[continued from http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=918365&page=59]

Morning!

I got back a little late last night and didn't do a writeup then, I figure Mike will post his impressions at some point too.

First of all, kudos to Mike for being the always-gracious host, and also for his fairness and open mindedness for this trial. It is fair to recognize that he only had something to lose, and nothing really to be gained except perhaps an objective vindication of his position.

And to cut to the chase, Mike could not identify the Monster from the Opus MM with any accuracy (nor the reverse, which also would have been a positive result if he had been consistently wrong) using our testing methodology. We stopped the test a little less than halfway through, I think we got through 8 A/Bs before we gave up.

There were 4 of us present at the test. Mike had performed sighted listening tests on his own, and before I arrived he performed sighted listening tests while wearing a blindfold to acclimate himself to the testing method. His blindfold was a pair of duct-taped safety glasses. He could not see anything except a tiny bit directly below him. Theoretically, he could have strained his neck and been able to see the floor by the speakers where the wire was, but this was not allowed. After all, cheating would only serve to cheat himself. While switching wires, Mike wore earmuffs to minimize any possibility of identifying wires by the noises of switching the wires.

The plan was to do twenty A/B trials, which were chosen by flipping a coin. This was done before I arrived. After I arrived, we decided to check the level-match between wires. We did not have a method to level-match the wire if they were non-matched, however we also felt that the wire should match. Because the Opus uses some kind of network box, it conceivably would be possible that the signal were attenuated or otherwise altered and change the level, making it possible to identify the wire this way, rather than by sound 'quality' per se. The levels matched with a sine wave tone within 1/100th of a volt, the difference between the two sides was several hundredths of a volt with both wires. The difference between the L and R channels was greater than the possible difference between wires, which anyway was insignificant. We decided to check this because while we had no way of matching levels precisely, if there were a level difference we would have added a step to our methodology by turning down the volume all the way and then allowing mike to adjust the volume up, which would eliminate the ability to judge any difference in volume. We didn't need to do this, so Mike could listen without having to change the volume all the time, however he was free to change volume if he wanted.

There was, being generous, about one minute of a wait between changing cables. This was the case for both the sighted preparatory tests, and the blind tests. His amp basically goes straight through, so even with it turned off, it is feeding the speakers for a while. We would wait a little bit after turning off the amp before disconnecting the speaker wire and switching wire. We took care to be quiet while putting the wire down so as not to make any noise which could distinguish the wire. We changed the wire each and every time, regardless of whether switching to the other cable. At each time Mike would wear the earmuffs, even if he was going back to a known test, again to eliminate any possibility of identifying the wire by the noise of changing the wires.

We did at one point stop and go play pool for a few minutes and then come back to the test, doing a sighted (though still blindfolded) test to re-familiarize Mike with the cables.

So our results with Mike as our listener were clear: for this particular methodology, Mike could not accurately identify a difference in the cables. Again, a backwards result of Mike wrongly identifying the cables reliably also would have been a positive result.

I went into this with a fairly open mind. I did not have a previous opinion on the difference in speaker wire. However, I am fairly objective, and I did have two main expectations. First was that speaker wire, even if it did have an audible difference, would be very insignificant in the scope of the overall system. If there was going to be a difference, I was expecting it to be extremly subtle, and small. In other words, being objective about speaker wire tells me that it is fairly straightforward if you have sufficient gauge that the wire should basically get everything to the speaker with a precision that exceeds our hearing ability. Second, if there was going to be a difference, the suggested possibility of the network box in the Opus rolling off the highs may have caused an expectation of slightly less brightness/detail.

I personally went through the first few trials sighted, helping to change the wires. Going into the test I had no set opinion beside the expectations I just described. And while I am quite objective, objectivism also tells me things about vinyl which are quickly disproven in Mike's system. So I am open to these kinds of subjective things as well. As I went through 3 sighted trials, I began to form an opinion which basically told me that there WAS a difference in cables. Subtle, but I can say with confidence that it was present. I thought the Monster cable was a bit harsher, with a little bit less separation between instruments. This may have been a bias from my expectation that the Opus network box could have been attenuating the high frequencies, but I swore it was there. It is interesting to me that while I formed this opinion not having heard Mike or anyone else describe what they thought the difference was, after we stopped the whole test, Mike described what he previously thought the sighted difference sounded like (what he was listening for in the test) was practically identical to what I thought I was hearing sighted.

Then, for my own curiousity, I did the remaining 5 A/Bs before we stopped the test at 8 A/Bs blinded. I didn't wear ear muffs, and I just closed my eyes. I could have cheated if I wanted, but I did not (I guess you just have to take my word). I also, to check the rigor of our methdology, tried to actively listen to the cables being switched and see if I could identify either, to see if there was a way of identifying which was which that might have influenced mike even with earmuffs. There was no way to identify wire this way. I had looked at our test sheet, but I made no effort to try to memorize the sequence or have any idea what I would be listening to. In my 5 trials, I was certain on 3, and relatively uncertain on 2. I only matched 3 our ot 5, which is basically just blind luck, and I only got 2 of the 3 I was certain about correct. In other words, as a second, just self-interested and self-blinded tester, I could not with any reliability identify a difference in the cables.

The results for Mike and also the non rigorous one for myself certainly undid the opinion I was forming during my sighted listening. To characterize the position I've come to, I think it's fair to say that the objectivist arguments have a great deal of merit. It is fair to say that the onus is on subjectivists to discern speaker cable differences reliably. However it is ALSO fair to say that it is very difficult to prove a negative, especially for people with a subjectivist bent. Objectivists must also be honest about what our test results tell us: that with this methodology, and with this methodology ONLY, we could not reliably discern any differences in the cables. This does not prove that there are no differences with the cable, only that there were no differences discerned with this method.

In my personaly opinion, doing a long line of tests like this is generally unpleasant to do, you get tired of listening to the same stuff over and over, and after a little while it all starts to sound the same. Also, Mike only went back to a known A/B once during the test. I still would be interested in a similar test but spread out in time, doing maybe only one or two A/Bs at a time. This keeps fatigue down, and things don't all start to sound the same (again, just for the sake of argument assuming that there is an audible difference).

However, this test does tell us that even assuming for the sake of argument that there is a difference, that such a difference is extremly small, since it could not be percieved reliably with this method. After we finished the test, for curiosity we cut the ends of 16 gauge extension cords, and connected them to the system. We did this sighted. And the system sounded absolutely fantastic. The result I came away with through the whole experience is that people should generally not fret about speaker wire. Using a speaker wire of sufficient gauge for the task gets the job done. Even the unreliable sighted 'impressions' I had of the difference between Monster an Opus, which can not in any way be fairly attributable to actual difference, was extremely subtle. And the 16 gauge sounded basically exactly the same too.

After the test Mike was very gracious, and very fair and honest in accepting the result. I think he is probably curious to do some more testing in a different A/B format, perhaps along the lines I suggested. Or perhaps an ABX type test. It was curious that after the test, he characterized his certainty that during the test, it seemed fairly clear which was which. However, he was not identifying the cables with any consistency (rightly or wrongly) during the test. He did stop though and we left to go play pool to get away from the testing, so it seemed to me as an observer anyway that he was beginning to have difficulty, at least from his perspective, in identifying which was which. However, he was before that time not being at all consistent.

So I think that's basically everyting that either side would want to know. And I'm sure there's plenty of ammunition for both. I can say now that I am of the opinion that speaker wire basically makes no significant difference in sound quality, given sufficient gauge. Even the 16gauge extension cord was fantastic. I am still open to the possibility of audible differences with speaker cable, however such differences must be quite small and very subtle.

After the test, Mike played a handful of records, and I played some CDs as well. And what I came away with perhaps more than that is that Mike has probably the best overall system I've ever heard especially for BIG music. Big orchestral and rock sounded simply unbelievable. Santana, the Gates of Kiev, and Zeppelin among others on vinyl were just absolutely incredible. A completely new experience. I was trying to be extremely picky, and while I've heard a system here and there do small things differently in ways that in my opinion were slightly better, stepping back and considering the whole picture: it's simply an absolutely incredible system. The best I've ever heard big complex music.

So thanks again to Mike for being open and fair through the whole test and setting it all up and putting in the time and effort even though he really had nothing to gain. And for the pizza! :)

So flame on. If I were Mike, I frankly wouldn't care that much anyway, cable difference or not, it's one hell of a music system.

I haven't kept up on this thread, or I probably would have found an excuse to come down..;)

An excellent writeup Chris! Your test pretty much covered how I would have done the a/bing, and the outcome was pretty much expected (coming from an objectivist like me! <grin>).

Now I'm REALLY curious as to Mike's comments. Mike, has this test changed your mind about cables, or ??

well that certainly is a little surprise. Maybe it means that the network boxes are as big a myth as the 10 dollars woth of parts in the PSAudio noise harvester.

I find the extension cord test very telling as well.

And I would really like to hear records again on a good system so count that as a plus for you.

Kudos all around to those involved.

Kudos to Mike and all those involved.
It be nice to hear Mike's impressions of the test.

Can all of those who are normally on an insulting and sarcastic bent please try to be adult.

The results here are (to my interpretation) far more about sighted biases than anything else.

And as will undoubtedly happen, they will be stated to be valid only for mikes system. "of course if they used system ABC, then it would have been clearly obvious" :D

Kudos to mike for stepping up. ANd Like Curt, i am most interested in mikes take on the test.

unless he is sitting in his barn weeping :D (joke, just kidding)

Given the boxes on those cables I would not have been at all surprised if they were screwing with the signal enough to make an audible difference.

On the other hand I'm not at all surprised either that no difference could be heard but I'd feel more confident about that if an ABX switcher had been used.

[QUOTE=AdrianMills;12252132]Given the boxes on those cables I would not have been at all surprised if they were screwing with the signal enough to make an audible difference.
QUOTE]


Except they made no difference which probably means they are useless.

I made comments quite a while back on some other thread about this. When i talked to a friend of mine about this type of testing, he said that for unknown sounds, when comparing for subtle difference (i am REALLY paraphrasing here as this was a 2 hour convo) human auditory memory is about 4 seconds. i am talking a straight passage to passage comparison. Now the more knowledge i have (if i am a professional musician, then i can take those "tones" and put them into the context of what note they are, if the pitch is correct... etc) the longer that gap can be. but in general terms, our ability to tell if they are the same level or slightly different or such things, fades pretty quick after 4 seconds.

Not saying this as an excuse, but as another piece of info for the whole testing methodology thing. This is the reason why an ABX box is preferred, instantaneous switch.

Well done...basically proved what I and many other friends of mine have known for a long long time...cables are pretty much cables...and it is indeed next to impossible to tell the differences between them when blindfolded. SO it all boils down to placebo effect I guess.

Sad to see so many folks spend a bunch of $$$ on cables thinking they are going to hear an "amazing difference" like the marketing guys who sell them like to spin it all.

Congrats to all who participated in helping dispell the cable myth...at least to some degree.

Well, I'm also surprised. However, I agree that everyone should try to remain adult about this. Also, we should wait to see what Mike has to say as well.

Would be fun to run the MIT's through the same gauntlet don't you think, Rutgar?

Lets look into the test that was done

Would be fun to run the MIT's through the same gauntlet don't you think, Rutgar?

I'm not opposed to doing that. But at this point lets wait until Mike chimes in, and let's let the dust settle on this test before everyone start clamoring for another.

Well done...basically proved what I and many other friends of mine have known for a long long time...cables are pretty much cables...and it is indeed next to impossible to tell the differences between them when blindfolded. SO it all boils down to placebo effect I guess.

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. Clearly, there was not any degree of difference large enough to be discerned with our test, which means that there could be a degree of difference below the perceptual threshold allowed by our test, that the degree of difference is fully below our audible threshold for all possible methodologies, or that there is no difference whatsoever. For objectivists who already were of the opinion that the cables couldn't have an audible effect, this test taken alone bolsters, but does not authoritatively vindicate that position.

It is far more difficult to prove that there isn't a difference. Given the statements by many subjectivists that the difference is easy to discern, it should be easier to prove that there is a difference. I think that all this test shows us is that, even assuming for the sake of argument that there are audible differences, that such differences are much harder to discern than many may claim. But this test taken alone does NOT prove that there are no audible differences in cables. Objectivists who arrive at that position do so based on the merits of other knowledge about both cables, and our hearing capabilities. You cannot arrive at that conclusion based only on this test, which was only capable of determining that under these specific methods and with these specific cables, there were no audible differences.

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.

Great write-up Chris and thanks to Mike L. taking one if you know what I mean.

The results do tend to lend creedence to the cables sound the same group but I'm not sure a scientist would draw any general sweeping tidy conclusions at this point at least not from this test alone. The results suggest that this Monster cable used can not audibly be differentiated from the Opus during blind-folded testing with delay of about one minute between tests. The next set of tests or research should now concentrate on auditory memory to determine how that factor could have influenced the outcome. Perhaps all this test proves is poor audio memory at one minute test intervals.

Another area of concern is the blind-folded portion of the listening, often when I implement system changes it's the differences in imaging that is most telling, sound changes constantly for me depending on many factors BUT imaging of a particular song stays relatively constant, predictable and repeatable. Ignoring or hobbling this important area of this hobby by blind-folding the participants and thereby losing image location references is akin to blindfolded testing for color differentiation. Perhaps imaging is a placebo effect at play, would be interesting to perform some tests on that aspect of audio.

Great write-up Chris and thanks to Mike L. taking one if you know what I mean.

The results do tend to lend creedence to the cables sound the same group but I'm not sure a scientist would draw any general sweeping tidy conclusions at this point at least not from this test alone. The results suggest that this Monster cable used can not audibly be differentiated from the Opus during blind-folded testing with delay of about one minute between tests. The next set of tests or research should now concentrate on auditory memory to determine how that factor could have influenced the outcome. Perhaps all this test proves is poor audio memory at one minute test intervals.

That is absolutely correct, and a fair characterization.

However, it did also prove that the difference percieved using a sighted test, with the same test interval, was largely in our heads. That is also a very interesting aspect of the result, as I also was certain that I was hearing a subtle difference between cables, and this is coming from someone who despite my explicit desire to be open, impartial, and non-opinionated, am naturally something of an objectivist. There are certain aspects of my expectations that I cannot simply toss aside, such as my expectation that speaker cables, even assuming an audible difference, would pale in significance to the impact of room, speakers, electronics. And yet I too was quite convinced that there was a subtle difference during the sighted trials. This is an interesting phenomenon. It was what prompted me to try my own hand at seeing how difficult it was to distinguish between the two cables, partly because I thought that given my impressions sighted, I could do it reliably blinded. Part of that motivation was that Mike got the second two wrong, and I thought that perhaps I could do it better, that surely given what I was hearing sighted, I could differentiate between the to. Well, we both failed equally! :)

Another area of concern is the blind-folded portion of the listening, often when I implement system changes it's the differences in imaging that is most telling, sound changes constantly for me depending on many factors BUT imaging of a particular song stays relatively constant, predictable and repeatable. Ignoring or hobbling this important area of this hobby by blind-folding the participants and thereby losing image location references is akin to blindfolded testing for color differentiation. Perhaps imaging is a placebo effect at play, would be interesting to perform some tests on that aspect of audio.

That's possible. I personally am of the opinion that not seeing the speakers improves imaging, so I think that being blindfolded actually helps hear the system better. In addition, eliminating senses is a classic way of focusing and sharpening our other remaining senses. So if anything, I think all of us present at the test were under the assumption that being blindfolded would aid, rather than inhibit the test. Certainly if one wanted to avoid being blindfolded, you could rig up a screen at the speakers so you could not see behind them, if that was your preference.

That's possible. I personally am of the opinion that not seeing the speakers improves imaging, so I think that being blindfolded actually helps hear the system better. In addition, eliminating senses is a classic way of focusing and sharpening our other remaining senses. So if anything, I think all of us present at the test were under the assumption that being blindfolded would aid, rather than inhibit the test. Certainly if one wanted to avoid being blindfolded, you could rig up a screen at the speakers so you could not see behind them, if that was your preference.

I would think it would be very difficult to accurately remember imaging without a sighted reference point ie: that bell eminates exactly 1 foot out from that little spot on the wall. Much of the difficulty of proving or disproving any of this is out memory and the noisefloor this creates possibly obscuring changes. Using a reference point to place an image can pretty much remove this memory factor from the imaging portion of the test. But as you say, blind-folding may very well aid in the auditory portion of the test.

Terrific testing though and what an eye opener it must have been.

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 didn't actually prove that either to a high degree of probability. You only did 8 trials! So 'impossibility' was hardly demonstrated.

But it does have two important facets:

1) Mike was pretty confident he heard differences; the stats belie that confidence. Chris W also 'confidently' heard differences sighted, that had no support when 'blinded'.

2) thus pointing up HOW VERY EASY IT IS for people to convince themselves, 'confidently' that differences exist...in sighted comparison. When in fact this confidence may not be warranted in the least. To me this is key -- the psychological fact is, people can and do tend to underestimate how easily their senses can be fooled.


Chris, I also wonder about this statement of yours

objectivism also tells me things about vinyl which are quickly disproven in Mike's system.

What did 'objectivism; tell you about vinyl that was quickly disproven in Mike's system? Objectivism doesn't 'tell' us that LP's can't sound great...or even that they MUST sound subjectively worse than a CD of the same material.

As for anyone's objections about switching, etc...everyone needs to keep in mind that Mike did his OWN sighted tests, and also sighted trials during this test, where he was CONFIDENT he heard differences, under 'slow switch', nonABX conditions. *THAT* is the phenomenon that was tested; indeed, that is the phenomenon he kept reporting for his cables, the phenomenon that got him interested in Randi's challenge in the first place. Not some 'possible' difference that might be heard under more discriminative conditions. He was being tested on differences he already claimed to hear.

It didn't actually prove that either to a high degree of probability. You only did 8 trials! So 'impossibility' was hardly demonstrated.

