enjoyed more.

As of today, cable differences are like the invisible Snorg. Some people claim to have seen him or felt him or are sure he has been in the room with them, but nobody can prove it.

[pctower]

I honestly don't understand your reply.

That author was saying that null hypotheses for Snorgs, UFOs, Bigfoot, etc. can be proven to be false. All you have to do is catch a Snorg or a Bigfoot or shoot down an alien craft. Bingo, the null hypothesis is falsified and these things do exist. We can go from there to find out details like where they came from, how long they've been around, why they were so hard to catch, etc.

I feel the null hypothesis for cables fits right into this line of thinking. We need to show conclusively that cables do sound different and then we can go about discovering why they sound different, in what circumstances they sound different, how different they sound to different people and how to improve the difference so it is enjoyed more.

As of today, cable differences are like the invisible Snorg. Some people claim to have seen him or felt him or are sure he has been in the room with them, but nobody can prove it.

"As of today, cable differences are like the invisible Snorg. Some people claim to have seen him or felt him or are sure he has been in the room with them, but nobody can prove it."

That's really your subjective opinion. The personal experience of most educated, rational people and what they know about science leads them to easily conclude that it is extremely unlikely that invisible Snorgs exists. The null hypothisis technically stated is that they don't exist.

The null hypothethesis technically stated for cable differences is they don't exist. I assume that your personal experience and what you know scientifically leads you to conclude that it is extremely unlikely that differences exist. Other educated, rational people (including a number of scientists and engineers who have really paid attention to audio cables and tried some or many in their systems) believe differently. For them their personal experience and what they know about science would in all likelihood lead them to agree with you as to the non-existence of invisible Snorgs, yet disagree with you about cables.

These people have no scientific proof that cable differences exist just as such evidence is lacking for Snorgs. But in those situations (such as Snorgs and audio cables) virtually no valid control testing has been done, different people based on their own personal experiences may come to different conclusions. In those areas such as cables where there is room (in my opinion) for rational people to differ in their "guesses" as to which is really true (cable differences either exist or they don't), I find it unfortunate that many seem to "look down" on those who have reached a difference conclusion.

The amount of energy expended by people who discuss audio cables in making people who disagree with them wrong, silly, incompentent and inhuman is rather amazing.

[skeptic]

It should not be discounted that the infinitely inventive mind of man won't devise cables that sound different from other cables. Not better, just different. Assuming that they can prove it, what difference would that make unless that could also prove that they are better?

[okiemax]

Here is a quote from: http://home.xnet.com/%7Eblatura/skep_1.html#1.1

"On the other hand the theory that "there is an invisible snorg reading this over your shoulder" is not falsifiable. There is no experiment or possible evidence that could prove that invisible snorgs do not exist. So the Snorg Hypothesis is not scientific. On the other hand, the "Negative Snorg Hypothesis" (that they do not exist) is scientific. You can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to yetis, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster. See also question 5.2 on the age of the Universe."

I would have to say that audio cables fit the Snorg Hypothesis quite well. It is interesting that it appears the negative of this hypothesis is actually the scientific one, i.e. cables do not sound different. So it looks like you have to catch one (i.e. show that cables can sound different) to disprove this Negative Snorg Hypothesis that I for one hold onto as the front-running candidate for the Truth.

We already know you can't use hypothesis testing to prove something doesn't exist. The Snorg hypothesis is just the use of an absurdity to help explain why a negative can't be proved. I don't see anything new here. It looks like you are again trying to discredit claims about cables by comparing them to other claims that are patently absurd.

Labeling the hypothesis as "not scientific" because it can't be disproved, and labeling the null hypothesis as "scientific" because it can be disproved adds nothing to what we already know, and can be misleading. These labels might imply that the null hypothesis "cables sound the same" is somehow better than the hypothesis "cables sound different," which makes no sense.

I may be misinterpreting your remarks, but I wonder whether you are trying to turn things upside down and use "cables sound the same" as the hypothesis instead of the null hypothesis. If so, I don't think you can do that.

I'm sorry, Mike. I had intended this as a reply to you last post on this thread, but put it in the wrong place.

[RGA]

Skeptic seems to be the most even-handed here. It is not hard to make a cable a cd player or anything in audio SOUND different. It behooves the manufacturer to try in fact to make their stuff sound different to stand out from the rest. And if it measures differently in the audible spectrum like for instance many Dac chips alone do then if they are not picked up in your standard test then maybe you should look at the standard test rather than drawing false claims.

Anyone can do very reliable tests and get very reliable results - but if it was an invalid test then you have high reliability at getting wrong results and can steer Joe scientist WAY WAY off the wrong track. There was a study done of more than 200,000 people by great scientists that Red Meat is bad for you. Very high reliability indeed. Except the people eating the red meat also ate their meat with baked potatos and white rice. The scientists were out to show that red meat was bad for you gave the people these plate of food and of course the people were getting higher cholesteral, diabetic symptoms etc. But oops they didn't for one lone second think that maybe it was the baked potato and the white rice that was causing the problem and the red meat had zippo to do with the problems - which as it turns out is in fact the case.

You have to look speicifically at what it is you are testing. The DBT is a magnificent tool for a lot of things - it is not however a panacea of "correctness" in human subject testing. Ask any psych proffessor or people doing brain research testing the reaction of human subjects and you will not get this nonsense of support for the null hypothesis with the parameters of this kind of test. You are taking the subject OUT of the normal listening environment PERIOD. You are testing people outside of the normal environment which automatically decreases the validity of said test.

Look at the very juxtoposition of the timing of A/B listening. You need it short to meet the demand imposed of the test of memory retention - but last i checked people do not listen to 12 seconds of a song and switch. Maybe some do which would make the test more valid for them - but if you are the listen to a whole album with a glass of a fine port then putting you in a seat and saying now which is different (even the wording has to be examined as not to lead).

None of this is an apology of sighted listening which of course is full of bias - but that a dbt in testing human subjects has an invalid element that has yet to be corrected.

