Wire is no Wire: The proof? You decide!

[mtrycraft]

"People in the know know." In the face of such difinitive authority, who am I to question?

Well, I don't talk to the CD industry, do you?
But those who do and know the right questions to ask have reported what I reported to you. Of course you can take it or leave it, always your choice. I wish I had a defenitive source, time dated, and certified; I don't.
And, if he can synchronize the two CD players to better than a few milli seconds so he won't have a clue as to one being just a bit ahead of the other, He has a new daytime job, I am sure.

[mtrycraft]

I don't doubt those that don't hear differences or those that do hear differences. The only thing I doubt is our ability to definitively tell someone else if cables will make a difference in their system.

But, if there were such cable differences, in a specific system, that would already have been demonstrated by someone, under bias controlled conditions. Yet, when a cable maker with a supposedly high end system, $250K+ cannot hear differences, or refuses to subject himself and his reputation
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

I have very little doubt. But, I certainly can change my mind with evidence.

[mtrycraft]

The problem with this argument (as stated above) is that there is not complete evidence for either claim.

The only relevant evidence that is of any importance is the evidence to show audible difference, period. There is none to date in 20+ YEARS.
Proving a negative is not a burden. So, there is no maybe, only zero evidence for audible differences for comparable cables. Yes, we do know 24 ga is different from 16 ga. That is not comparable.

[mtrycraft]

but for know I still think it was a fair and fairly accurate test.

Then there would be a lot of audible difference citations available if this was so accurate as you think. Why isn't there a single one for comparable cables?

[mtrycraft]

My linestage is passive. That being stated, I knew that somone would bring this point up; it is very important to make sure levels match when comparing speakers. So yes, I used my Radio Shack SPL level meter, cat. no. 33-2050. I used the C weighting. My test CD was Sterophile test CD no. 1, track #20 1khz 1/3-octave warble tone, and no.3, tracks 22-27. No problem there! I tried to be somewhat thorough; also trying to predict question having to do with my test. Now I will admitt I could have done more, but why? My test I believe was thorough enough. After all I love my interconnects, and do not regrett any of the choices I have made in assembling my system.

As for your frequency response question; based on manufacturers specifications, this to was not an issue.

The test was fun, the problem is that my friends think I am even stranger that they thought I was before.

So you believe interconnects can affect the sound of ones system?

WOW. If your line stage is passive, you have a problem right off the bat, especially if the output impedance is variable with the volume control. The passive setup will certainly roll with cable capacitance differences differently.

What else you neglected to mention?

SPL meter is not sufficient to match to .1dB level differences, sorry. You need a volt meter, measuing the voltage difference at the speaker terminal, one that is accurate at such frequencies and is able to do .01 v differences.
But these are some of the small issues.

I bet your passive pre is the culprit!!!

[mtrycraft]

The louder of the two is almost always interpreted as sounding better.



Yep.

-Bruce

Check out his passive preamp. If th eoutput impedance is high, or varies with the volume control which many do, that is the cause of his differences. They are sensitive to cap differences with such high impedance.

[ROJ]

But, if there were such cable differences, in a specific system, that would already have been demonstrated by someone, under bias controlled conditions. Yet, when a cable maker with a supposedly high end system, $250K+ cannot hear differences, or refuses to subject himself and his reputation
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

I have very little doubt. But, I certainly can change my mind with evidence.

Hi mtrycraft,

Thank you for the link. It is an interesting article. Do you happen to know if the paper that Mr. Nousaine presented at the conference was published in a scientific journal? I am new to the audio world. Given my limited readings on this and other message boards, I have read claims by people who reportedly conducted DBT experiments in support of their positions on both sides. My bias, however, is to give more credence to experiments that have been published in peer reviewed journals. The best journals (unfortunately, not all journals are the same) rigorously examine the relevance and validity (internal and external) of experiments before publishing the results. Presenting research at a conference is not the same as publishing in a scientific journal since the criteria for presentation at a conference are often less rigorous than publication in a scientific journal. I am not familiar with the scientific literature regarding cable differences or if the literature even exists. Given the passion of the debate, I assumed that if there were a substantial research literature it would have been cited. Absence a scientific literature, I maintain that it is difficult to definitively state that cables will or will not make a difference. It appears that right now we are basing recommendations on anecdotal evidence and experiments that have not undergone the scientific rigorous of being published in peer reviewed journals.

