Well, if the person in question isn't going to hear that difference, he's likely SOL with any other claims.

Well, if the person in question isn't going to hear that difference, he's likely SOL with any other claims.


You are assuming the 20 gauge is a screening test. What is being proposed is adding a 20 gauge wire arm to an A vs B trial (as a presumed control). It's a different experimental design, and changes the statistical analysis in a major way.

Two, a test of this nature usually calls for a level match. Indeed, I called for one to take place before this test was conducted, and ChrisWiggles said they did one. Thus the bulk volume differences won't occur. There was some argument over whether level differences ought to be removed, but it's simply noncontroversial (as you know) that level differences are audible. So if we're trying to judge differences with sonic quality, we have to level match.

So far as I know, no blind test has ever shown audible differences in cables when level matched. And I think it's safe to say everyone agrees that differences due to level are totally uninteresting (most hifi systems come equipped with a volume control, after all).

It's clear that with a ridiculous enough cable the differences would be audible even with some kind of level matching since there is a change in the frequency response from LCR in the cable. It would be interesting to find out how ridiculous it needs to be.

Right. As the cable's impedance starts to approach that of the speaker itself, it does alter the frequency response of the system---frequencies where the speaker has low impedance will be attenuated more than frequencies where the speaker has high impedance.

Obviously there is some point where the differences will be audible, but one cannot be as confident as jj_0001 would like to be.

OK.
Let's presume that 20 gauge is audibly distinguishable.
Yet . . .
some humans are deaf.
and others . . . have above average hearing . . .

thus . . .
it's a variable, not a control
So, now we have a multivariate rather than univariate analysis.
How did this simplify things?

With a known control, you can test the TEST.

And thereby show a given level of validity for a given test.

Please stay on subject.

Obviously there is some point where the differences will be audible, but one cannot be as confident as jj_0001 would like to be.

Excuse me, does "proven in a DBT" mean anything beyond "proven in a dbt"?

The much-reviled Noisaine test proved that small speaker cable had audible effects. Ergo, it does. It's been demonstrated. Therefore you have to accept the fact.

Either you accept the real data or you don't. Which will it be?

If one is not confident, one rejects actual data.

So far as I know, no blind test has ever shown audible differences in cables when level matched. And I think it's safe to say everyone agrees that differences due to level are totally uninteresting (most hifi systems come equipped with a volume control, after all).

First, all differences are at their heart differences in level, when considered in the germane domain, that of "partial loudness", which is to say the same thing that Greenwood and Zwislocki demonstrated maps to the firings of neurons in the auditory nerve. Now, you mean "broadband differences in level" perhaps, which are uninteresting UNLESS THEY HAVE ANOTHER POINT, which is that THEY TEST THE TEST. Oops, please stay in context, will you, we're testing the test, that's the context right now.

So, now, tell me, does the fact that different cables CAN cause a level difference (ohms law here, you don't even need to enter the realm of complex impedence to show this compared to known human loudness DL's) show that you can use a too-small cable to show that the test is in fact responding to small audible differences?

Yes, it does show this, and has, definitively, in a very well reported (if somewhat less than wonderfully described thanks to editorial contributions) test. It is shown. It is. Fiat est. It takes one test, reports, and repeats to show an affirmative, and that is far exceeded in this case. So either you can accept the fact (and yes, it is a pure level difference, which manifests to the human as a change in quality, which shows that the test, in fact, does have reasonable sensitivity) or you can reject the actual data.

So, you can use such a strategy to test the test. Perhaps you are trying to avoid testing the test, I don't know, but the facts are absolute in this case, it's been proven. What's more, the results are right directly in line with the known sensitivities of humans to small level changes.

So, what's your problem?

As to "is this a reasonable speaker cable" as far as I know, nobody technical thinks so, although perhaps you ought to check out the effective gauge of some of those interesting cables.

You are assuming the 20 gauge is a screening test. What is being proposed is adding a 20 gauge wire arm to an A vs B trial (as a presumed control). It's a different experimental design, and changes the statistical analysis in a major way.

It changes nothing.

It is not a "presumed control" 20 feet of #20 wire using pretty normal speakers is known to cause audible level differences. It IS a control.

It is no MORE than a control, and you do not have to change your statistical analysis of the actual probe situation in any fashion whatsoever.

Of course, you do have an interesting situation if your probe situation shows a positive, and your control a negative. Such is life.

Honestly, I appreciate where you're trying to go, but I think you're as guilty of some of the same oversimplification you're accusing others of.

There's no oversimplification here. Go back to the Noisaine test. It details the smallest wire used, how it was in fact detected by listeners, and exactly what the setup was.

So you have a control demonstrated right then and there. There's nothing hypothetical or anything else involved.

They may have not included it as a control. That is irrelevant.

First, all differences are at their heart differences in level, when considered in the germane domain, that of "partial loudness", which is to say the same thing that Greenwood and Zwislocki demonstrated maps to the firings of neurons in the auditory nerve.

It's very simple - either the cables make a difference in frequency response that is audible after level matching (say at 1kHz) or they don't. No need to discuss partial loudness or neurons.

Now, you mean "broadband differences in level" perhaps, which are uninteresting UNLESS THEY HAVE ANOTHER POINT, which is that THEY TEST THE TEST. Oops, please stay in context, will you, we're testing the test, that's the context right now.

If you want a control of that sort, using a cable is a very bad idea. It would be better to adjust the level a little using the preamp and determine the threshold for hearing volume differences.

So, now, tell me, does the fact that different cables CAN cause a level difference (ohms law here, you don't even need to enter the realm of complex impedence to show this compared to known human loudness DL's) show that you can use a too-small cable to show that the test is in fact responding to small audible differences?

See above. There are much better ways to do that.

Yes, it does show this, and has, definitively, in a very well reported (if somewhat less than wonderfully described thanks to editorial contributions) test. It is shown. It is. Fiat est. It takes one test, reports, and repeats to show an affirmative, and that is far exceeded in this case.

Link please.

It changes nothing.

It is not a "presumed control" 20 feet of #20 wire using pretty normal speakers is known to cause audible level differences. It IS a control.

It is no MORE than a control, and you do not have to change your statistical analysis of the actual probe situation in any fashion whatsoever.

Of course, you do have an interesting situation if your probe situation shows a positive, and your control a negative. Such is life.

A control can not vary, it must always be poitive or always be negative..
An example is: "testing a micro-organisms for sensitivity to a drug". You soak small disks of paper in an antibiotic. You but them on a petri dish. As a control you place small disks of paper soaked in the same solution as other disks minus the antibiotic. Thus, you have reduced the number of variables, not increased them.

A control can not vary, it must always be poitive or always be negative..
An example is: "testing a micro-organisms for sensitivity to a drug". You soak small disks of paper in an antibiotic. You but them on a petri dish. As a control you place small disks of paper soaked in the same solution as other disks minus the antibiotic. Thus, you have reduced the number of variables, not increased them.

I think you need to study standard psychoacoustic testing. You're making an authoritive statement based on another discipline. Furthermore, you're asserting that the positive control for the listening test adds variables, when in fact it obviously, clearly reduces them.

The much-reviled Noisaine test proved that small speaker cable had audible effects. Ergo, it does. It's been demonstrated. Therefore you have to accept the fact.Look I'm happy to accept the fact that cotton twine sounds different than copper cable, too. It's all about degrees.They may have not included it as a control. That is irrelevant.Are you saying they might not have tested the test? Oh my goodness!

Look, Mike L. and Chris didn't need to test the test for one simple reason: the test conditions were part of the hypothesis. Mike L. was confident he could discern the differences between the exact two cables chosen, under the exact conditions selected. He maintained this confidence throughout the test itself, until it was terminated prematurely due to negative results.

So while it might not provide the results you were looking for, it provided precisely the confirmation that I and many objectivists would hope for. That is, it confirmed that Mike L.'s brain fools him.

Now, as a followup to this test, Mike might want to do what you are recommending, and introduce a test setup that virtually anyone ought to discern.

It's very simple - either the cables make a difference in frequency response that is audible after level matching (say at 1kHz) or they don't. No need to discuss partial loudness or neurons.


You're avoiding the context of this discussion. First, level matching is NOT included in this control arrangement, because it produces, deliberately, a small, audible change in loudness.

So your insistance on modifying the control is simply making the control no longer a control.

As to partial loudness, it is entirely germane, because it shows the connection between an overall change in loudness and the way that any change in audible results from another cable must be expressed. It completes the thought, and as such is a necessary, material statement.

Please do not confuse the issue, please remain in context, which is a cable with a specified size and length showing an audible difference, and thus being a valid control. That is the only issue at hand.

Nobody doubts that you should make level-matched tests, UNLESS, say, you're trying to find out (yes, there are other ways to do so, which is irrelevant, although useful) if the cable creates an audible level change.

If so, you're compensating out the issue you're trying to test. That's simply a mistake.



If you want a control of that sort, using a cable is a very bad idea. It would be better to adjust the level a little using the preamp and determine the threshold for hearing volume differences.


And, again, you ignore the context. It is literally perfect in this regard, as it is something that the listener here, IN CONTEXT, could accomplish.

Certainly there are other methods, methods that require calibration, specialied equipment, etc, that were NOT AVAILABLE. What is available to anyone within reach of Home Depot is zip cord that's too small.

You seem determined to reject the obvious, utter, absolute superiority of using a too small cable IN A SITUATION WHERE NOTHING ELSE IS AVAILABLE.

If you want to loan the OP a lab, a listening room, and equipment, then maybe you and he can arrange to do a better job.

Until then, please STAY IN CONTEXT, and help, rather than raising methods and measurements NOT AVAILBLE TO THE PERSON WHO RAN THIS TEST.

Goodness!



