James Randi’s attack on high performance audio - Page 52  

No, I'm not changing the argument. I think the existence of the placebo effect is well established. There are claims of great sonic differences among cables that have infinitesimally small electrical differences. When those sonic differences are reported only in sighted tests but vanish in double-blind tests, it's a good example of placebo effect, as well as expectation bias and other influences.

And to this, I agree with you. But I was strictly talking about doing a cable test, with only ONE cable, and then telling people it's two different cables. In that instance, and ONLY in that instance, have I said the test was pointless and proved nothing about cable differences.

Here is another question that i am assuming will never be answered.

Can anybody on the Subjectivist side offer any hypothesis why there has never been a controlled test of any kind anywhere in which a blind test came out with an advantage for one cable or the other?

And by all means, if there are tests with controls that have been done and passed... please let me know.

Dizz, i'm not being disrespectful but why would a subjectivist need a test?

i don't need a test. i am not confused......i don't lack confidence with my perceptions.

read the dozens of related threads here on this forum. has a subjectivist ever said they needed or wanted a blind test?

the only reason a subjectivist would even do a blind test is to satisfy others (or maybe $1m).

Mike, I agree. When I buy audio gear, I buy it for me. Not for anyone else. So it's of no importance to me to do any sort of testing to prove anything to anyone else.

Good point.

At the end, the only thing that matters to some is that they think it sounds better than it did.

Our only point is that if there is no proof anywhere that the sound did not improve in any way... isnt that a little odd? And just replying that "i know it is better" is a false statement. unless a test is done, then you do not know. And if a test is done sighted or without some moderate controls in place, your bias takes over and you do not know what you thought you heard. no matter how solidly and vehemently you feel it.

added note---i have no need to 'know' anything for sure. so what if i have biases. i trust my life experiences combined with my senses to make judgements...particularly if i have considerable experiences with the subject.

when i taste, touch, watch or listen.....i trust my senses.

the need for proof of the reality of our perceptions is a personal issue. i don't criticize it but it's not for me. if it's proof that makes ya happy then go for it.

i am aware of certain objective measurments (or objective data of some sort) regarding products which do assist me to make the best choice for me. but it's my perceptions that will guide my ultimate decisions.

Could someone please supply a few links showing properly done DBTs done by independent bodies which confirm the above statement? I am hoping the DBTs will be of the type that could be peer reviewed in a scientific journal, not the type done in your living room, which to me have no scientific credibility either way.

I did a quick google on "dbt audio cables" but only turned up the below link. Unfortunately the details of the test are in French but one of the requirements before doing the actual DBT (which apparently was never done) was to make seven correct choices in a row. What is the theory behind that?

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...pic=33951&st=0

Also where could I find the measurements of the "infinitesimally small electrical differences" between audiophile cables and non-audiophile cables?

A subjectivist might want to do blind tests to know the TRUTH! It has nothing to do with "satisfying others". The comment "I don't lack confidence in my perceptions" sadly reflects an arrogance and lack or realization of the fallibility of ones perceptions.

I wanted to do blind tests because I know my perceptions are ANYTHING but infallible and I wanted to know the truth. Because I want to understand the world around me to my greatest ability rather than be dominated by ignorance and superstition. It is for me a much better way to live.

BTW, my use of the word "ignorance" is not meant to be insulting. Any belief that is false represents ignorance and we all are subject to such beliefs.

Multi-billion follower religions are crumbling all over the world after reading QQQ's inspired posts.

Keep it up Qubed!

That's between cables, period. They could be "audiophile" or "non-audiophile" cables. For example, 12-AWG copper wires will have a certain resistivity, with certain spacing and insulation they will have a certain shunt capacitance per unit length and series inductance (more if they aren't twisted and less if they are) per unit length.

All in all, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between cables of the same gauge and length (unless there are little boxes in which to put some additional R, L, and/or C components).

Thank you. What are the parameters that need to be measured in order to say cables are sonically identical? You have listed resistivity, shunt capacitance, series inductance, gauge, and length. Are there more?

Hi guys,

I've been searching but haven't been able to locate DBT results of tests between S-video/component, component/Hdmi, s-video/Hdmi. If someone could provide a link I'd greatly appreciate it.

There are only three electrical properties: resistance (R), inductance (L), and capacitance (C). In a pair of parallel conductors, the series resistance, shunt capacitance, and series inductance are of interest.