I hope you realize that I am not trying to change your opinion about cables as I have no doubt that you don’t hear differences in cables. I respect the passion that you and others obviously have for hi-fi audio and the cable debate. I am increasingly becoming more passionate about hi-fi audio as my empty pocketbook and weary wife can attest. The only thing I hope to add to the cable debate is that including DBT in cable experiments is only one component in designing a scientifically rigorous experiment. It appears that we are not basing our recommendation on scientifically rigorous experiment. Given my bias for peer reviewed journals and the absence of peer reviewed experiments, I think we should moderate our positions and allow for the possibility that some people hear differences and other don't, and that it can be difficult to generalize findings from one system to other systems.

-ROJ

[pctower]

Hi mtrycraft,

Thank you for the link. It is an interesting article. Do you happen to know if the paper that Mr. Nousaine presented at the conference was published in a scientific journal? I am new to the audio world. Given my limited readings on this and other message boards, I have read claims by people who reportedly conducted DBT experiments in support of their positions on both sides. My bias, however, is to give more credence to experiments that have been published in peer reviewed journals. The best journals (unfortunately, not all journals are the same) rigorously examine the relevance and validity (internal and external) of experiments before publishing the results. Presenting research at a conference is not the same as publishing in a scientific journal since the criteria for presentation at a conference are often less rigorous than publication in a scientific journal. I am not familiar with the scientific literature regarding cable differences or if the literature even exists. Given the passion of the debate, I assumed that if there were a substantial research literature it would have been cited. Absence a scientific literature, I maintain that it is difficult to definitively state that cables will or will not make a difference. It appears that right now we are basing recommendations on anecdotal evidence and experiments that have not undergone the scientific rigorous of being published in peer reviewed journals.

I hope you realize that I am not trying to change your opinion about cables as I have no doubt that you don’t hear differences in cables. I respect the passion that you and others obviously have for hi-fi audio and the cable debate. I am increasingly becoming more passionate about hi-fi audio as my empty pocketbook and weary wife can attest. The only thing I hope to add to the cable debate is that including DBT in cable experiments is only one component in designing a scientifically rigorous experiment. It appears that we are not basing our recommendation on scientifically rigorous experiment. Given my bias for peer reviewed journals and the absence of peer reviewed experiments, I think we should moderate our positions and allow for the possibility that some people hear differences and other don't, and that it can be difficult to generalize findings from one system to other systems.

-ROJ

Oh man, where have you been for the last two years while I have been pummeled and ridiculed for saying what you have just said?

Perhaps you put it more tactfully than I did or perhaps your writing is more articulate than mine, and perhaps you will be able to open a few minds as a result.

[mtrycraft]

Hi mtrycraft,

Thank you for the link. It is an interesting article. Do you happen to know if the paper that Mr. Nousaine presented at the conference was published in a scientific journal? I am new to the audio world. Given my limited readings on this and other message boards, I have read claims by people who reportedly conducted DBT experiments in support of their positions on both sides. My bias, however, is to give more credence to experiments that have been published in peer reviewed journals. The best journals (unfortunately, not all journals are the same) rigorously examine the relevance and validity (internal and external) of experiments before publishing the results. Presenting research at a conference is not the same as publishing in a scientific journal since the criteria for presentation at a conference are often less rigorous than publication in a scientific journal. I am not familiar with the scientific literature regarding cable differences or if the literature even exists. Given the passion of the debate, I assumed that if there were a substantial research literature it would have been cited. Absence a scientific literature, I maintain that it is difficult to definitively state that cables will or will not make a difference. It appears that right now we are basing recommendations on anecdotal evidence and experiments that have not undergone the scientific rigorous of being published in peer reviewed journals.

I hope you realize that I am not trying to change your opinion about cables as I have no doubt that you don’t hear differences in cables. I respect the passion that you and others obviously have for hi-fi audio and the cable debate. I am increasingly becoming more passionate about hi-fi audio as my empty pocketbook and weary wife can attest. The only thing I hope to add to the cable debate is that including DBT in cable experiments is only one component in designing a scientifically rigorous experiment. It appears that we are not basing our recommendation on scientifically rigorous experiment. Given my bias for peer reviewed journals and the absence of peer reviewed experiments, I think we should moderate our positions and allow for the possibility that some people hear differences and other don't, and that it can be difficult to generalize findings from one system to other systems.

-ROJ

No, there are no peer reviewed Journal articles on any audio component, cables to amps. I never indicated there were. The closest ones I can recommend are the ones done by Dr Floyd Toole in JAES about speaker listening and the power of DBT in audio listening and the vagaries of everything else, especially sighted listening for small differences.
All there are are commercial magazine publications. DBT Journal articles would not serve the component makers well, so why would they do any? There is no magic or mistery in audio.