See above. There are much better ways to do that.


Really? The context here is:

Somebody's living room.
The ability to change cables.

There are no meters of sufficient resolution. There is no calibrated attenuator.
So, in other words, your claimed methods are IMPOSSIBLE in the context we are discussing.

In short, you're not helping a bit, here, you're talking pie in the sky.

Yes, if I was doing this in my lab, I'd use different methods. Those methods and systems are not available in this case, and insisting there are better methods to the fellow who started this thread, who doesn't have the equipment, is a waste of time.




Link please.

I am not going to go digging for a link to the Noisaine test, it was published before the net existed.

And I'm not going to find it and scan it, and violate somebody's copyright. If you can't find it, ask Tom, he's certainly going to know where you can find it, and he's hardly difficult to find.

I am not going to go digging for a link to the Noisaine test, it was published before the net existed.

And I'm not going to find it and scan it, and violate somebody's copyright. If you can't find it, ask Tom, he's certainly going to know where you can find it, and he's hardly difficult to find.

Then provide a reference.

If so, you're compensating out the issue you're trying to test. That's simply a mistake.JJ, at risk of drawing some snark, I am seriously confused here. Why are we compensating out the issue we're trying to test? I don't see that at all. We're not trying to test the notion that bulk level differences are audible. That's a given. But such differences alone have nothing to do with sonic quality; because once the comparative test is done, the volume level will be adjusted based on the selected cable alone.

Look, Mike L. and Chris didn't need to test the test for one simple reason: the test conditions were part of the hypothesis. Mike L. was confident he could discern the differences between the exact two cables chosen, under the exact conditions selected. He maintained this confidence throughout the test itself, until it was terminated prematurely due to negative results.


Yes, I understand that. Now what's your point? My point is that his test would be more secure to the audio fantasy brigade if he could show that it had at least a decent sensitivity. Not that that will help the argument much, but it's a start.

So while it might not provide the results you were looking for, it provided precisely the confirmation that I and many objectivists would hope for. That is, it confirmed that Mike L.'s brain fools him.

Now that is quite enough.

I require that you retract your claim of "the results you were looking for". I am a professional scientist, I do audio research for a living, and I have been reviled so far by two generations of SUBJECTIVISTS for pointing out that their emperor has no clothes. Your suggestion that I "hope for" anything is simply wrong and insulting. I am an objectivist who has been insisting, demanding, arguing for, etc, DBT's, for at least 30 years, and I am full well on the *public* record as arguing for such since at least 1979, in AES papers, on AES committees (I chair two AES Technical Committees), in IEEE publications, in IEEE committtes, while reviewing papers for both AES and IEEE, on netnews, at the (groan) audio asylum, here, and elsewhere. I have contributed to both BS1116 and BS1116.1 protocols, I was one of the designers of the MPEG-Audio triple-stimulus testing method, and so on.

How dare you call me a subjectivist. That is literally fighting words!

I am not the least bit suprised by the outcome of the test, it's what I would expect, unless the cables contained a network, were too small, or some kind of pathological speaker, say like a Scintilla, or other speaker with an absurd impedence curve, was involved (which can provoke all sorts of problems both with any change in cable size and cause lots of amplifier misconduct as well). Such evidence, as far as I'm concerned, only shows that there is a problem with the impedence curve of the product. Speakers do not need to dip to ~1 ohm reactive impedence inside the audio band (or anywhere else).

My point here is simply that he could have tested the test, as well. That way (duh) when an audiophile claims (yet again) that "the test was bad" we could show conclusively that it WAS NOT BAD.

My goodness. I suspect you have little experience (I have 20+ years) in arguing with the fringe audiophiles, otherwise you'd expect them to raise that issue within a minute. And, you will note, they already have argued, above, that due to this or that, the test was invalid. A positive control rejects this premise. Hello?

We still see arguments about "stress", I haven't seen anyone raise the invalid objection involving the "range rule", but I expect we may. Audiophiles are fond of claiming that 'DBT's don't work for music" despite the reams and reams of evidence otherwise, and when some of those reams of publications are forced down their throats, they retreat to the special pleading of "but we're more sensitive" and the moving goalposts of "but I meant for high-end audio", when pointed out that Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, and Harman (Floyd has retired, btw) use them for high-quality mainstream audio testing, and have built a very nice facility for exactly that.

Of course, there is a simple reason that DBT's don't work for many high-end tweaks, it's because THE TWEAKS CAUSE NO AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE.

D'oh.

If red cable makes someone happy (for example), so be it, but please, let's not have the "but it makes the audio waaarrmmmeeerrr" protest. Accept it as part of the sensory gestalt, and be done with it.

It's not a question of audibility.

You know, cut the crap, JJ. You have been purposefully provocative and hostile from the start. I know damn well you're an objectivist. But if you can't take even a little snark than quit dishing it out. Your opinions are welcome but your hostility is not. Know who your allies are on this thread, and work with them, or get the hell out.

Then provide a reference.


No.

If you have even entered this discussion, you should have heard of this test. It is not a "new" or "special" thing, it's well known, and I'm not going to a library and look through old copies of audio magazines for you.

I do believe it's been mentioned up-thread. You can look or not, as you like, but the evidence is plain and cold. Tom Noisaine is one of the authors. That's all I recall of the citation, and I don't care to help out somebody who is rude and insulting, and furthermore clearly hasn't read the literature themselves.

What's more, it matches the results one would expect from Allens and Hall's (two separate papers on the same issue) work on level roving, etc. You can find those under "Joseph L. Hall" and "Jont Allen" in JASA, if you are determined to find something on the issue. You may find it a bit tricky to relate, but that's not my problem, and I'm out of patience with repeated demands for well known, scientifically validated, issues.

In short, there's nothing unexpected, use a cable that's too small, and it causes an audible level difference. I have no idea why you find this so surprising.

If you have even entered this discussion, you should have heard of this test.What a load of crap. JJ, this is not an academic conference, this is an enthusiast forum. It is not your place to impose any sort of prerequisites for having this discussion. We all here to learn, except perhaps for you. Indeed, we objectivists can even learn from each other, if it is possible to cut through the hostility. Just today on another thread I indicated that Krabapple's efforts to point us to some useful references has caused me to modify my position (indeed, to further cement my objectivism.)

I'll say it again: know who your allies are on this thread, and work with them, or get the hell out. I don't care how much you know if you're going to insist on being an a$$hole.

You know, cut the crap, JJ. You have been purposefully provocative and hostile from the start. I know damn well you're an objectivist. But if you can't take even a little snark than quit dishing it out. Your opinions are welcome but your hostility is not. Know who your allies are on this thread, and work with them, or get the hell out.


Let's see. I pointed out, politely, how he could have tested his test to some extent. Lo and behold, people pile all over me.

G'day.

JJ, at risk of drawing some snark, I am seriously confused here. Why are we compensating out the issue we're trying to test? I don't see that at all. We're not trying to test the notion that bulk level differences are audible. That's a given.

Good, so why can't we use a GIVEN to test the test? Hello? That's the point, after all. It's what I suggested in the first case.

G'day.

What a load of crap. JJ, this is not an academic conference, this is an enthusiast forum.

And Noisaine's article is in a hobby publication, hence both my mentioning it AND my not having it quick at hand in my library.

And, no, I don't even have it in my house. I suspect deja-news (google) might have some information on it, but you'd have to look in (cringe) rec.audio.* for it, and we know what that looks like.

For the record I looked for the Nouisane test data on the net before I posted that. I couldn't find it. I wouldn't be surprised if Swampfox looked, too. What can I say, Google's not perfect. (Though it gives you credibility as a seasoned researcher that you referred to it as deja news!)Let's see. I pointed out, politely, how he could have tested his test to some extent. Lo and behold, people pile all over me.Oh, and your attitude had absolutely zero to do with it.

Don't let the door smack you on the butt on the way out.

I just want to point out for everyone else's benefit what JJ considers to be a "polite" post:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12351376#post12351376Nonsense.

Ever hear of "controls" in an experiment?

If you're picking randomly, you'll get caught by the controls. End of discussion. Oh, wait, you didn't include any? Tsk!But of course he didn't have it coming. :rolleyes:

We can certainly take a bit of that kind of attitude here; at least I hope so, because I do a bit of that myself :) But to turn around and play the victim card when people push back just makes me laugh.

Michael,

It might have been easier to find if you had been provided with the properly spelled name. I haven't looked for the article either, but meanwhile here is Nousaine's website:

http://www.nousaine.com/

Sanjay

Drat, I spelled it a couple of different ways, and did not manage to hit on that spelling :) And yet both of my attempts yielded hits so I wasn't sure I was wrong! EDIT: Wait, maybe I did use that one. I'm getting the same hits, as far as I can tell. Well, I don't know.

Good, so why can't we use a GIVEN to test the test? Hello? That's the point, after all. It's what I suggested in the first case.

G'day.



The current 'debate' centers on:
1) Someone proposed that cable testing should be done by those who don't believe they can hear the difference.

2) I pointed out that this group was biased to not hear anything.

3) You 'pointed out' the need for a control

4) I asked for an example.

5) You categorically stated that 20 gauge wire can be considered a control.

6) You get pissy when asked to justify the use of 20 gauge wire as a control. Actually, you get pissy over the whole concept of the difference between a control and a variable.

Provide a reference to an article in a referred journal such as AES that shows that all listeners can hear the difference between 12 g and 20 g cable with level matched signals.

It changes nothing.


Of course, you do have an interesting situation if your probe situation shows a positive, and your control a negative. Such is life.


Such is life . . .Wrong. A positive control can't be negative and when it is it negates the whole experiment. The same thing happens when a negative control is positive. Controls that don't act like controls show faulty experimental design.