It most certainly did. The result over those 8 trials, and my 5 was just statistically random guessing. We stopped at 8 because it was quite clear that it was just random. I believe our requirement for a positive result was either 10 out of 10, or 17 out of 20, we intended to do 20 ABs. Less than that and it could have been criticized as just good luck.



[quote]
What did 'objectivism; tell you about vinyl that was quickly disproven in Mike's system? Objectivism doesn't 'tell' us that LP's can't sound great.

Certainly. But there is a lot of data that tells us that there is less detail in LP compared to CD. True or not, what I heard on Mike's system, scratches, high noise floor and all, was simply incredible. It wasn't by any means scientific, I just forwarded that as evidence that I approached the trial with an open mind. I was perfectly open to hearing cable differences, and indeed during the sighted trials I was confident that I was. It would be very easy for me to enter the trial with a great deal of bias if I so chose, dead-set against hearing any differences, convinced it was simply impossible. I tried my very best to go in with a completely open mind, having formed no opinion on the matter. That is never attainable with anything, but objectivity also involves impartiality or its pursuit. I don't think subjectivists can simply dismiss my presence or my own interpretations as being pre-emptively biased, and the same goes for everyone else there. These kinds of things, as always, should always be learning experiences, rather than ideological pursuits. And I think that is part of being objectively fair and open minded as well. If Mike had reliably heard the differences blinded, I would be just as open to that possibility.

It most certainly did. The result over those 8 trials, and my 5 was just statistically random guessing. We stopped at 8 because it was quite clear that it was just random. I believe our requirement for a positive result was either 10 out of 10, or 17 out of 20, we intended to do 20 ABs. Less than that and it could have been criticized as just good luck.


Well, that's *your* requirement. But one could propose that the*real* difference is a very subtle difference, requiring lots of trials. In any case, you used careful terminology everywhere in your post except here -- as you said, you can't prove a negative, so you didn't prove that the difference was *not possible*. Why not just say that "the hypothesis of difference was not supported at x confidence level", as a scientist would, and leave it at that?

What, btw was the score correct out of 8 trials?

Certainly. But there is a lot of data that tells us that there is less detail in LP compared to CD.

Again, this is vague wording. What is the criterion for 'detail' you have in mind. There's objective data too that LP imparts an illusion of dynamic range that it doesn't actually have; that it imparts 'imaging' and 'ambience' impressions that are in part actually due to distortion -- on other words, there are data about LP having euphonic distortion characteristics. Subjectively one might interpret one or more of these as 'more detail than I expected'...or not.

For more, read James Johnston's (JJs) posts on the 'CD Vs vinyl deathmatch' thread

True or not, what I heard on Mike's system, scratches, high noise floor and all, was simply incredible.

Well, that's great -- I've heard terrific LP playback too, most recently at a home expo with top-end gear -- but subjectively excellent turntable playback is not contrary to science, nor is it impossible that an LP can sound better than a CD -- and even 'measure better' in some parameters (e.g., comparing a CD mastering with highly restricted dynamic range to its LP counterpart with a wider DR). The reason to be amazed would be if you had a bias towards thinking it COULDN'T EVER sound good.

Unscientifically, I'd say anyone who's spent as much on his TT playback chain as Mike, had BETTER have excellent sound as a result.:)

First of all let me echo my thanks to Mike and Chris for doing this test, and to the unnamed participants who helped.

krabapple's careful parsing is right. All this proved was that Mike failed one test. It does not prove that Mike could not ultimately distinguish between the cables, even under these specific conditions. Perhaps given more opportunity to become comfortable with the testing conditions, the result might be different. I don't believe that, of course, but I do think it's important to give the right interpretation to the test results.

Also, the more trials that one does, the smaller the deviation you need from 50% to get firm confidence in a non-random element. So by stopping the test early you cannot conclude that the results are the same as random. In short, the more trials in advance you decide to do, the more times you get to fail before you can call the test off as a failure.

I do think this test provides a clear example of the self-deception that is possible when tests are not properly blinded. If I read Chris right, Mike was able to "practice" with the test conditions in a non-blind manner. Presumably he was able to distinguish the cables under these "nearly controlled" conditions, or he wouldn't have bothered to proceed with the blind tests. I think this is a very useful component of any test of this nature---the ability to run through it "non-blind". After all, you do want to do your best to make sure that the testing methodology itself isn't unduly compromising the results.

I hope that Mike and Chris are encouraged by this test to consider other approaches. For instance, I would really like them to consider a test with some sort of ABX switch box in place. I know there is concern that the added circuitry could compromise the test---but again, that's why it is important to do the non-blind pre-test first. With an ABX box this is easy, because you can in fact know what "A" and "B" are even in the controlled setting. It's only "X" that is concealed. So, if you believe you can distinguish between A and B with the box in place, then the full ABX can proceed with confidence.

The point is that no test is perfect. In this case, the slow switching times were a factor; in the case of an ABX box, the circuit itself might be a factor. But by approaching the question from several angles you can conceivably get a confident result. The only thing you cannot do, of course, is remove the blinds.

Yes, absolutely, Kudos to all. No small task to have done this.


Maybe it means that the network boxes are as big a myth as the 10 dollars woth of parts in the PSAudio noise harvester.

I find the extension cord test very telling as well.


Perhaps the boxes do what the patents are for, RF noise reduction, not audio band shaping.

Yes, that 16ga was an interesting add on. But at such a short distance no contest. Similar results what the Greenberg tests from the 1990s.

I hope that Mike and Chris are encouraged by this test to consider other approaches. For instance, I would really like them to consider a test with some sort of ABX switch box in place. I know there is concern that the added circuitry could compromise the test---but again, that's why it is important to do the non-blind pre-test first. With an ABX box this is easy, because you can in fact know what "A" and "B" are even in the controlled setting. It's only "X" that is concealed. So, if you believe you can distinguish between A and B with the box in place, then the full ABX can proceed with confidence.

The point is that no test is perfect. In this case, the slow switching times were a factor; in the case of an ABX box, the circuit itself might be a factor. But by approaching the question from several angles you can conceivably get a confident result. The only thing you cannot do, of course, is remove the blinds.

Michael, I agree that it might be better to try it again with some sort of ABX box setup. As Chris indicated, the time in between the listening could have skewed the test. Especially after a lot of listening of the same thing over and over. I found this to be a problem when I was at the Rocky Mountain Audio Festival last month. After going from room to room to room to room... I got tired of 'listening'. We had our own demo disc with us, and played it in most of the rooms we visited. I got very, VERY sick of that demo disk. And after a while, it pretty much sounded the same on almost everything we heard.

Well, that's *your* requirement. But one could propose that the*real* difference is a very subtle difference, requiring lots of trials.[quote]

The point of using more trials doesn't have anything to do with the degree of difference, but rather in making sure that the result is not reasonably possible simply at random. Assuming for a moment that there is no difference whatsoever, and each is a guess, the statistical probability of guessing correctly over the number of trials has to be low enough that it is extremely unlikely that we could get a wrong result simply by freak luck. If we did 5 out of 5, that's 1 out of 32 chance that someone could simply guess randomly and match each. What if Mike had matched 4 out of 5? That's quite attractive for someone to say "ahah! there is a noticeable difference" but that's not a very strong result. The possibility of matching 10 out of 10, or 17 out of 20 from pure chance correctly is extremely low.

[quote]In any case, you used careful terminology everywhere in your post except here -- as you said, you can't prove a negative, so you didn't prove that the difference was *not possible*. Why not just say that "the hypothesis of difference was not supported at x confidence level", as a scientist would, and leave it at that?

I thought I had made it very clear. We didn't by any means prove that there was no difference, audible or otherwise. We simply illustrated that using this testing methodology, we could not identify which cable was which with any degree of accuracy. The results suggest that it was simply random guessing, whether Mike or myself thought we were guessing or not.

What, btw was the score correct out of 8 trials?

You know, that's a good question, and actually I forget. That's somewhat embarrassing I know.



Again, this is vague wording. What is the criterion for 'detail' you have in mind. There's objective data too that LP imparts an illusion of dynamic range that it doesn't actually have; that it imparts 'imaging' and 'ambience' impressions that are in part actually due to distortion -- on other words, there are data about LP having euphonic distortion characteristics. Subjectively one might interpret one or more of these as 'more detail than I expected'...or not.

For more, read James Johnston's (JJs) posts on the 'CD Vs vinyl deathmatch' thread

This is sort of an off-topic discussion. I'm not hugely informed about vinyl. All I know is that I've heard Santana Gypsy Queen a million times, and never in my life has it been like that.

My statement about TT was just an aside example to illustrate that I'm open to subjective experiences that run contrary to my objective understanding. Perhaps my objective understanding about vinyl is wrong, but I was of the impression that it was fairly clear-cut that CD is plenty capable of keeping up technically, or exceeding vinyl. Whether that is right or not is beside the point. Rather, I objectively approached the issue, but I am open to unexpected experiences. Otherwise, I might just as easily reject what I thought I heard, and that's not fair to do either.

We simply illustrated that using this testing methodology, we could not identify which cable was which with any degree of accuracy. The results suggest that it was simply random guessing, whether Mike or myself thought we were guessing or not.Yes, given this testing methodology including the pre-agreed 20 trial limit I think this is accurate.The point of using more trials doesn't have anything to do with the degree of difference, In a way, it does have something to do with this. If indeed the differences are subtle then it might not be possible to make a proper guess every time. Therefore, in order to "accept" a fair number of errors you have to do a lot of trials.

Let's suppose, for instance, that you can correctly guess the exotic cable 55% of the time. That may not seem like much, but since it's greater than 50% it is still a "win." On the other hand, since it is so close to 50%, you have to do a lot of trials to establish it.

Yes, given this testing methodology including the pre-agreed 20 trial limit I think this is accurate.In a way, it does have something to do with this. If indeed the differences are subtle then it might not be possible to make a proper guess every time. Therefore, in order to "accept" a fair number of errors you have to do a lot of trials.

Let's suppose, for instance, that you can correctly guess the exotic cable 55% of the time. That may not seem like much, but since it's greater than 50% it is still a "win." On the other hand, since it is so close to 50%, you have to do a lot of trials to establish it.

That's why you're a mathematician. ;) You're right.

[QUOTE=CharlesJ;12253568]

Perhaps the boxes do what the patents are for, RF noise reduction, not audio band shaping.
QUOTE]

Perhaps they do but I "think" on the website they state audible differences which clearly just are not there. I have to go out and mix the 7 o clock show so I will have to check the Opus website in a couple of hours.

First of all let me echo my thanks to Mike and Chris for doing this test, and to the unnamed participants who helped.

krabapple's careful parsing is right. All this proved was that Mike failed one test. It does not prove that Mike could not ultimately distinguish between the cables, even under these specific conditions. Perhaps given more opportunity to become comfortable with the testing conditions, the result might be different. I don't believe that, of course, but I do think it's important to give the right interpretation to the test results.

Indeed. (And btw kudos to Mike, Chris and co for doing the test at all). My understanding is that one should agree on a set number of trials beforehand and NEVER stop before the agreed-upon number of trials have been done, unless the subject needs to stop , because of fatigue or he/she no longer believes he/she hears any differences...i.e., the subject think's it's guessing.

To illustrate the danger, imagine they'd stopped after Mike got 6/8 correct when they'd agreed to do 20 trials beforehand; all sorts of alarms could be legitimately raised about cherry-picked results (6/8 is no guarantee that X/20 will remain significantly different from chance). It's really no different for negative results....*unless* the reasons I mentioned hold. And even then, they should try to finish the test at a later time, assuming the subject 'regains' his ability to hear 'differences'.

It actually would have been best to have Mike's answers be UNKNOWN to the proctors during the test, until all the agreed-upon trials were done, so that there's no temptation to stop it early.


I do think this test provides a clear example of the self-deception that is possible when tests are not properly blinded. If I read Chris right, Mike was able to "practice" with the test conditions in a non-blind manner. Presumably he was able to distinguish the cables under these "nearly controlled" conditions, or he wouldn't have bothered to proceed with the blind tests. I think this is a very useful component of any test of this nature---the ability to run through it "non-blind". After all, you do want to do your best to make sure that the testing methodology itself isn't unduly compromising the results.


Indeed again... a self-confessed inability to distinguish A from B while 'sighted', is a reason for not proceeding.

Perhaps the boxes do what the patents are for, RF noise reduction, not audio band shaping.

I would say that no competently-built amp requires an outboard RF filter, but it's a fact that some 'high end' designs DO, and in those bizarre cases a cable with an RF filter has an advantage over one that doesn't...an 'unnatural' advantage, I'd say.

That's why you're a mathematician. ;) You're right.

He sure saved me a lot of typing. :D

But here's another discussion (two posts) of the interaction of expected size of effect, p value, and number of trials (with a lot more typing...by someone else). It's also a good precis on good audio DBT practices:


"What is a Blind ABX Test?"
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295

and here's a link to a useful excel table of binomial probabilities of guessing

http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/bino_dist.zip

basically from this you can read the p value that the result's due to chance, for any combination of #right/#trials up to 100/100.

For 8 trials, the p-values are shown below (from 1 to 8 correct). Mike would have to get 7/8 to be in the ballpark of standard scientific acceptability (p<0.05)...assuming a 95% confidence interval is appropriate for this hypothesis.

1.000
0.996
0.965
0.855
0.637
0.363
0.145
0.035
0.004

Well, Mike can now auction off his specially prepared Monster cables - the ones that sound so close to the Transparents, you can't tell them apart.

Well, Mike can now auction off his specially prepared Monster cables - the ones that sound so close to the Transparents, you can't tell them apart.

Yes, must be worth 30K at least... :D

Damn, but at those prices I'd want to hear a difference not only blind but blind drunk too.

It just sunk in that for the price of a pair of 25' Transparent Opus cables (43k according to gizmodo) you can buy (in the US) a 5.2 system made up of 5 x B&W 802D and a couple of JLAudio f113 and still have change. :eek: Holy cow. No, really.

Perhaps the boxes do what the patents are for, RF noise reduction, not audio band shaping.


Perhaps they do but I "think" on the website they state audible differences which clearly just are not there. I have to go out and mix the 7 o clock show so I will have to check the Opus website in a couple of hours.

Yes, exactly. So the common notion that the box may or will cause an audible difference is not founded in anything and the higher probability is that the box is for RF filtering and not audio band alterations.
As to their web site claiming the difference, that is par for the course no matter what they place on the wire, or just having plain wires.:D But, it could very well be that is where the common notion came from, jumping to an unfounded conclusion.

As posted elsewhere, someone placed this cable or somthing similar on a spectrum analizer and didn't see the box doing anything in the audio band.:D I just don't have a link to that message:mad:

The results suggest that this Monster cable used can not audibly be differentiated from the Opus during blind-folded testing with delay of about one minute between tests. .

Yes, but that doesn't stop hearing differences under sighted conditions with 1 minute or more of setup time :D
But you are correct, acoustic memory has been shown to be very short, on the order of seconds. So, even long segments of music is detrimental.

I would say that no competently-built amp requires an outboard RF filter, but it's a fact that some 'high end' designs DO, and in those bizarre cases a cable with an RF filter has an advantage over one that doesn't...an 'unnatural' advantage, I'd say.

That never stopped a company like this to put one in anyhow:D How else but a new gimmick to convince the gullible ones?

i want to thank my friends Joe and Ted for all their help yesterday; they both had sore fingers, knees and backs after all the cable switching. i particularly want to thank Chris; first of all for taking the time to help, for contributing his ideas to come up with the protocol, for being open-minded, but especially for his detailed, complete and accurate description of what happened. i type real slow and would have really struggeled to answer all the 'what happened?' questions.....Chris's write up and followup posts have saved me a good deal of trouble.

sorry for the delay in posting my perceptions.....i must admit to at least a bit of reluctance in discussing what happened......as the result was clearly much different than i expected. i do not feel bad about doing the test or the results (other than a slightly bruised ego) since i do feel it is the truth......at least the truth as to the protocol we used.

yes; i have, to some degree, changed my perspective on cable differences....but...my mind is still processing the results and what they mean for me. i hope that i can coherently relate the various thoughts that go thru my mind.

as Chris mentioned; the controls were successful at keeping me from knowing which cable was which. for each test i felt confident about my choice (except #6...see below).

my methodology was to use a demo disc with multiple cuts and switch quickly from one cut to another; listening to a cut from a few seconds to maybe 30 seconds.....coming back to the same cut a few times. i mostly used 5 or 6 cuts which (i felt) told me about various sonic issues. until the test was over i felt confident that i could hear real differences and that i had a 'lock' on which characteristic was which cable.

the tests were as follows;

1-Opus first.....i chose Opus first.
2-Monster first....i chose Opus first
3-Monster first....i chose Opus first.
4-Opus first....i chose Monster first
5-Opus first....i chose Opus first

after the first 3 tests i was getting a bit tired and the ear protection started causing a slight headache. at no time did i feel that was affecting my listening. after 5 tests i requested a break, and we went upstairs to play a bit of pool.

as we started the 6th test i could tell i was struggeling to hear differences. so i asked that i change CD's and re-do a 'sighted' test. i did not take my covered glasses off but they did tell me which cable was playing.

6-thrown out

then we did two more tests.

7-Opus first....i chose Opus first
8-Opus first....i chose Monster first.

when i made my choice known for #8 i was confident that i was 100% for all 7. then my friend Ted said 'that's it.....test over'. we had discussed prior that any result 7 out of 10 or better or 15 out of 20 or better would mean a positive result and to continue. once we got to only 3 out of 7 it was clear that we were not going to get a positive result.