Hi-Fi Choice oddly which is not a strict "Testing" environment works to a degree better because it's not a Testing environment but an evaluating environment - and that is what every person golden ear or not can do and does do when buying componants. Since this is a normal "Real-life" event then the approach is far more useul to the average shopper like you or I. They remove all sight biases(Price, name brand recognition, and of course levels are matched so no sound bias due to volume). Differences are expected so there is no "test" interation or "stressor" placed on the listener and the right hemisphere is left to do what it does when listening to music in a normal environment.

Then you have several people over several hours fill out cards of what they liked or disliked etc. This isn't perfect but it does do what it is supposed to do - remove the bias...that is why a DBT was used and their method does do that...whether it's acceptable to the AES - well they are not scientists obviously because they have not looked into human testing - so who cares.

Ohh and if you want to tell use a line level headphone amp connect and level match the cd players and have someone else switch(and of course the same cd in both machines playing the sam song). Simple - easy - no room interactions with headphones --- you may or may not be surprised at your results - listen for what sounds better not what sounds different - the way you think about it will change the way you listen - or theoretically could.

There is a reason this is in so much debate - The dbt supporters dislike biased sighted listening which is totally understandable and totally correct - on the other hand the other side looks at the supreme confidence in the method the DBT lover touts and it's got a lot of problems - then you have camps set-up with un-yielding wavering.

Bottom line is the manufacturer can deliberately change the sound of any componant - whether it's better, worse the same cannot be assessed in different rooms, with different gear and different listeners attached. If it measures differently within the audible spectrum then it's different. Whether you can't hear it in these tests says nothing about whether you can hear it in a non testing environment over a longer period of time or just not in the testing environment.

But Mr. PC Tower you will not convince any of these people to look into these external arguments about the brain and the way it works(possibly Skeptic) and why it is not wholly compatible to these tests - instead you will get an gross analogies to ESP, UFOs, and Aliens.

[pctower]

Skeptic seems to be the most even-handed here. It is not hard to make a cable a cd player or anything in audio SOUND different. It behooves the manufacturer to try in fact to make their stuff sound different to stand out from the rest. And if it measures differently in the audible spectrum like for instance many Dac chips alone do then if they are not picked up in your standard test then maybe you should look at the standard test rather than drawing false claims.

Anyone can do very reliable tests and get very reliable results - but if it was an invalid test then you have high reliability at getting wrong results and can steer Joe scientist WAY WAY off the wrong track. There was a study done of more than 200,000 people by great scientists that Red Meat is bad for you. Very high reliability indeed. Except the people eating the red meat also ate their meat with baked potatos and white rice. The scientists were out to show that red meat was bad for you gave the people these plate of food and of course the people were getting higher cholesteral, diabetic symptoms etc. But oops they didn't for one lone second think that maybe it was the baked potato and the white rice that was causing the problem and the red meat had zippo to do with the problems - which as it turns out is in fact the case.

You have to look speicifically at what it is you are testing. The DBT is a magnificent tool for a lot of things - it is not however a panacea of "correctness" in human subject testing. Ask any psych proffessor or people doing brain research testing the reaction of human subjects and you will not get this nonsense of support for the null hypothesis with the parameters of this kind of test. You are taking the subject OUT of the normal listening environment PERIOD. You are testing people outside of the normal environment which automatically decreases the validity of said test.

Look at the very juxtoposition of the timing of A/B listening. You need it short to meet the demand imposed of the test of memory retention - but last i checked people do not listen to 12 seconds of a song and switch. Maybe some do which would make the test more valid for them - but if you are the listen to a whole album with a glass of a fine port then putting you in a seat and saying now which is different (even the wording has to be examined as not to lead).

None of this is an apology of sighted listening which of course is full of bias - but that a dbt in testing human subjects has an invalid element that has yet to be corrected.

Hi-Fi Choice oddly which is not a strict "Testing" environment works to a degree better because it's not a Testing environment but an evaluating environment - and that is what every person golden ear or not can do and does do when buying componants. Since this is a normal "Real-life" event then the approach is far more useul to the average shopper like you or I. They remove all sight biases(Price, name brand recognition, and of course levels are matched so no sound bias due to volume). Differences are expected so there is no "test" interation or "stressor" placed on the listener and the right hemisphere is left to do what it does when listening to music in a normal environment.

Then you have several people over several hours fill out cards of what they liked or disliked etc. This isn't perfect but it does do what it is supposed to do - remove the bias...that is why a DBT was used and their method does do that...whether it's acceptable to the AES - well they are not scientists obviously because they have not looked into human testing - so who cares.

Ohh and if you want to tell use a line level headphone amp connect and level match the cd players and have someone else switch(and of course the same cd in both machines playing the sam song). Simple - easy - no room interactions with headphones --- you may or may not be surprised at your results - listen for what sounds better not what sounds different - the way you think about it will change the way you listen - or theoretically could.

There is a reason this is in so much debate - The dbt supporters dislike biased sighted listening which is totally understandable and totally correct - on the other hand the other side looks at the supreme confidence in the method the DBT lover touts and it's got a lot of problems - then you have camps set-up with un-yielding wavering.

Bottom line is the manufacturer can deliberately change the sound of any componant - whether it's better, worse the same cannot be assessed in different rooms, with different gear and different listeners attached. If it measures differently within the audible spectrum then it's different. Whether you can't hear it in these tests says nothing about whether you can hear it in a non testing environment over a longer period of time or just not in the testing environment.

But Mr. PC Tower you will not convince any of these people to look into these external arguments about the brain and the way it works(possibly Skeptic) and why it is not wholly compatible to these tests - instead you will get an gross analogies to ESP, UFOs, and Aliens.

I agree with you that Skeptic is very even-handed.

As for the rest of what you just said, all I can say is I just wish I could have said it half as good as you did.

[E-Stat]

That these electrical and acoustical theories are incomplete or contain inaccuracies at the current state of knowledge is highly likely but it is the best we can do. The alternative is to take claims on blind faith, a method that for most people has been relatively unreliable.