Such is life . . .Wrong. A positive control can't be negative and when it is it negates the whole experiment. The same thing happens when a negative control is positive. Controls that don't act like controls show faulty experimental design.


Of course. It would suggest a serious problem with the test.

Why was this in doubt?

Provide a reference to an article in a referred journal such as AES that shows that all listeners can hear the difference between 12 g and 20 g cable with level matched signals.

Your request is completely disingenious.

I have said "connect the wire". The way I described doing this was clearly excluding level matching. Using small cables is a way for a person to make at least a decent attempt at controls in an experiment where equipment and measurement are not possible.

Nobody, myself included, has claimed this is the BEST way. It certainly is not, if one has the lab and the equipment. The person who started this thread, whose behavior has greatly outclassed the objectivists here, does not have such meters available. I have, therefore, suggested a way that he can informally, at least, add a positive control. In doing so, I have specifically not said a thing about level matching, and you already know that, unless you only read every other word.

You now disingeniously demand proof for something I have not claimed. IN THIS CASE the use of small wire is intended to cause a small, audible level mismatch. I have said as much several times, ergo your demand that I prove the audibility of a level-matched test is outright rhetorical deceit.

If one level matches, is this audible? I doubt it, frankly, unless we have a very seriously "interesting" kind of speaker impedence, but since I haven't made the claim either way, demanding proof from me of the audibility of this is, I repeat, pure disingenuity on your part.

Yet, I am lectured by the two of you on manners. Goodness.

Swampfox, I have no idea why you persist in this charade.

While I agree with you that people who claim the affirmative, i.e. that they hear something, have the burden of proof, your claim that one cannot test the test is simply wrong, and as such is nonsense.

Suggesting or implying that one can not catch deliberate malfeasance by a subject in a test is simply absurd, and as such, is nonsense.

I do agree that sometimes people forget to include such issues in their test design, that's one of the reasons why I entered this discussion.

What have I found? Unreasonable misstatements, false implications of what I've said, and people willing to accuse me of professional misconduct without even the veriest hint of a reason to do so.

I am not obligated to be polite to absurdities.

How dare you call me a subjectivist. That is literally fighting words!

Michael Grant sn't calling you a subjectivist. He was saying that you seem to be looking for a test result that is generally applicable (and therefore perhaps satisfactory) to the cable woo crowd. He agrees that Mike Lavingne's test was not that test. It is a test that showed that confidence in 'trusting your ears' is not necessarily warranted, and nothing more or less.

And folks, it's *Nousaine* for heaven's sake. Tom's email address is nousaine@aol.com if anyone wants to ask him about his tests.

The relevant reference took mere seconds to locate on google using 'Nousaine cable' as a query

Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)

Krab,

Thanks! I kept typing 'insane' instead of 'Nousaine' and was getting the cable test results I was looking for/expecting, so I didn't realize I was spelling it wrong. :D

I tried to post this yesterday, but it didn't show up, so I'll try again. If it appears twice, sorry.

jj, do you really think demonstrating that one can hear the difference between a coat hanger and regular speaker wire is going to convince subjectivists the test was valid? If you have as much experience with this debate as you say, I can't imagine you're so naive.

Subjectivists can hear the effects of a goat's sneeze in Mongolia on their audio systems. Not being able to hear the difference between any two cables is a clear sign the test setup was bad, or the stress of testing closed the listener's ear canals, or the Shakti holographic defibrillator was out of position, or whatever. So being proven able to hear a difference under some extreme circumstances would simply be dismissed as obvious. It's also useless scientifically - to do what yiou want properly one would establish hearing thresholds, and one data point from one cable doesn't do that.

Lavigne's system had as much subjectivist cred as is possible, pretty much. That he couldn't hear the difference (especially when he was as confident as he was) is as damning an indictment of subjectivist nonsense as you can get.

It was also (contrary to what some were saying in this thread earlier) quite conclusive statistical evidence that he could not hear the differences as he had claimed (which was that he could do so with near-perfect confidence). If his hypothesis was that he could correctly identify 90% of the time, we can reject that with something like p<.03.

Your request is completely disingenious.


No. It is not. I'd love to read the paper.

I have said "connect the wire". The way I described doing this was clearly excluding level matching. Using small cables is a way for a person to make at least a decent attempt at controls in an experiment where equipment and measurement are not possible.


You need to level match. It is well documented that most humans can identify very small differences in loudness of tones. You know, and I know, that you must control this for a test to have any validity.


You now disingeniously demand proof for something I have not claimed. IN THIS CASE the use of small wire is intended to cause a small, audible level mismatch. I have said as much several times, ergo your demand that I prove the audibility of a level-matched test is outright rhetorical deceit.


Again, not true. You made a case that it's audible to the point of being a valid control. I questioned that statement and held your feet to the fire to support it.


If one level matches, is this audible? I doubt it, frankly, unless we have a very seriously "interesting" kind of speaker impedence, but since I haven't made the claim either way, demanding proof from me of the audibility of this is, I repeat, pure disingenuity on your part.


Swampfox, I have no idea why you persist in this charade.


Charade? You don't think that 20G wire would be audible if level matched, yet I'm the one being disingenous?


While I agree with you that people who claim the affirmative, i.e. that they hear something, have the burden of proof, your claim that one cannot test the test is simply wrong, and as such is nonsense.

Suggesting or implying that one can not catch deliberate malfeasance by a subject in a test is simply absurd, and as such, is nonsense.


I didn't say you 'can't', I just stated it is extremely difficult. The inherent bias and difficulty in finding credible controls makes it impractical. The easiest fix is to test those who claim the affirmative.


I do agree that sometimes people forget to include such issues in their test design, that's one of the reasons why I entered this discussion.

What have I found? Unreasonable misstatements, false implications of what I've said, and people willing to accuse me of professional misconduct without even the veriest hint of a reason to do so.

I am not obligated to be polite to absurdities.

I, for one, have not accused you of professional misconduct. I have held your feet to the fire, and nothing more.

Michael Grant sn't calling you a subjectivist. He was saying that you seem to be looking for a test result that is generally applicable (and therefore perhaps satisfactory) to the cable woo crowd. He agrees that Mike Lavingne's test was not that test. It is a test that showed that confidence in 'trusting your ears' is not necessarily warranted, and nothing more or less.

And folks, it's *Nousaine* for heaven's sake. Tom's email address is nousaine@aol.com if anyone wants to ask him about his tests.

The relevant reference took mere seconds to locate on google using 'Nousaine cable' as a query

Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)


More fool me -- I'm told by a correspondent that this article isn't the one that compared wires of vastly different gauge. Data from TN's article are summarized online at Dave Carlstrom's ABX site

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm

They're pretty interesting in their own right! But there's no 'positive control listed there.

Possibly JJ is referring to the older Greenhill test

Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?" Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)

Subjectivists have made hay over this one for decades, citing editorial interference with the 'real' results. But in fact the test, as published, did show audible difference between a few cables that, mirabile dictu, turned out to have significant level differences when measured (including cables of different gauge). Thus forever giving lie to the occasional ignorant audiophile claim that 'ABX tests never show any differences between gear".

Interested readers shouold also scan around the otehr tests on the ABX site -- among the positive results documented are audible difference of 0.1dB using pink noise
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_lvl.htm

an 18-bit vs 14-bit CD player
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

phono cartridges
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm

power amps
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm

note especially in each, the conditions under which differences could be heard

You need to level match. It is well documented that most humans can identify very small differences in loudness of tones. You know, and I know, that you must control this for a test to have any validity.

I disagree that you have to level match if the only variable are the cables being tested. In fact, level differences should be one of the expected possible audible conditions if the cables' electrical properties are sufficiently disparate.

but if we are doing a test whose only purpose is to determine which is which, and we do not level match, then we have an indicator in the test that will allow us to reliably identify which is which. so the test is invalid.

if we level match, (or do like mike suggested where we turn to 0 at the start of each trial and then turn to a level we like) then any determination has to be via some sonic quality.


As was suspected when the test was first announced, we have many pages of rambling and drilling into bizarre esoteric details about what was or was not learned from the test.

All that was learned was that the clear differences mike was sure he could hear are not there. THey are subtle at best and beyond his identification IN THIS TEST AS IT WAS CONDUCTED. nothing more, nothing less. it was not a condemnation of the high end industry, it was not a victory for monster cable, it was not a loss for mikes cables.

Level matching would be crucial in comparing active devices with variable gain, or to compare the sonic characteristics of loudspeakers.

But in comparing passive interconnections that should not produce an audible drop in signal level, don't match the levels. Instead, test for audible differences, including changes in levels.

You need to level match. It is well documented that most humans can identify very small differences in loudness of tones.

Yes, we all know this, I think. And what I proposed was to USE that level difference as a sensitivity test.

You are repeatedly avoiding the real issue, which is "how do we make a positive control easily in a situation where somebody isn't going to have a half-ohm, 10 watt noninductive resistor, or a good meter, etc".

And that's all I'm proposing. And if you level match after you set that control up, you're invalidating it.

Listen to yourself. "It's audible" you keep saying. YES WE ALL KNOW THAT. It is a marginally audible level difference and it's deliberate. No, you don't level match away a deliberate introduction of a level difference. Goodness.

We're not testing that cable for "is 22 gauge wire audible when level matched" (or 20, or whatever), we're creating an unmatched level situation that is known to be audible.

I disagree that you have to level match if the only variable are the cables being tested. In fact, level differences should be one of the expected possible audible conditions if the cables' electrical properties are sufficiently disparate.

This is the whole point, and (apparently Greenhill's test, sorry) a test has shown at least one situation where the level difference is audible.

And THAT is something a person can try (albiet with some inaccuracy, I certainly agree) in their own home.

