-
Quote:
Originally Posted by okiemax
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.
Now that is truly interesting. It might be interesting to have a group of self-proclaimed audiophiles in one group and see if there was statistical differences between groups of HTIB users, and those that like BOSE wave radios. Or something. Just typing/thinking out loud, sorry. But really, you are on to something here, getting a representative sample.
Thanks for the thought. On another note entirely, there is the HBO special "Real Sex" coming on the tv right now about Enhancing Woman's Orgasms. Perhaps I can watch and see if the show sounds better with better interconnects and wires, purely as part of my research, of course. I'll report back on this.
Take gentle care
-
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.
Sound quality yes, but does it affect the ability to deliver the small differences to be differentiated? We are interested in small audible differences, not sound quality although the differences are translated into sound quality. If there is no detectable difference, sound quality difference cannot happen. Dr Floyd Toole is after sound quality in speakers. :)
Tom Nousaine did such a test, certainly not peer reviewed as no one is interested in that, and found nothing. Same speakers and room, different setups, DBT.
If you controlled for these variables, you would in essencce need to test all combinations. You think that is reasonable?
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.
No, I disagree if you are suggesting that any of the reports by audiophiles have some merit. Rarely are they done bias controlled and the ones that claim to are as the lead thread. That by itself negates everything. Perception is unreliabel for finding facts without proper controls.
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.
Yes, this would be an interesting undertaking. But seeing that the commercial published DBTs are on different systems, , not many/any females, but interested audiophiles to whom this is of interest, not a general population, I think this has been explored to some extent but not as rigorous as you or we would like. At least this can give some indications what is going on or not.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberStoic
Thanks for the thought. On another note entirely, there is the HBO special "Real Sex" coming on the tv right now about Enhancing Woman's Orgasms. Perhaps I can watch and see if the show sounds better with better interconnects and wires, purely as part of my research, of course. I'll report back on this.
Take gentle care
You need better video cables, really. You might see something more :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by okiemax
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.
Interesting you make no mention of the flaws when people report audible differences? Or, did I miss those posts?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bturk667
I asked then if they could hear any kind of a difference. Thay all said they could; as could I.
Why should anyone accept what you claimed? You didn't even do a simple statistical trial and analysis.
-
First of all, I think DBT are worth about as much as the paper that they are written on!
That is your first mistake, disregarding the scientific method. Then, it is only a religion to you, nothing more.
I believe in my test-
Mistake number two. You are not interested in knowing if your method has flaws or not.
As is, you have no idea one way or another.
I call the instant switch test- as much more reliable.
It certainly is. Who claimed otherwise? Only some other misguided audiophiles.
If you, like so many like the DBT, great, more power to you.
Is someone being hostile here?
What bias would four people have who could care less what my, or any audio system for that matter sounds like, have?
What is this, mistake number 3? We have at least two people here who are professionals in th efield of human psychology and bias and you still write this?
They are the PERFECT test subjects!
No one knows this yet. We don't even know if they can hear well or poorly, know what to listen for or not, and on it goes. You just assumed they would be.
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!
How can we trust you. You dislike the scientific methods, being questioned about your protocol, etc.
Why don't you try a more rigouris scientific study and let me know how it turns out!
Will you really accept its findings? You may have to change your belief system in cables. Can you do that?
I will admitt, mine was simple, but I believe effective.
Well, it was indeed effective. It convinced you. Does John Edwards or Sylvia Brown convince you? David Copperfield?
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.
Well, as I pointed out above, you could be right if you are using a passive preamp whose output impedance is variable with the volume control. So, that is not the fault of the cable but the broken preamp. This doesn't mean you cannot enjoy it; don't get me wrong. People do like SET amps too.
[
-
I think it was the Buddha that once prattled that there is no greater bondage than beliefs.... once held they must be defended.
If he did, then he knew that he is placing his follower in bondage?
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.
Don't count on that grant.