True, yet there are a number of engineering venues where such "blind faith" claims by experienced individuals is widely accepted. One of my other passions is riding motorcycles. On a four hour coast to coast flight, I read the latest Motocyclist magazine that tested four new uber performance liter sport bikes. Here are 400 pound bikes that literally outrun an FA-18 Hornet in a quarter mile. (The editor was given a ride in one by "Boss", the commander of the Blue Angels). Here are guys who have extensive on hands experience riding these rockets at triple digit speeds. There are none faster. They performed quite a few performance metrics and found that lap times on a racing course varied only from 1:28:24 to 1:29:40. Barely over one second. Quarter mile acceleration figures varied less than a fifth of one second. Despite this utter measureable parity, the four bikes exhibited very individual characters as to how they got there. Engine flexibility, steering turn-in, cornering stability, weight transition, ability to trail brake, etc., etc. all were distinctly different. And of the four testers who hammered these 175 mph bullets over a period of two weeks, the conclusions as to which was best were likewise varied.

I submit the same situation exists with audio. There are audible differences. Period. Audo journalists who likewise have extensive exposure to the best gear surprisingly come to similar conclusions as to the sonic differences among various components. As you observed, however, the first question is "which is more accurate?" The answer seems to vary from person to person because in a world where no component is perfect, one judges by their priorities. I'm not sure there will ever come a time that there will be "conclusive numbers" that fully evaluate any kind of high performance machine. It surely hasn't occurred in over a hundred years of automotive and motorcycle development.

rw

[skeptic]

There are rational and irrational ways to make choices. An irrational way is to buy something because you just like it, no other particular reason. Or the reason may have nothing to do with one thing being better at what it is supposed to do as its primary function. Or somewhat irrationally, you might trust the guy who told you it was very good and something you would want to own, especially if you liked his advice before. I often buy wine that way, not having the opportunity to taste it in advance so I listen to what some respected reviewer might say. Or maybe you like the way it looks or smells or feels in your hands.

But to people who buy wire for the sole function of connecting high fidelity sound equipment together and who may try to hide the wires because they don't particularly like their looks, how well it performs its function is the ONLY criteria by which it is judged. Now you would think that if someone wanted to sell you something that is more expensive and which they claimed did its job better, they would have some evidence to prove it. But the market isn't entirely rational and so these people who make and sell that stuff have done quite well for themselves. And of course there is a bandwagon effect because when lots of people like it, even reviewers and engineers can be intimidated by a minority of loud voices. Sometimes I've heard otherwise perfectly rational electrical engineers say that they thought that the Monster Cable they bought made a slight improvement in their sound systems. By their sheepish manner they don't want to go against the crowd, or admit that they might have made a mistake, but they don't want to endorse it either.

It either does or doesn't make an audible difference for at least some people. This can or can't be proven in double blind tests. It either can or can't be demonstrated on a lab bench. Limitations of electrical engineering knowledge notwithstanding, what we do know tells us that the answer is that it can't. And for the umpteenth time, as far as I am concerned, it's up to the guys making and selling it to back up THEIR claims of superiority with some credible evidence, not testimonials. After 25 years in the market, they haven't. Why? Two reasons. One is that they probably can't. The other is that they definitely don't have to. Suckers will believe whatever they want and don't confuse them with whatever facts we do have. A lot of people held out forever believing the tobacco companies who told them that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause lung cancer even as they were dying of it. And for all I know, there may still be a "Flat Earth Society" just as there was 50 years ago before men traveled in space. ( http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm ) It's your money, waste it any way you like.

[mtrycraft]

You are taking the subject OUT of the normal listening environment PERIOD. You are testing people outside of the normal environment which automatically decreases the validity of said test.

That is absurd.
You don't need to know which component you are listening to in normal listeing. It just so happens you do. And it is absurd to suggest that that would decrease the validity. Since sighted listeing has no real scientific tool in testing for differences, you have nothing then.

You need to consult the NRC in Canada and see if DBT decreases the validity. LOL.


Look at the very juxtoposition of the timing of A/B listening. You need it short to meet the demand imposed of the test of memory retention - but last i checked people do not listen to 12 seconds of a song and switch.

And? It just so happens that short, rapid switching is the most sensitive listeing to differentiate small differences. Again, consult with some who know this stuff, not your psych instructors who are in a different field that psychoacoustic testing. Consult with NRC.




None of this is an apology of sighted listening which of course is full of bias - but that a dbt in testing human subjects has an invalid element that has yet to be corrected.

Hogwash.
You are assuming things not in evidence.



Hi-Fi Choice


They do a very poor comparison as it is not about differences but maybe preferences, if that.




Then you have several people over several hours fill out cards of what they liked or disliked etc.

And? What does that demonstrate? Just their perceived preferences, nothing more. Certainly not that there was any difference at all. So, it has no real meaning for differences.

[/b] This isn't perfect but it does do what it is supposed to do [/b]

Really?






Bottom line is the manufacturer can deliberately change the sound of any componant - whether it's better, worse the same cannot be assessed in different rooms, with different gear and different listeners attached.

Yes, they can build that sound different. Even you could probably Is that the goal? Or musical accuracy?

If it measures differently within the audible spectrum then it's different. Whether you can't hear it in these tests says nothing about whether you can hear it in a non testing environment over a longer period of time or just not in the testing environment.

Of course it can. In a non testing environment, sighted, whether long time or short, has no meaning for differences, so, whu would that have more meaning than in a bias controlled environment. One can imagine regardless of the conditions used. But, one method has more meaning that the other determining facts and reality.

But Mr. PC Tower you will not convince any of these people to look into these external arguments about the brain and the way it works(possibly Skeptic) and why it is not wholly compatible to these tests - instead you will get an gross analogies to ESP, UFOs, and Aliens.

And why didn't those scientists do DBT comparisons? Perhaps they are unscientific in that regard.

[mtrycraft]

.