OK......so how do i feel different?

about 1000 posts ago in the Randi thread Michael Grant asked me about how i would feel if i failed a blind test with my Opus cables.......would my opinion change?

my recollection is that i said that it would cause me to further investigate the issues with a much more skeptical viewpoint......but that until i did that additional investigation i would not dramatically alter my viewpoint. i think that comes closest to describing my feelings right now. i have some work to do. there is a chink in my subjective armor but it's not completely broken.

why did i fail?.....or put another way.....why did this test show no real difference?

was i overconfident?

yes; regardless of the eventual answer i was not respectful enough of the challenge.

looking at the specific test results i got both #1 and #7 correct......directly after the sighted trial where my aural memeory was the freshist. what if i were to have 'A' , then 'B', then 'X' every time? would that change the outcome?

did i spend enough time listening to the Monster prior to the test? i was very confident going in but now i think i had not taken enough time to really get into the Monster more.

i did not practice enough blinded.....for sure. if i had practiced i would know that my methodolgy would not show any difference. it's also possible that no amount of practice would be able to prove i could hear the differences blinded.

in my mind i am not confident that i will ever be able to hear reliable differences between the Monster and the Opus to pass a Blind test. OTOH i am also not sure i won't be able to do it.

and that is where i'm at right now.

i have lots more thoughts.....but as i said i type slow and i wanted to get something out.....i will do my best to answer any questions and add other thoughts.

and thanks everyone for all the positive comments and keeping to the high road.

the price of Monster cable just went up to $500.00 a foot.

Yes, but that doesn't stop hearing differences under sighted conditions with 1 minute or more of setup time :D
But you are correct, acoustic memory has been shown to be very short, on the order of seconds. So, even long segments of music is detrimental.


It should be interesting to hear from MikeL regarding how he perceived the sound quality from his system during the days following the test. Will it sound as good as percieved from the sighted Opus or worse as noted with the Monster cable. Was alleged placebo adding to or subtracting from the experience.

It should be interesting to hear from MikeL regarding how he perceived the sound quality from his system during the days following the test. Will it sound as good as percieved from the sighted Opus or worse as noted with the Monster cable. Was alleged placebo adding to or subtracting from the experience.

the system was sounding great last night after the test and this morning again.....in fact, as good as or better than ever.

i have not re-inserted the Monster since the test.

i need to just enjoy for awhile before i climb back on the 'cable-wars horse'. this is all a fun thing for me......not work. i need to re-charge my investigative juices.

Yes, exactly. So the common notion that the box may or will cause an audible difference is not founded in anything and the higher probability is that the box is for RF filtering and not audio band alterations.
As to their web site claiming the difference, that is par for the course no matter what they place on the wire, or just having plain wires.:D But, it could very well be that is where the common notion came from, jumping to an unfounded conclusion.

As posted elsewhere, someone placed this cable or somthing similar on a spectrum analizer and didn't see the box doing anything in the audio band.:D I just don't have a link to that message:mad:


Yep if you read the BS on the website they claim these boxes do have an effect on the sound versus those without boxes. In fact they say it so revelaing it needed special tweaking. So they claim it effects what you hear then it indeed can be measeured. So they lose. The box is hocum.

Having an effect on the sound, and having an effect on the sound that is audible are two different things.

So, actually, it was only *7* trials , with 3 correct (that's a p=0.773, i.e., a 33% probability that the correct answers were not due to chance -- versus a typical target value of 95%)

The most interesting part of this turns out not the be the stats, which are telling but meager, but the self-report from Mike that he was sure he'd got 7/7 correct. This is really classic, and very common, overconfidence in the accuracy of subjective perception. It's much the same confidence he's expressed all along, regarding the Transparents. I hope Mike now has a deeper appreciation of the roots and bases of audio skepticism regarding sighted reports.

Mike,

You have my utmost respect and admiration for being willing to do this test, and for the way you've conducted yourself following the posting of the results. You really had nothing to win and a lot to lose, and certainly get my vote for the biggest balls on AVS. Chin up and enjoy your wonderful system !!!

This is sort of an off-topic discussion. I'm not hugely informed about vinyl. All I know is that I've heard Santana Gypsy Queen a million times, and never in my life has it been like that.

My statement about TT was just an aside example to illustrate that I'm open to subjective experiences that run contrary to my objective understanding. Perhaps my objective understanding about vinyl is wrong, but I was of the impression that it was fairly clear-cut that CD is plenty capable of keeping up technically, or exceeding vinyl. Whether that is right or not is beside the point. Rather, I objectively approached the issue, but I am open to unexpected experiences. Otherwise, I might just as easily reject what I thought I heard, and that's not fair to do either.


It is ALL in the mastering. :)

Hi

Just wanted to congratulate MikeL and Chris Wiggles... Just a great experience, one that has me thinking very hard... I do not take the results as conclusive... I have always been of the opinion that cables differences are not as large and easily discernible as we, audiophiles would like to think... Subtle? Yes... Non Existent? I continue to doubt...

Mike needs downtime to come up with a reason why cables still sound different..;)

As for the networking boxes, I can offer this: I believe that the vast majority of them are RC or LC or RL networks to compensate for abnormally high capacitance that these esoretic cables posess. The network boxes are there so that some amps won't go into oscillation due to driving a highly capacitive load.

So while the network itself won't affect the audio spectrum as the values used are active at frequencies far above the audible spectrum, I suppose that the manufacturer could claim that a non oscillating amp sounds better than one that is oscillating wildly at 100Khz. Never mind the fact that generally speaking, a speaker sounds better with the tweeter working rather than it being blown by said ultrasonic amp oscillations..:)

Yes, but the capacitances are nothing like Alpha Goertz and besides, they provide the resistor and capacitor when you buy their wire.

Mike, thanks for your thoughts. I definitely hope that you'll consider continuing this crusade. Go after those details of the test that didn't suit you. Everything that you think you can do to improve your chances of passing a blind test---from more practice, to more comfortable testing conditions, to shorter changing intervals---do them. Of course, the blindness has to stay in; but within that constraint you should do whatever you feel can help.

Congrats to Mike for being so brave with this.

Mike, look at the bright side: You'll be saving a TON of money in the future by not buying boutique cables anymore.
Instead, you'll be redistributing that hefty amount into your already wonderful system.

Enjoy.
PS Like Curt already said, don't try to find a reason why you failed the test. Just accept it because it is the truth...

The interesting part of this and what i am most interested hearing mike continue to comment on... is the fact that this has challenged (to some extent) his belief system.

So while we can by no means confirm that this test was conclusive, it can conclusively be said to put to rest the comments of "night and day, system sounded broken before..." etc. hyperbole.

I think that we can comfortably say now on all sides that differences are VERY subtle at best. Anybody who looks at this with a fair and balanced view (not fox news of course) would not say that exotic cables have been forever dis proven, however they have been perhaps brought much closer to reality.

What i am surprised to see is the lack of folks trying to nullify the test.

The interesting part of this and what i am most interested hearing mike continue to comment on... is the fact that this has challenged (to some extent) his belief system.

So while we can by no means confirm that this test was conclusive, it can conclusively be said to put to rest the comments of "night and day, system sounded broken before..." etc. hyperbole.

From Mike Lavigne, maybe. From other 'audiophiles': as if.



I think that we can comfortably say now on all sides that differences are VERY subtle at best. Anybody who looks at this with a fair and balanced view (not fox news of course) would not say that exotic cables have been forever dis proven, however they have been perhaps brought much closer to reality.

What i am surprised to see is the lack of folks trying to nullify the test.

It's only been a day. I've alerted the true believers on Audio Asylum. Give it a few hours. :p

Hi All, especially Mike L.,

For anyone who hasn't been as subject in, and possibly watched from side a true, double blind test, I strongly suggest you be somewhat respectful of those who have. The way the test is conducted and many seemingly minor factors can make such things VERY difficult. I have sat through blind amplifier comparisions as well as one of Tom Nousaine's cable tests as well as an interesting comparison of a cheap/common op-amp circuit. A few of these used the ABX box that QSC had built. To say that a blind test is a difficult listening condition is a gross understatement.

Harman Motive, even more than the home audio end, has done an amazing amount of testing on trained and untrained listeners. In OEM autosound systems, prooving the money you spent was worth it is even more important as compared to home audio where spending more *must* mean it's better. ;) Some guys I went to college with have been involved in plenty of this sort of testing, and to say much of it is sobering is a gross understatement.

Practice and gaining some level of comfort with the test is an important factor to consider, both in general terms and for the specific case. Please note I am NOT defending the $25k cables on the market (some of them really muck with the signal! :rolleyes: ), but rather intending to add some levity to the discussion. Many objectivists are also guilty of assuming that the speakers many enthusiasts love follow common behavior. Some speakers have wildly varying impedances, some amplifiers actually try and deliver on the DC-Ch5 ideal, and some components and cables have rather peculiar grounding practices. I'm not suggesting that these are competently designed products, but such occurances are more common in exotic hi-fi than many like to acknowledge.

I see the other thread is locked.

Thank you Mike L for stepping up and taking the time to do this to answer all the questions.

This all just shows how incredible and complex the human mind is when it comes to combined senses.

The testing can be a huge strain and very stressful, I remember my roomates laughing at me all the time!

So is Mike L keeping the Monster cables and selling the other ones? ;)

Why would he do that? Were I in Mike's shoes I wouldn't be so quick to switch camps. No doubt this test was an eye-opener for Mike. But had the test come out differently I dare say most of us would be demanding more evidence. (For example we'd be asking for frequency response measurements on the cables.) I think it's only fair that he do the same, and I hope he continues the search for it.

I'd like to add my thanks to Mike Lavigne for his efforts and for his willingness to subject himself to this rather public test. Also to Chris Wiggles for helping to conduct the test and for his most informative posts.
I recently did a simple test of my ability to hear the differences between audio formats, and having done that, I have some appreciation for the effort that Mike went through.

Why would he do that?

Sorry, it was just a joke. :D

Of course he wont sell them because they do make a difference to him in a normal environment. I did post before that I believed he does hear a difference, I believe I would hear a difference, our damn brains play tricks on us all the time :D

If the testing was done right (it was) and he did hear a difference then I would not demand more evidence from MikeL at all. I would believe his speaker cables do sound different.

Again, I think its awesome he stuck his neck out and did this. I think all audiophiles should do blind tests to understand how we dont really have control over our senses.

My above post out of the way, and having seen some of the similar testing, I do hope this testing leaves many more enthusiasts seriously questioning the claims of the marketeers. I make no assertion as to conclusions from the test other than the differences not being as grossly blatant as many would like to believe. There are many greater offenses in audio systems to pursue with the vigor I see given to cabling.

Personally I lost most interest in the cable controversies long ago when I started dabbling in loudspeaker design. There are so many other minor changes to a design or room that can be both clearly measurable and audible, that you quickly get to the point of "why bother?" My personal suspicion is that the problem boils down to the fact that classic hi-fi systems provide limited means of tayloring, fitting or flavoring for your space and preferences, that enthusiasts are left grasping for anything that may allow them to fine tune the character of their system.

Of course it's just a theory. :rolleyes:

Why would he do that? Were I in Mike's shoes I wouldn't be so quick to switch camps. No doubt this test was an eye-opener for Mike. But had the test come out differently I dare say most of us would be demanding more evidence. (For example we'd be asking for frequency response measurements on the cables.)

That would only be a request to check likely reasons for an 'unlikely' result -- standard science practice. (I was asking for that even before the test!)

Mike's result wasn't unlikely or mysterious, assuming the Transparents really don't measure very different from the Monsters in the audible band. But if he wants to show that something was wrong with the DBT, his best bet right now would be to ....ask for frequency response measurement on the cables! And hope that they really do measure quite differently in the audible band, in his system. Then his FAILURE becomes unlikely and mysterious.

Isnt' it great how that works? :D


I think it's only fair that he do the same, and I hope he continues the search for it.

I hope he knows when to stop.

Personally I lost most interest in the cable controversies long ago when I started dabbling in loudspeaker design. There are so many other minor changes to a design or room that can be both clearly measurable and audible, that you quickly get to the point of "why bother?"

This should be posted in capital letters above any 'cable' forum.

What sucks is Mike L still wins no matter what considering he has the best listening room on all of AVS! :D

If i was in the same position, i probably wouldnt have done it. It requires quite a bit of will power and stamina to do these blind tests especially when you probably have better things to do (like listen to music).

The writeup was really good and this is a nice eye opener of sorts...

Mike's result wasn't unlikely or mysterious,That's what you and I believe to be true, but it wasn't what Mike believed. You can't place our assumptions onto his process, even if we believe our assumptions are the right ones (which I genuinely believe they are.)I hope he knows when to stop.Fair enough; I think a couple more good tests ought to do it.

i want to thank my friends Joe and Ted for all their help yesterday; .

Hats off to you for attempting this and going through it. Wish more would stand up to the plate as you have. Thanks. :)

(not fox news of course) .


Of course not. That is yet another claim, unsupported:D

Mike,

You have my utmost respect and admiration for being willing to do this test, and for the way you've conducted yourself following the posting of the results. You really had nothing to win and a lot to lose, and certainly get my vote for the biggest balls on AVS. Chin up and enjoy your wonderful system !!!

No kidding. You've handled yourself with grace without a hint of defensiveness.

Good work to all involved: Mike L, Chris, et al.

The real thing this test reveals is the huge stealthy difference between sighted and blind tests. Going from sighted to blind listening tests is, ironically, a real eye opener. ;)

Mike, you didn't "fail" the test.

That's what you and I believe to be true, but it wasn't what Mike believed. You can't place our assumptions onto his process, even if we believe our assumptions are the right ones (which I genuinely believe they are.)Fair enough; I think a couple more good tests ought to do it.

It's not just that I believe it to be true , it's that we're talking about scientific data, protocols and practice...which is what Mike was attempting to follow in this instance. Based on the extant science, a 'no difference' result in a controlled listening test of two loudspeaker cables is neither unlikely nor hard to explain.

I think that there is a parameter that has not been considered. I recently did some testing of a new transport in my system which is comprised of well regarded audio components and I noticed that I enjoy the sound best when my eyes are open, but looking into a black area between my speakers rather than having my eyes closed.

I usually turn off all the light and just have the Glow from the amps and the equipment used for lighting. I gives me a better sense of depth and placement to the recordings and I somehow lose some of that with my eyes closed. Now this could have been done at Mikes test by just shutting off the lights rather than the blindfold. Our senses act independently of each other , but combining them does add something that may not be measurable. Smell and taste are obviously connected, maybe sight and sound are as well. As this may have been already stated, but I would also like to add that this really only means that transparent cabling and monster cabling are similar.

Based on the extant science, a 'no difference' result in a controlled listening test of two loudspeaker cables is neither unlikely nor hard to explain.I don't mean to pick nits but if Mike were working in the realm of extant science, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. This really isn't about science, specifically; rather, it is about education, about knowledge aquisition. Thus it really doesn't matter what the extant science says; what matters is what Mike L. believes, and the evolution of that belief. What matters is that it was a surprising result to him.

I think that there is a parameter that has not been considered. I recently did some testing of a new transport in my system which is comprised of well regarded audio components and I noticed that I enjoy the sound best when my eyes are open, but looking into a black area between my speakers rather than having my eyes closed.

I usually turn off all the light and just have the Glow from the amps and the equipment used for lighting. I gives me a better sense of depth and placement to the recordings and I somehow lose some of that with my eyes closed. Now this could have been done at Mikes test by just shutting off the lights rather than the blindfold. Our senses act independently of each other , but combining them does add something that may not be measurable. Smell and taste are obviously connected, maybe sight and sound are as well. As this may have been already stated, but I would also like to add that this really only means that transparent cabling and monster cabling are similar.


They certainly are connected, and what we see seriously affects our perception of what we hear. It's part of the reason having speakers perfectly placed behind the screen isn't hugely necessary. Our brain is very adept at re-locating sounds to where our eyes tell us they should be. This is why I hold the exact opposite opinion as the one you forward. When you see the speakers and the room, you expect all the sounds to be coming from the plane and location of your two speakers, and between them. It is far less likely under those circumstances to perceive soundstage depth both behind and in front of the speakers, outside the width of the speakers, and occassionally height as well. But that's only my personal listening experience. Others may prefer seeing the speakers for totally different reasons.

Been quite a few years since I sat in a Stat. class.

I seem to remember the assertion is that "cable A is greater than cable B".

Null hypothesis is than cable B is equal to or less than B.

As a result, a one tailed test.

Perform the test, and either accept or reject the null hypothesis.

I have a poor memory and haven't spent any time, other than decades old class time with the math and testing procedures.

Its great to see people taking a practical approach to solving the question of "is cable A better than cable B". Its even better to see someone looking to math for help.

If I remember correctly, the result must be stated that with the given test procedures the null hypothesis was either accepted or rejected. I've been told, one of the reasons for peer-review journals is that the readers are confident the reviewers have checked the methodology.

Its interesting to hear others debate if the mathematics captured a "real" result or the mathematics was unable to capture the "real" result.

If we accept or reject the null hypothesis, well then? was the test condition generalizable to "the real world"?

I seem to remember a professor point out that if you ask a question in a survey the result should be an actionable result (weather it is A or B). If the result is A then this action can be taken; if the result is B then another action can be taken. If no action can be taken, then what?

My hats off to all of those that endured the test conditions, and to those who gave their time to this noble pursuit. What a breath of fresh air after streams of pyramid power cleaning up audio signals.

Again, many thanks.

Best Regards

Bob

The only surprising result of this test is Mike's gentlemanly reaction to it.

Mike,

Kudos for doing the hard work of attempting a formal listening test, they can be a LOT of work, and lot of effort.

Don't be discouraged by the results, many of these kinds of listening tests are amazingly INSENSITIVE to subtle sonic differences, and the fact that you thought that you were hearing things under the sighted informal sessions before the formal session really doesn't mean much, the formal portion literally changes the way your brain works and 'analyzes' the music. Thus, you may have been hearing what you thought you heard during the initial sighted sessions, and then later, you literally could no longer do so, your brain was running in a different mode than it was at first!

It is also likely, that being inexperienced with participating in a formal listening test, that listening fatigue set in early, even with trained and experienced listeners, there are only so many sessions that can be done before your ears and brain are toast, and the rest of the trials are just adding random results.

If you really want to do some more listening tests, you will probably want to read some comments I have made, as well as get a look at my AES preprint on DIY subjective listening tests, and I provide much of the main concepts and ideas in the last URL I provide here below. The first two are comments on common problems and issues with amateur DBT's, some of which probably apply to your own recent experience.