Ashcroft is cracking down on sex. Not appropriate for a consrvative government.
:D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROJ
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.
ROJ,
I can assure you that confounders are thought of in medical science, in e.g. case-controlled studies where patients are matched as close as possible.
But I agree with you that controlled environment is needed. Many "home-made" studies cannot be extrapolated to studies made in a controlled environment. Since I have been participating in DBTs of audio compoments in what I think is the finest audio system in the world, "Studio Blue" in Stockholm, I can agree that certain effects that is percieved can never be percieved in most home equipments. E.g. roll-offs in the low bass (around 10 Hz) can be percieved as differences in vibration in the body, a phenomenon that has been shown (not peer-reviewed) to vary between individuals. Some people are more sensitive to low-frequency vibrations, and may feel e.g. nausea. The studies have also indicated that females are more sensitive to low frequency sound.
Now with respect to cables, there have been controlled blind and double-blind tests of cables in this studio, all with negative outcome. I can also say that most reported cases of audible difference have not been blinded, and if they have, the statistical issue or level-matching has not been adressed.
T
-
[QUOTE=mtrycraft][
"Sound quality yes, but does it affect the ability to deliver the small differences to be differentiated? We are interested in small audible differences, not sound quality although the differences are translated into sound quality. If there is no detectable difference, sound quality difference cannot happen. Dr Floyd Toole is after sound quality in speakers. :)
Tom Nousaine did such a test, certainly not peer reviewed as no one is interested in that, and found nothing. Same speakers and room, different setups, DBT.
If you controlled for these variables, you would in essencce need to test all combinations. You think that is reasonable?"
I don't think that it is reasonable to control for all potential confounding variables in the cable debate. My main point is that it is important to acknowledge that it is a neglected issue in the cable debate and steps should be taken to address this issue before definitive statements can be made, for either side of the debate. In order to do this, as many potential confounding variables should be controlled, appropriate statistical analysis should be conducted (some types of analysis attempt to mitigate the impact of confounds), and an appropriate research methodology should be designed (again, some research designs can help minimize confounds).
The problem of confounds exists in much of the psychology literature. As the research and statistical methodology improved, confounds were increasingly controlled and the research literature benefited. Back to my example of aggression in elementary school children, many studies today include girls in the studies as research suggests that girls can sometimes be as aggression as boys, but in different ways. Previously most of the research only focused on boys because they were the most visibly disruptive. The research is stronger now as studies are controlling for gender. I suggest that we need not be able to control for all confounds in the cable debate for it to be a worthwhile endeavor. Any attempts to control for confounds would be beneficial and take the debate closer to answering the question.
"No, I disagree if you are suggesting that any of the reports by audiophiles have some merit. Rarely are they done bias controlled and the ones that claim to are as the lead thread. That by itself negates everything. Perception is unreliabel for finding facts without proper controls."
This is when I wish there were a peer reviewed literature to examine. I have no reason to doubt your assertion that most people who have found differences did not use DBT. However, I have frequented other forums in which posters claimed to have conducted DBT and found differences. Similarly, I don’t have a research foundation to doubt their claims either. This brings me back to the fundamental problem that the debate seems to be relying on anecdotal evidence and experimentation with methodological shortcomings (not addressing external validity in addition to those to do not address internal validity). My point is that in the current situation we can not rule out the possibility that confounding variables explain why some found differences and other did not.
I suppose that one could conduct an exhaustive search to locate all reports of those who have conduct DBT and examine the results. Such a review, however, can not answer the question. We could only say that given the current state of the methodology and its shortcoming the results suggest that there is/is not a difference in cables. Then we would need to advance the research by addressing the external validity issues and potential confounds to see if the findings persist. An empirical examination of the cable debate appears to be in its infancy, but some of the rhetoric appears to suggest that the research process is completed.
-ROJ
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_A
I can assure you that confounders are thought of in medical science, in e.g. case-controlled studies where patients are matched as close as possible.