More fool me -- I'm told by a correspondent that this article isn't the one that compared wires of vastly different gauge. Data from TN's article are summarized online at Dave Carlstrom's ABX site

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm

They're pretty interesting in their own right! But there's no 'positive control listed there.

Possibly JJ is referring to the older Greenhill test

Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?" Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)

Subjectivists have made hay over this one for decades, citing editorial interference with the 'real' results. But in fact the test, as published, did show audible difference between a few cables that, mirabile dictu, turned out to have significant level differences when measured (including cables of different gauge). Thus forever giving lie to the occasional ignorant audiophile claim that 'ABX tests never show any differences between gear".

Interested readers shouold also scan around the otehr tests on the ABX site -- among the positive results documented are audible difference of 0.1dB using pink noise
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_lvl.htm

an 18-bit vs 14-bit CD player
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

phono cartridges
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm

power amps
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm

note especially in each, the conditions under which differences could be heard

Thanks, and sorry for pointing to the wrong test. My apologies for that.

Bob Lee: But in comparing passive interconnections that should not produce an audible drop in signal level, don't match the levels. Instead, test for audible differences, including changes in levels.I just can't agree with this, Bob. Absolute volume is not an indicator of true sonic quality, but can be misinterpreted as such. And once a speaker cable comparison is completed, and a single cable is selected, any absolute attenuation it imparts is irrelevant---because the master volume will simply be adjusted to suit the listener's preference. So when it comes to evaluating quality differences, I see no benefit to leaving level imbalances in place.

but if we are doing a test whose only purpose is to determine which is which, and we do not level match, then we have an indicator in the test that will allow us to reliably identify which is which. so the test is invalid.

Um, again, I see people don't quite get what a control is.

When I suggested using wire that's too small, it was to deliberately create a borderline level difference that has been shown to be audible.

This was not to show that such differences are audible, that's known to be true. It is to test the test, i.e. to show that the test COULD RESOLVE small audible level differences.

Obviously, if you have a lab and a bench of equipment, you'd do this a better way.

But when you don't, and all you have is a living room and access to Home Depot (I think we can all assume that), using a thin cable as a control, on purpose, allows you to at least verify that you can hear something close to threshold in the test.

Nobody here is arguing that level differences aren't audible. They are. I'm proposing to use that fact productively.

Hence my irritation with the ridiculous arguments coming from Col. Marion, wherein he keeps demanding that I prove something that I did not claim.

I just can't agree with this, Bob. Absolute volume is not an indicator of true sonic quality, but can be misinterpreted as such. And once a speaker cable comparison is completed, and a single cable is selected, any absolute attenuation it imparts is irrelevant---because the master volume will simply be adjusted to suit the listener's preference. So when it comes to evaluating quality differences, I see no benefit to leaving level imbalances in place.

Michael, you're out of context again.

Nobody is arguing that level differences are inaudible.

The point of suggesting a thin cable here was to create a difference known to be barely audible, in order to determine, in the setup that the listener had, how sensitive the test situation was.

Demanding level matching when one is deliberately shading the level to create a control condition (not testing the thin wire, goodness!) is just silly. Yes, there is a level difference. That's the point. And demanding that I "prove" something I never argued for is beyond silly, it's profoundly disingenious.

And, of course, any minimally competent speaker cable shouldn't create any sort of level difference, now, should it? Can you imagine a situation where you would want a cable that was too thin, that was otherwise engineered well? Why? While I'm not particularly concerned with the issue, it seems to me that Bob's general statement is quite reasonable, why should a plain, ordinary cable create any audible difference, including level difference?

I can see it rolling off high end if you have a highly reactive speaker, and perhaps helping if there is too much direct high frequency sound from the system, but why not do that explicitly and under control, etc, etc? (Those of you who presume that all loudspeakers have reasonable impedence curves might want to examine the impedence of some of the more, um, esoteric loudspeakers out there. Don't blame me, I didn't design them.)

In other words, why use a wire to do anything other than just get the signal from here to there? Level difference in a wire is part of its performance.

Yet, I am lectured by the two of you on manners. Goodness.Well, if you honestly considered your first foray into this debate "polite", as you claimed above, then yes, you need a good lecture, even from us rude folks. But as much as I got on your case about manners, what I really frosted me was that when I threw a bit of your own attitude back at you, you misinterpreted it wildly and started whining and moaning like a soccer player faking a mortal blow to his shin.

I'm actually glad you're back. But if you don't want even more pushback, then chill out just a tad---and definitely quit suggesting that we're being disingenuous, or that we're not "staying on subject", blah blah blah. We might be 100% wrong, but we are debating here in good faith. Before you suggest otherwise you might want to consider that you just haven't made your case well enough.

Michael, you're out of context again.First of all, refer to my last post.

Secondly, I was responding to Bob, not you; and Bob was not engaging in this discussion about about controls; at least that is how I interpreted him.

So let me explain my point further. Yes I agree that there really isn't any excuse for a speaker cable to significantly alter absolute attenuation. But I'm not looking at this from that vantage point. That is, I'm not talking about how easy it is to make an electrically ideal speaker cable. My curiosity is piqued by just how far the cable can be from ideal and have it still be indistinguishable in quality from the ideal. I just happen to think that is the more interesting question. And if that's the question I am interested in exploring, then I need to level match.

I can honestly conceive of valid practical reasons why this question is to be preferred. Let's say I move into a house prewired for 7.1, but they used thinner cable than I might prefer. Should I take the trouble to rip it out and replace it with lower gauge cable? Well, if the only audible difference will be in absolute level, then of course not. My prepro can take care of that. But if it is going to compromise my speaker's response by an audible amount, I might be more likely to consider it.

Again, this doesn't have anything to do with controls vs. no controls, etc. I'm simply speaking here about the general question of the sonic quality of speaker cable. And while absolute attenuation is a symptom of potentially reduced sonic quality, it isn't a guarantee of it.

[SORRY for all the edits. I am in a hurry to get out the door but I wanted to get my point across, and when I get rushed I get "save" happy.]

First of all, refer to my last post.

Secondly, I was responding to Bob, not you; and Bob was not engaging in this discussion about about controls; at least that is how I interpreted him.


Oh. Sorry.


So let me explain my point further. Yes I agree that there really isn't any excuse for a speaker cable to significantly alter absolute attenuation. But I'm not looking at this from that vantage point. That is, I'm not talking about how easy it is to make an electrically ideal speaker cable. My curiosity is piqued by just how far the cable can be from ideal and have it still be indistinguishable in quality from the ideal. I just happen to think that is the more interesting question. And if that's the question I am interested in exploring, then I need to level match.

I can honestly conceive of valid practical reasons why this question is to be preferred. Let's say I move into a house prewired for 7.1, but they used thinner cable than I might prefer. Should I take the trouble to rip it out and replace it with lower gauge cable? Well, if the only audible difference will be in absolute level, then of course not. My prepro can take care of that. But if it is going to compromise my speaker's response by an audible amount, I might be more likely to consider it.

Again, this doesn't have anything to do with controls vs. no controls, etc. I'm simply speaking here about the general question of the sonic quality of speaker cable. And while absolute attenuation is a symptom of potentially reduced sonic quality, it isn't a guarantee of it.

[SORRY for all the edits. I am in a hurry to get out the door but I wanted to get my point across, and when I get rushed I get "save" happy.]

There is an issue here, though, in that some speakers (I hesitate to name names, but I've found some doozies) may have enormous problems with high-resistance wiring.

But the statement is "may". If your speaker has a nice, polite impedence curve, all you lose is energy, and most amplifiers are way big enough nowdays...

I just can't agree with this, Bob. Absolute volume is not an indicator of true sonic quality, but can be misinterpreted as such. And once a speaker cable comparison is completed, and a single cable is selected, any absolute attenuation it imparts is irrelevant---because the master volume will simply be adjusted to suit the listener's preference. So when it comes to evaluating quality differences, I see no benefit to leaving level imbalances in place.

We're not talking about absolute volume; we're talking about audible differences between cables.

It is so so sooooooo simple to make an extremely low loss loudspeaker or interconnection cable that will not cause audible volume loss at practical lengths. I don't see the point in giving a pass to an incompetently designed cable.

Do level matching for active gear, loudspeakers, etc., where gain is adjustable or doesn't really matter. It doesn't make sense for cabling.

More fool me -- I'm told by a correspondent that this article isn't the one that compared wires of vastly different gauge. Data from TN's article are summarized online at Dave Carlstrom's ABX site

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm

They're pretty interesting in their own right! But there's no 'positive control listed there.

Possibly JJ is referring to the older Greenhill test

Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?" Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)

Subjectivists have made hay over this one for decades, citing editorial interference with the 'real' results. But in fact the test, as published, did show audible difference between a few cables that, mirabile dictu, turned out to have significant level differences when measured (including cables of different gauge). Thus forever giving lie to the occasional ignorant audiophile claim that 'ABX tests never show any differences between gear".

Interested readers shouold also scan around the otehr tests on the ABX site -- among the positive results documented are audible difference of 0.1dB using pink noise
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_lvl.htm

an 18-bit vs 14-bit CD player
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

phono cartridges
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm

power amps
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm

note especially in each, the conditions under which differences could be heard


You should read Dr. Floyd Toole's work if you want an interesting read.

Krab, forgot to thank you for the Greenhill reference, I look forward to reading it.

You should read Dr. Floyd Toole's work if you want an interesting read.

Which of Floyd's publications did you have in mind?

I dare say I've read a few (dozen) of them...

Some interesting read http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201807797

I tried to post this yesterday, but it didn't show up, so I'll try again. If it appears twice, sorry.

jj, do you really think demonstrating that one can hear the difference between a coat hanger and regular speaker wire is going to convince subjectivists the test was valid? If you have as much experience with this debate as you say, I can't imagine you're so naive.