DBT's are HARD work, and a failure to end up with a positive result does not mean that there wasn't a sonic difference to be heard, just that the test you participated in may not have been capable of revealing it.

URL's for info on DIY DBT's:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2190.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2579.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2580.html

Jon Risch

The only surprising result of this test is Mike's gentlemanly reaction to it.

Surprising ? No.. Remarkable? Certainly.. From the start MikeL has been a gentlemen even in he face of ad hominem posts...

great read, i look forward to reading more about this.

Mike L., have you given any thought to repeating the test that Stereo Review did a number of years ago with speaker wire? If you want the details, I can provide them. The idea is to replicate earlier work where the wires are quite dissimilar. Call it 'easy' if you will. Once you've gotten that down, and therefore gained some experience and confidence, you can progress to more 'difficult' scenarios. Kind of like learning how to play catch. Start out slow...easy...and work your way up.

Mike,

Kudos for doing the hard work of attempting a formal listening test, they can be a LOT of work, and lot of effort.

Don't be discouraged by the results, many of these kinds of listening tests are amazingly INSENSITIVE to subtle sonic differences,

And away we go!

Woo woo! (or should I say 'quack quack')

Tell us again why skin effect matters in audio cables, Mr. Risch. And why putting a sandbag on a CD player reduces jitter. And why DBT discussion is not allowed in your 'Cable Asylum' over on AA. Is it so folks like jneutron, Stewart Pinkerton, jj, Dick Pierce, mtrycrafts et al. can't take your theories apart in full view of the assembled flock?

Btw, one of my favorite posts involving you is this one - where you contorted yourself trying to explain away *YET ANOTHER* honest, and arguably even more thorough, blind cable comparison that came up negative.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/fd2cf3674fde0362?hl=en&

They certainly are connected, and what we see seriously affects our perception of what we hear. It's part of the reason having speakers perfectly placed behind the screen isn't hugely necessary. Our brain is very adept at re-locating sounds to where our eyes tell us they should be. This is why I hold the exact opposite opinion as the one you forward. When you see the speakers and the room, you expect all the sounds to be coming from the plane and location of your two speakers, and between them. It is far less likely under those circumstances to perceive soundstage depth both behind and in front of the speakers, outside the width of the speakers, and occassionally height as well.

So you disagree with the way I like to listen to my system??

Just to better explain my first post....I like it it dark ...so dark that I cannot even see my speakers just the glow from my amps. Not everyone would enjoy it this way, but I love it. I have incredible depth to my soundsystem light on or off I just prefer the latter

Joey

Don't be discouraged by the results, many of these kinds of listening tests are amazingly INSENSITIVE to subtle sonic differences,


What? :confused:

I've done enough blind and double-blind testing of cables and other audio gear (and read enough about it) to be unsurprised at this result. In fact, I wish there had been betting opened upon the result so I could have won some money. ;)

To those who poo-poo these tests let's keep these things in mind:

What kind of claims are made by manufacturers, and often by reviewers and
many audiophiles about boutique cables? Very often the top-rated cables are said to transform a system's sound in a significant, easily discernible and subjectively quantifiable manner. Changes in depth, focus, clarity, timbre, "pacing," bass etc. These changes are purportedly so major that sited reviewers actually recommend cables at jaw-dropping price points, and people actually believe they hear differences warranting these amazing costs.

But suddenly when blind testing rears it's head these "amazing differences" start shrinking to teeny, tiny differences that, as some will complain, one becomes insensitive to during a test. That issue in of itself should be sobering, in terms of the levels of sonic difference we are really looking at. (Reminds me very much of all those PSI people who can easily read minds on their own time, but when put to test start complaining of everything under the sun in how difficult it became...as the poor test results flowed in).

There is just a ton of scientific research detailing how people are fooled by their subjective biases. It also shows that you don't even have to go into a
test of A and B thinking either will be different. You may think you are neutral on A and B. But that's not how our brains work. Our brains are always trying to discern differences, (especially if we are trying to discern differences). And you will tend to think you are hearing/seeing differences between A and B as a matter of course. People under testing will think they perceive a difference between A and A, even when A has not been switched at all.

These are issues that any truth-seeking, or care-minded person ought to take into account if they really want to get to the bottom of whether A is reliably sonically discernible from B. If not, then you just aren't accounting in your methodology for variable well-known to influence test results.

I'm not saying that any particular blind/double-blind test puts a nail into the coffin of subjective claims about a cable or whatever. A good scientists or researcher is (or should be) cautious about results even of tests that seem well controlled, because there could always have been an X factor unaccounted for that influenced the test (which is why repeatability of test results by other parties is such a big part of the scientific method).

BUT...to those who want to say that blind tests are not reliable for discerning sonic differences the question arises: then what type of tests ARE better for determining if you really are able to reliably distinguish a cable on sonic differences alone?"

I mean, if taking into account plenty of scientific research showing the issues of sighted bias, and trying to reduce those variables unrelated to the actual sonic differences via blind testing isn't the way to be more sure of a test result...what in the world is? A group of audiophiles reclining in front of 6K cables, wine glasses in hand?

Also, the "it's too stressful" line of thinking as an excuse against null results doesn't do much to account for the many positive results that occur during blind testing. I've had a number of positive results (e.g. comparing DACs)...and didn't feel any of this terrible strain. Also, research into all manner of things sonic, e.g. tests for audio codecs and compression schemes, yield reliable positive test results for sonic differences, using blind testing.

As an audiophile myself I understand the allure of cables and tweaks: it gives you the promise of pushing your system's performance beyond what is just handed to you at the store. It plays into that audiophile quest to get the system better...better...better... and we leap on anything that seems to do this.

But, I just can't ignore the results I've found in being involved in blind/double-blind tests, nor can I ignore the many results found by others, and all the research on human perception and behaviour in these issues.

Now...time to go fire up my tube-amp, which no one will pry from my dead hands....;)

Now THAT was a good post Rich! :)

Mike,

Don't be discouraged by the results, many of these kinds of listening tests are amazingly INSENSITIVE to subtle sonic differences, and the fact that you thought that you were hearing things under the sighted informal sessions before the formal session really doesn't mean much, the formal portion literally changes the way your brain works and 'analyzes' the music. Thus, you may have been hearing what you thought you heard during the initial sighted sessions, and then later, you literally could no longer do so, your brain was running in a different mode than it was at first!


Jon Risch

To restate your hypothesis . . . you are saying that:
DBT tests introduce bias that invalidate the results. Only sighted, informal testing can reveal subtle differences between cables.

:rolleyes:

DBT's are HARD work, and a failure to end up with a positive result does not mean that there wasn't a sonic difference to be heard, just that the test you participated in may not have been capable of revealing it.



Im all for BETTER TESTING METHODS that are less stressful....

please post one method better then DBTs?

But please remember that you must REMOVE any bias during the testing. If I know a product costs $X my brain automatically places a "value" and "performance" to that product therefore its impossible for ANYONE to not have a BIAS opinion even before the testing starts.

Remove the BIAS and then we have REAL results.

The stress is actually in the fact that we are TRYING to find the differences, its hard mentality to go through this sort of testing for 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours. If we just site back and listen without the stress of trying to spot the difference the test simply show little or no differences.

I had to endure 4 years of living with Engineers during my school days, talk about the mythbusters of the 80s ;)

Actually DBTs isnt even needed, we once switched out the cables of a friends system. They were not $7K cables at all but they were "Student Expensive" 10 AWG cables. We switched them with lamp cord since the distances were only 10 feet anyways, he never noticed for weeks and only when he saw them did he start to think he heard a difference.

I've done enough blind and double-blind testing of cables and other audio gear (and read enough about it) to be unsurprised at this result. In fact, I wish there had been betting opened upon the result so I could have won some money. ;)

To those who poo-poo these tests let's keep these things in mind:

What kind of claims are made by manufacturers, and often by reviewers and
many audiophiles about boutique cables? Very often the top-rated cables are said to transform a system's sound in a significant, easily discernible and subjectively quantifiable manner. Changes in depth, focus, clarity, timbre, "pacing," bass etc. These changes are purportedly so major that sited reviewers actually recommend cables at jaw-dropping price points, and people actually believe they hear differences warranting these amazing costs.

But suddenly when blind testing rears it's head these "amazing differences" start shrinking to teeny, tiny differences that, as some will complain, one becomes insensitive to during a test. That issue in of itself should be sobering, in terms of the levels of sonic difference we are really looking at. (Reminds me very much of all those PSI people who can easily read minds on their own time, but when put to test start complaining of everything under the sun in how difficult it became...as the poor test results flowed in).

There is just a ton of scientific research detailing how people are fooled by their subjective biases. It also shows that you don't even have to go into a
test of A and B thinking either will be different. You may think you are neutral on A and B. But that's not how our brains work. Our brains are always trying to discern differences, (especially if we are trying to discern differences). And you will tend to think you are hearing/seeing differences between A and B as a matter of course. People under testing will think they perceive a difference between A and A, even when A has not been switched at all.

These are issues that any truth-seeking, or care-minded person ought to take into account if they really want to get to the bottom of whether A is reliably sonically discernible from B. If not, then you just aren't accounting in your methodology for variable well-known to influence test results.

I'm not saying that any particular blind/double-blind test puts a nail into the coffin of subjective claims about a cable or whatever. A good scientists or researcher is (or should be) cautious about results even of tests that seem well controlled, because there could always have been an X factor unaccounted for that influenced the test (which is why repeatability of test results by other parties is such a big part of the scientific method).

BUT...to those who want to say that blind tests are not reliable for discerning sonic differences the question arises: then what type of tests ARE better for determining if you really are able to reliably distinguish a cable on sonic differences alone?"

I mean, if taking into account plenty of scientific research showing the issues of sited bias, and trying to reduce those variables unrelated to the actual sonic differences via blind testing isn't the way to be more sure of a test result...what in the world is? A group of audiophiles reclining in front of
6K cables, wine glasses in hand?

Also, the "it's too stressful" line of thinking as an excuse against null results doesn't do much to account for the many positive results that occur during blind testing. I've had a number of positive results (e.g. comparing DACs)...and didn't feel any of this terrible strain. Also, research into all manner of things sonic, e.g. tests for audio codecs and compression schemes, yield reliable positive test results for sonic differences, using blind testing.

As an audiophile myself I understand the allure of cables and tweaks: it gives you the promise of pushing your system's performance beyond what is just handed to you at the store. It plays into that audiophile quest to get the system better...better...better... and we leap on anything that seems to do this.

But, I just can't ignore the results I've found in being involved in blind/double-blind tests, nor can I ignore the many results found by others, and all the research on human perception and behaviour in these issues.

Now...time to go fire up my tube-amp, which no one will pry from my dead hands....;)


+1 Well said.

Don't be discouraged by the results, many of these kinds of listening tests are amazingly INSENSITIVE to subtle sonic differences,

They are no more insensitive to subtle sonic differences than sighted tests are. They are, however, amazingly insensitive to imagined sonic differences, which is why they are far more valuable than sighted tests.

In a sense Jon Risch is absolutely right. The brain really is working differently in a blind test compared to a non-blind one! Specifically there is a marked reduction in activity in the part of the brain associated with imagination. :)

Seriously though penngray also has a point. Mike L.'s tests are more stressful than they could be precisely because of the mental investment he has in his position. It is not just a casual audition but an attempt to prove something. If DBT were a regular feature of one's auditioning practice the stress factor would be greatly reduced. (easier said than done I admit)

Improvements in the testing method and further practice should certainly help in that regard.

Oops Bob beat me to the punch :)

It seems to me the only thing stressful about a good DBT would be if the listener feels he or she has to "prove" something, like "I just have to hear a difference between these cables … otherwise, what will people think of me?"

The listener would presumably feel that same urgency in a sighted test, too, and that would certainly induce a huge bias toward a positive result, resulting overwhelmingly in false positives.

Oops Bob beat me to the punch :)

Ha!! And vice-versa. ;)

a few comments;

the many nice comments are appreciated; i feel encouraged to continue to pursue whatever ultimate truth may be discovered. this is a learning experience and as i read the comments i can see how to do a better job next time....even though i am considerably less confident of the result.

these next two weeks are going to be busy for me;

today my 'like new' Ampex ATR-102 RTR tape machine will finally arrive. last week i recieved the first of my 'The Tape Project' 15ips master tapes. i can't wait to listen to it.

my daughter and son-in-law arrive tomorrow for a week's stay. my son-in-law is in the middle of his post-doc work as a Phd in Physics and i may have him assist me with process design for the next blind test.

then next week-end i'm off to Florida for a business trip for a week.

so it might be three weeks or so before i have anything more to report.

thanks again for the 'positive vibe' i am feeling. any negative feelings i might have had been replaced by an even greater desire for discovery.

It seems to me the only thing stressful about a good DBT would be if the listener feels he or she has to "prove" something, like "I just have to hear a difference between these cables … otherwise, what will people think of me?"



Anyone who finds any of this remotely stressful needs to get a life.

I think that's more than a bit harsh! There's nothing wrong with having a good solid passion for something like audiophilia; and if there's one thing we probably agree on it's that Mike L. is among the most passionate. A serious challenge to one's passion, no matter what the circumstances, is going to be stressful, even if undertaken voluntarily.

Besides, I would argue that a stress-free life isn't a particularly exciting one. If that's the life to "get" count me out! :)

I think that's more than a bit harsh! There's nothing wrong with having a good solid passion for something like audiophilia; and if there's one thing we probably agree on it's that Mike L. is among the most passionate. A serious challenge to one's passion, no matter what the circumstances, is going to be stressful, even if undertaken voluntarily.

Besides, I would argue that a stress-free life isn't a particularly exciting one. If that's the life to "get" count me out! :)

My life is far from stress free. Spending two hours doing a DBT on cables would be a holiday!

Well yeah but for you and I, cables aren't a budgetary concern! :)

Well yeah but for you and I, cables aren't a budgetary concern! :)

Very True. :)

Anyone who spends ~$43K on speaker cables does NOT have a budget:)

Frankly, I didn't really get the 'stress' part of the a/b testing either, but didn't comment..why is a/b testing stressful?

Anyone who spends ~$43K on speaker cables does NOT have a budget:)

Reminds me of a quote :
"I gave him an unlimited budget and he exceeded it".

Curt---I would say that on its own, blind testing is perhaps cumbersome and tedious but not stressful. As Bob and I both suggested, the stress comes from the expectations placed on the tests; in this case, that Mike was submitting to a serious challenge to his orthodoxy.

Curt---I would say that on its own, blind testing is perhaps cumbersome and tedious but not stressful. As Bob and I both suggested, the stress comes from the expectations placed on the tests; in this case, that Mike was submitting to a serious challenge to his orthodoxy.

Let's give Mike some credit here. From my understanding he manages a large Automobile dealership. I think he can handle the stress. :)

The stress also comes from a lack of practice.

Let's give Mike some credit here. From my understanding he manages a large Automobile dealership.

"What can I do to help you ABX speaker cables today?" ;)

Swampfox---I did not mean to imply he couldn't handle it! I just wanted to acknowledge that it's there and say that it's commendable to face it down.

Swampfox---I did not mean to imply he couldn't handle it! I just wanted to acknowledge that it's there and say that it's commendable to face it down.


I'm just saying that we are blowing the stress thing way out of proportion. Frankly, I admire Mike L for doing the test and the way he's handled himself.

They are no more insensitive to subtle sonic differences than sighted tests are. They are, however, amazingly insensitive to imagined sonic differences, which is why they are far more valuable than sighted tests.

Amen, Bob!

What's more, the performance of DBT's in threshold tests gets down to within -->||<-- of the maximum sensitivity permitted by physics.

The evidence for the sensitivity of DBT's is present and accounted for.

The evidence for the total, absolute inaccuracy of sighted testing for small differences due to the auditory sense is also present, accounted for, and overwhelming.

Don't be discouraged by the results, many of these kinds of listening tests are amazingly INSENSITIVE to subtle sonic differences, and the fact that you thought that you were hearing things under the sighted informal sessions before the formal session really doesn't mean much, the formal portion literally changes the way your brain works and 'analyzes' the music.

Jon, please provide me with some concrete, testable, verifiable evidence in support of that claim. It is an extraordinary claim that is directly opposite the entire experience of the credible psychoacoustics community.

In short, my experience with DBT's, is that they and cognates are the only valid kind of auditory testing in existance, that they have shown no such problem at all, of course presuming training and feedback after the decision, as well as a substantial acclimation period.

If somebody didn't find anything, and the test was well done, the overwhelmingly most likely meaning is that there was nothing to hear in the test.

There is, in science, no absolute negative proof, only a cumulative weight of evidence, and that is solidly and incontrovertably, in all cases, on the side of the properly run DBT or cognate.

It is also just as certain that sighted tests are so prone to inadvertant, honest human error, that they are, unless differences are enormous, completely unreliable for the purpose of detecting differences due only to auditory stimulii.

I'm just saying that we are blowing the stress thing way out of proportion. Frankly, I admire Mike L for doing the test and the way he's handled himself.

+1 here.

Mr. Risch may be right, about different brain activity occuring in 'sighted' vs 'blind', but it doesn't have the implications he thinks it does.

This is a quote from the wiki article on placebo effects. The date links to the actual article by McClure et al published in Neuron, a highly respected scientific journal of neurobiology.

A complex fMRI-centred study by McClure, et al. (2004 (http://www.neuron.org/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0896627304006129)) on the brain responses of subjects who had previously expressed a preference for one or other of the similar soft drinks Pepsi and Coca-Cola, demonstrated that "brand information", which "significantly influences subjects’ expressed preferences", is processed in an entirely different brain area from the area activated in blind taste tests (when their "preferences are determined solely from sensory information").[33] This supports the claim that there are unconscious brain processes that activate the "placebo response".

This certainly doesn't imply that sighted judgement is MORE ACCURATE than judgement from 'pure' sensory input (blind). It implies that 'sighted' input activates a different brain area than 'taste data' input, and the judgment is affected by this -- it's virtually DECOUPLED from actual taste input. That leads to things like inaccurate identification of the drink. People who have a stated preference for Coke, will not be able to tell if it's Coke when blinded...and they will state a preference for 'Coke' even when it's really Pepsi with a Coke label on it. This 'cultural' bias has a brain activity correlate.