My citation list which can be also found included in the links here:

http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioand...epage/id3.html

this may help as well:

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

If Journal articles are what you are after, you are out of luck. You will need to conduct your own rigorous trials

As to the possibility of people hearing differences, that is not denied. Differences have been demonstrated under DBT conditions for well know reasons.
What is questioned are their protocols why they think they heard such differences, what is know based on the best information available over the past 20+ years. Empty claims are always challenged, or should be and must be so the urban legend doesn't become a fact simply on an unsupported testable claim.

[ROJ]

No, there are no peer reviewed Journal articles on any audio component, cables to amps. I never indicated there were. The closest ones I can recommend are the ones done by Dr Floyd Toole in JAES about speaker listening and the power of DBT in audio listening and the vagaries of everything else, especially sighted listening for small differences.
All there are are commercial magazine publications. DBT Journal articles would not serve the component makers well, so why would they do any? There is no magic or mistery in audio.

My citation list which can be also found included in the links here:

http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioand...epage/id3.html

this may help as well:

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

If Journal articles are what you are after, you are out of luck. You will need to conduct your own rigorous trials

As to the possibility of people hearing differences, that is not denied. Differences have been demonstrated under DBT conditions for well know reasons.
What is questioned are their protocols why they think they heard such differences, what is know based on the best information available over the past 20+ years. Empty claims are always challenged, or should be and must be so the urban legend doesn't become a fact simply on an unsupported testable claim.

Hi mtrycrafts,

Is this your home theater system from the links that you provided? http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioand...age/index.html
That is a great looking system. I hope to some day have a system like that once I am done with graduate school. I am a doctoral student in clinical psychology, which is why the cable debate caught my interest. I understand how powerful bias can be in our perceptions. I also understand the importance of examining and controlling for bias (as much as possible) in experimental studies. For the cable debate, it appears that there is not much of a research literature and I am out of luck. I won’t do any studies myself as I doubt my advisor (or wife, who is the real boss) will let me change my dissertation to look at cable differences.

You raised a good point that empty claims should be challenged so that urban legends do not become fact. I would further argue that even generally accepted facts should be continually challenged. In my field (child clinical), there was once a commonly accepted belief that autism (a severe development disorder) was caused by poor maternal parenting. Fortunately, further research showed that autism has a genetic component and that the prior belief caused unnecessary guilt in mothers of autistic children. The nature of science is to continually try and challenge existing beliefs by advancing the knowledge base with well designed experiments. In a sense, it is difficultly to say that we can definitively know anything in the social sciences (which for me includes cable differences since we are talking about perceived differences) as future research can challenge our existing beliefs. I have been trained to qualify my statements, e.g., given the current state of the literature we know this..., while understanding that it can change in the future. Given that I came from this background, it interested me to see such strong statements emanating from both sides of the cable debate given the lack of empirical studies. Even when empirical studies exist, there can be genuine disagreements, which require further research for clarification (for example, the current literature on spanking has some findings that can appear contradictory).

As far as the cable debate, I guess the take home message for me is that people are passionate about this topic and that having peer reviewed studies to answer the debate does not exist or maybe should not necessarily exist. I always enjoy a good debate even if I am arguing without any empirical support such as how the Dallas Cowboys are returning to dominance. So once I try a few more cables, maybe I'll join the fun and starting arguing for or against cable differences.


Thank you for the links and for the interesting exchanges.

-ROJ

[Norm Strong]

How do you know all 4 guests heard a difference? Did you ask them if they could hear a difference? There seems to be a gap in your report. We found out how you switched from one cable to another, and the next thing we find out is that all 4 guests heard a difference. How did you go about determining that?

[mtrycraft]

Hi mtrycrafts,

Is this your home theater system from the links that you provided? http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioand...age/index.html

No, tit is not mine. It belongs to eyespy who used to post here for a long time. He created that web site and collected all th ecitations, including my contributions.


I am a doctoral student in clinical psychology, which is why the cable debate caught my interest. I understand how powerful bias can be in our perceptions. I also understand the importance of examining and controlling for bias (as much as possible) in experimental studies.

You have a leg up on most all here then


For the cable debate, it appears that there is not much of a research literature and I am out of luck.


Yes, wire is too simple to research beyond its electrical parameters. What unpublished research that has been done and I am not talking about the commertial publications but by others in the industry such as Dr Floyd Toole now of Harman or John Dunlavy of Dunlavy speakers, wire is well understood how and what will affect sonic differnces that boils down to the basics, resistance, inductance and capacitance.