I submit the same situation exists with audio. There are audible differences. Period. Audo journalists who likewise have extensive exposure to the best gear surprisingly come to similar conclusions as to the sonic differences among various components. As you observed, however, the first question is "which is more accurate?" The answer seems to vary from person to person because in a world where no component is perfect, one judges by their priorities. I'm not sure there will ever come a time that there will be "conclusive numbers" that fully evaluate any kind of high performance machine. It surely hasn't occurred in over a hundred years of automotive and motorcycle development.

rw

You may submit anything you like. But is it relevant? Does it have meaning? No, your cycle and car comparison is not the same as audio. Too bad you don't know this yet.
And I suppose your highly regarded journalists are not biased? That they can place a hold on their biases? LOL
How well do they do under bias controlled conditions? after all, if they trust their hearing so much, it should be no challenge for them to perform just as well.
But, reality is different from fantasy land. LOL. Enjoy.

[E-Stat]

And I suppose your highly regarded journalists are not biased? That they can place a hold on their biases? LOL

Of course they are biased. I am biased. So are you. All of us are regarding everything we choose that is not perfect. I like Dell computers not only because of their reliability but also because of the keyboard feel. As a touch typist, I find other keyboards quite clunky. That aspect may have little relevance to you. The point is that when someone thoroughly articulates why it is that they prefer brand x to brand y, now they are communicating useful information to a potential buyer.

rw

[pctower]

You are taking the subject OUT of the normal listening environment PERIOD. You are testing people outside of the normal environment which automatically decreases the validity of said test.

That is absurd.
You don't need to know which component you are listening to in normal listeing. It just so happens you do. And it is absurd to suggest that that would decrease the validity. Since sighted listeing has no real scientific tool in testing for differences, you have nothing then.

You need to consult the NRC in Canada and see if DBT decreases the validity. LOL.


Look at the very juxtoposition of the timing of A/B listening. You need it short to meet the demand imposed of the test of memory retention - but last i checked people do not listen to 12 seconds of a song and switch.

And? It just so happens that short, rapid switching is the most sensitive listeing to differentiate small differences. Again, consult with some who know this stuff, not your psych instructors who are in a different field that psychoacoustic testing. Consult with NRC.

None of this is an apology of sighted listening which of course is full of bias - but that a dbt in testing human subjects has an invalid element that has yet to be corrected.

Hogwash.
You are assuming things not in evidence.

Hi-Fi Choice

They do a very poor comparison as it is not about differences but maybe preferences, if that.

Then you have several people over several hours fill out cards of what they liked or disliked etc.

And? What does that demonstrate? Just their perceived preferences, nothing more. Certainly not that there was any difference at all. So, it has no real meaning for differences.

[/b] This isn't perfect but it does do what it is supposed to do [/b]

Really?

Bottom line is the manufacturer can deliberately change the sound of any componant - whether it's better, worse the same cannot be assessed in different rooms, with different gear and different listeners attached.

Yes, they can build that sound different. Even you could probably Is that the goal? Or musical accuracy?

If it measures differently within the audible spectrum then it's different. Whether you can't hear it in these tests says nothing about whether you can hear it in a non testing environment over a longer period of time or just not in the testing environment.

Of course it can. In a non testing environment, sighted, whether long time or short, has no meaning for differences, so, whu would that have more meaning than in a bias controlled environment. One can imagine regardless of the conditions used. But, one method has more meaning that the other determining facts and reality.

But Mr. PC Tower you will not convince any of these people to look into these external arguments about the brain and the way it works(possibly Skeptic) and why it is not wholly compatible to these tests - instead you will get an gross analogies to ESP, UFOs, and Aliens.

And why didn't those scientists do DBT comparisons? Perhaps they are unscientific in that regard.

You don't need to know which component you are listening to in normal listeing. And it is absurd to suggest that that would decrease the validity. Since sighted listeing has no real scientific tool in testing for differences, you have nothing then.

He didn't say you do. He's talking about the "environment" in which the testing is conducted. You're missing his very clear point about the importance of the test "environment" and conditions being as close as possible to the actual human experience one is attempting to test - in this case the experience people have in their own relaxed living environments. That doesn't mean the test wouldn't be double blind to remove bias. It does mean that the test should be conducted in a manner that closely duplicates the environment and conditions where the phenomena being tested usually occurs.

The fact that you totally miss this point suggests to me how little you really know about this type of testing or how biased you really are, or both.

Don't get me wrong. I claim no expertise in this subject. But the fact that you are so unwilling to consider the importance of test environment (and have been ever since I first brought it up two years ago when I first started posting here), when those who are professionals at conducting tests in the broad set of tests that encompasses audio DBTs as one small sub-set consider environment to be crucial suggests to me that you are not the expert you would like all of us to think you are and that you are far, far from the objectivive searcher for truth that you would have all of us believe.

It just so happens that short, rapid switching is the most sensitive listeing to differentiate small differences. Again, consult with some who know this stuff, not your psych instructors who are in a different field that psychoacoustic testing. Consult with NRC.

You like to throw names around much like the way John Curl does. How about some specifics to back up your claim that short, rapid switching is the most sensitive to differentiate small differences. I think that this entire subject of proper test protocol for audio cables and equipment is far more complex than your closed mind can acknowledge.

I submit the kind of unquesting, non-critical support people like you lend to the sloppy research that has been done in the area of cable DBTs does as much disservice to the cause of good science as do people like Jon Risch.

n a non testing environment, sighted, whether long time or short, has no meaning for differences, so, whu would that have more meaning than in a bias controlled environment. One can imagine regardless of the conditions used. But, one method has more meaning that the other determining facts and reality.

You must quickly run out of relevant things to say, because he's not trying to defend the validity of sighted testing. But you seem to be making a fundamental mistake in concluding that just because sighted tests are flawed, any blind test no matter how flawed or lacking in proper scientific protocol is better.

[Rockwell]

Of course they are biased. I am biased. So are you. All of us are regarding everything we choose that is not perfect. I like Dell computers not only because of their reliability but also because of the keyboard feel. As a touch typist, I find other keyboards quite clunky. That aspect may have little relevance to you. The point is that when someone thoroughly articulates why it is that they prefer brand x to brand y, now they are communicating useful information to a potential buyer.

rw

It's only valuable if brand x and y are actually different from one another for the properties being evaluating. For wires, audible differences haven't been established, and user A's evaluation of the audible properties of a wire are to totally useless to user B because A's testing is flawed and the testing conditions of A cannot be duplicated by B. So, B listening to A yak about the sound of wires is useless and misleading to B.