Subjectivists can hear the effects of a goat's sneeze in Mongolia on their audio systems. Not being able to hear the difference between any two cables is a clear sign the test setup was bad, or the stress of testing closed the listener's ear canals, or the Shakti holographic defibrillator was out of position, or whatever. So being proven able to hear a difference under some extreme circumstances would simply be dismissed as obvious. It's also useless scientifically - to do what yiou want properly one would establish hearing thresholds, and one data point from one cable doesn't do that.

Lavigne's system had as much subjectivist cred as is possible, pretty much. That he couldn't hear the difference (especially when he was as confident as he was) is as damning an indictment of subjectivist nonsense as you can get.

It was also (contrary to what some were saying in this thread earlier) quite conclusive statistical evidence that he could not hear the differences as he had claimed (which was that he could do so with near-perfect confidence). If his hypothesis was that he could correctly identify 90% of the time, we can reject that with something like p<.03.

We're not talking about absolute volume; we're talking about audible differences between cables.

Which might be due to absolute volume differences.

Do level matching for active gear, loudspeakers, etc., where gain is adjustable or doesn't really matter. It doesn't make sense for cabling.

Umm... why not? It's like someone once said - if two amplifiers sound different, turn one up until they sound the same. :D

If the audible differences are due to an overall level mismatch I don't think anyone cares about it (correct me if you disagree). So we should eliminate that possibility, which we can do by matching the levels for some test signal.

Bob's point, I believe, is that we should care about simple level mismatches between cables, because it means that one is incompetently designed. I don't disagree about the incompetence part, but if the end result is still identical sonic quality, well, that just means the incompetent fool managed not to screw it up.

To me it boils down to perspective, and I can identify two camps.

Either you're in the "it's way too easy to design a sonically perfect cable to accept anything less" camp, which is where Bob is coming from. Sure, in that camp, absolute levels matter because they are an simple indicator of competent design. So no level matching here.

Or you're in the more morbid camp, "let's see how much we can screw up a cable and have it sound just as good as high-end snake oil." I think it would be hilarious if we could pull the hair-thin speaker cables out of, say, the $50 3-piece system in my daughter's room and drive a pair of Wilson Alexandrias with no apparent sonic loss over a pair of Pear Anjous. With tubes. In my camp, you want to level match.

Bob's point, I believe, is that we should care about simple level mismatches between cables, because it means that one is incompetently designed. I don't disagree about the incompetence part, but if the end result is identical sonic quality, well, that just means the incompetent fool managed to not to screw it up.

OK, that's fair enough. But in some cases (like really long runs of speaker wire) there might be some decrease in gain due to resistive losses even for well-deigned cables. In that case you might want to know whether those differences corresponded to a true decrease in sound quality (in which case they'd be audible after level matching) or not.

I should add that the question you and I are posing is dependent on the speaker. (Technically, on the amp too, but far less so.) The more uneven the impedance vs. frequency response of a speaker, the more likely a high-resistance cable is going to affect the sound.

Which might be due to absolute volume differences.

No, which would be due to losses in a cable.

Umm... why not? It's like someone once said - if two amplifiers sound different, turn one up until they sound the same. :D

If the audible differences are due to an overall level mismatch I don't think anyone cares about it (correct me if you disagree). So we should eliminate that possibility, which we can do by matching the levels for some test signal.

Gain is an adjustable but non-performance-related part of an amplifier, so matching gains of amplifiers under test is crucial to a proper sonic comparison.

Not so with cables. Significant loss in a cable--enough loss to be audibly detectable--signifies a defect.

Matching levels for a cable comparison also means that switching one cable for another will also require switching something else--a variable gain stage--in the system to compensate for the levels. (Or, by including some sort of attenuation in line with one of the cables, but that would also tamper with the source/load interface that the cable is a part of.) Then you're not comparing only the cables any more. While this additional variable would be unavoidable in a loudspeaker comparison, why require it in a cable comparison? If you have to match levels with cables, something's drastically wrong with at least one of them.

Which of Floyd's publications did you have in mind?

I dare say I've read a few (dozen) of them...


I assumed you have. For others:

Listening Tests-Turning Opinion into Fact
JAES Volume 30 Number 6 pp. 431-445; June 1982

Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listener Performance
JAES Volume 33 Number 1/2 pp. 2-32; January/February 1985

Subjective Evaluation: Identifying and Controlling the Variables
8th International Conference: The Sound of Audio (April 1990)

Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests, and Other Interesting Things

Can provide some insight to this debate.

Lavigne's system had as much subjectivist cred as is possible, pretty much. That he couldn't hear the difference (especially when he was as confident as he was) is as damning an indictment of subjectivist nonsense as you can get.

James Randi's million dollars looks pretty safe to me, even if he did a test with networked cables!

Matching levels for a cable comparison also means that switching one cable for another will also require switching something else--a variable gain stage--in the system to compensate for the levels. That is a very fair point Bob. Mike L. posed an interesting solution: he offered to turn the analog volume all the way down during the cable switch. If your preamp had a digital volume control and a simple adjustment of it could compensate, that would help. Of course these solutions prevent any sort of fast switching. Anyway, it proved irrelevant because the levels did match.

No, which would be due to losses in a cable.



Gain is an adjustable but non-performance-related part of an amplifier, so matching gains of amplifiers under test is crucial to a proper sonic comparison.

Not so with cables. Significant loss in a cable--enough loss to be audibly detectable--signifies a defect.

Matching levels for a cable comparison also means that switching one cable for another will also require switching something else--a variable gain stage--in the system to compensate for the levels. (Or, by including some sort of attenuation in line with one of the cables, but that would also tamper with the source/load interface that the cable is a part of.) Then you're not comparing only the cables any more. While this additional variable would be unavoidable in a loudspeaker comparison, why require it in a cable comparison? If you have to match levels with cables, something's drastically wrong with at least one of them.

It’s a valid point. On the other hand, it's important to know if an audible difference is due to measurable differences in loudness (likely in the 3KHz to 5KHz range) or due to some other unknown factor. There are other ways of controlling level differences other than changing the gain.

You should read Dr. Floyd Toole's work if you want an interesting read.

And what makes you think I have not, sir? I've read every paper by Toole and Sean Olive that's been in JAES, as well as various white papers and presentations on the Harman website. As 'krabapple' or 'ssully' I've made many a post referencing them on various audio fora on the interwebs.

And what makes you think I have not, sir? I've read every paper by Toole and Sean Olive that's been in JAES, as well as various white papers and presentations on the Harman website. As 'krabapple' or 'ssully' I've made many a post referencing them on various audio fora on the interwebs.

I really wasn't directing that post at anyone, just broadening the database.
Yet, I would use the pink noise data to support the need for level matching.

jj, do you really think demonstrating that one can hear the difference between a coat hanger and regular speaker wire is going to convince subjectivists the test was valid?

Those who have a mind that is at all open may experience some doubt. Nobody is going to affect the true believers. It's like religion.

OK, that's fair enough. But in some cases (like really long runs of speaker wire) there might be some decrease in gain due to resistive losses even for well-deigned cables. In that case you might want to know whether those differences corresponded to a true decrease in sound quality (in which case they'd be audible after level matching) or not.

If that's your problem statement, certainly.

Most audiophiles won't have long runs, and will not level match. It would be good to know if level was the real issue.

Also, I might mention it might be nice to know if corrosion in not-moved-in-a-long-time RCA connectors might be why new interconnects sound better. But that's another story. :)

That is a very fair point Bob. Mike L. posed an interesting solution: he offered to turn the analog volume all the way down during the cable switch. If your preamp had a digital volume control and a simple adjustment of it could compensate, that would help. Of course these solutions prevent any sort of fast switching. Anyway, it proved irrelevant because the levels did match.
Well, it was nice the levels matched closely and given the lengths and gauges of the cables in question, I think many were of the opinion that they would. Yet, even had rapid switching been available, given the way Mike L. looked to test, it wouldn't have been a benefit. Consider the following. Mike L. was listening to entire musical selections - as it turned out under level matched conditons. This ensures that were he to hear differences, they'd not be due to level differences.

Let's assume for the moment, that there is something special about one of the cables that permits a particular nuance to be heard. I don't know what the nuance is, it's something. It's fleeting. It only appears in a particular segment of the song. It's long enough to register a brief response, but not so long that it can make its way into long term hearing. If the musical selection is 3 minutes long, even with instantaneous switching, it'll be another 3 minutes before he hears it again assuming he's playing the entire song. If short term hearing, which is what the fleeting nuance is, is only a few seconds, Mike L. will be SOL.

Mike L. would need to use the playing of an entire song in order to zero in on that particular segment that evokes that audible nuance. Assuming of course that there is one. Then a means would be needed to burn a copy of just that segment. This way Mike L. would be able to establish a couple of auditory anchors of short enough duration and emminently repeatable that would permit their use in rapid switching. As it stands now, the time syncing is just too far apart.

the thing a bout Auditory memory is if he knows that passage enough to apply descriptive terminology to the "nuance" then he has a frame of reference to apply. as such, much longer memory can apply.

Not that i am syaing that there may be lots there, but that is the thing about auditory memory. if i hear two viola passages (not that i know what a viola sounds like) that are similar, i do not have a snowballs chance in LA to identify them. but if i was a concert viola player and had a frame of reference to apply, i would easily be able to identify the difference and even tell people what that difference was.

So in theory, if there was that subtle difference that mike was able to identify, and he did plenty of research and could quantify that difference, and if this was an ABX test, then mike may have a chance of succesfully identifying. Of course there are LOTS of if's here. and honestly i would expect the same result as the existing test.
What keeps getting rightly pointed out htough is that in order to do a test, all these paramaters need to be worked through. And this would test for something more absolute and take quite a bit more work.