I won’t do any studies myself as I doubt my advisor (or wife, who is the real boss) will let me change my dissertation to look at cable differences.

That can be your next project when you are bored

You raised a good point that empty claims should be challenged so that urban legends do not become fact. I would further argue that even generally accepted facts should be continually challenged.


I cannot disagree with this and don't think I have. But, simply to offer more of the same unreliable anecdotes will not advance knowledge for more understanding

[b]In my field (child clinical), there was once a commonly accepted belief that autism (a severe development disorder) was caused by poor maternal parenting. Fortunately, further research showed that autism has a genetic component and that the prior belief caused unnecessary guilt in mothers of autistic children. The nature of science is to continually try and challenge existing beliefs by advancing the knowledge base with well designed experiments.[b]

Well designed experiments, yes, by all means. Wire companies are not interested, neither are independent researchers as the knowledge of what we can detect from peer Journals and correlation to measurements do tell us a lot. Dr Tool's work goes a long way in combination with all the other Journals on detection capability.

I just don't see any improvement over the 'I heard it, I trust my ears" attitude. Or, " but thousands hear the same" without credible evidence. No better than the thousands of alien abduction reports or other such things.


[b] In a sense, it is difficultly to say that we can definitively know anything in the social sciences (which for me includes cable differences since we are talking about perceived differences) as future research can challenge our existing beliefs.[b]

That may be but current knowledge can tell us what, how much we can detect and our hearing accuity is not evolving for the better, which would take a long time anyhow ; it gets worse with all the noise pollution.

I have been trained to qualify my statements, e.g., given the current state of the literature we know this..., while understanding that it can change in the future. Given that I came from this background, it interested me to see such strong statements emanating from both sides of the cable debate given the lack of empirical studies. Even when empirical studies exist, there can be genuine disagreements, which require further research for clarification (for example, the current literature on spanking has some findings that can appear contradictory).

That is a very good postition to take. Maybe you can continue to contribute this when time permits Keeps everyone honest

As far as the cable debate, I guess the take home message for me is that people are passionate about this topic and that having peer reviewed studies to answer the debate does not exist or maybe should not necessarily exist. I always enjoy a good debate even if I am arguing without any empirical support such as how the Dallas Cowboys are returning to dominance. So once I try a few more cables, maybe I'll join the fun and starting arguing for or against cable differences.

Just try to eliminate bias, use statistics and depending on the circumstances, a few other technical check may be necessary.


Thank you for the links and for the interesting exchanges.

-ROJ

The pleasure is all mine Don't be a stranger around here We don't have to agree with everything to post and exchange

[mtrycraft]

How do you know all 4 guests heard a difference? Did you ask them if they could hear a difference? There seems to be a gap in your report. We found out how you switched from one cable to another, and the next thing we find out is that all 4 guests heard a difference. How did you go about determining that?

Check out his passive pre amp that would explain a lot.

[ROJ]

The pleasure is all mine Don't be a stranger around here We don't have to agree with everything to post and exchange

I'll be back. I have learned a lot from this forum and the speaker forum. In fact, I recently upgraded to Dynaudio Audience speakers (52s and 42C) in large part because of the positive comments and recommendations on the speaker forum. The speakers are great and will keep my happy for a long time or at least until I graduate and I can convince my wife I need another upgrade to celebrate finishing.

[bturk667]

I asked then if they could hear any kind of a difference. Thay all said they could; as could I.

[gonefishin]

Oh man, where have you been for the last two years while I have been pummeled and ridiculed for saying what you have just said?

Perhaps you put it more tactfully than I did or perhaps your writing is more articulate than mine, and perhaps you will be able to open a few minds as a result.

Pc...you always seemed like a nice enough guy. Do you remember the advice I gave you when you first came to AR? lol


Don't think that another voice of reason (with similar thoughts to yourself) will help the cable debate here at AR. Only thing it could do is fuel it! Believe me.


'course, I don't view fueling the debate as a bad thing either...just keep it civil.






The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. The wheels on the bus go round and round...


take care>>>>>>>>>>

[ROJ]

I asked then if they could hear any kind of a difference. Thay all said they could; as could I.

Since a research literature does not exists, I argue that no one can tell you whether you did or did not hear differences. We don't have a strong foundational basis to doubt that you or your friends heard actual differences rather than perceived differences because of bias. We also can't discount the fact that your observations may have been due to bias and that differences do not actually exist. This is not to say that an actual truth does not exist, but at this point in the debate it appears that we are all basically relying on our own personal experiences or experiments that are not scientifically rigorous. Again, by scientifically rigorous I include other important aspects of well designed studies in addition to DBT such as how good is the external validity of the study, how was the experiment administered and so forth.