[Monstrous Mike]

Hi-Fi Choice oddly which is not a strict "Testing" environment works to a degree better because it's not a Testing environment but an evaluating environment - and that is what every person golden ear or not can do and does do when buying componants. Since this is a normal "Real-life" event then the approach is far more useul to the average shopper like you or I. They remove all sight biases(Price, name brand recognition, and of course levels are matched so no sound bias due to volume). Differences are expected so there is no "test" interation or "stressor" placed on the listener and the right hemisphere is left to do what it does when listening to music in a normal environment.

Then you have several people over several hours fill out cards of what they liked or disliked etc. This isn't perfect but it does do what it is supposed to do - remove the bias...that is why a DBT was used and their method does do that...whether it's acceptable to the AES - well they are not scientists obviously because they have not looked into human testing - so who cares.

Here is what us scientists want. We want a test that we can duplicate which shows sonic differences between two cables that everybody can clearly distinguish. Give us all the details from the components to the method to the acoustic signature of the room. Then we can go away and verify the results.

Until that happens, cable sonics is an unverified claim. It is science fiction. There are a whole range of consumer products that also sell without any verification of their value. Just pick up any magazine and head to the back advertising pages. Amongst those products is where audio cable advertising belongs. I know there are people that will swear up and down about the improvement their own personal cables have made but this testimony can also be found for all of those other products that improve certain aspects of our live as well.

And the formula for all of these products is exactly the same. People have a perceived shortcoming and they need a "happy pill" to correct it. Bam, there's a product that can fix just about anything because there'a always someone willing to buy it.

[Monstrous Mike]

That's really your subjective opinion. The personal experience of most educated, rational people and what they know about science leads them to easily conclude that it is extremely unlikely that invisible Snorgs exists. The null hypothisis technically stated is that they don't exist.

It' not my opinion, it's a fact. Both Snorgs and audio cable differences have been claimed but not proven. Myself, being a fairly rational scientific type and the fact that I would probably discount the existance of Snorgs a lot more quickly that cable differences is my opinion but it doesn't change the fact that something doesn't exist until it is proven to exist. Snorgs and audio cable differences have not been proven to exist. That's a fact.

I find it unfortunate that many seem to "look down" on those who have reached a difference conclusion.

The amount of energy expended by people who discuss audio cables in making people who disagree with them wrong, silly, incompentent and inhuman is rather amazing.

Ironically, I feel I am the one being "looked down" upon for my conclusions. And if I really want a good dose of that I just have to ask a simple question over at the Cable Asylum.

I think the main point I am always trying to make is that given what we know today, it would be impossible for somebody to decisively conclude that similar cables can sound different. Yet, that is precisely what some people do. That puts them open to challenges and that is why we are here today.

Thank you, you've been a very kind audience. I'll be here all week....

[pctower]

Here is what us scientists want. We want a test that we can duplicate which shows sonic differences between two cables that everybody can clearly distinguish. Give us all the details from the components to the method to the acoustic signature of the room. Then we can go away and verify the results.

Until that happens, cable sonics is an unverified claim. It is science fiction. There are a whole range of consumer products that also sell without any verification of their value. Just pick up any magazine and head to the back advertising pages. Amongst those products is where audio cable advertising belongs. I know there are people that will swear up and down about the improvement their own personal cables have made but this testimony can also be found for all of those other products that improve certain aspects of our live as well.

And the formula for all of these products is exactly the same. People have a perceived shortcoming and they need a "happy pill" to correct it. Bam, there's a product that can fix just about anything because there'a always someone willing to buy it.

Other than necessities (those things required to sustain life) I would think virtually all consumer products are sold to people who need a "happy pill". Isn't that essentially why we buy things that we don't need, but want nonetheless.

Some of these products don't need scientific verification. Beyond ensuring authenticity there is little about jewelry that requires scientific verification.

Other non-necessirties make claims that have not been scientifically verified and people buy them anyway for a whole number of reasons. Products like this probably include many soaps, toothpastes, automobilies, etc. The "claims" are cleverly disguised as "puffery" to avoid legal problems with the FTC, but that's no different than what most cable companies do.

I would bet that non-necessities represent more than 50% of all consumer products sold; and they are advertised from front to back of most magazines. The ones at the back are just non-necessities that have not captured enough market share yet to afford moving closer to the front.

So why single out and pick on cables?

If people weren't willing to spend money to make themselves happy - to fill some perceived void in their lives - there would be no home entertainment business be it high end, mid-fi, boombox or otherwise. Likewise, if people weren't willing to spend money to make themselves happy - we'd all be driving old VW Bugs.

You just can't accept that most people make buying choices without worrying about scientific verification. They buy based solely on what increases their own personal experiences. I know that concept is wholly alien to your Dr. Spock approach to life. That's fine. All I object to is your constant efforts to make those of us who function as human beings appear to be seriously flawed and so lacking when compared to you Dr. Spocks.

As for "what ... scientists want", speak for yourself. There are numerous scientists and engineers who buy and use aftermarket cables and simply don't care about whether there is scientic validity to thier choices. They know how to get out of the lab when they leave work and live like the rest of us mortals do.

[Monstrous Mike]

Other than necessities (those things required to sustain life) I would think virtually all consumer products are sold to people who need a "happy pill". Isn't that essentially why we buy things that we don't need, but want nonetheless.

Some of these products don't need scientific verification. Beyond ensuring authenticity there is little about jewelry that requires scientific verification.

Other non-necessirties make claims that have not been scientifically verified and people buy them anyway for a whole number of reasons. Products like this probably include many soaps, toothpastes, automobilies, etc. The "claims" are cleverly disguised as "puffery" to avoid legal problems with the FTC, but that's no different than what most cable companies do.