Here's the actual abstract of the Neuron paper:


Coca-Cola® (Coke®) and Pepsi® are nearly identical in chemical composition, yet humans routinely display strong subjective preferences for one or the other. This simple observation raises the important question of how cultural messages combine with content to shape our perceptions; even to the point of modifying behavioral preferences for a primary reward like a sugared drink. We delivered Coke and Pepsi to human subjects in behavioral taste tests and also in passive experiments carried out during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Two conditions were examined: (1) anonymous delivery of Coke and Pepsi and (2) brand-cued delivery of Coke and Pepsi. For the anonymous task, we report a consistent neural response in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex that correlated with subjects' behavioral preferences for these beverages. In the brand-cued experiment, brand knowledge for one of the drinks had a dramatic influence on expressed behavioral preferences and on the measured brain responses.

Anyone who finds any of this remotely stressful needs to get a life.

lmao, honestly, work has been really boring in the past couple of months so I have to come on here to get excited and alteast create a good amount of stress......I would be falling asleep otherwise :D :D

lmao, honestly, work has been really boring in the past couple of months so I have to come on here to get excited and alteast create a good amount of stress......I would be falling asleep otherwise :D :D
Now, if the listener received an electrical shock everytime he picked the wrong cable . . . that would be stressful. :D

Now, if the listener received an electrical shock everytime he picked the wrong cable . . . that would be stressful. :D

Are you implying that electric shocks are not standard protocol for blind testing?!!

(Rich goes back to drawing board, realization of why people refuse to take part in any more of his tests begins to dawn...)

an even greater desire for discovery.

That is saying something great. Enjoy the visit with family, the trip to FL and at your leisure return to this avenue of discovery.:D

I think you can find 'clubs' where people are into that sort of thing, Richard.

Surprising ? No.. Remarkable? Certainly.. From the start MikeL has been a gentlemen even in he face of ad hominem posts...
Frantz,

I believe it is surprising insofar as the normal reaction when a persons core beliefs are challenged is to make excuses and cry foul. In fact, when it comes to people failing cable tests it occurs nearly 100% of the time. So for me yes, Mike's reaction is surprising, and that is a compliment :).

MikeL-it seems that it wasn't too long ago that you were going to leave this forum for good and I have been happy to see that you have not only stayed but have become active again. Know that if you keep on this path of cable testing and show that you can tell the difference in cables you will change me into a believer. But until then :)....

Mr Hirsh-your post is a fabulous diatribe in denial. Your disciples should be proud....

I will agree with the stress thing.

Almost any kind of testing is stressful. not because i might fail or pass, but because i have to pay attention to things that are normally not part of my focus.

As an example, i just had to do an evaluation of Telepresence solutions. when conducting the conference, my brain was going at double speed analyzing the latency, the audio, the video, trying to then break apart what is related to the codec's and what is related to the gear... etc, etc, etc. So while others came out of the demo saying how awesome it was, i had 100 times more input to process and was wiped after a one hour meeting.

So in any case where a test is happening and you are being serious about it, you will find it stressful due to the fact that you are recording far more stimulus than if you were just sitting back getting comfortably numb.

I have not read every post so I don't know what has or has not been said about the stress thing but "stress" is another red herring. Stress might cause some people to fail in certain endeavors, I'm sure some people fail the bar test because of stress, yet amazingly, many people sill manage to pass and become attorney's. Since audiophiles ALWAYS fail the cable comparison test, I think we can logically conclude that stress is not the primary causative factor.

A personal quest for the truth has to be admired.

I will agree with the stress thing.

Almost any kind of testing is stressful. not because i might fail or pass, but because i have to pay attention to things that are normally not part of my focus.

As an example, i just had to do an evaluation of Telepresence solutions. when conducting the conference, my brain was going at double speed analyzing the latency, the audio, the video, trying to then break apart what is related to the codec's and what is related to the gear... etc, etc, etc. So while others came out of the demo saying how awesome it was, i had 100 times more input to process and was wiped after a one hour meeting.

So in any case where a test is happening and you are being serious about it, you will find it stressful due to the fact that you are recording far more stimulus than if you were just sitting back getting comfortably numb.

OK Dizz, but how do you think your stress level would've been had that been the 10th time you'd seen it?

I have not read every post so I don't know what has or has not been said about the stress thing but "stress" is another red herring. Stress might cause some people to fail in certain endeavors, I'm sure some people fail the bar test because of stress, yet amazingly, many people sill manage to pass and become attorney's. Since audiophiles ALWAYS fail the cable comparison test, I think we can logically conclude that stress is not the primary causative factor.


Correct! :)

A personal quest for the truth has to be admired.

Hear, hear!

If the test protocol is wearing, just do it exactly the same way the person determined they could hear a difference in the first place, i.e. casual switching, except that someone else does the changeouts and the listener doesn't know which cable it is.

For a lazy guy like me, that would be *less* stressful.

Unless of course I cared which one sounded better.

I will agree with the stress thing.

Almost any kind of testing is stressful. not because i might fail or pass, but because i have to pay attention to things that are normally not part of my focus.


But how would that be different in a 'sighted' comparison -- which is what
'audiophiles' tend to do? Any audio comparison of two things is not quite like 'normal listening'...where you're not comparing anything. Yet every audio component review is at heart a comparison. Are all those guys (it's almost always guys) in Stereophile and Absolute Sound and the mainstream mags stressing themselves out? Doesn't sound like it from what they write.

Mike L. seemed to have no 'stress' problems when comparing cables on his own. He heard those 'obvious' difference just fine. :p

Remember the difference was not subtle.
......the Monster cables are quite easy to identify as different than the Transparent Opus. i could get into the details of in what way and how much but it really does not matter

Of course testing can be and usually is stressful. I can not fathom how anyone who's ever actually done any testing could not see that. Are you familiar with "testing anxiety?" That's some "elementary" stuff, pun intended, in the field of psychometrics. Part of designing any test is to try to make sure you are measuring what you are actually intend to measure. You can be measuring something but that something can be "test anxiety" and not what you think you are measuring. This just a small educational study which has results that are typical http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ616811&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ616811 . I always suggest that my younger relatives take the ACT and SAT several times, for example. The truth is that they are not going to learn a lot between the different testing dates. They may learn some things which will improve their score. As someone in the field of psychology I know that the more they take the test, the less anxiety they will have and that is correlated with the score they will recieve. For example, if say they need a minimum score to gain admittance, once that is met, test anxiety should go way down. Then when they take the test, with nothing to lose, their scores usually go up. The anxiety factor has been diminished. This is also why it can be difficult to replicate results on test of single subject. If you keep giving the same subject, the same test, what you may be measuing may not an "improvement" on the testing subject but rather a reduction of testing anxiety. To have a test that you can replicate, you use the same testing condition with subjects with the same level of experience under the same testing condiions. Usually, NO, experience is preferable.

Remember the difference was not subtle.

Today's word is "indictment".

Let's keep in mind that Mike has admitted that he couldn't tell the difference, regardless of what he said in the past. Even the most egregious sinners are allowed to recant in search of forgiveness :)

Remember too: when Mike started feeling stressed, he took a break and played some pool. And they tossed out the trial where he thought 'stress' was a factor. (I wonder if he got that one right or not?)

Remember too: when Mike started feeling stressed, he took a break and played some pool. And they tossed out the trial where he thought 'stress' was a factor. (I wonder if he got that one right or not?)

i never did make a choice for #6 since clearly i could not get my bearings on any differences.....it was at this point i recognized that my aural memory had reached it's limits and i needed to re-establish it.

since they had already started test #6 they decided to throw it out and go to #7 instead of re-doing #6.

with 20/20 hindsight it is evidant that my aural memory had failed by test #2....but it was not till test #6 that i became aware of that.

my future efforts will be focused on how to duplicate my performance on test #1 and #7 where my aural memory was most strong. it's also possible i was just 'lucky' on #1 and #7 and i never really heard any differences. time will tell.

Hello Mike I do not know how the test was done, but I find when doing my a/b testing with different components that a particular word or phrase in a song will have a different characteristic ie ; more emotional or better delininated. If I am trying to listen for multiple differences in a longer test setting it gets frustrating. Some pieces of course just sound better or worse and its a no brainer, but when your system is comprised of high end components the differences are subtle.

Of course, if you'd been using these:

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina44.htm

THEN the test would have come out otherwise.

I don't have much to add except to say that I'm MOST impressed by the way Mike has conducted himself.

I strongly doubt that the cables skeptics (and I include myself in this generalisation) would have been as gracious in accepting the results had they been otherwise. It would have been instant...'you didn't do this correctly, or what about that...'

Thankyou Mike for doing the test, and even more so thankyou for the manner in which you have reported it.

Wow what a thread....

So basically in a nutshell and in plain English, w/o all the "what if's" or "if I practice beforehands" etc let me see if I got this straight.

The listener, Mike, who is adament that he CAN tell the sound differences between cables,was sat down, blindfolded, told to listen to cable A....a bit later told to listen to cable B. This was done a few times and most of the times the listener, Mike, had no real clue which one was which, and in the end basically guessed to the best of his ability because ...well...it was basically impossible to tell the audible differences between the two...am I pretty close in giving this Cliff Notes non flowery assesment of what happened?

If so, why all this talk of "I need to prepare better next time" or "I was stressed" etc etc...I mean isn't the GIANT point of this test to plug in one set of cables, play music, switch to the other set, and say "Yeppers, cable A is brand "X"..I can tell because the lows sounded deeper..." or whatever....and in the listeners perfect world, he would be able to without a shadow of a doubt pick the same cable over and over and over again??

I don't understand why the listener needs to have more practice sessions to better understand each cable etc..or a less stressful environment...shouldn't you be able to just plop down blindfolded in a chair...listen to A then B and w/o a doubt pick out the cable you say is so easy to tell apart from the rest???

Please enlighten me as to why the story/test and the after effects are getting spun all around...if the listener couldn't tell a difference, then that should be the end of it...he couldn't tell a differnce, end of story, and he can move on...he can of course buy whatever he like, but now he will know in the back of his mind that there really are little to no differences between most if not all cables and marketers have indeed lined their pockets with cash for many years claiming their cable will INDEED sound better than most everyone elses..and people buy into it with their hard earned money.

Am I completely off base here???? My apologies if I am...it just to ME, seems VERY black and white..no real middle ground.

Oh and again, Mike you indeed were a brave soul to go through with the test and in the end find that your beliefs were indeed based on what could be very good marketing spin on the part of the boutique cable maker(s)...most folks in your boat would never have been willing to be proven "wrong" if you will about your former cable beliefs....cheers for taking the test.

Wow what a thread....

So basically in a nutshell and in plain English, w/o all the "what if's" or "if I practice beforehands" etc let me see if I got this straight.

The listener, Mike, who is adament that he CAN tell the sound differences between cables,was sat down, blindfolded, told to listen to cable A....a bit later told to listen to cable B. This was done a few times and most of the times the listener, Mike, had no real clue which one was which, and in the end basically guessed to the best of his ability because ...well...it was basically impossible to tell the audible differences between the two...am I pretty close in giving this Cliff Notes non flowery assesment of what happened?

Not quite right....he thought he was identifying the cables correctly; he didn't think he was 'guessing' (except for the discarded trial).

The moral of the story is that, if cables make a difference, but you can't reliably tell in an A/B situation, even with a minute between cable changes, it doesn't improve your *enjoyment* of music, except through the knowledge that it's there.

IOW, I use regular 14 gauge cables, not because I don't think some high-end cables aren't somewhat better, but because it really won't affect how much I enjoy music. I guess I'm kind of the opposite of the "I heard something, I must be enjoying music more now" crowd.

Of course, if you'd been using these:

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina44.htm

THEN the test would have come out otherwise.
OMG, and I don't think it is a joke.

OMG, and I don't think it is a joke.

Nope..it's real and I bet there's someone on this site who has purchased one or more...:)

Hi Gordon,

being an objectivist myself it would be nice to say that this proved that all cables sound the same but unfortunately this test was not only flawed for what it was trying to show but even if it hadn’t been, it still wouldn't have shown that there, as you put it, "really are little to no differences between most if not all cables".

It did show that Mike's absolute certainty that he could tell the difference was misplaced.

However, there has been enough research out there showing how short our aural memory is to indicate that the time it took to switch the cables in Mike's test was just too long to pick out subtle differences even if they are there. So, what I would like to see is an instant ABX switch box trial or failing that, a similar test to Mike's but with a cable with known, obvious and unsubtle issues (silly network boxes with high end attenuation of whatever) pitted against the monster to see if real differences can be discerned under those conditions.

...but unfortunately this test was not only flawed for what it was trying to show...
I think that is a mildly unfair statement. The test was a genuine attempt to remove sighted bias from the equation. Conducting a "true" scientific experiment is not an easy task. Absent that, people can use some procedures that help them to come close. That is exactly what this test did. The aural memory issue is irrelevant, insofar as it was Mike's "skills" that were being tested, and Mike did not want instant switching.

Some might wonder if the test procedures were capable of capturing the test subject's experience?

For me, the most intriguing question is "What test procedures are necessary to capture the experience of "music changing when cables are changed"?

I suspect it will be necessary to rate a cable across criteria.

When I change tubes in my phono amplifier, I use a couple of different albums, one of which I use for changes in detail and depth, height and width of the hall, "speed" and timbre of un-amplified instruments, and the other for enjoyment of a fast paced concert. But, ultimately I'm looking for improving my enjoyment of the music, and fascination with how the instruments play with each other. Being able to identify the "sound" with a specific tube compared to another isn't part of improving my enjoyment.

A few times, I've put a different type of tube in each channel's power supply, not to play "guess which tube is in each channel", but to listen to the change in the music.

Bob

I think that is a mildly unfair statement. The test was a genuine attempt to remove sighted bias from the equation. Conducting a "true" scientific experiment is not an easy task. Absent that, people can use some procedures that help them to come close. That is exactly what this test did. The aural memory issue is irrelevant, insofar as it was Mike's "skills" that were being tested, and Mike did not want instant switching.

Okay, I'll give you a little and remove the "for what it was trying to show". I still say it was, as a testing methodology, flawed as there was no way any useful conclusion could have come out of it. And I guess that people will chime in that if he had heard something yada yada... Well, given the known limitations on our aural memory that was extremely unlikely in the first place with this testing methodology unless he's some kind of wonder man with a 1/1 billion aural memory. This is why I'd like to see the same test done with obviously different sounding cables - faked somehow if needed - just to determine if it's possible with those slow cable switches to hear the difference. My guess is probably not but it would be interesting to try.

Of course, if you'd been using these:

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina44.htm

THEN the test would have come out otherwise.

you have got to be kidding me!!! someone is really trying to embarass audiophiles with this piece of crap.

This is why I'd like to see the same test done with obviously different sounding cables - faked somehow if needed - just to determine if it's possible with those slow cable switches to hear the difference. My guess is probably not but it would be interesting to try.


I don't know about aural memory, but when a piece of equipment sounds a lot better it is easy to define the differences and determine which is which! Example: pre amps. The problem is that all these cable companies and their reveiwers always claim sonic differences that are equal to if not greater than a new piece of equipment. That is completely false.

Joey

- just to determine if it's possible with those slow cable switches to hear the difference. My guess is probably not but it would be interesting to try.

does this not get to the crux of the matter though?? If I (and of course this is only my take on things) could not straight away pick a difference after spending twenty thou on an upgrade, no matter how long between switches, then to me it's simply not worth the money.

There's gotta be better bang for the buck elsewhere in the audio chain, hasn't there?

does this not get to the crux of the matter though?? If I (and of course this is only my take on things) could not straight away pick a difference after spending twenty thou on an upgrade, no matter how long between switches, then to me it's simply not worth the money.
Well, it may be that differences, larger even than subtle, can be hidden by the limitations of our aural memory. I guess, at least to a certain point, the time limit we have in which differentiations can be made is very much dependant on how large the differences are.

Also, how big a difference has to be to be worth X amount more is a value judgement that’s very much a subjective and personal call even for us objectivists isn’t it?

Well, it may be that differences, larger even than subtle, can be hidden by the limitations of our aural memory. I guess, at least to a certain point, the time limit we have in which differentiations can be made is very much dependant on how large the differences are.

Also, how big a difference has to be to be worth X amount more is a value judgement that’s very much a subjective and personal call even for us objectivists isn’t it?
Stereophile suggest Type 2 errors in small sample testing http://www.stereophile.com/features/141/index2.html Personally I think one should look at the results of DBT in general. They typically do not show a difference on subjective measures REGARDLESS of the expermental variable. Make of that what you will. Taste test usually show no difference that's why you don't see them touted in advertisements. The taste test are never DB that you do see touted.

This is why I'd like to see the same test done with obviously different sounding cables - faked somehow if needed - just to determine if it's possible with those slow cable switches to hear the difference. My guess is probably not but it would be interesting to try.


This has been done with different guage wire and yes you can tell the difference (ie 100 feet of 18AWG vs 100 Feet of 10AWG).

Its a good point though to atleast validate the test just to show that you can hear a difference at some point.

IOW, I use regular 14 gauge cables, not because I don't think some high-end cables aren't somewhat better, but because it really won't affect how much I enjoy music. I guess I'm kind of the opposite of the "I heard something, I must be enjoying music more now" crowd.


That is a great post, I think more are like you and wonder what all this expensive stuff really gives anyone.

Heck I enjoy music when I play MP3s as much as when I play a CD (the CDs are ripped and gone now). I dont care much about doing lossless either. I dont get excited about all this stuff in the end and I wouldnt really appreciate MikeL's system at all.

Just give me loud music and girls dancing around pools :D :D


NOTE: This doesnt mean I can not hear the difference (everything under 5K is pretty well the same though!), it just means I dont enjoy it more.

This has been done with different guage wire and yes you can tell the difference (ie 100 feet of 18AWG vs 100 Feet of 10AWG).