[pctower]

Pc...you always seemed like a nice enough guy. Do you remember the advice I gave you when you first came to AR? lol
Don't think that another voice of reason (with similar thoughts to yourself) will help the cable debate here at AR. Only thing it could do is fuel it! Believe me.
'course, I don't view fueling the debate as a bad thing either...just keep it civil.

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. The wheels on the bus go round and round...

take care>>>>>>>>>>

Oh, I remember quite well. Hotel California and all that...

After I posted, I read an earlier post of ROJ's I had missed. What I find interesting about him is that he is pursuing a doctoral degree in clinical psychology, which probably makes him the only person posting here who is really qualified to discuss audio DBTs. Just because the DBTs we discuss involve electronics does not mean (as much as they like to think they do) that engineers necessarily possess the professional expertise to evaluate published results (or lack thereof) and suggest proper protocols for conducting audio DBTs.

It's refreshing to see someone like ROJ come along who has actually has the academic qualifications to discuss the subject we all spend so much time flapping our jaws in the wind about .

It is people like him who, if they are willing to stick around and share their knowledge with us, really could bring rationality to our debates. Bringing the proper background and expertise to bear upon the whole subject of audio DBTs would be a truly unique and special occurence within the universe of all audio web sites. Bruce seems to have some background, but apparently is limited by concerns over protecting Motorola proprietary secrets from getting into much detail. jj used to post over at AA, but quickly grew tired of all the BS over there.

I would just like to see someone with the background, qualifications and necessary moxie put in their place those who believe that merely spouting off using the term "DBT" and referring to dusty articles in decades old archives of the popular audio press somehow makes them right, scientific and above criticism.

[Thomas_A]

Oh, I remember quite well. Hotel California and all that...

After I posted, I read an earlier post of ROJ's I had missed. What I find interesting about him is that he is pursuing a doctoral degree in clinical psychology, which probably makes him the only person posting here who is really qualified to discuss audio DBTs. Just because the DBTs we discuss involve electronics does not mean (as much as they like to think they do) that engineers necessarily possess the professional expertise to evaluate published results (or lack thereof) and suggest proper protocols for conducting audio DBTs.

It's refreshing to see someone like ROJ come along who has actually has the academic qualifications to discuss the subject we all spend so much time flapping our jaws in the wind about .

It is people like him who, if they are willing to stick around and share their knowledge with us, really could bring rationality to our debates. Bringing the proper background and expertise to bear upon the whole subject of audio DBTs would be a truly unique and special occurence within the universe of all audio web sites. Bruce seems to have some background, but apparently is limited by concerns over protecting Motorola proprietary secrets from getting into much detail. jj used to post over at AA, but quickly grew tired of all the BS over there.

I would just like to see someone with the background, qualifications and necessary moxie put in their place those who believe that merely spouting off using the term "DBT" and referring to dusty articles in decades old archives of the popular audio press somehow makes them right, scientific and above criticism.

I am quite sure there are others that can discuss science here, when it comes to audibility of cables. I both review and write papers regarding molecular biology, epidemiololgy and is part of trials for new drugs in the medical industry, but although it might help, I doubt that this is really nessecary knowledge for the scientific discussion. All what is needed is some insight in double-blind testing and binomial statistics. Perhaps also some correction statistics for small sample numbers.

[CyberStoic]

I am quite sure there are others that can discuss science here, when it comes to audibility of cables. I both review and write papers regarding molecular biology, epidemiololgy and is part of trials for new drugs in the medical industry, but although it might help, I doubt that this is really nessecary knowledge for the scientific discussion. All what is needed is some insight in double-blind testing and binomial statistics. Perhaps also some correction statistics for small sample numbers.

Hi Thomas;

I agree, there are probably many here with enough background in rudimentary statistics or the scientific method to be able to discuss

Like ROJ, I am a clinical psychologist, trained in Cognitive-Behavioral Psychology. Had more than my fair share of Sadistics (statistics) classes. In the example study that bturk667 performed, there are two concerns I have regarding it's ability to make any kind of generalization due to design errors and sample size.