It's entirely reasonable to look at Mike L.'s initial, sighted findings as a result of various biases influencing his auditory focus and anchor points which conspired to give him a different presentation of essentially the same thing.

the thing a bout Auditory memory is if he knows that passage enough to apply descriptive terminology to the "nuance" then he has a frame of reference to apply. as such, much longer memory can apply.


Actually, if you look at Hall or Allen's work on level roving (JASA, sorry, don't have it in the library here) you'll see that loudness memory (the first stage of auditory memory) only last a few hundred milliseconds at most.

For the very, very smallest, most sensitive testing, fast clickless switching is required.

As to lots of work: Running a good test is a lot of work, as well as being hard and tricky to set up. It's very easy to introduce biases even when one would not expect such.

As to lots of work: Running a good test is a lot of work, as well as being hard and tricky to set up. It's very easy to introduce biases even when one would not expect such.

Ahh, something we agree upon. :)

I think it is important to point out that this is not what the test proved affirmatively. While it's buried in my text, it is very important to be clear that this test proves only one thing: that with this particular testing methodology, it was not possible to distinguish any difference between these cables. It does not prove that there are no audible differences between cables or even between these two specific cables. Just that there weren't audible differences the way we tested. It is possible, though in my personal opinion rather unlikely, that a different methodology could yield different results. So for subjectivists who are certain that there are differences in cables, our test does not authoritatively disprove that opinion, however it does shed some doubt as to that position at least on the degree of difference that some subjectivists claim.

Your test is really no different than any other; and in both cases that is true. Given the parameters of the test, no difference was perceived by that person.

We just have to remain honest about both the clarity of the result and the limits of applicability of that result. This test alone is not close to universally definitive for these reasons.

And of course it is possible (evident in fact given the results) that the selected cables were similar enough to not notice any difference--there may in fact not be!

Ironically, I think this says something about Monster positively more than a negative on the Opus.;)

Yes, schticker, but the reason I referred you to this thread was a bit deeper than that. It's really not that big of a deal that in this test no difference was perceived by the tester. What is a big deal, however, is that said tester thought he was perceiving those differences, and believed he had guessed correctly 100% of the time, until the test was halted and the results were revealed.

Thus this test does not call into question the differences between speaker cables, so much as it calls into question the so-called confidence of experienced audiophiles. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12532619#post12532619)

Thus this test does not call into question the differences between speaker cables, so much as it calls into question the so-called confidence of experienced audiophiles. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12532619#post12532619)

Which is what this forum is turning into--a dealer/audiophile bashing forum. It shocks no one that you said that.

Which is what this forum is turning into--a dealer/audiophile bashing forum.Oh, what nonsense. I mean, if "bashing" means offering evidence that contradicts your prideful claim about audiophile confidence, then I guess I'll have to live with that. But I frankly reject that definition, because I reject the notion that audiophilia ought to be defined by the attraction among some of its adherents to baseless tweaks and exotic components. Strip that away, and it still leaves plenty of ways to sink boatloads of money into audio components, listening rooms, and media; plenty of genuine variables for audiophiles to tweak to create the best-sounding room and system.

As for this test in particular I think it is clear, if you actually read my contribution to this thread, that I've been measured in my response to it. I haven't run for the hills shouting "see! all cables sound alike!", and have challenged suggestions to that effect. The reason I point out this issue of confidence is precisely because it is one of the few pieces of information the experiment provides; and certainly the most compelling one.

I certainly hope that new experiments take place which increase the chances that Mike L. can hear any differences that may exist. But so far, one piece of clear information has been obtained: that what Mike thought he heard was not, in fact, what he heard.It shocks no one that you said that.I sure hope not! It is, after all, what the evidence calls for.

I reject the notion that audiophilia ought to be defined by the attraction among some of its adherents to baseless tweaks and exotic components.

Amen to that!

Hi

I have not visited this forum for a good while. I have been an audiophile for a very long time, the son of an audiophile (one that however would have been in a balanced objectivist camp. Prior to this interesting test, I would also swear that differences between cables would be very easy to distinguish... I am no longer so sure.. In fact I KNOW I will not change the present (expensive) cables I have...
I will also conduct some blind testings...

I also agree with Michael Grant that there are several more rational ways to indulge into making our systems better.. Room Treatment and frankly better speakers and components... among others
We must also keep an open mind and understand this test is far from conclusive.. It however, in my personal opinion at the very least, shows that the differences we sometime perceive are not so marked or maybe so real. In the end, it does not seem to make much sense investing in $10,000 speaker cable... worse it does not seem to make ANY difference in performance... Time and more testing will tell...

This is a great post from a guy who is building one of the biggest homes in the US and for sure one of the biggest personal theatres....

The link is here
http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&p=72659

But i will quote the text...

The speaker cabling used in ALL of the HPS-4000 installations is ordinary non-metallic jacketed 10 gauge, 4 conductor electrical cable, with the wires ‘doubled’ to create one massive ‘pair’. I know at this point many of you are rolling your eyes, but let me share with you another story:

In the early 1970’s, I was friends with the owner of The Stereo Shop in Hartford, CT. Being the science nerd that I am, I questioned the real need for the super-expensive turntable cables that supposedly ‘changed the sound of your records’, or the silver-plated speaker cables. It was the latter that I took the most exception with. I just could not see the benefit of spending the $20 or so a foot for the fancy cable when logic told me conductor size was more important than having a hundred small silver-plated conductors. Every time I visited the Stereo Shop the arguments grew more intense. Finally, the owner agreed to bring to my house a pair of the largest McIntosh speakers made, as well as a MC-2300 amplifier to drive them. An A/B speaker switch was provided, and he hooked up his silver cables to one side, and I hooked up ORDINARY 12 GAUGE SOLID CONDUCTOR ARMOR JACKETED (“BX”) ELECTRICAL CABLE that I had left over after an electrical installation to the other side.

Hours later, after listening to all sorts of source material from the intimately familiar to the Lincoln Mayora ‘Direct to Disk’ series, I could detect ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between the two, and frankly neither could he. Thus with this background, I found complete comfort years later with John Allen’s approach: let the end result do the talking.

not conclusive by any means, but somebody who did the proper testing and found... nothing there.

I would politely suggest that mild applications of digital room correction and much more attention to room acoustics would be a lot more beneficial than anything more than large zip cord in speaker wire.

Funny how this thread is still going on..:)

You wonder if you'd redo the test 2-3 more times, with the following changes:

1) Tell the audience which cables you're connecting.
2) Tell the audience which cables you're connecting, but connect the opposite brand instead.
3) Tell the audience which cables you're connecting, but choose either cable at random, so the one that you tell them is connected may not be the one that's in circuit.

The results of the above would be interesting...

Funny how this thread is still going on..:)

You wonder if you'd redo the test 2-3 more times, with the following changes:

1) Tell the audience which cables you're connecting.
2) Tell the audience which cables you're connecting, but connect the opposite brand instead.
3) Tell the audience which cables you're connecting, but choose either cable at random, so the one that you tell them is connected may not be the one that's in circuit.

The results of the above would be interesting...


If you really want highest sensitivity, first you have to train the listeners. Train, train, train, and give them full knowledge.

Then let them try DB trials, with feedback (i.e right vs. wrong ID). Allow them to do open trials for practice (but not for test results, obviously). Always ID the two test conditions even in the blind trials, only blinding the choice of 'X' in the ABX test.

All trials have to be clicklessly switched at the listener's demand with low latency.

This is what test after test has shown to provide the absolute most sensitivity to very small changes in auditory stimulii.

Well, having read the news on the Randi web site, they have two years now to get with the program.

www.randi.org

Sorry to drag this out of the mud, but one thing I do agree on is this:
"All trials have to be clicklessly switched at the listener's demand with low latency"
I don't know how anyone can remember what something sounded like exactly after a few minutes time. The time delay is the one factor I would like to see eliminated for a more definitive test to put his whole thing to rest, at least for me.

Sorry to drag this out of the mud, but one thing I do agree on is this:
"All trials have to be clicklessly switched at the listener's demand with low latency"
I don't know how anyone can remember what something sounded like exactly after a few minutes time. The time delay is the one factor I would like to see eliminated for a more definitive test to put his whole thing to rest, at least for me.If someone can't remember what something sounded like a few minutes ago they're not listening very carefully. Even the best recorded acoustic guitar CD's reproduced on the best systems don't hold a candle to a guy sitting in front of you playing it live. I think you'll realize, even an hour later, that what you're hearing isn't live music.

If someone can't remember what something sounded like a few minutes ago they're not listening very carefully. Even the best recorded acoustic guitar CD's reproduced on the best systems don't hold a candle to a guy sitting in front of you playing it live. I think you'll realize, even an hour later, that what you're hearing isn't live music.
When you are comparing small differences in sound, we have fairly short aural memory. However, if your point is that people are conteding they are hearing dramatic differences, then aural memory should last more than a couple of seconds.

Sorry to drag this out of the mud, but one thing I do agree on is this:
"All trials have to be clicklessly switched at the listener's demand with low latency"
I don't know how anyone can remember what something sounded like exactly after a few minutes time. The time delay is the one factor I would like to see eliminated for a more definitive test to put his whole thing to rest, at least for me.

That requires a switcher box. If we assume for the moment that speaker cable has an influence on sound, then surely a switcher box would too.

That requires a switcher box. If we assume for the moment that speaker cable has an influence on sound, then surely a switcher box would too.
That is why a proper blind test would first submit the switcher box to a double blind, if it passes, then one can continue on using the box (or a PC...)

in the end it showed two things.