I would bet that non-necessities represent more than 50% of all consumer products sold; and they are advertised from front to back of most magazines. The ones at the back are just non-necessities that have not captured enough market share yet to afford moving closer to the front.

So why single out and pick on cables?

If people weren't willing to spend money to make themselves happy - to fill some perceived void in their lives - there would be no home entertainment business be it high end, mid-fi, boombox or otherwise. Likewise, if people weren't willing to spend money to make themselves happy - we'd all be driving old VW Bugs.

You just can't accept that most people make buying choices without worrying about scientific verification. They buy based solely on what increases their own personal experiences. I know that concept is wholly alien to your Dr. Spock approach to life. That's fine. All I object to is your constant efforts to make those of us who function as human beings appear to be seriously flawed and so lacking when compared to you Dr. Spocks.

As for "what ... scientists want", speak for yourself. There are numerous scientists and engineers who buy and use aftermarket cables and simply don't care about whether there is scientic validity to thier choices. They know how to get out of the lab when they leave work and live like the rest of us mortals do.

I am one of those scientists and engineers who use aftermarket cables and I don't give rat's ass as to their scientific validity.

However, as you may or may not have astutely observed, I have not posted the brand, the price nor any claims of sonic superiority over my "cables that came with the gear". I'm secure in the amount I spent, they look good, they are good quality and it generally takes a lot longer for the cat to chew through them (oops, that's a scientific claim I cannot back up).

So why single out audio cables? Well, most of those products that you mentioned and we buy for sheer pleasure and not caring about any testing are usually price comparable from brand to brand. And some of the products have a deluxe model which generally costs more but has added features. Audio cables, on the other hand, have an extrodinary price range for a product that is generally comparable.

And I'll state my opinion quite flatly that I believe lots of people buy expensive cables for bragging rights rather than performance. And the unfortunate part occurs when these bragging rights are trying to be justified by this elusive superior performance that can't be seen, heard or shown rather only claimed (by people with bragging rights).

[mtrycraft]

You don't need to know which component you are listening to in normal listeing. And it is absurd to suggest that that would decrease the validity. Since sighted listeing has no real scientific tool in testing for differences, you have nothing then.

He didn't say you do. He's talking about the "environment" in which the testing is conducted. You're missing his very clear point about the importance of the test "environment" and conditions being as close as possible to the actual human experience one is attempting to test - in this case the experience people have in their own relaxed living environments. That doesn't mean the test wouldn't be double blind to remove bias. It does mean that the test should be conducted in a manner that closely duplicates the environment and conditions where the phenomena being tested usually occurs.

The fact that you totally miss this point suggests to me how little you really know about this type of testing or how biased you really are, or both.

Don't get me wrong. I claim no expertise in this subject. But the fact that you are so unwilling to consider the importance of test environment (and have been ever since I first brought it up two years ago when I first started posting here), when those who are professionals at conducting tests in the broad set of tests that encompasses audio DBTs as one small sub-set consider environment to be crucial suggests to me that you are not the expert you would like all of us to think you are and that you are far, far from the objectivive searcher for truth that you would have all of us believe.

It just so happens that short, rapid switching is the most sensitive listeing to differentiate small differences. Again, consult with some who know this stuff, not your psych instructors who are in a different field that psychoacoustic testing. Consult with NRC.

You like to throw names around much like the way John Curl does. How about some specifics to back up your claim that short, rapid switching is the most sensitive to differentiate small differences. I think that this entire subject of proper test protocol for audio cables and equipment is far more complex than your closed mind can acknowledge.

I submit the kind of unquesting, non-critical support people like you lend to the sloppy research that has been done in the area of cable DBTs does as much disservice to the cause of good science as do people like Jon Risch.

n a non testing environment, sighted, whether long time or short, has no meaning for differences, so, whu would that have more meaning than in a bias controlled environment. One can imagine regardless of the conditions used. But, one method has more meaning that the other determining facts and reality.

You must quickly run out of relevant things to say, because he's not trying to defend the validity of sighted testing. But you seem to be making a fundamental mistake in concluding that just because sighted tests are flawed, any blind test no matter how flawed or lacking in proper scientific protocol is better.

All the DBt that I know about are in peoples homes, not in lab rooms. It is still absurd that you cannot perform except in certain conditions and places. One only needs to look at athletes and their performances, under pressure and compatition.

Professionals want consistent results for their testing purposes. Don't confuse that with home testing by audiophiles. Not even close. It is absurd to suggest that an audiophile can only perform in his own home. Interesting he performs in strange audio stores too.

Too bad you didn't read JJ's many posts about specifics of rapid, short duration testing. How about the other branch, the Canadian Research Council where they also test codes.
Maybe an article by Ian Masters, 'The Science of Listening,' Audio, Dec 1997, page 40- 47 where he interviews Dr. Ted Grusec, a psychoacoustician who researched with Toole. But then you have to hunt it down. No free lunch.

If you don't like the test that have been done, perhaps you can find better ones? Do your own, better? Unfortunately no one is interested in the kind that even you'd have to take notice in. There is nothing to test. Audiophiles would still find faults and be still on square one. You do with what you have. Produce better ones if you don't like them.

It is about time you start some outside research. Maybe there is something I have overlooked. A goal for you to find it.

[pctower]

All the DBt that I know about are in peoples homes, not in lab rooms. It is still absurd that you cannot perform except in certain conditions and places. One only needs to look at athletes and their performances, under pressure and compatition.

Professionals want consistent results for their testing purposes. Don't confuse that with home testing by audiophiles. Not even close. It is absurd to suggest that an audiophile can only perform in his own home. Interesting he performs in strange audio stores too.

Too bad you didn't read JJ's many posts about specifics of rapid, short duration testing. How about the other branch, the Canadian Research Council where they also test codes.
Maybe an article by Ian Masters, 'The Science of Listening,' Audio, Dec 1997, page 40- 47 where he interviews Dr. Ted Grusec, a psychoacoustician who researched with Toole. But then you have to hunt it down. No free lunch.