But I agree with you that controlled environment is needed. Many "home-made" studies cannot be extrapolated to studies made in a controlled environment. Since I have been participating in DBTs of audio compoments in what I think is the finest audio system in the world, "Studio Blue" in Stockholm, I can agree that certain effects that is percieved can never be percieved in most home equipments. E.g. roll-offs in the low bass (around 10 Hz) can be percieved as differences in vibration in the body, a phenomenon that has been shown (not peer-reviewed) to vary between individuals. Some people are more sensitive to low-frequency vibrations, and may feel e.g. nausea. The studies have also indicated that females are more sensitive to low frequency sound.
Now with respect to cables, there have been controlled blind and double-blind tests of cables in this studio, all with negative outcome. I can also say that most reported cases of audible difference have not been blinded, and if they have, the statistical issue or level-matching has not been adressed.
T
I am familiar with some of the medical literature and know that attempts are made to control for confounding variables. It seems, however, that some methodological issues may differ by discipline, e.g., the methodological concerns of physicists may differ from developmental psychologist. I was not sure if confounding variables were a signficant issue in your current research (they can be difficult in psychology).
10 Hz? Now this would be interesting experiments to conduct. I can't imagine how 10 Hz would sound and feel.
I wish you the best of luck in your medical and audio research.
-ROJ
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
I think it was the Buddha that once prattled that there is no greater bondage than beliefs.... once held they must be defended.
If he did, then he knew that he is placing his follower in bondage?
ROTFL! Yes, he must have! I wonder how many of them caught the gist of this little piece of philosophy! :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
I think it was the Buddha that once prattled that there is no greater bondage than beliefs.... once held they must be defended.
If he did, then he knew that he is placing his follower in bondage?
:) As I recall, he sought to teach people to remove all beliefs and attachments so that they could see the truth free of their conditionings. The point was that they remove beliefs, because when people hold beliefs they often demand that themselves, others and the world be other than they are, the cause of their suffering. Or so it would seem.
In any case, since his whole premise is that people place themselves in bondage, one might say that they have placed themselves in bondage, hahahahaha, but now I run the risk of offending 850,000,000 buddhists. Lucky their into that non-attachment thingy and don't blow up buildings when angry, so I am probably ok. But then I am no expert in buddhism. Although this is way way way off topic, a good book on the subject is Steve Hagan's "Buddhism Plain and Simple". But perhaps another story for another post.
Well, speaking of wire (see I am back on topic) I am off to go rewire the wire going to my surrounds. When I originally put them in, I had to wire the back right run (which is about 60 feet as it has to go around 3/4 of the room to get there) and only had 16 guage available. I ended up running two lengths of 16 guage and twisting the ends together making it something like 13 guage or so. It sounded fine but my wife, whose tolerance for all this is pretty low, found the two wires messy and visually unappealing. So I have some 12 guage now and am going to remove the baseboard trim and hide them. Hopefully this will pass muster. Wish me luck
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberStoic
:) As I recall, he sought to teach people to remove all beliefs and attachments so that they could see the truth free of their conditionings. The point was that they remove beliefs, because when people hold beliefs they often demand that themselves, others and the world be other than they are, the cause of their suffering. Or so it would seem.
In any case, since his whole premise is that people place themselves in bondage, one might say that they have placed themselves in bondage, hahahahaha, but now I run the risk of offending 850,000,000 buddhists. Lucky their into that non-attachment thingy and don't blow up buildings when angry, so I am probably ok. But then I am no expert in buddhism. Although this is way way way off topic, a good book on the subject is Steve Hagan's "Buddhism Plain and Simple". But perhaps another story for another post.