Its a good point though to atleast validate the test just to show that you can hear a difference at some point.

That has been done with an ABX box yes, but has it been done with ~1 minute change intervals?

Stereophile suggest Type 2 errors in small sample testing http://www.stereophile.com/features/141/index2.html Personally I think one should look at the results of DBT in general. They typically do not show a difference on subjective measures REGARDLESS of the expermental variable. Make of that what you will. Taste test usually show no difference that's why you don't see them touted in advertisements. The taste test are never DB that you do see touted.

It's pretty much a given that subjectivity makes a difference; but as has been said over and over, that's really not the point, at least it's not the point if you're testing for real world differences that exist outside of someone's head.

First, I'll admit I did not read this whole thread.

But I wonder, does Mike, or other testers, usually wear glasses? Maybe the reflection
off the glasses effected what he heard. Wearing something to block your sight
also changes the shape and other acoustical properties of your head. Perhaps
this interferes with your ability to discern subtle differences?
Or maybe you just can't hear the difference if you cannot see what is being played.
One day we might sort this out. Until then, the evidence seems to point toward
no difference between cables (assuming they are adequate, well made, and designed
for the job).

check who mixed the drinks and cooked the meal for mikel right before he took the test. :D

Hmmm, I'm thinking I should get into the cable making business. There is money to be made. And if nothing else I could probably write off all my music costs . . . In order to make quality cables, I'd have to go to many live shows, I'd also have to upgrade my equipment. Heck, I might even have to buy a new house :) Then I'd have to do research
on the effects of food and drink on my cognitive listening ability. Damn, another tax deductible expense. If anybody runs with this idea, I'll expect a reasonable royalty. 5% or gross income sounds good.
Give thanks we can spend time and money debating such things.

I find this thread really amazing. A subjectivist thinks he will be able to easily discern the difference between two cables in a blind test since he is able to do so in a sighted test ---- but, by his own admission, is not able to do so when blind. But some other subjectivists refuse to believe this test has signficant meaning on a more global basis.

Here are the facts as I see them:
1. Mike L. has, if nothing else, proven he is one of the good guys and is not whining that things were not fair.

2. One person who was sure he could tell the difference in a blind test, could not

3. As far as I know, no one else has ever been able to tell the difference in a statistically meaningful way in a blind test either.

4. I have done some sighted and blind tests as well and "thought" I could tell the difference when sited and NEVER got it correct when blind

And here is MY opinion. If 5000 other individuals try to do what Mike did and also fail, there will continue to be many others who will refuse to agree that no SIGNIFICANT diference exists.

This subject should be grouped with two other topics that are usually fruitless discussions: (a) Religion (b) Politics

Nope..it's real and I bet there's someone on this site who has purchased one or more...:)


James Randi has been taunting (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/127/1/#i1)Machine Dynamica lately on the JREF site. Maybe some audiophile wants to step up to the plate....?:p

Hi Gordon,

being an objectivist myself it would be nice to say that this proved that all cables sound the same

Come on! Straw man. No test could ever prove that....one reason being, it's patently untrue. One can contrive two cables that certainly will sound differently. Nor was that even remotely what Mike's test was 'trying to prove'.

It did show that Mike's absolute certainty that he could tell the difference was misplaced.

And in terms of challenging standard audiophile rhetoric, that's a key result. We can say that the reality of differences Mike thought he heard, quite confidently, wasn't supported by the results.

Okay, I'll give you a little and remove the "for what it was trying to show". I still say it was, as a testing methodology, flawed as there was no way any useful conclusion could have come out of it.

Wrong.. Mike claimed to confidently hear differences on his own. He claimed to confidently hear differences under test conditions, too. Both he and the testers used manual cable switching. The results indicate he probably didn't hear differences in the first place, in his 'usual' sighted protocol involving manual switching. It doesn't rule out that under more sensitive conditions -- that HE had NEVER yet used -- he MIGHT score positive on a DBT for these cables.

That is a great post, I think more are like you and wonder what all this expensive stuff really gives anyone.

Heck I enjoy music when I play MP3s as much as when I play a CD (the CDs are ripped and gone now). I dont care much about doing lossless either. I dont get excited about all this stuff in the end and I wouldnt really appreciate MikeL's system at all.

Just give me loud music and girls dancing around pools :D :D


NOTE: This doesnt mean I can not hear the difference (everything under 5K is pretty well the same though!), it just means I dont enjoy it more.


It's quite possible you will not hear a difference between an mp3 and its source wav, even in a DBT, if you make the mp3 right.

Stereophile suggest Type 2 errors in small sample testing http://www.stereophile.com/features/141/index2.html Personally I think one should look at the results of DBT in general. They typically do not show a difference on subjective measures REGARDLESS of the expermental variable. Make of that what you will. Taste test usually show no difference that's why you don't see them touted in advertisements. The taste test are never DB that you do see touted.

'Make of it what you will'. Yeah, go tell it to the experimental psychology community, not to mention the medical testing community, not to mention the lossy codec development community, you self-described 'dumb audiophile (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12281877#post12281877)'. Obviously they need a new testing paradigm...DBT just isn't working! :rolleyes:

One and only one thing was learned.

Mike used to claim that these differences were night and day... as do many other audiophiles.

They are not.

As has been stated, with instantaneous ABX, it is theoretically possible (highly unlikely i feel) that a positive result could be obtained.

To state any other result that above is to draw far too much out of a simple test with some decent controls in place.

The machina dynamica stuff scares me. that is truly snake oil shite.

I THINK THAT THIS TRULY EXPLAINS HOW ARE MIND WORKS AND TAKES SENSORY PERCEPTIONS OF THE BRAIN TO A WHOLE NEW LEVEL!!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSB33509820071121

jOEY
One of my better finds, if I don't say so myself:D:D

So possibly just by seeing the cables in place will increase endorphin output and then increase the sensory pleasure. So technically they do sound better. Sort of like a kissing booth the more beautiful girls kiss is always going to seem better, but blindfolded we may not be able to tell a difference or even enjoy the kiss of a chimpanzee.:eek:

Joey

Mike L. seemed to have no 'stress' problems when comparing cables on his own. He heard those 'obvious' difference just fine. :p

An open book test is easier than a closed book test:D

my future efforts will be focused on how to duplicate my performance on test #1 and #7 where my aural memory was most strong. it's also possible i was just 'lucky' on #1 and #7 and i never really heard any differences. time will tell.

If you can use an ABX box and accept its transparency, then you can take as long as you want, weeks, months. Keep everything on, answers saved in memory. You could do one trial a day:D

That has been done with an ABX box yes, but has it been done with ~1 minute change intervals?

Yes, that time interval certainly didn't help and it hindered memory. But that point alone is never questioned when sighted listening is used:D I guess then memory is not hindered one bit:D

Of course, if you'd been using these:

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina44.htm

THEN the test would have come out otherwise.

Actually, the sound is much better if a VERY special screw made out of Titanium/Beryllium composite is used to mount this puppy on the outlet. (Unfortunately it is only available to audiophiles who have spent over $ 20K in Ultra Hi-End HT Gear.) :rolleyes:

I've heard some people ponder if there can be a research without subjectivity. From what I remember, the simple act of defining terms entails necessary subjectivity. It might be that subjectivity also enters when the tests are selected. Could it be that in some respects, the definitions determine what the outcomes will be--how something is defined determines how it can be measured? Musings centered upon objective outcomes based upon subjective selection?

I mention this only to point out that what may appear as objective analysis may contain subjectivity.

"One and only one thing was learned.
Mike used to claim that these differences were night and day... as do many other audiophiles.
They are not."

It might be that some research is launched simply to discover why current testing/theories don't jibe with experience--"What did we miss?" "What don't we know?"

What comes to my mind is the continuing research into nature vs nurture. It seems as if some research results can be interpreted to support obesity in grand children being caused by the grandmother experiencing famine while in the last trimester. It seems as if meth. tags, that "turn a gene off" can be passed from the first generation to the third. It also seems as if meth. tags can be created by stress, and that they are accumulated--indication of environment effecting how given genes interact, function.

Off hand, there seem to be many worth while avenues to further peruse?

Aural memory might be worth while to peruse?

Removing visual cues could be accomplished by placing a tunnel over the cables so that one cannot know what cable is being used? I'm not suggesting this be done; just pointing out that more testing can be done, if one likes to play around designing and implementing tests.

I like to listen to music.

Bob, a novice with not only electronics, but also and research; and, easily confused by facts.

An open book test is easier than a closed book test:D
I don't like closed book tests. They are too stressful and stop me from knowing answers I know with an open book test :D. Sadly, our joking nicely sums up the cable debate. It's very easy to pass a test or think you know the answers when the book is "open".

Wrong.. Mike claimed to confidently hear differences on his own. He claimed to confidently hear differences under test conditions, too. Both he and the testers used manual cable switching. The results indicate he probably didn't hear differences in the first place, in his 'usual' sighted protocol involving manual switching. It doesn't rule out that under more sensitive conditions -- that HE had NEVER yet used -- he MIGHT score positive on a DBT for these cables.

Actually, I still say there was no useful conclusion drawn from the test; all it did was confirm what was known already and didn't clarify anything that was in doubt. The test highlighted sighted bias yes (well, duh) and even showed that this can be carried over into blinded conditions, but that doesn't mean that the cables couldn't sound different (it's those network boxes that are bugging me) and be differentiated under proper conditions, e.g. instantaneous switches.

I'll say again, with those long cable switches, even if there were differences no one would have been able to reliably differentiate between the two sets of cables.

Of course, in all probability the cables do sound the same but in no way does this test confirm or deny that fact.

So, you can say "wrong" as much as you like but it doesn't change the facts dude.

Actually, I still say there was no useful conclusion drawn from the test; all it did was confirm what was known already and didn't clarify anything that was in doubt. The test highlighted sighted bias yes (well, duh) and even showed that this can be carried over into blinded conditions, but that doesn't mean that the cables couldn't sound different (it's those network boxes that are bugging me) and be differentiated under proper conditions, e.g. instantaneous switches.

I'll say again, with those long cable switches, even if there were differences no one would have been able to reliably differentiate between the two sets of cables.

Of course, in all probability the cables do sound the same but in no way does this test confirm or deny that fact.

So, you can say "wrong" as much as you like but it doesn't change the facts dude.

This argument the test couldn't be reliable because of the long time between switches is absurd. For one, this is almost always how audiophiles 'test' cables--they manually install the new cables and then listen to music and 'hear' the incredible differences--not with instantaneous switching (has any audiophile used an ABX switch to test a new cable against his current ones?).

Secondly, remember Mike thought he could hear differences and was picking the correct cable every time--it just turns out he was not. Also, the 'long' switch times did not seem to hinder his ability when he was not blind...

I agree that this test only proves a very narrow conclusion. But also remember, this test is not a singularity and its conclusion follows every other similar test before it. Given enough of these 'narrow' tests showing the same result we can start making bit broader conclusions...

This argument the test couldn't be reliable because of the long time between switches is absurd. For one, this is almost always how audiophiles 'test' cables--they manually install the new cables and then listen to music and 'hear' the incredible differences--not with instantaneous switching (has any audiophile used an ABX switch to test a new cable against his current ones?).
Really, that's not the point I was making. Now think about it for a minute.


Secondly, remember Mike thought he could hear differences and was picking the correct cable every time--it just turns out he was not. Also, the 'long' switch times did not seem to hinder his ability when he was not blind...
Also irrelevant.

Am I the only one that gets this? :confused:

Sure, anyone with common sense knew that Mike's hearing was being influenced by sighted bias; that is something that's been shown so many times, in so many studies and tests that it's almost become a cliché. Yes, they don't sound as different as he claimed but that opinion was always going to be coloured by his expectation bias anyway, so again, duh!

However, we still don't really know if those Opus cables with the weird boxes on them sound any different from Monster because test was not performed in a way which could possibly have highlighted any small differences.

I, personally, don't care if audiophiles use incorrect testing methodologies to come up with incorrect conclusions as objectivists usually spot this and raise a red flag. But people here seemed to be drawing certain conclusions from this flawed test that should not be drawn; that the Opus and Monster cables sound identical.

Objectivists, myself included, have time and again pointed out to audiophiles doing this sort of test that aural memory is rated in single digit seconds and yet most people here seem to be now ignoring that fact.

Come on! Straw man. No test could ever prove that....one reason being, it's patently untrue. One can contrive two cables that certainly will sound differently. Nor was that even remotely what Mike's test was 'trying to prove'.

Really, I'd appreciate it that when you take sound bites, you take enough to show what I was saying, in context, so that I'm not misrepresented. I'm not sure if you did that deliberately but from your post it looks as if I'm against your stated position when it’s patently obvious that I’m not.

Here's the full text from that section you quoted;

being an objectivist myself it would be nice to say that this proved that all cables sound the same but unfortunately this test was not only flawed for what it was trying to show but even if it hadn’t been, it still wouldn't have shown that there, as you put it, "really are little to no differences between most if not all cables".



And in terms of challenging standard audiophile rhetoric, that's a key result. We can say that the reality of differences Mike thought he heard, quite confidently, wasn't supported by the results.

As you've seen over on AA your "key result" is, in the general scheme of things audophile, worth little at best. Even the most extreme audiophiles these days seem to accept that sighted bias exists but a lot have put a positive twist on this and massaged it into their religion.

Now, actually proving beyond a doubt that those cables really do sound identical would have been a result.

As you've seen over on AA your "key result" is, in the general scheme of things audophile, worth little at best.


The key result isn't for audiophiles...they're often immune to reason. That was addressed to the gentle reader following along.


Even the most extreme audiophiles these days seem to accept that sighted bias exists but a lot have put a positive twist on this and massaged it into their religion.

Now, actually proving beyond a doubt that those cables really do sound identical would have been a result.

Let's assume you really mean proving beyond a reasonable doubt (science doesn't truck in absolute proofs of nonexistence): as a reader of AA do you seriously believe that such a thing is even *possible* with that crowd?

Actually, I still say there was no useful conclusion drawn from the test; all it did was confirm what was known already and didn't clarify anything that was in doubt. The test highlighted sighted bias yes (well, duh) and even showed that this can be carried over into blinded conditions, but that doesn't mean that the cables couldn't sound different (it's those network boxes that are bugging me) and be differentiated under proper conditions, e.g. instantaneous switches.

No scientific test would prove that they COULDN'T sound different, i.e., under any circumstances to anyone. All the tests can do is point to likelihoods that a difference was heard.


I'll say again, with those long cable switches, even if there were differences no one would have been able to reliably differentiate between the two sets of cables.

'No one'? How sure you seem. But switching interval isn;t the only parameter in effect. The magnitude of the difference, and the sensitivity of the listener also count. A large enough difference, and a good enough listener, conceivably could overcome the deficit introduced by the switching interval.

Of course, in all probability the cables do sound the same but in no way does this test confirm or deny that fact.

"In no way". How sure you seem. Actually, this test goes a little way towards confirming that no real difference was heard by Mike.


So, you can say "wrong" as much as you like but it doesn't change the facts dude.


You sure do seem to like putting things in absolute terms, dude.

Let's assume you really mean proving beyond a reasonable doubt (science doesn't truck in absolute proofs of nonexistence): as a reader of AA do you seriously believe that such a thing is even *possible* with that crowd?

Of course I meant reasonable; well, it was early but besides that sometimes (okay, it's getting to be always) it is very tedious to have to fully qualify every trivial statement in order to avoid pedantic exchanges.

And no, I don't think anything will convince the true believers but that's besides the point; the data from a valid test would be interesting to the rest of us.

It's quite possible you will not hear a difference between an mp3 and its source wav, even in a DBT, if you make the mp3 right.


yeah, I use the highest Bit Rates which are said to be CD quality. Its great that 500GB drives are under $100 and 1TB drives are sometimes under $200 these days. :D Considering HD movies are 30-40 GBs ripped and CD quality mp3s are 10+Meg a song :eek:

Objectivists, myself included, have time and again pointed out to audiophiles doing this sort of test that aural memory is rated in single digit seconds and yet most people here seem to be now ignoring that fact.

They're ignoring it because the results of this particular test leans towards their belief. I'm in the crowd that believes this test doesn't definitively prove anything, and that it was flawed from the beginning. I'd even be willing to bet that in spite of this test, Mike has no intentions of keeping the Monsters over the Opus. As others have pointed out, if this is to continue, then the next step should be a straight ABX in order to ascertain any differences instantaneously. I also think that there should be more than one person subjected to the test.

Then you've got to find out just where these differences exist assuming they're of the incredibly subtle short duration type that only register for short term hearing.

I quote:

"We stopped at 8 because it was quite clear that it was just random. I believe our requirement for a positive result was either 10 out of 10, or 17 out of 20, we intended to do 20 ABs. Less than that and it could have been criticized as just good luck."

I have an unvariable requirement of all tests I do: we agree in advance how many there will be, and we do ALL of them, regardless of how the results are turning out as we go along. In fact , we usually do the FULL RUN of tests - that would have been 20, in the aborted set described here - and we DO NOT REVEAL ANY RESULTS UNTIL THE FULL RUN IS COMPLETED. That way, we avoid any possible "discouragement" factor being invoked.

The 8 trials done were not at all significant; they were too few. In any case, we have only a sketchy idea of the complete protocol, so we cannot judge whether it was proper.

Much more importantly - the statement "Less than that, and it could have been criticized as just good luck" could equally well be re-written as, ""More than that, and it could have been criticized as just bad luck." This set of tests proved nothing...

Whoa!

They're ignoring it because the results of this particular test leans towards their belief. I'm in the crowd that believes this test doesn't definitively prove anything, and that it was flawed from the beginning. I'd even be willing to bet that in spite of this test, Mike has no intentions of keeping the Monsters over the Opus. As others have pointed out, if this is to continue, then the next step should be a straight ABX in order to ascertain any differences instantaneously. I also think that there should be more than one person subjected to the test.


Hilariously, it was *objectivists* (like me!) who were pushing Mike to make this an ABX test in the first place, as we know it is designed to maximize the subject's powers of discrimination. He's the one who seemed uncomfortable with that.