1. the dramatic night and day changes, simply were not.
2. nobody on this $%&^*$ forum can just take something as it is. they MUST continue to draw conclusions that are wrong, and state silly thing like "if they used the ___ cables in MY system, it would have truly been verified"

Come on...... if it's not a significant difference, why would you spend the extra mega-coin?? It's weird, because I believe that if you couldn't here a significant difference in a pre-amp you probably wouldn't switch. I stand by, if you can hear a difference and it's worth it, then spend the money. If you can't hear a difference don't spend the money!!
SIMPLE REALLY

No, he THOUGHT it was a significant difference. when sighted, he still thought it was significant. When blind... not so much.

FYI, work has been absolutely overwhelming for the last three or four months......so i have pulled back from almost everything audio including e-mails and posting.....for lack of energy to do it.

i plan on re-visiting the whole cable 'thing' sometime in the near future. i need to experiment with different approaches........but my mind is open to any ultimate result. i have learned what does not work.

in my mind nothing is settled one way or another other than the challenge is considerably more difficult than my ego had originally guessed.

You mean to tell me that you have *gasp* a life!? Well, bust my britches! :)

in my mind nothing is settled one way or another other than the challenge is considerably more difficult than my ego had originally guessed.

In the end, this is all that was really determined. And all i would expect is that some hyperbole would be a little tempered in the future.

I would love to hear the system though one day.

Cheers.

On a simlar topic I wonder if some of you had heard about the recent study regarding placebo effect using a ficticious pain medication. In this study subjects were given two different pills and then subjected to various levels of electrical shock and then asked about the pain relief from each of the drugs.

The first was three dollars per pill ,as I recall ,had a nice brochure and even pens with the name of the new drug on the side. The other was said to be a similar drug chemically but cost ten cents per pill. The more expensive drug was said to have a much better effect and ability to relieve the pain than the ten cent version despite the fact that neither had any active ingredient.The results were statistically significant and ,in fact ,were well over a 20% difference.



Art

On a simlar topic I wonder if some of you had heard about the recent study regarding placebo effect using a ficticious pain medication. In this study subjects were given two different pills and then subjected to various levels of electrical shock and then asked about the pain relief from each of the drugs.

The first was three dollars per pill ,as I recall ,had a nice brochure and even pens with the name of the new drug on the side. The other was said to be a similar drug chemically but cost ten cents per pill. The more expensive drug was said to have a much better effect and ability to relieve the pain than the ten cent version despite the fact that neither had any active ingredient.The results were statistically significant and ,in fact ,were well over a 20% difference.



Art


I guess they left my results out of the study. I told them "I like shocks" and "Daddy's been a bad boy, shock us some more." They didn't give me any medicine though... :confused:

SimpleTheater
"If someone can't remember what something sounded like a few minutes ago they're not listening very carefully"
You obviously don't understand the issues with human memory capabilities. Not that I do, but I know memory is hugely fallible.

ChrisWiggles
"That requires a switcher box. If we assume for the moment that speaker cable has an influence on sound, then surely a switcher box would too."
yep, it's a problem, but a really, really good switcher maybe could help remove that argument to a large extent?

I think most cable differences are probably just in the very high frequencies. I don't hear specific tones over 14khz, but I still seem to sense higher frequencies (I'd kind of like to DBT that, since its from self testing). Perhaps our brains use higher frequencies in some way for spatial sensing or something. Other animals seem to have these capabilities, and who knows how conscious they are of audible sound vs other brain uses for sound? It is not silly to think that some animals perceive higher frequencies different than they do lower frequencies. Animal brains are quite strange. Bats use of "hearing" is extremely different than ours, for example.

On a simlar topic I wonder if some of you had heard about the recent study regarding placebo effect using a ficticious pain medication. In this study subjects were given two different pills and then subjected to various levels of electrical shock and then asked about the pain relief from each of the drugs.

The first was three dollars per pill ,as I recall ,had a nice brochure and even pens with the name of the new drug on the side. The other was said to be a similar drug chemically but cost ten cents per pill. The more expensive drug was said to have a much better effect and ability to relieve the pain than the ten cent version despite the fact that neither had any active ingredient.The results were statistically significant and ,in fact ,were well over a 20% difference.



Art

Yeah, I read that the other day too. Very interesting, I immediately thought of these topics. Not surprising, but certainly interesting.

yep, it's a problem, but a really, really good switcher maybe could help remove that argument to a large extent?

I suppose, but for the subjectivist, the presence of a switcher is a very significant obstacle to the test. And further, then we'd have to do A/B testing of switchers to find that "really, really good switcher." That presumes audible differences between switchers, and between the presence and absence of a switcher. At the end of the day, it seems like a wrench thrown into the mix. And really, if we assume that speaker cables make an audible difference, if you can't hear that difference reliably with a short gap between listening to A and B cable and can ONLY hear it with instantaneous changes via a switcher, it seems to me that such a conclusion would in itself be fairly telling as to the minute possible difference in speaker cables.

Again, the above is assuming a whole number of things that are objectively speaking not going to occur, but for the sake of argument. I mean, anytime anyone has done an ABx test via a switch box or the like and fails, every subjectivist from here to tanzania will say "not a valid test, the switch box had an impact." And, in their logic, they absolutely have a point. It isn't a valid test.

I suppose, but for the subjectivist, the presence of a switcher is a very significant obstacle to the test. And further, then we'd have to do A/B testing of switchers to find that "really, really good switcher." I don't think that would be necessary. To first test the switcher, connect one set of cables to the switcher box, but the other set of identical cables should be connected directly to the amplifier - bypassing the switcher. Then do an A/B test to see if the listener can hear the difference between the directly connected cables and the one's going through the switcher box. If they can't, then connect the switcher box and two different sets of cables and begin the real testing.

I don't see the need for all of these machiniations, at least not at first. Just do the switcher test non-blinded. If the listener can hear differences between cables in a non-blinded test with the switcher in place, they can't later claim it is the switcher's fault when the blinds are instituted.

Now, if the listener can't hear differences with the switcher in place, then these switchbox testing ideas would be worth considering.

After all, the question is not whether or not the switcher affects the sound; it is whether or not the cables do. So determining the audibility of the switcher is not strictly necessary to start with, unless it is alleged to mask the differences between the cables.

The switch is a constant, so if that's not valid, what is? It must be more transparent than the speakers!

Yes it almost certainly is. But remember, distortion is additive, so it's not enough to say that something else in the chain is more distortive. Besides, even though you and I believe it would be audibly transparent, the taker of the test might not believe so. And these tests are, after all, in large measure about belief and its impact on perception.

I remember reading somewhere (and have likely mentioned before) one person's experience with an ABX switchbox. In some cases, switching between A and B yielded obvious differences. But when X was suddenly introduced, the differences disappeared. And this was someone sympathetic to ABX testing!

..in my mind nothing is settled one way or another other than the challenge is considerably more difficult than my ego had originally guessed.With all due respect Mike, you went into detail regarding the SQ level of your system coupled with your ability to hear subtle room ambience in the recorded content. These two refined ingredients enabled you to resolve said “obvious” (earlier I incorrectly used the adjective significant) differences before the testing?

Come on...... if it's not a significant difference, why would you spend the extra mega-coin??

Because just owning the higher priced stuff can bring pleasure of its own. See recent research regarding the price of placebos, and the price of wines, as it relates to report of pleasure with the product.


It's weird, because I believe that if you couldn't here a significant difference in a pre-amp you probably wouldn't switch. I stand by, if you can hear a difference and it's worth it, then spend the money. If you can't hear a difference don't spend the money!!
SIMPLE REALLY

No, not really, because if you can 'hear' a difference, it doesn't mean there really was an audible difference. Simply pricing two of the SAME CABLE, with one being priced 10x more than the other, could make that cable 'sound' more pleasant to a listener.

I agree Krab. It can also work the other way. I personally get insane amounts of satisfaction when I see that my $2K CRT bought used and refurbished looks better than the $10K off the shelf digital (or $20K CRT) at someone else's house.

It's like the guy that rebuilds a vintage car that he bought sitting in a barn for $50 over the guy next door that bought a Vette at retail.

Funnily enough Kurt, I get the opposite feeling when I see a high end 9" CRT in a white room projecting onto a small 4:3 screen. So much potential yet the room spoils the image. In comparison a DLP in a dark decored room has better intrascene black levels that don't change color with scene content. Makes you want to shake the CRT owner by the neck and ask them what they are thinking....

Gary

The switch is a constant, so if that's not valid, what is? It must be more transparent than the speakers!

This is unfortunatly a catch 22 in favor of the expensive cable advocates. No it's simply not possible to do a SEAMLESS A/B test without some form of switch box. A non seamless test goes back to the inability (or ability if you are pro expensive cables) to remember extreme aural details. So we have to use this switch and then this comes under scrutiny.

This argument cannot ever be settled. A 50/50 outcome always ends with "Well the dirty switch box is masking all the attributes of the fine cables so of course they sound the same as the Radio Shack cables"

I agree Krab. It can also work the other way. I personally get insane amounts of satisfaction when I see that my $2K CRT bought used and refurbished looks better than the $10K off the shelf digital (or $20K CRT) at someone else's house.


It's like the guy that rebuilds a vintage car that he bought sitting in a barn for $50 over the guy next door that bought a Vette at retail.



But in those cases, it's almost 100% certain that the two differently-priced things truly do perform differently (which one performs 'better' is somethign else again). In the case of audio, we're talking about stuff that isn't significantly different, except in price and appearance.

This is unfortunatly a catch 22 in favor of the expensive cable advocates. No it's simply not possible to do a SEAMLESS A/B test without some form of switch box. A non seamless test goes back to the inability (or ability if you are pro expensive cables) to remember extreme aural details. So we have to use this switch and then this comes under scrutiny.