First, having all people listen at the same time and report at the same time introduces a serious confounding error. It is well known in social psychology regarding group dynamics that people tend to conform to group expectations and can easily read the social cues that others provide regarding expectations. An evaluator presenting a stimuli can easily cue the respondant as to the socially desirable or expected answer. In addition, group members tend to conform their behavior and stories to meet the group demands and dynamics. In this case, since all were in the same listening situation, and some endorse hearing differences, it may well be that the social expectation or expectation (either verbally, visually, non-verbally, etc,) leads people to endorse the idea that they hear differences. This is nothing new to group dynamics and the phenemona is well studied. For example, alcoholics in recovery groups tend to conform their stories to those that predominate the group they attend (i.e., report additional symptoms, blackouts, etc.) because it elicits higher group approval.

The second confounding variable is the extremely small sample size. In order to do a decent study involving differences in perception that you could actually generalize from, you would need hundreds, if not thousands of subjects. You would need to control for hearing, age, equipment, and probably a lot of other factors in order to really be able to draw meaningful results. A sample size of "4" could be nothing other than a statistical abberation. It is impossible to generalize from such a small sample.

Large studies of this type cost money. Big money. A decent, well controlled study, with a large sample size can cost upwards of $300K or more. Most people don't have that kind of money and generally studies of this type get money from grants or industry. I would think it self evident that the wire industry will never be sponsoring such studies because if they failed to show a demonstrable benefit from their wire it would be cutting their own throats. The risks are simply to great to fund such a study.

Take care

[okiemax]

Hi Thomas;

I agree, there are probably many here with enough background in rudimentary statistics or the scientific method to be able to discuss

Like ROJ, I am a clinical psychologist, trained in Cognitive-Behavioral Psychology. Had more than my fair share of Sadistics (statistics) classes. In the example study that bturk667 performed, there are two concerns I have regarding it's ability to make any kind of generalization due to design errors and sample size.

First, having all people listen at the same time and report at the same time introduces a serious confounding error. It is well known in social psychology regarding group dynamics that people tend to conform to group expectations and can easily read the social cues that others provide regarding expectations. An evaluator presenting a stimuli can easily cue the respondant as to the socially desirable or expected answer. In addition, group members tend to conform their behavior and stories to meet the group demands and dynamics. In this case, since all were in the same listening situation, and some endorse hearing differences, it may well be that the social expectation or expectation (either verbally, visually, non-verbally, etc,) leads people to endorse the idea that they hear differences. This is nothing new to group dynamics and the phenemona is well studied. For example, alcoholics in recovery groups tend to conform their stories to those that predominate the group they attend (i.e., report additional symptoms, blackouts, etc.) because it elicits higher group approval.

The second confounding variable is the extremely small sample size. In order to do a decent study involving differences in perception that you could actually generalize from, you would need hundreds, if not thousands of subjects. You would need to control for hearing, age, equipment, and probably a lot of other factors in order to really be able to draw meaningful results. A sample size of "4" could be nothing other than a statistical abberation. It is impossible to generalize from such a small sample.

Large studies of this type cost money. Big money. A decent, well controlled study, with a large sample size can cost upwards of $300K or more. Most people don't have that kind of money and generally studies of this type get money from grants or industry. I would think it self evident that the wire industry will never be sponsoring such studies because if they failed to show a demonstrable benefit from their wire it would be cutting their own throats. The risks are simply to great to fund such a study.

Take care

I am not aware of any study using blinded testing for audile differences in cables that was done with a scientific sample of listeners. You could obtain a sample if you knew what population you wanted the sample to represent, but I don't think any of the cable studies have gone that far.

Most of the cable studies that look for statistical significance don't even state the hypothesis that is being tested. However, here is what usually is implied: hypothesis --the cables are audibly different: null hypothesis -- the cables are not audibly different.
Note that the hypothesis does not say audibly different to most listeners or a certain proportion oof listeners. It just says audibly different. Therefore, just one listener could do well enough to prove the hypothesis.

The few blinded studies that have been done on "comparable" cables have their flaws, but to my knowlrdge no listeners so far have proved the hypothesis in such studies. This has been enough evidence for some to conclude there are no audible differences in cables. I am among those who don't find such evidence convincing.

You are right about decent studies being expensive. I doubt we will be seeing many on cables.

[bturk667]

First of all, I think DBT are worth about as much as the paper that they are written on! I believe in my test-I call the instant switch test- as much more reliable. If you, like so many like the DBT, great, more power to you.

What bias would four people have who could care less what my, or any audio system for that matter sounds like, have? They are the PERFECT test subjects! They know nothing about home audio what so ever, or do they want to! Take my wife for an example; all my she cares about is that my system plays loud, which it can. Other than that she give give a crap about it. Trust me, my four friends could care less, as well! As I wrote, two of the use "Boom Boxes." The other two hardly ever listen to music. They use their cheap "Home Theaters in a Box" for watching movies!