If you don't like the test that have been done, perhaps you can find better ones? Do your own, better? Unfortunately no one is interested in the kind that even you'd have to take notice in. There is nothing to test. Audiophiles would still find faults and be still on square one. You do with what you have. Produce better ones if you don't like them.

It is about time you start some outside research. Maybe there is something I have overlooked. A goal for you to find it.

Well, first of all, as for jj, I read his posts very carefully. I also corresponded directly with him. At one time I had his resume which he had pointed me to on the web. Unfortunately that link no longer exists and I didn't save it. Suffice it to say, he had tremendous experience. That doesn't mean, and I would guess he would be the first to say it, that he was necessarily right about everything.

As for outside research, I have posted numerous links over the last two years. Probably I'm second only to you in this respect. I must say that not once when I would post links that didn't toe the politically correct line of most regulars here did I not receive a whole rath of criticism.

Here's a couple I may have over-looked. First, you and others have repeatedly accused cable companies of avoiding DBTs. Here's one link you might want to look at:

http://www.wireworldaudio.com/compare.htm

Many of your fellow-travelers, including people like MM, I believe have at least been flixible enough to express doubts as whether reliable amateur home DBTs are even possible. Perhaps the comparator might go some distance in at least permitting a type of home test that might be meaningful.

Here is a paper from one source (http://www.anstendig.org/) that concludes that AB testing has absolutely no validity in audio comparisons.

See: http://www.anstendig.org/ABTesting.html

Here's how they approached a comparison of two different cables:

http://www.anstendig.org/AudioCable.html

As for quick switching, look at the conclusion of the following report. He find's no evidence that quick switching is not the "gold standard for audio research", but he leaves open the possibility. In other words, unlike others I need not mention, he maintains an open mind:

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache...ind+test&hl=en

Here is a post from another forum that discusses some of the complexities in designing DBTs:

Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 06:33 am:
Name; Martin. Age; 47. Occupation; electronics engineer, currently returned to independent audio service. Hobbies; skiing (back to what is real and natural) & playing acoustic and electric guitar. Industry biases; none in particular as an independent. Personal equipment preferences; 60's tube amps, 70's transistor amps, older bass reflex (preferably JBL or Altec) speakers with gentle slope 3-way crossovers. I must admit preferences toward push-pull class AB 6BQ5/EL84 creamy distortion tube character for guitar amps and old school class B silicon transistor audio amps with moderate negative feedback and not too much extended high frequency response. My own systems are modest in price. I can hear many differences in sonic qualities but do not place audiophile proportional values on the equipment I buy.
Why all the background info? Not so much to reinforce any opinion expressed below, but to provide full disclosure for the readers to make a better informed judgement of any technical commentary combined with any unintended musical listening biases (which we all have whether admitted or not).
It is not surprising that cable manufacturers refuse to publish any conventional RLC electrical parameters. Any real differences in these basic specifications would:
a. Identify the outliers (a statistical-- not truthfullness term) which would either prompt copycats of popular brands or spark even more hype of why their specs are the "right" parameters to use. We already went through that with amplifier specsmanship with no better discrimination or understanding of how specs affect sound.
b. Demonstrate how little basic electrical differences there really are. ... Nothing for sales types to brag about.
On to listening tests. Much has been said in this thread about ABX and DBT--
Now, I understand what an A/B test is-- comparing two different test subjects, such as a speaker cable, through the same test apparatus. This is usually implemented via a switch which must be calibrated for any A/B channel discrepancies. Is the "X" portion of the test you are describing a physical reversal of the test subjects from one channel to the other to rule out test apparatus anomalies? This would be the best test apparatus methodology to be most thorough. Got to be fast, though! Any delay in the test sample progression introduces listener fatigue, distraction and impatience. Or is your "X" factor a placebo-- where you are telling the listener you changed channels when in fact you did not (some would say lied) in order to rule out erroneous judgements?
Double Blind Testing has been discussed as a given test methodology but never actually defined. Test methodology will determine the acceptance of the results. The more interested parties included in the test definition the more it ought to be regarded as credible. Interested parties could/should include manufacturers, engineers, and music listeners from pedestrian boomboxers to audiophiles. DBT obviously includes A/B testing and can include either/both "X" factors suggested above and more. So how to do actually define and administer evaluative testing???
The competitive market nature of the business does not allow any one dealer to represent all brands. Otherwise they would be the ideal promoters of a fair test. As it is they will have the most brand bias and the least incentive to perform tests which could alienate suppliers. Magazine publishers would understandably suffer from the same business pressures with respect to advertising clientele.
I like the suggestion of having Consumer Reports devise and administer a standard for cable listening tests on the face of things. They are independent with no major axes to grind. They have much experience comparing similar but different products through a well developed objective and subjective process. The only problem I foresee with this approach is that CR selects ordinary users as subjective judges for such comparisons. It is likely that proponents of high end cables will denegrate the study by downplaying the quality of such a broad listener spectrum as being pedestrian when it comes to musical listening criticality.
It could be said that the only "fair" DBT methodology is created by a committee composed of competitive representatives each striving to make their product perform best in some way or another and settle on a majority decision. In this case, I doubt such a committee would ever agree to one set of test apparatus, source music, criteria, or judges. This should not obviate a good comparative study-- although committee breakdown would be very possible. Let's assume each rep was allowed to specify their own choices of apparatus, music and judges. What could they argue with about that? They would still be comparing their product against the other contestants under what they each believe to be either the fairest or best to their advantage conditions. Judging criteria could be the most generally accepted audiophile factors of low/mid/high emphasis (frequency spectrum), soundstage (image), dynamics (transient response), clarity (pitch resolution), and even the poorly defined criteria of warm/harsh (typically frequency dips/humps) or texture (typically distortion) and whatever else the committee majority deems relevant. Such an open-ended participatory forum would tend to weed out purveyors who know they are selling snake oil. Unfortunately, many reputable manufacturers would expectedly opt out for reasons of having little to gain as long as they are comfortable with their product niche and market share.
A few words about the "X" factor in subjective testing--
Patrick-- a test defined and judged by you (even if your wife administered & concurred) is highly unscientific. I have performed Double Blind tests where I defined a test, certified the results and presented the physical test samples to a customer for their testing so the OBJECTIVE PARAMETRIC results could be Statistically compared. Your test methodology means NOTHING because there was entirely subjective with no independent, competitive or peer review in place. There was not even any "X" factor included to weed out your inherent errors, biases or limitations.
Why must their be an "X" factor? And what placebos, subtle deceit or challenges must be employed to extract the best data?
a. To cancel out or quantify honest listener judgement errors. People can hear the same thing two different ways for a variety of reasons. Audiologists who test people for hearing aids always repeat a few tones/amplitudes to judge the listener's accuracy component.
b. To characterize listener hearing qualities. You must ask them to listen for some kind of particular defined aspects. You don't want to let them know how you are actually performing the test. e.g. if you ask them to assess frequency differences when only the amplitude was changed, you find out what parameters they can really discern. Analogous to the easy questions polygraphers use to establish and confirm baseline readings.
c. To assess listeners' perceptual biases. An effective way to evaluate this aspect is to conduct half of the testing with music familiar to the listener and half unfamiliar. Listeners tend to develop a limited mindset of how a familiar piece of music "should" sound based on accumulated component/system selections. This syndrome allows listeners to overlook qualitative differences because they are concentrating on one aspect at the expense of others. Presenting them with unfamiliar sounds forces their full auditory faculties to come into play.
I hope I have not made any undefendable opinions to be argued in such a forum. Don't bother trying-- "I am not allowed to argue with you any more." as Monty put so well. The purpose is to stimulate meaningful discussion of an effective process by which to evaluate the true sonic qualities of these not terribly unique combinations of metal and plastic formed into wires. My English teacher would shudder from such prepositional phrase overload. ... In other words-- prove a point by developing a scientifically acceptable testing means and administering it with qualified judging panel which satisfies a peer group.
M. Winsemius
Wizard Labs