Of these, only R is of much concern at typical lengths, and that can be minimized simply by using wire of a large enough gauge.

Using larger gauge wire will reduce R, but slightly increase L. Twisting the pair of conductors together, though, will reduce L.

It's not difficult or expensive (with the price of copper lately, it's pricier than it used to be, but it still only adds pennies per foot) to buy or make a loudspeaker cable with extremely low R, L, and C.

Trying to be funny ? Try www.cableblindtest.com, they have a boatload of comparisons there.

I think the real link is
www.doubleblindcabletest.com

oh no, not me!, those links aren't working for me. I'll do some googling with those search words.

Thanks.

QQQ,

i really do not want to get into defending myself from namecalling...but a few comments.

equating confidence with arrogance is not really fair. i have enough confidence for me......and that is all i care about. just because you don't find that acceptable based on your perspective does not justify using that word.

i already know my truth and don't need it further proved to me.....i am not expecting you to live by my perspective....why would you expect me to live by yours.

1. Just as I explained my use of the word ignorance, in the same way I was using the word arrogance more, shall we say, analytically than insultingly. IMO thinking that ones perceptions are correct, even if the face overwhelming evidence to the contrary IS a form of arrogance.

Just as is your statement "I already know the truth and don't need it further proved to me". That's the big philosophical difference between you and me. If someone passed Randi's test tomorrow I'd be utterly fascinated and would want to investigate further and if it could be consistently duplicated in a test would immediately re-evaluate my beliefs. If instead I said "I know the truth and don't care what these tests proved", what could be more arrogant and ignorant?

"Expect you to live by my perspective"? That's where you don't get it Mike. It's got NOTHING to do with your or my perspective. It's got to do with the truth. The earth is round. If someones perspective is "it's flat and that's my perception and I'm not interested in finding out otherwise", well...ya, I'd say that's a form of ignorance and arrogance. I suspect you would too.

You won't find one of those kinds of DBT tests that I know of. One can find issues even in peer papers.
So then, sighted claims for audibility have no value for you either, right or just no scientific credibility?

Nothing else has been shown, one way or another, to matter audibly. And, the sound may not be identical, just cannot be differentiated. May be just a small point of distinction.

saying one hears audible differences in cables is hardly like saying the earth is flat.

no one ever found the edge of the flat earth....i frequently hear performance differences in cables. and they are random enough to give me all the proof i need that i am not imagining it.

sorry if that is not enough proof for you.

It's very much like it. The only difference is that the latter is easier to understand for the technically disinclined, because they can look at a picture of it. Each are equally absurd, laughed at by any knowledgeable scientist, and all evidence points to the contrary.

After I made my last post I was thinking about your comments that I responded to. I think you might be arguing along the lines of "I'm OK with you believing what you believe, why can't you be OK with me believing what I believe". Or to put it in another form, "your a Buddhist and I'm a Christian (pick your poison), why can't we just respect each others beliefs".

I think the answer is I can respect you as a person just fine, but I can't respect your beliefs or pretend that I find them "equal". All beliefs are not equal.

It demonstrates why controls are necessary....in things like cable comparisons.

Really, why are you trying so hard to downplay this? Psychological factors (expectation bias in this case) are CERTAINLY important to deal with.

And again, you're wrong. The 'phantom switch' method demonstrates, quite clearly, that two presentations that actually sound the same, can be reported as sounding very different...and the reasoning behind that report can also be quite flawed.

Sam Greenhill's --- but AGAIN, as I've said before, when two cables were audibly different in the DBT, is was for perfectly unmysterious reasons that were MEASURABLE: mismatched gauges/lengths, or a frequency response issue with one of the cables.

And they're never wrong? Or do you only trust them *to a degree*?

Btw,by doing cable comparisons 'sighted', you aren't really trusting your ears.

if only

Could it be that most scientists tend to consider this unworthy of investigation (reinventing the wheel costs time and money)?

But you could look up articles by E. Brad Meyer , Sam Greenhill, and Tom Nousaine, in mass-market audio journals. You won't find them in Stereophile or The Absolute Sound, though.




Why don't you ask on the hydrogenaudio thread? You ARE sincere about wanting to know, right?



how about a table of cable measurements?

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/c...ceoff-2-page-6

In fact, you should read that entire series of articles.

how about, say, claims that Bigfoot is real, then?