Why don't you try a more rigouris scientific study and let me know how it turns out! I will admitt, mine was simple, but I believe effective.

Let me point one thing out to you. In all the testing I have done; I have found that many interconnects do in fact sound the same. If there is a difference, it is such as small one, that I do not consider it a difference at all. However, some interconnects did in fact make a noticeable difference in the sound of MY system. Would they make a difference to the sound of everyones system; I think not! This is why, for people who are willing to entertain the possibilty that interconnects might in fact change the sound of their system, they must experiment!

See, I have always been a person who like to hear and see things for myself. I could care less what some DBT, performed by others, says, or what some scientist found out about a particular subject withtheir tests. If I could do some kind testing myself, that I feel is accurate, well then, I do it! Do you think I care if you or anyone else find it valid? Hell NO! It is my system and my money, not yours or theirs. You spend your as you see fit, and I will spend mine as I see fit!

I love my Nordost Blue Heavens!!!
Please, answer my question that I possed to you about my test sugjects. I am very interested in your response!

[ROJ]

I am quite sure there are others that can discuss science here, when it comes to audibility of cables. I both review and write papers regarding molecular biology, epidemiololgy and is part of trials for new drugs in the medical industry, but although it might help, I doubt that this is really nessecary knowledge for the scientific discussion. All what is needed is some insight in double-blind testing and binomial statistics. Perhaps also some correction statistics for small sample numbers.

I hope I did not give the impression that I thought others on this board can not discuss science since that was not my intent. With all due respect, I have to disagree with your assertion that all that is required to answer the cable debate is DBT and knowledge of statistics (binomial and correcting for small sample sizes). Both of those issues are important, however, the external validity of experiments is also an important issue that has to be addressed in psychology and in the cable debate since we are dealing with perceived differences. In your field this may not be a significant issue as I understand that natural and social sciences sometimes have different methodology issues to confront.

To illustrate my concern about external validity, suppose I were to design a study to examine the efficacy of a treatment for aggression in first grade children, but I limited the study to only boys, which has often occurred. Further suppose that I designed an internally valid study with solid statistical analysis and found that the treatment did not work. I could conclude that the results suggest that my treatment may not be an appropriate treatment for first grade boys. However, these results may not extrapolate to first grade girls. Gender could be a confounding variable since there is a rich literature that has found significant differences in aggression in elementary school boys and girls. Thus, the experiment may have a low external validity since it did not control for gender despite the solid statistical analysis and strong internal validity.

In the cable debate, I contend that this issue has not been addressed because potential confounding variables have not been controlled. Many would agree that there are many variables (quality and type of speaker, room acoustics, and quality of cd recording to name a few) that can affect sound quality and vary from system to system. I suggest that these variables may partially explain why some people find differences and other do not, but in reality we don’t know since the variables have not been controlled. An interesting study to conduct would be to include the internal controls and statistical analysis you suggested. To address the external validity and control for known variables that correlate to sound quality, we could also include different male and female test participants of difference ages and with different hearing acuity. The participants could then listen to different cables in different rooms with different systems. I posit that this may offer more scientifically rigorous evidence to the cable debate than only examining DBT and statistical analysis. As some have suggested, however, this would be expensive and there does not appear to be an impetus to conduct this research.

[mtrycraft]

I'll be back. I have learned a lot from this forum and the speaker forum. In fact, I recently upgraded to Dynaudio Audience speakers (52s and 42C) in large part because of the positive comments and recommendations on the speaker forum. The speakers are great and will keep my happy for a long time or at least until I graduate and I can convince my wife I need another upgrade to celebrate finishing.

Upgrade-itis can be habit forming like a cocaine habit

[CyberStoic]

Greetings bturk667;

you shared:
" First of all, I think DBT are worth about as much as the paper that they are written on! I believe in my test-I call the instant switch test- as much more reliable. If you, like so many like the DBT, great, more power to you."

Believe what you like, I do not recall saying you should do otherwise. Just that your test contains many methodological errors. Double Blind tests, do not depend on belief, they are based on science. Oddly, you seem to like the benefits of science, namely your audio system, yet scoff at similar methods to ascertain whether or not something can be proven true or untrue. I have no position on cables whatsoever, hence no agenda. I could care less if your cables sound better or not. But I am interested in whether or not there is some demonstrable difference that does not depend on religiosity or belief. I think it was the Buddha that once prattled that there is no greater bondage than beliefs.... once held they must be defended. People generally do not take science personally (well except this neurology professor I had once, but on the other hand, people take beliefs *very* personally. Attacks to one's beliefs are often perceived as an attack on oneself and must be defended.