See: http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/5/6528.html

In fact I found that entire thread interesting. I doubt anyone else would have the patience to wade through it and it breaks no new ground. But it certainly does encapsulate much of the Great Cable Wars in one thread.

Finally, as for doing my own tests, I have made it clear that that's not my bag. My soundroom is for pleasure. I did not design it to be a science lab.

As a lawyer, I must frequently explore the validity of tests and supporting scientific evidence for opinions given by so-called "experts". That's what I'm accoustomed to doing, and that's what I try to do on these boards. Others, who enjoyed their high school and college science lab classes (I did not) are welcome to set up labs in their homes and test away.

[mtrycraft]

Well, first of all, as for jj, I read his posts very carefully. I also corresponded directly with him. At one time I had his resume which he had pointed me to on the web. Unfortunately that link no longer exists and I didn't save it. Suffice it to say, he had tremendous experience. That doesn't mean, and I would guess he would be the first to say it, that he was necessarily right about everything.

As for outside research, I have posted numerous links over the last two years. Probably I'm second only to you in this respect. I must say that not once when I would post links that didn't toe the politically correct line of most regulars here did I not receive a whole rath of criticism.

Here's a couple I may have over-looked. First, you and others have repeatedly accused cable companies of avoiding DBTs. Here's one link you might want to look at:

http://www.wireworldaudio.com/compare.htm

Many of your fellow-travelers, including people like MM, I believe have at least been flixible enough to express doubts as whether reliable amateur home DBTs are even possible. Perhaps the comparator might go some distance in at least permitting a type of home test that might be meaningful.

Here is a paper from one source (http://www.anstendig.org/) that concludes that AB testing has absolutely no validity in audio comparisons.

See: http://www.anstendig.org/ABTesting.html

Here's how they approached a comparison of two different cables:

http://www.anstendig.org/AudioCable.html

As for quick switching, look at the conclusion of the following report. He find's no evidence that quick switching is not the "gold standard for audio research", but he leaves open the possibility. In other words, unlike others I need not mention, he maintains an open mind:

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache...ind+test&hl=en

Here is a post from another forum that discusses some of the complexities in designing DBTs:

See: http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/5/6528.html

In fact I found that entire thread interesting. I doubt anyone else would have the patience to wade through it and it breaks no new ground. But it certainly does encapsulate much of the Great Cable Wars in one thread.

Finally, as for doing my own tests, I have made it clear that that's not my bag. My soundroom is for pleasure. I did not design it to be a science lab.

As a lawyer, I must frequently explore the validity of tests and supporting scientific evidence for opinions given by so-called "experts". That's what I'm accoustomed to doing, and that's what I try to do on these boards. Others, who enjoyed their high school and college science lab classes (I did not) are welcome to set up labs in their homes and test away.

I am familiar with the Wireworld devices. One must be careful with it as it is manual and hence if the operator is with the listeners, it becomes single blind.
Interesting that when Tom Nousaine asked for data from them on DBT wire results, Wireworld disappears into the emptyness of space, no data to be found. I wonder why that is.
I suppose one could use their switching, somewhat expensive.

Anstending didn't publish any references that I saw, just assumes a/b comparison is only for visual senses. No memory in visual senses? That in itself needs a journal reference that is missing. It is all relative, after all, isn't it? If you compare the color on your wall to the chip in th epaint store, it certainly requires memory. But, if you bring it to the room, the time is reduced, not eliminated. I think you need to scrutinize some of the links you post for the ansurdity factor, no?

I am sure the whole of psychology, acoustics world would be interested in their new discovery. Sure would make things easy and less expensive in developing anything audio.

I guess JJ wasted his tenure at AT&T all that A/B testing for not or Toole's 25 years of research for not and the ongoing research in Canada,
http://www.crc.ca/en/html/aas/home/e...n#recent_tests
or Sandia Labs
http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN04-2...tor_story.html

As to your last link, it is interesting, especially since he didn't read your link to Astending A/B is not valid

If he published a journal paper, He may be right about what he needs to consider. Certainly not at home. And certainly, the simple comparisons that audiophiles use have no place in discussions hereafter.