I've said nothing about this particular test that overstates its importance. In fact I've downplayed its informational value, including challenging ChrisWiggles' own characterization of the test results. I have encouraged Mike to do new tests that address the shortcomings in the protocol, and to practice.

But let's keep one thing in mind. None of us objectivists were claiming with certainty that Mike was going to hear differences, he did. He went into this test believing that under those conditions he was going to be able to hear differences. And during the test he was confident, too:until the test was over i felt confident that i could hear real differences and that i had a 'lock' on which characteristic was which cable.after the first 3 tests i was getting a bit tired and the ear protection started causing a slight headache. at no time did i feel that was affecting my listening.when i made my choice known for #8 i was confident that i was 100% for all 7. then my friend Ted said 'that's it.....test over'.So let's be clear, the test didn't prove whether or not there are audible differences between cables. Not between any two pairs, and not between these two pairs in particular. Not for any listener, and not for Mike L. in particular.

What it did prove is that Mike L.'s confidence in his own discerning ability needs adjusting, downward. And though it doesn't prove anything about subjectivists in general, it certainly ought to cause any intellectually honest one to question their own confidence, too.

I quote:

"We stopped at 8 because it was quite clear that it was just random. I believe our requirement for a positive result was either 10 out of 10, or 17 out of 20, we intended to do 20 ABs. Less than that and it could have been criticized as just good luck."

I have an unvariable requirement of all tests I do: we agree in advance how many there will be, and we do ALL of them, regardless of how the results are turning out as we go along. In fact , we usually do the FULL RUN of tests - that would have been 20, in the aborted set described here - and we DO NOT REVEAL ANY RESULTS UNTIL THE FULL RUN IS COMPLETED. That way, we avoid any possible "discouragement" factor being invoked.

This is pretty much what I wrote in my first critique of the results -- best practice means you only reveal results during the test, IF you intend to complete ALL the trials agreed upon beforehand. For this test that would have meant finishing at least ten (one of two previously-agreed stopping-points, the other being 16).

Btw, Mr. Randi: welcome!

The 8 trials done were not at all significant; they were too few. In any case, we have only a sketchy idea of the complete protocol, so we cannot judge whether it was proper.

The significance of 8 trials (7, actually, in this case, as one trial was 'aborted' before any answer was given)-- or any number of trials -- is measurable and expressible as chances of error. On the one hand type I error is 'measured' by p value , the chance of incorrectly concluding a positive result (for 7 trials the lowest possible p value is 0.008, for 7/7 correct) Balanced against this is Type II error, the chance of incorrectly concluding a negative result, which increases as the number of trial decreases. And balanced against that in an audio trial is the occurrence of listener fatigue. 16 trials is commonly considered a good compromise as a minimum number of trials (as per Sensory Evaluation Techniques (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ABX), 3rd ed., by Meilgaard, Civille, and Carr). So rather than having 'no significance at all', the test is more accurately characterized as 'not significant enough' to meet scientific standards.


Much more importantly - the statement "Less than that, and it could have been criticized as just good luck" could equally well be re-written as, ""More than that, and it could have been criticized as just bad luck." This set of tests proved nothing...

True, but that can happen even with 16 trials done properly.

So let's be clear, the test didn't prove whether or not there are audible differences between cables. Not between any two pairs, and not between these two pairs in particular. Not for any listener, and not for Mike L. in particular.

What it did prove is that Mike L.'s confidence in his own discerning ability needs adjusting, downward. And though it doesn't prove anything about subjectivists in general, it certainly ought to cause any intellectually honest one to question their own confidence, too.

Yeah! ;)

They're ignoring it because the results of this particular test leans towards their belief. I'm in the crowd that believes this test doesn't definitively prove anything, and that it was flawed from the beginning. I'd even be willing to bet that in spite of this test, Mike has no intentions of keeping the Monsters over the Opus. As others have pointed out, if this is to continue, then the next step should be a straight ABX in order to ascertain any differences instantaneously. I also think that there should be more than one person subjected to the test.


I am not ignoring it. I fully understand what his point and stated in my post that this test had very narrow 'findings' but that it had the same conclusion as every similar test before it. I also would like to see instantaneous switching to remove that variable but of course it adds the variable of the switch box.

If, after a few second pause, you are no longer able to differentiate between $100 cables and $10,000 cables (even if a difference were to exist-and that's a huge if) what is the point of purchasing the more expensive cables? Talk about diminishing returns...

So, you have to ask yourself, "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

http://www.piranha.addr.com/images/Dirty%20Harry%202.jpg

. But also remember, this test is not a singularity and its conclusion follows every other similar test before it. Given enough of these 'narrow' tests showing the same result we can start making bit broader conclusions...

Yes, people forget this aspect of historical audio testing:D
After a while, the null hypothesis needs to be accepted.:)

They're ignoring it because the results of this particular test leans towards their belief.

Not ignored, I bet, but manual switching was the choice for Mike, I believe. Hence a long time constant to switch bi-wired speakers. Other tests from the past with ABX quick switch had similar results, so nothing is really out of the ordinary here.

I'm in the crowd that believes this test doesn't definitively prove anything,

Does a single drug trial proves anything?


I'd even be willing to bet that in spite of this test, Mike has no intentions of keeping the Monsters over the Opus.

Was that a prerequisite of the test that he switch to Monster if he fails? Hardly. So why would he switch cables even if he is convinced of no differences? With his setup and means I would be inclined to get something appropriate for that visual impact, a personal preference issue totally. Perhaps he will change what claims he will make in the future though, at least about cables:D


I also think that there should be more than one person subjected to the test.


That would be good if you can fine others to participate but no reason not to test only one person. Others are certainly welcome to replicate the test of those cables.

Hilariously, it was *objectivists* (like me!) who were pushing Mike to make this an ABX test in the first place, as we know it is designed to maximize the subject's powers of discrimination. He's the one who seemed uncomfortable with that.

Yes, I know that. And I'm giving you credit. But even 'The Amazing Randi', if it really was him, concluded the test proved nothing.

I admit that I didn't think immediate ABX was necessary. But after thinking about it further and also after the results of this test, I can see where if the point is to try and prove a difference, then the ABX is probably the way to go. Like I indicated in my previous post, at RMAF, I found that listening fatigue sat in quickly. Which is also why I changed my mind about ABX.

Rutgar, I (and others, like Michael Grant) have laid out my reasons over several posts and several days now why this test is something more than useless but very much less than definitive. Absolutist rhetoric isn't warranted here, and I've consistently advised caution in phrasing the results, both here an on the JREF forum (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3168976&postcount=132). Mr. Randi, who appears to be unfamiliar with all the particulars, is free to rebut our reasoning. As are you. Let me know when you feel up to it.

surely the test did prove something?? Yeah, it did have points that anyone of whatever persuasion can pick and niggle at.

But is it not the overwhelming conclusion that, even if it did not prove the existence of very subtle differences (which is where the argument has ended), it DID prove that these amazing, revelatory and absolutely phenomenal improvements always claimed simply do NOT exist??

The language used in cable reviews and improvements do not revolve around miniscule, minor or peripheral changes, and never have to fall back to arguments like aesthetics or build quality to justify adoption of these cables, the sole justification given to these cables is their wonderful SONIC properties.

Surely, flawed as it is, this test has answered that aspect at least??

If, after a few second pause, you are no longer able to differentiate between $100 cables and $10,000 cables (even if a difference were to exist-and that's a huge if) what is the point of purchasing the more expensive cables? Talk about diminishing returns...

The difference is in the long term listening. The flaws and differences of any audio gear will show after hours of listening. I'm extremely sensitive to listening fatigue. And if anyone here has followed my posts for any length of time on this forum, they would know that I've gone through tons of crap and frustration to get my system to sound right. The ordeal is far too lengthy to re-cap here. But suffice it to say that since I added the MIT's to my system, my music listening has increased substantially. Listening to music is 'fun' again. Of course I've done quite a few other things to get to this point, but the MIT cables put things over the top. I'm sure there are many here that think I'm full of it, or deluding myself. But that doesn't matter to me. What matters is that after many years, I'm finally listening to and enjoying music again, whereas previously I had nothing more than a really expensive HT system. And for that, the MIT's were worth every penny I paid for them.

The difference is in the long term listening. The flaws and differences of any audio gear will show after hours of listening.

But suffice it to say that since I added the MIT's to my system, my music listening has increased substantially.

But that doesn't matter to me. What matters is that after many years, I'm finally listening to and enjoying music again, whereas previously I had nothing more than a really expensive HT system. And for that, the MIT's were worth every penny I paid for them.

Can I ask Rutgar, after what we've seen so far, are you still every bit as confident as you've ever been that you could reliably pick your cables over (say) the monsters??

I'm very sure that the 'long term listening' could, with a bit of work, be incorporated into a mutually agreed upon protocol. As far as I can tell, there is nothing inherent in ABX testing that prohibits 'long term listening'.

I'm not trying to be challenging, but I am curious. What, if anything, have you personally gotten from this trial, or is it totally meaningless?

Mike and Chris

Thanks for doing this. I appreciate the hard work and time you both put into this. Well done!

A very interesting thread. While I'm the biggest (or one of, at least) objectivist here, I don't think that the test is the end-all-be-all test to say that all cables sound the same, but I'll bet Mike's position has shifted from where it was a week ago..:)

No question that there are many other factors, not the least of which is the human body that affects what you're hearing and perceiving to hear.

I'm sure there are many here that think I'm full of it, or deluding myself. But that doesn't matter to me.

None of us care what you use, but as long as you accept that there is the possibility that you are deluding yourself... then we are all on the same page.

At the end of the day... all that matter is you enjoy your system.

The language used in cable reviews and improvements do not revolve around miniscule, minor or peripheral changes, and never have to fall back to arguments like aesthetics or build quality to justify adoption of these cables, the sole justification given to these cables is their wonderful SONIC properties.The language used is nothing more than exaggerated advertising and advertising itself is exaggeration. It's told by men who admittedly have very nice systems that many would be envious of. Yet these are men that have problems with selective auditory focussing and a strong tendency to being influenced by biases. So long as we recognize the phrases as 'tall tales' we can look upon cables with a more realistic eye and ear.

Can I ask Rutgar, after what we've seen so far, are you still every bit as confident as you've ever been that you could reliably pick your cables over (say) the monsters??

I'm very sure that the 'long term listening' could, with a bit of work, be incorporated into a mutually agreed upon protocol. As far as I can tell, there is nothing inherent in ABX testing that prohibits 'long term listening'.

I'm not trying to be challenging, but I am curious. What, if anything, have you personally gotten from this trial, or is it totally meaningless?

Hi Terry,

This trial doesn't really mean anything to me other that I found it interesting from a spectator's view. The reason being that I have never heard the Transparent Opus. So I don't really know what it is they're supposed to do or not do compared to regular cables. Not to mention that I would have to win the lotto to ever even think about buying $30K speaker cables!

I don't know if I could tell the difference using the MIT's in the same sort of test that Mike L. used. But I do know the difference I heard the moment I connected the MIT's to my system. And to further support this difference, I heard the exact same thing at RMAF in the MIT room. As I said in the other thread, I was in the MIT room, and they had some music playing while they were still setting stuff up. I was casually talking to a friend of mine, when one of the guys with MIT walked behind the speakers and unplugged one of their cables (which at the time was running parallel with MIT's standard in wall 'zip cord'). The sound field collapsed so suddenly and noticeable that I quickly turned my head to see what he just did. This incident reinforced what I heard the MIT's do with my system at home. In this case, this comparison was about as 'blind' as 'blind' can be. Because, it wasn't a set up test, and I wasn't actively listening. It wasn't even supposed to be a comparison. It was simply a guy unplugging a cable to get set up for the show.

Later, MIT did set up a demo, to demonstrate this affect. And they performed it throughout the show. I know that there are members of this forum that went to RMAF. And I would be interested in hearing their perspective of the MIT demo, providing they sat through it.

So, could I pick out the MIT's in blind test? I don't know, I haven't tried. But I do know that I am enjoying my system more than I have in years. And I give the MIT's a certain amount of credit for that.

As far as any actual testing on my part. I'll have to wait and see. There is a large group of audio enthusiast here in the Dallas area. And it's possible we could get something set up. But like I said before, I also want to let the dust settle on the current test performed by Mike and Chris.

Reflections a week later on the 'test'.

basically, i suppose i agree with Randi that the test meant little......not for the same reason that Randi states (not sufficient trials)......but because with the benefit of hindsight......it was really more a small essential practice step and not really definative of much. with the time it took to actually get the Monster cable in-house....and then the screw-on spades....and all the back and forth that led up to last week's test......more was made of it by me and others than it deserved. many here said as much and Randi maybe said it most strongly. i suppose i felt a bit of pressure for 'something' to happen and so i was too hasty in my approach.

OTOH the test did clearly put me back on my heals and humble me in terms of how my brain works on sighted verses blind testing......but ideally that should have been discovered thru my own work on blind testing and should not have been a surprise during such a trumpeted event. i would guess anyone else going down the same road will learn from my experience.

i am not saying i will ever pass a blind test.....until/unless i do last week's results are all i can go on. it may even be that i am not such the experienced good listener that i had thought i was and that others may easily accomplish what i did not.

my other impression after a week is that i kinda let down my subjectivist brethern and now they have to put up with all the flack when i should have been more prepared. personally, i guess i am not so concerned about the political consequences to myself.....i always reserve the right to learn something......but it's more than just about me. i certainly put cable subjectivists (much more) on the defensive (and i feel bad about that).

i'm not yet ready to jump back into doing cable comparisons; but when i do i will have lots more practice prior to any further testing.

this is not 'sour grapes'. i am not in denial.......and last week's event was valid for what we did. but it is just scratching the surface of the issue.

chin up Mike, you sound a bit down!! Thankyou once again, it must have been, and I can see that it was, draining on many levels.

Don't rush into any more tests yet, if you're a bit down then it would be even harder to pick the diffs.

On the whole, I think the response to your tests has been rather reasoned, nowhere near as much 'crowing' etc as some might have imagined...and I think the absence of gloating has a lot to do with the handsome manner in which you have conducted yourself. Kudos.

Mike on reflection, do you think as many others do, that somehow DBT's (not that this was a perfect one) are unreal or obscure the subtle results that may exist? I accept that you're not in denial and so looking for an excuse, but I guess I'm asking from what you've learnt, what would you do differently if there was a next time, and why. Maybe the answer here is the 'extended listening' approach of an evening at least per audition.

Thanks Rutgar for the answer, I recall you saying that now you've typed it again, it could have been earlier in this thread? Sorry for asking and making you type it again!!

You might want to begin Mike L. with seeing if you can replicate Stereo Review's tests a number of years ago. If you want a copy of the article, PM me and I'll send it along to you.

mike, thanks for this eye opener.
Seems to me that now your 'sighted ego' is screaming even though you will not acknowledge it. Maybe you received a few emails from the angry marketing people.
Even if you hear the difference after some practicing I bet it will not be the question which is better or worse, it will just be something like "oh this other one sounds a little darker, but I'm not sure". Then if that darker one turns out to be a Monster cable you could say it masks some details but if it is a Transparent cable you could say it is more musical.

No pun intended but I seriously think it is time to get over this cable nonsense and start working on some new room correction and speaker ideas, that's where the biggest and measurable distortions are.

So, could I pick out the MIT's in blind test? I don't know, I haven't tried.

It sounds like you should be able to. In fact your stories sound a lot like Mike's. Before he did a blind comparison.

[B]
i certainly put cable subjectivists (much more) on the defensive

But from a scientific/engineer POV -- scientists are 'objectivists' by avocation -- that's where they should be. Cable subjectivists tend to be WAY too confident that what they've 'heard', is real.

It sounds like you should be able to. In fact your stories sound a lot like Mike's. Before he did a blind comparison.

Krabapple, as usual you take one single sentence out of an entire body of text and completely skew the point.:rolleyes:

I have already said several times that I don't put much stock in such tests. Especially the way the one Mike's and Chris's was done. And I stated quite clearly why I picked the cables I'm using, and how I furthur reinforced my decision in doing so. I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt in most of this discussion, but I'm really beginning to think that your only purpose here is to antagonize.

Krabapple, as usual you take one single sentence out of an entire body of text and completely skew the point.:rolleyes:
..........
but I'm really beginning to think that your only purpose here is to antagonize.

Rutgar

So true... I want to congratulate MikeL and Chris Wiggles for being class acts. While this test IMHO is not conclusive. it serves the purpose for the subjectivists, including myself to spend our money in a wiser fashion. I know for example that my next purchase won't be cables... The ones I have are good and expensive enough :)

FWIW, I think this thread should be relocated here:
http://historylink101.net/images/nile_river_2.jpg

All that was proved by the test was that mikes overwhelming confidence was a bit misplaced.

Hyperbole can now drop to subtleties as opposed to dramatic improvements.

Beyond that, nothing has been proven.

So can we move past arguing about what was ar was not proven?

Krabapple, as usual you take one single sentence out of an entire body of text and completely skew the point.:rolleyes:

Well, I *could* have critiqued every one of your anecdotes in that post, but you'd surely have considered that an act of antagonism. So, instead I cut to the chase, and now I'm accused of skewing your point. The point is that you're confident you heard differences between the MITs and others....under non-DBT conditions. (As was Mike, I noted) And you're not confident you could do so under controlled conditions. (But if the differences are as real as you believe, you should be able to, I noted).

I have already said several times that I don't put much stock in such tests. Especially the way the one Mike's and Chris's was done.

Please clarify...by 'such tests' do you mean DBT generally? Or do you mean only DBTs that aren't done a certain way?

And I stated quite clearly why I picked the cables I'm using, and how I furthur reinforced my decision in doing so.

Yes, indeed you did, and nothing I wrote 'skewed' that to be other than what it was. I trust you understand why the anecdotes you offered don't constitute good evidence?

I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt in most of this discussion, but I'm really beginning to think that your only purpose here is to antagonize.