Well, speaking of wire (see I am back on topic) I am off to go rewire the wire going to my surrounds. When I originally put them in, I had to wire the back right run (which is about 60 feet as it has to go around 3/4 of the room to get there) and only had 16 guage available. I ended up running two lengths of 16 guage and twisting the ends together making it something like 13 guage or so. It sounded fine but my wife, whose tolerance for all this is pretty low, found the two wires messy and visually unappealing. So I have some 12 guage now and am going to remove the baseboard trim and hide them. Hopefully this will pass muster. Wish me luck
Virtually every major world religion has contorted and subverted the message of its founder beyond recognition. Why should Buddhism be any different?
-
To bturk667
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
First of all, I think DBT are worth about as much as the paper that they are written on!
That is your first mistake, disregarding the scientific method. Then, it is only a religion to you, nothing more.
I believe in my test-
Mistake number two. You are not interested in knowing if your method has flaws or not.
As is, you have no idea one way or another.
I call the instant switch test- as much more reliable.
It certainly is. Who claimed otherwise? Only some other misguided audiophiles.
If you, like so many like the DBT, great, more power to you.
Is someone being hostile here?
What bias would four people have who could care less what my, or any audio system for that matter sounds like, have?
What is this, mistake number 3? We have at least two people here who are professionals in th efield of human psychology and bias and you still write this?
They are the PERFECT test subjects!
No one knows this yet. We don't even know if they can hear well or poorly, know what to listen for or not, and on it goes. You just assumed they would be.
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!
How can we trust you. You dislike the scientific methods, being questioned about your protocol, etc.
Why don't you try a more rigouris scientific study and let me know how it turns out!
Will you really accept its findings? You may have to change your belief system in cables. Can you do that?
I will admitt, mine was simple, but I believe effective.
Well, it was indeed effective. It convinced you. Does John Edwards or Sylvia Brown convince you? David Copperfield?
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.
Well, as I pointed out above, you could be right if you are using a passive preamp whose output impedance is variable with the volume control. So, that is not the fault of the cable but the broken preamp. This doesn't mean you cannot enjoy it; don't get me wrong. People do like SET amps too.
[
Mtrycrafts would never dream of subjecting a test which produces a null result to this degree of scrutiny. In fact, he readily accepts all such null result tests at face value, because they produce a result that is consistent with his rigid dogma.
There are certainly problems from a scientific standpoint with your test. Yet, as I mentioned earlier, you did exactly what the regulars here constantly tell us to do - you conducted a simple at home test. They just don't like the fact that you produced results at variance with their own unconditional biases.
Welcome to the world of pseudo-science and pseudo-scientists - "objectivist" style.
-
On the test was fun and it proves to me that some people can in fact hear differences between cables, period!
Have a great day!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROJ
10 Hz? Now this would be interesting experiments to conduct. I can't imagine how 10 Hz would sound and feel.
-ROJ
Ask an elephant.
-Bruce
:D
-
First off I never read what Mtrycrafts posts. Why would I, he has nothing worth reading. It is always the same old BLAH BLAH BLAH! I suggest you not pay attention to him. However the choice is yours.
I knew my test could have been more thorough. However, no matter how thorough the close minded naysayers still would have found fault. But hey, I believe my test was a fairly accurate one. At least in real world terms: A test that we all can conduct to enlighten us, just a little, on a number of subjects, one of which are cables.
My intention was never to make up the minds of others. We all have to do that ourselves. MY montra: Let your ears decide!
Have you ever noticed that if a person does a test that has almost no or little scientific merit, but comes to the conclusion that they agree with, they never knock it ? Of course not. For they can not possibly do this! If I had stated that none of the people in my test heard a difference they would not have knocked my test very much, if at all! Why should they, it helps their view.
This is why I give what ever they write with as much merit that I give a DBT, which is not much!
Have a fantastic day!
-
ROJ,
10 Hz is not audible, but there is some very funny feelings in the gut when playing 5-15 hz at high SPL. :)
T
-
As I recall,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas_A
ROJ,
10 Hz is not audible, but there is some very funny feelings in the gut when playing 5-15 hz at high SPL. :)
T
it can be used as a weapon...
Audie
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
Interesting you make no mention of the flaws when people report audible differences? Or, did I miss those posts?