This argument cannot ever be settled. A 50/50 outcome always ends with "Well the dirty switch box is masking all the attributes of the fine cables so of course they sound the same as the Radio Shack cables"

But the thing is, usually they didn't 'sound the same' to the listener. Usually the listener thought they sounded different during the test too. That they really 'sounded the same' is a conclusion derived from reviewing the listener's performance, after the test -- not something the listener reported himself during the test.

Unless he's insane, the subjectivist can't claim that the switch box masked the differences he reported hearing during the test itself. He can ONLY propose that the differences he hears without the switchbox, are of a different type completely. And are also substantially masked by the switchbox. Occam's Razor, anyone?

Sorry to drag this out of the mud, but one thing I do agree on is this:
"All trials have to be clicklessly switched at the listener's demand with low latency"
I don't know how anyone can remember what something sounded like exactly after a few minutes time. The time delay is the one factor I would like to see eliminated for a more definitive test to put his whole thing to rest, at least for me.


So the time factor is ONLY interesting when the test is blindly? The same time, changing the cables, in the OPEN test was good enough, so why not good enough in the blindtest??

The switch box can be proven to be transparent at the frequencies of interest by well established scientific testing.

However the cable advocates denounce the scientific measurments. Well they don't exactly dismiss them as it's pretty hard to argue with the laws of physics. They rather claim the testing fails to measure "something" that is unknown which is in turn making the audiable difference.

This argument cannot ever be settled. A 50/50 outcome always ends with "Well the dirty switch box is masking all the attributes of the fine cables so of course they sound the same as the Radio Shack cables"Why not use the preamps A/B switch? You've got the same amps with different cables hooked up. Most speakers are designed to be bi-amped so each cable could be hooked up to the speaker at the exact same time. Of course if your preamp puts A & B on at the same time you might lose your speakers.

So the time factor is ONLY interesting when the test is blindly? The same time, changing the cables, in the OPEN test was good enough, so why not good enough in the blindtest?? :D This is funny because it's true. When you read a review the differences are night and day, even though they may have spent an hour switching out cables. On a blind test, 30 seconds is too long to remember what they just heard.

You'll have to ensure that the levels don't change when using the A/B switch with respect to L/R and absolute.

NIN74
Quote:
"So the time factor is ONLY interesting when the test is blindly? The same time, changing the cables, in the OPEN test was good enough, so why not good enough in the blindtest??"

No, no, I am saying in both blind and open. I am complaining only about the time factor. I think in tests with a time delay, the supposed differences heard are entirely imagined. Probably would be so with a "perfect" switch, in a perfect test as well. I would completely prefer removing the subjective and using measurements alone and using "best case" audibility findings to weight the results.
An Examplehttp://www.audioxpress.com/reviews/media/504hansen1203.pdf
This tells me I should not be able to hear a difference, the differences should be too small.
Skip the listening tests.

the point i keep making is this... if one thing sounds different than another, then they sound different. if they are different, then we can measure that. play a passage of music with one cable, then with another, use the state of the art measurement stuff, cranked up past audibility for resolution, then compare passages on a computer. easy to do a differential measurement. If they are different, within 20-25K and within .1dB, then i could concede that there was a difference. but at 40K with a .003 dB difference... give me a break.

I am not proposing measuring the cables, but the sound that comes out. it would be easy to show electrical differences in the cable, but in the audible spectrum... not so much.

If they are different, within 20-25K and within .1dB, then i could concede that there was a difference. but at 40K with a .003 dB difference... give me a break.The argument I've heard against measurements is that their is something the human ear can hear that a microphone can't.

Yes, stuff that's not there.

It's true that a single microphone can't capture 3D spatial information -- a single ear has a tough time with too. But an array of microphones can.

And microphones can CERTAINLY be designed to capture frequencies that ears utterly cannot detect.

So just what are these mysterious properties of sound waves that microphones can't yet 'hear'? I'd like someone to describe them.

So just what are these mysterious properties of sound waves that microphones can't yet 'hear'? I'd like someone to describe them.
Well, they only work well if the diaphragm is at least gold plated, but pure gold would be even better. Silver sounds bright, and copper can be too warm and slow.

I think this conversation is kind of going far afield. Discussions that we can measure the impact of a cable or a switchbox on the signal, and thereby verify its audible transparency, aren't particularly productive in this context. And what context is this? It's the context of an argument between people who believe in that science, and those who do not. So for the purposes of the debate, then, talking about a priori measurements is assuming the premise.

Let's face it, it's the same old discussion! It is simultaneously preaching to the choir of objectivists and tired old nonsense to the subjectivists. Kind of boring for both, actually.

So if we're trying to actually accomplish something new, we objectivists have to find ways to meet subjectivists on their turf. Give them as much reason to be comfortable with the testing conditions as possible. Give them as much rope as possible---to hang themselves with, of course.

This is the part of the approach of the James Randi foundation's $1MM challenge that I liked so much. They worked to hammer out a protocol that was acceptable to both parties, and they bent over backwards to accommodate the challenger's requests, as long as they didn't compromise the validity of the test. Granted, most of the challengers still figured out a way to bail out and accuse JREF of cheating. But the ones that went through with the test, as their video documentation shows, were treated well.

One of the ideas they promote is requiring the challenger to pass a non-blinded version of the test being proposed before they proceed to the full blinded test. That is, every aspect of the test protocol is put in place except for the blinding, and the challenger has to demonstrate they can perform under those conditions. If they can't, the test doesn't move forward.

Relating that to audio... so we need a switchbox? Fine. Put one in place. Sure, it might affect the sound (objectivists roll their eyes). But maybe the subjectivist will still hear differences between cables with it in place anyway. Maybe the differences will be made more subtle (still rolling). So give the subjectivist as much time as he wants to train to these new conditions, to find material that does the best job of exposing the differences that are left.

If he is confident that he is able to resolve differences, great! Put the blinds on and go for it!

If not---well, the tests ends before it starts. Yeah, you may not have been able to prove what you'd hoped to prove, but at least you have demonstrated that a an extremely-electrically-benign switchbox can obliterate all of the perceived improvement of a $30K pair of wires.

It's not the definitive smackdown an objectivist would love to see---but then, it's more than you'll get by boring a subjectivist to sleep with talk about frequency responses and impedance so that they lose interest in doing anything.

Michael, that's always been my tack. Test existing claims of audible difference, don't go 'looking' for new ones (which would be basic research, not claim-testing). That means the difference has to be 'heard' under the sighted portion of the test, and it means we should let the listener use whatever gear and timeframe he wants, then add the double-blinding when he's ready to be tested.

Relating that to audio... so we need a switchbox? Fine. Put one in place. Sure, it might affect the sound (objectivists roll their eyes).
Although more laborious, one could first put the switchbox through a sighted and blind test to assure the audience it has little or no effect. If I remember correctly Noussaine has used that initial step in the past.

Well, if a passive switchbox causes cables to be inaudible, then everyone is screwed since all preamps have an even lossier switchbox in them. Therefore, buying fancy cables makes no sense.

Although more laborious, one could first put the switchbox through a sighted and blind test to assure the audience it has little or no effect. If I remember correctly Noussaine has used that initial step in the past.


To put a switchbox through a DBT , using a recommended low-latency method, you have to use another switch to put the switchbox in and out of the circuit -- e.g., the one in the preamp.

If passive switches are so heinous, it's a wonder anti-DBT skeptics tolerate listening to any gear at all.

I completely agree with Michael about doing the open test with "positive" results before moving to dbt. I do think it might be possible that replacing the memory of the observation with a very immediate switch would change the landscape of the argument to a larger degree than we think. But you have to get "serious names" to submit to testing to have the subjective audience to listen. Not holding my breath.

test gear cannot tell us if it is better, more airy, whatever. but it can tell us if it is different. and that is the heart of the discussion

Test gear will almost always show things to be different. But that's because generally the differences we can measure with instruments are far smaller than ones we can perceive. So two lines of independent evidence -- from test gear, and from bias-controlled listening -- are the ideal (their results should be in accord).

agreed, but we can change sensitivities to remove some of that from the equation, and we can set accepted deviances in our analysis.

if we are talking about cables though, where nothing else has changed in the equation, then i am willing to lay money that differences will be minuscule at best for the test gear. mainly because i do not believe that cables can change the sound in the audible band.

but i do agree that testing shows us what to listen for, and then we confirm with our ears. the only real difference is that by and large, we can trust test gear.

OK, I wrote my first post, only to find out I have to have two more, for it to ever see the light of day. So, here is a little more of where I am coming from.

About 15 years ago, my brother sent me home with two turntables he didn't really want. He wanted me to pick on of the two, and give the other one back. I realize that it is much easier to distinguish between turntables than CD players, let alone cables, but this story may add an element to blind testing that may not be discussed that much. That would be getting to know the gear really well, prior to the blind test. Anyway, I wanted to pick the best one, so here is what I did.

Oops, I guess my wife NEEDS to get on the computer, so I will call this my second post and continue this later.

Blind testing does not preclude "getting to know" equipment, and abx testing allows the user to listen to the piece for as long as he or she wishes. Just two things you might consider in your posts.

OK, I wrote my first post, only to find out I have to have two more, for it to ever see the light of day. So, here is a little more of where I am coming from.

About 15 years ago, my brother sent me home with two turntables he didn't really want. He wanted me to pick on of the two, and give the other one back. I realize that it is much easier to distinguish between turntables than CD players, let alone cables, but this story may add an element to blind testing that may not be discussed that much. That would be getting to know the gear really well, prior to the blind test. Anyway, I wanted to pick the best one, so here is what I did.

Oops, I guess my wife NEEDS to get on the computer, so I will call this my second post and continue this later.

Buy another PC or assert your authority!:p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVHNylH1Mk