Please , don't give me the benefit of doubt. I assure you I will always be skeptical of anecdotal evidence such as you posted, for claims of cable difference. If you - or anyone -- is going to post such such anecdotes as evidence that cables sound different, you can expect some commentary on a thread about cable testing.

But like I said before, I also want to let the dust settle on the current test performed by Mike and Chris.

You mean the pressure that test caused you needs to subside?:rolleyes: :D

I have a (probably very stupid) question regarding the swapping of cables, and as the time factor has come up more than once there is some link there.

Why do we need to swap cables at BOTH ends?? Could we not have two runs of the cable joined at a common end, for sake of argument the amp end, with only one pair plugged inat any one time?

I bet the answer will be something like 'you need to have the amp off before you change cables' but, hey I dont!! Admittedly I use Speakons and even if the music is playing I have no worries about unplugging the speakon to whatever driver I wish.

So, what basic and stupid oversight am I making? In any case it would only speed up the process a tiny bit so even from that angle it could be a stupid idea.

Why do we need to swap cables at BOTH ends?? Could we not have two runs of the cable joined at a common end, for sake of argument the amp end, with only one pair plugged inat any one time?
Sure, but it'd be easier and cut down on time lag to have both runs end at the speakers and do the switching at the amp.

If your amp and speaker terminals made it possible to cleanly connect both wires to both ends at the same time, then you could avoid having to power down by always having at least one speaker cable connected. That is, connect both, then remove one; connect both, remove the other, etc.

The ordeal is far too lengthy to re-cap here. But suffice it to say that since I added the MIT's to my system, my music listening has increased substantially. Listening to music is 'fun' again. Of course I've done quite a few other things to get to this point, but the MIT cables put things over the top.

Just as washing the outside of my car and detailing the inside 'makes' my car stereo actually sound better in my mind, the MIT cables have helped you get a little closer to your own personal 'audio nirvana'. For you, the money spent on the MIT cables was worth it.

You know Rutgar, based at least on Mike L.'s results, I would've thought you'd be particularly keen on doing something similar at your home. As you recall, elsewhere you wrote about the rather striking difference the MIT's made in that demo you'd attended. That generated a lively discussion regarding the patents and the strong possibility that MIT's circuitry also affected the speaker's FR's in some unknown way. Possibly something else too given that we don't know what specific components are in the box and how they're wired.

Mike L.'s results suggest that the effect of the components in the Transparent box have next to a nil effect in the audible range. Your's though, based on that demo, suggest otherwise. Even an abbreviated Blind Test with eight trials as Mike did would provide useful information to you. Consider for a moment. If the trials suggested a difference, then further work using a battery of test tones and a VOM would shed light as to whether the cables acted as an external crossover of sorts. It would enable you to better understand why you preferred what you did and possibly suggest other avenues for you to explore to heighten your personal enjoyment. If the trials didn't suggest a difference, then that might imply that MIT's demo involved some trickery and that biases were at play in your own evaluations. How you handled that would be entirely up to you but in no case would it mandate you discarding your cables.
I simply see it as you'd become a more informed person about your own system.

Chu, as I have stated... several times, I will look into it. I haven't listened to different cables blind. Maybe there's something about listening blind that makes telling a difference difficult. I don't know. Even when I listen to music, I prefer to do so sighted, and with light. Not overly bright light, but light just the same.

A friend of mine who also uses MIT's believes he can pick out the differences. And he likes to listen to music in the dark, and/or with his eyes closed. I plan on getting with him, and maybe some others here locally and see if we can come up with something. But it's not something I plan on trying to do in the immediate future, if at all.

I missed the several times Rutgar.

I agree with AdrianMills that because of the long switching intervals and the small number of trials, the test was flawed enough that one really couldn't conclude whether the cables sound the same or not.

What the test did reveal in full glory, though, is the uselessness of sighted listening tests for reliably detecting anything but extremely gross and glaring sonic differences. That should be a worthwhile learning point, though, for anyone who confidently believes he or she can tell how cables "sound."

IMHO, "listening" to cables is like drinking wine and trying to "taste" the glass bottle that it was poured from. ;)

The long intervals in switching are also problematic in sighted tests, too.

The long intervals in switching are also problematic in sighted tests, too.

Exactly. And yet, those who "hear" differences in cables in sighted tests do not seem to find that an insurmountable obstacle. ;)

Chu, as I have stated... several times, I will look into it. I haven't listened to different cables blind. Maybe there's something about listening blind that makes telling a difference difficult.


The best evidence from science, in all manner of experiments, is that 'blinding' reveals the true state of affairs, by filtering out very common sources of bias . Yet your first hypothesis is that maybe there's something wrong with blind tests. Clearly the force is strong in you.

I don't know. Even when I listen to music, I prefer to do so sighted, and with light. Not overly bright light, but light just the same.

Blind doesn't mean no light. Blind doesn't mean you can't have your eyes wide open in a well-lit room when you do the 'blind' test.

Maybe there's something about listening blind that makes telling a difference difficult.

ROTFL

Daredevil would beg to differ.

Blind doesn't mean no light. Blind doesn't mean you can't have your eyes wide open in a well-lit room when you do the 'blind' test.

Yea, it seems many are taking the word ‘blind’ much too literal here. I don’t believe ‘Double Blind’ necessitates having both the tester and the testee stumbling around in the dark.

Dave

Maybe there's something about listening blind that makes telling a difference difficult

Ding!

Maybe there's something about listening blind that makes telling a difference difficult.

There is--it makes the listener rely only on the sound.

What I'm curious about is if this test has NOT made a died in the wool subjectivist at least pause and think - even if only for a millisecond - then just how much evidence is required before they will have a wonder about the meaning of this.

I mean, what would it take, short of a personal DBT that is- for the blind 'I trust my ears and hearing totally and completely' to be replaced with at least a nod at the possibility that sighted tests can mislead? Out of Mikes earlier post the one line which really stood out for me was along the lines of 'I had no idea just how much a sighted audition can fool us' (or words to that affect). And I can't be too hard on someone who has not realised that yet, after all it is only after having done the test that Mike gained a subjective reality on it.

It reminds me a bit of the old smoking debate, not tooo long ago we could have seen the spectacle of big tobacco execs, hand on heart, testifying before congress that 'I believe smoking does not contribute to cancer'. Maybe they did believe it, or simply refused to acknowledge what they knew to be true, who knows. But the point is, anyone who got up NOWADAYS and made such a statement would be laughed out of court with extreme derision by all!

Why?? Because at some point the line was crossed where the massive weight of evidence was such that it is simply untenable to hole the position that 'smoking does not contribute to cancer'.

Is there a similar line in this debate?? Indeed, is there even a line where fifty Mike L's and ten Rutgars all report similar findings, that the 'unknown subjectivist' would pause and think....

I applaud Mike totally for doing the test and being so honest, and whilst I don't think he should be I can understand how deflated he must feel and understand how he feels he has 'let the side down'.

No, he has contributed to advancing the knowledge, even within whatever limitations the test itself had.

For example, (just for clarity I wouldn't spend more than a dollar/foot on speaker cable) I think Rutgar earlier pointed out he feels that the difference between cables exhibits itself in long term relaxed listening, even if the actual sonic differences are minor (which ALL the tests to date seem to show). After pondering that for only a little while, I can very easily accept that an absolutely minor difference (as shown by the DBT) can in fact make a rather more substantial difference in long term 'lack of fatigue' as an example.

Whether it is actually true is another matter, but I can easily accept it could be that way.

So all that is saying is that a few more (better controlled perhaps) tests by Mike et al may in the end develop into tests that examine the above hypothesis for example (tho that would require that the 'non-DBT' crowd jettison their misheld beliefs about DBT, they are blind (ie I'm not allowed visual sight) or that they must involve raped switching, (and many others I suspect) all of which have been explained ad nauseum before), which IS advancing the state of knowledge.

And who knows, by examining a question such as the one above, the loop could be closed and we will understand the seeming contradiction between the results of DBT's and peoples perceptions.

Although I must confess to feeling the simplest conclusion is the front runner in the race right now, that our listening senses are easily fooled by our sight sense. After all, is not the sense of sight our most prominent sense?? so it stands to reason it will 'overrule' the lesser senses.

What I'm curious about is if this test has NOT made a died in the wool subjectivist at least pause and think - even if only for a millisecond - then just how much evidence is required before they will have a wonder about the meaning of this.

<snip>

I consider myself a hard-core subjectivist and yes this test has given me pause... It however reinforces my position on the subject of cables.. They definitely do not make the night and day hyperbolic differences we, audiophiles throw around...I am repeating myself here...

Yea, it seems many are taking the word ‘blind’ much too literal here. I don’t believe ‘Double Blind’ necessitates having both the tester and the testee stumbling around in the dark.

Dave
Actually, it's the double blind test that allows one to see the light, while audiophiles who profess to hear vast cable differences actually are stumbling around in the dark ;).

I think it would be better put to say that we integrate the inputs from all of our senses at a very, very deep, automatic level, no matter how "trained" someone claims to be.

There really is no question about the difficulties in sighted testing, it's been shown in example after example, in hearing, taste, sight (bearing in mind "sighted testing" means that you don't know the identity of the probe signal, not that you can't see) and so on that we will integrate all the information available to us.

I have to say that the fellow here who took the test has been quite the gentleman compared to most (if not all) subjectivists who have embarked on this route, and deserves praise for both being willing to try as well as being willing to admit that he was at least temporarily stymied.

There are some facts about blind testing that have to be relayed. In blind auditory testing, people with no hearing impairments being tested in quiet rooms can in fact hear very, very close to the level of atmospheric noise in the room, in a blind test. That, by itself, ought to show that blind testing is not flawed. What's more, in many blind tests where there is an audible effect, I've had subjects think they were guessing, when in fact they were not guessing, and were surprised to find consistancy in their answers.

Having said all that, training is essential. Oh, and did I mention, training is absolutely essential, and that's all there is to it? Yes, I guess I did mention that training is essential.

Having said that, I've been pointed by a very gleeful audiophile to a test that shows that there is a measurable difference between two power cords. This seemed odd, until I found out that one of the power cords was #18 AWG, and the other #12 AWG. Sure enough, use a cord that's too small (and I don't want to even speculate on the UL issues around that) and it won't work right. The small cord was "special silver-plated wire", but you know, copper is this ->||<- close to silver in conductivity, and that's not very important in 60Hz applications at this current level.

Finally, among experienced scientific listeners, at least some find that they are more accurate in blind testing, because they are aware of the sensory issues, and they tend to discount their sighted results, even when the differences are obvious.

... Maybe there's something about listening blind that makes telling a difference difficult.

Yes, a closed book test is always more difficult than when the answers are in front of the person.:D

... A friend of mine who also uses MIT's believes he can pick out the differences. .


And this is evidence of what, that he is a believer too? Knowing goes further than believing.
:D

Exactly. And yet, those who "hear" differences in cables in sighted tests do not seem to find that an insurmountable obstacle. ;)

Yep, that only comes up when it is a DBT. One needs an excuse:D

I was strictly talking about the way I prefer to listen to music when mentioning not having my eyes closed. I was NOT talking about any sort of particular DBT. But I guess you guys won't let the facts get in the way of you being jerks.

I was strictly talking about the way I prefer to listen to music when mentioning not having my eyes closed. I was NOT talking about any sort of particular DBT. But I guess you guys won't let the facts get in the way of you being jerks.


You keep thinking that 'blind' listening somehow refers to having your eyes closed or it being dark. It just means (in this case) that you do not know what speaker cable is connected. Feel free to have the lights on and your eyes wide open--the probability is still very low that you will be able to tell one cable from the next if you can not see the actual cable being used...

actually, for a true dbt, one must have their eyes pecked out by crows at the beginning of the test.

You keep thinking that 'blind' listening somehow refers to having your eyes closed or it being dark. It just means (in this case) that you do not know what speaker cable is connected. Feel free to have the lights on and your eyes wide open--the probability is still very low that you will be able to tell one cable from the next if you can not see the actual cable being used...

No, I don't think that it means " having your eyes closed or it being dark.":rolleyes: I'm not stupid. I know what a DBT is. Mike used darkened safety glasses. So my reference was partly to that particular test. The probelm here is, if I make a comment about a specific subject or item, you guys stretch it into meaning something completely unrelated, or something that I didn't mean just to bolster your point of view. And then you're rude about as well.

I feel I have been more than fair in this 'debate'. I have mentioned several times about looking into some sort of testing on my own or with some local people. Here's an idea... why don't some of you 'Objectivist' spend some time and effort on putting together your own test. Come to my house and PROVE to me my cables don't make a difference. I'll even buy the beer. Then you can come here and crow all you like.

I feel I have been more than fair in this 'debate'. I have mentioned several times about looking into some sort of testing on my own or with some local people. Here's an idea... why don't some of you 'Objectivist' spend some time and effort on putting together your own test. Come to my house and PROVE to me my cables don't make a difference. I'll even buy the beer. Then you can come here and crow all you like.

You can't do it that way. All you need to do is randomly pick if you are biased to believe that there are no differences. You can only do the opposite. A person who believes that they can hear differences needs to show it in a DBT.

actually, for a true dbt, one must have their eyes pecked out by crows at the beginning of the test.
I did that once but . . . "nevermore". :D

No, I don't think that it means " having your eyes closed or it being dark.":rolleyes: I'm not stupid. I know what a DBT is. Mike used darkened safety glasses. So my reference was partly to that particular test. The probelm here is, if I make a comment about a specific subject or item, you guys stretch it into meaning something completely unrelated, or something that I didn't mean just to bolster your point of view. And then you're rude about as well.

I feel I have been more than fair in this 'debate'. I have mentioned several times about looking into some sort of testing on my own or with some local people. Here's an idea... why don't some of you 'Objectivist' spend some time and effort on putting together your own test. Come to my house and PROVE to me my cables don't make a difference. I'll even buy the beer. Then you can come here and crow all you like.

How can 'we' prove that to you? What would you accept as proof?

You want objectivists to do the proctoring? Chris Wiggles -- an 'objectivist' -- performed this service for Mr. Lavigne.
Tom Nousaine has travelled to test the claims of a cable manufacturer (who chickened out). He arranged to travel to meet Steve Herrala (who posts on AVSf) to test *his* claims of hearing amp differences. SH couldn't ever seem to get his act together to go through with that. The 'Zipser trials' of amps involved objectivists travelling to Florida help a blowhard hi-end dealer compare his favorite amp to a mass market receiver (he failed the DBT). James Randi hosts a $1million challenge that recently included cables. There are other 'audio challenges' out there too, involving $$, from objectivists. So don't whine about how objectivists don't walk the walk.

You can't do it that way. All you need to do is randomly pick if you are biased to believe that there are no differences. You can only do the opposite. A person who believes that they can hear differences needs to show it in a DBT.

Nonsense.

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!

Nonsense.

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!

Actually, the people who don't hear a difference would be the control group. The experimental arm would be those who claim otherwise.

SM

actually, for a true dbt, one must have their eyes pecked out by crows at the beginning of the test.

And then? There is a replacement set available after the test?:D:D

...Tom Nousaine has travelled to test the claims of a cable manufacturer (who chickened out)...

You mean the famous Mr. Transparent Audio test? LOL:D:D
But back then, he didn't have the $35k cables.;)

Actually, the people who don't hear a difference would be the control group. The experimental arm would be those who claim otherwise.

SM

No, a "control group" is something different than "controls".

A control is, among other things, a trial known to be audible at a given level of test sensitivity. You should include them at several levels, to measure how accurate your subject is.

In some tests, a negative control is also included.

Been meaning to ask, why is Signal To Noise Ratio irrelevant?
Bob, W7ETA
A novice

No, a "control group" is something different than "controls".

A control is, among other things, a trial known to be audible at a given level of test sensitivity. You should include them at several levels, to measure how accurate your subject is.

In some tests, a negative control is also included.

This is a cable test. It's very hard to have meaningfull controls. The null hypothesis is that two somewhat similiar cables are audibly indistinguishable. What controls would you propose? Let's say you include controls and your subject doesn't identify them, is he "guessing" or does he have some hearing loss? What did you prove? Why would one even want to test subjects that say they don't hear a difference, when you can't even show that people who claim to hear a difference can do so?

I think it is nonsense to test people who deny having a trait to see if they are wrong. It makes far more sense to select individuals may have the trait and test them.

This is a cable test. It's very hard to have meaningfull controls.


Nonsense. Got any #20 zip cord?


The null hypothesis is that two somewhat similiar cables are audibly indistinguishable.


And with the #20 zip cord, you have something that is audibly distinguishable.


What controls would you propose? Let's say you include controls and your subject doesn't identify them, is he "guessing" or does he have some hearing loss?


You've shown the test sensitivity wasn't that high. Next question?


What did you prove? Why would one even want to test subjects that say they don't hear a difference, when you can't even show that people who claim to hear a difference can do so?


When you are responsible and include both positive and negative controls, you test the test. If you're tired of arguing about how good tests work, it seems to me that might be a good idea, yes?


I think it is nonsense to test people who deny having a trait to see if they are wrong. It makes far more sense to select individuals may have the trait and test them.

And the way to do that is to provide some positive control so you can tell who those people are. So what's your gripe?

Been meaning to ask, why is Signal To Noise Ratio irrelevant?
Bob, W7ETA
A novice

The answer to that is over in the LP vs. CD knockdown thread. Don't have the cite offhand, but you can peruse http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt.htm for the ppt's on the loudness tutorial, fundamentals of hearing tutorial, and perceptual coding tutorial, and you'll get a good start.

And with the #20 zip cord, you have something that is audibly distinguishable.How do you know?

With a long enough length, the resistance becomes a factor, no?

How do you know?

Because it's been documented in a DBT.

Goodness. It is long enough and small enough you get a perceptable different in quality due to loudness mismatch.

Goodness. It is long enough and small enough you get a perceptable different in quality due to loudness mismatch.That sounds good, but for two problems.

One, I don't recall ever establishing the length---hence the question. With lengths short enough I'll bet even #20 would not be audibly different. Some people place their amps rather close to their speakers.

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.

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.

And with the #20 zip cord, you have something that is audibly distinguishable.




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?