Neither here nor there, I suppose.


your question, that you wanted me to answer was:
What bias would four people have who could care less what my, or any audio system for that matter sounds like, have? They are the PERFECT test subjects! They know nothing about home audio what so ever, or do they want to!"


Somewhat less than perfect I am afraid. First, what they know, or do not know of audio is irrelevant. What they know of you, their desire to please you, their familiarity with you, their familiarity and reading of your non-verbal cues, all play a factor in their reaction to your "test" and hence any data gleaned is not material. If an independent, non-involved, unknown third party was to administer it, separately to each individual, then it might clean some of the confounding variables here up. But as you wrote above, you are not interested in that as you said something about studies not being worth the paper that they are printed on. So my quesiton is, do you want to know the truth one way or another, or simply have something that validates your beliefs?

And I think you misunderstand the concept of bias in research. The confounding variable is not so much that they have any bias what any audio system has (although it could) but the bias that *YOU* as the experimenter clearly have and how that effects their responces.


You shared:
" Take my wife for an example; all my she cares about is that my system plays loud, which it can. Other than that she give give a crap about it. Trust me, my four friends could care less, as well! As I wrote, two of the use "Boom Boxes." The other two hardly ever listen to music. They use their cheap "Home Theaters in a Box" for watching movies!"

What was that old Rodney Dangerfield Joke..... "take my wife... please".... Sorry...

And goodness me, the bohemians using HTIB's!!!!



you asked:
" Why don't you try a more rigouris scientific study and let me know how it turns out! I will admitt, mine was simple, but I believe effective."

Hmmmm conducting a more rigorous scientific study. Well I suppose I could get a government grant. Of course you are more likely to get a government grant these days when your research includes studies of sex. Perhaps I can include the two somehow.... Hmmmm I need a catchy study name for this to get the grant committee's attention.... How about "The effects of orgasmic pleasure rates from improved audio performance from enhanced interconnects". Or "Improved Sexual Pleasure Derived from Increased Audio enhancement derived from increased wire efficiency". I'll work on it and get back to you.


you shared:
" Let me point one thing out to you. In all the testing I have done; I have found that many interconnects do in fact sound the same. If there is a difference, it is such as small one, that I do not consider it a difference at all. However, some interconnects did in fact make a noticeable difference in the sound of MY system. Would they make a difference to the sound of everyones system; I think not! This is why, for people who are willing to entertain the possibilty that interconnects might in fact change the sound of their system, they must experiment!"


Excellent, truly excellent. That is at the crux of this. If you find that it makes a difference in *your* system, isn't that what matters, at least to you? And who says that you should not do so? Certainly not I. Isn't that what playing this audio game is about? Screwing around with this stuff and getting it closer and closer to some approximation of what you perceive to be perfect within the limitations of your equiptment? Like any good addiction the rush of getting the next fix of audio stuff is very great. Enjoy it, hahaha, I certainly do, and nothing to get so serious about. If the better wires get you the next fix, then enjoy! And in this context, who cares if there is evidence that it is better, it is simply part of the audio game.



you wrote:
" See, I have always been a person who like to hear and see things for myself. I could care less what some DBT, performed by others, says, or what some scientist found out about a particular subject withtheir tests. If I could do some kind testing myself, that I feel is accurate, well then, I do it! Do you think I care if you or anyone else find it valid? Hell NO! It is my system and my money, not yours or theirs. You spend your as you see fit, and I will spend mine as I see fit!"


Who is saying you should not spend your money as you see fit? Certainly not I. I just don't want to be one of the "suckers born every minute" as P.T. Barnum used to say (unless of course you are a new ager and then it would be a sucker *reborn* every minute).

And again, your study is crucially flawed. Nothing personal... or as Tony Soprano was known to say, "Nothing personal, strictly business".

And again you seem to be stating (correct me If i misunderstand) that your beliefs regarding wire superiority are such that you do not care if careful scientific evidence proved evidence to the contrary. That is the nature of belief and that is fine as well, as long as you understand that you are acting from a belief, not from any science......

An interesting thing I read the other day.... That "Maori tribesman believed there was a man on the moon." The scientists at NASA and JPL developed research that put a man on the moon. One is a belief, the other a series of scientific studies, research and practices. Which you feel has more validity to you, is entirely up to you.

Hope that answered your questions.

Take gentle care. And try not to take all this so seriously. It is supposed to be fun.