Here is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bturk667
First off I never read what Mtrycrafts posts. Why would I, he has nothing worth reading. It is always the same old BLAH BLAH BLAH! I suggest you not pay attention to him. However the choice is yours.
I knew my test could have been more thorough. However, no matter how thorough the close minded naysayers still would have found fault. But hey, I believe my test was a fairly accurate one. At least in real world terms: A test that we all can conduct to enlighten us, just a little, on a number of subjects, one of which are cables.
My intention was never to make up the minds of others. We all have to do that ourselves. MY montra: Let your ears decide!
Have you ever noticed that if a person does a test that has almost no or little scientific merit, but comes to the conclusion that they agree with, they never knock it ? Of course not. For they can not possibly do this! If I had stated that none of the people in my test heard a difference they would not have knocked my test very much, if at all! Why should they, it helps their view.
This is why I give what ever they write with as much merit that I give a DBT, which is not much!
Have a fantastic day!
My experiences with cable testing turned out decidedly different but who am I to argue if you and your friends heard the difference? Enjoy your cables, say I! Whatever gets you closer to the real thing. And I wholeheartedly agree with "let your ears decide". As I've said many times, measured accuracy has proven to me something horrible to behold and not even within shouting distance of sonic accuracy.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pctower
Mtrycrafts would never dream of subjecting a test which produces a null result to this degree of scrutiny. In fact, he readily accepts all such null result tests at face value, because they produce a result that is consistent with his rigid dogma.
There are certainly problems from a scientific standpoint with your test. Yet, as I mentioned earlier, you did exactly what the regulars here constantly tell us to do - you conducted a simple at home test. They just don't like the fact that you produced results at variance with their own unconditional biases.
Welcome to the world of pseudo-science and pseudo-scientists - "objectivist" style.
His testing was rather too simple. How is it reliable to a degree that it can be?
What is there to scrutinize on a null? What evidence dictates that it may not be a null? I don't think you have any such evidence, right? So, nulls just correspond the the lousy citations at hand. But you knew all this, just testing us.
-
First off I never read what Mtrycrafts posts.
How intelligent.
Why would I, he has nothing worth reading.
that is your mistake n, you fail to know and dismiss anything that does not support your faith.
It is always the same old BLAH BLAH BLAH!
Well, when thwere is something new discovered, cutting edge research at hand, I will try to post it. But, what good will that do based on your post here. The one who needs to read it most will not.
I suggest you not pay attention to him.
Ah, is is a bit smarter than you to do that.
But hey, I believe my test was a fairly accurate one. At least in real world terms:
Hardly.
MY montra: Let your ears decide!
Hey, we agree. You failed in your own mantra though. Other distractions interfered and you didn't let your ears decide.
-
[QUOTE=CyberStoic So I have some 12 guage now and am going to remove the baseboard trim and hide them. Hopefully this will pass muster. Wish me luck[/QUOTE]
Good luck :)
Too late to put trim around the two existing pairs?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
His testing was rather too simple. How is it reliable to a degree that it can be?
What is there to scrutinize on a null? What evidence dictates that it may not be a null? I don't think you have any such evidence, right? So, nulls just correspond the the lousy citations at hand. But you knew all this, just testing us.
His testing was rather too simple. How is it reliable to a degree that it can be?
Please show me where I claimed his test was reliable. It's no more reliable than the amateur tests on which you base your unqualified pronouncements and advice to newcomers.
What evidence dictates that it may not be a null? I don't think you have any such evidence, right?
I never claimed to have such evidence, nor did I say anything where that would even be an issue. We're talking about protocol. Apparently you don't know the difference.
What is there to scrutinize on a null?
This question really says it all. What there is to criticize is the protocol for the test that produced that result - something that would never occur to you because the null satisfies your particular dogmatic view of the world.
Have you been feeling ok? You've really started to slip lately and allow your bias to hang out all over the place.
|