AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/)
-   -   How to misrepresent double blind testing to scare people away (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-audio-theory-setup-chat/3083386-how-misrepresent-double-blind-testing-scare-people-away.html)

m. zillch 08-08-2019 02:37 PM

How to misrepresent double blind testing to scare people away
 
[Note: This is reposted from another thread on the "audible" differences between USB cables.] It is more pertinent to this section of our forum.

Despite being called the "gold standard" of the prestigious scholarly science Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, as one published scientist recently put it, many people pushing audio mythology (usually for profit) can't stand double blind tests such as ABX because it exposes their falsehoods. Here's an example I dissect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIDexII (Post 58398508)
I post this from Paul because Hans version was abit mean and provocative.

Paul doesn't know what he is talking about, makes numerous factual errors and misrepresentations, and admits that in the case of his ABX test, 30 years ago, he can't even remember what was being tested:

Jump to 47 seconds in (if my link below doesn't take you there directly):

Paul, at 47 seconds in: ". . . and I don't remember what we were trying to test for . . . "


So for all we know he was testing for example speakers, or any number of other items where we should expect listeners to be able to hear a difference.

He also lies, or perhaps just incorrectly remembers, about how it works:

"You had a button and you could hear
A [*uses hand gesture to show a button being pressed*],
B [*uses hand gesture to show the exact same, single button being pressed*]
or X [*uses hand gesture to show the exact same, single button being pressed*]

WRONG
Paul. You have multiple direct access buttons on the hand held remote so you can jump straight to the sound you want, A, B, or X, instantly and directly, at any time you choose. It is not a sequential thing, as you imply, trying to make it seem like a much more difficult test which requires memory.

Here's the remote he used:
http://djcarlst.provide.net/abxhcm.gif


Deceptive people do their best to fool people into thinking the way Clark's ABX switch box worked involved having to juggle in one's mind three different sounds, all at once, in memory. THIS IS PATENTLY FALSE. ABX is an open book test so the sounds of A and B, fully labelled and identified for what they truly are, require no long term memory at all. The only sound with a hidden identity is X, which is either A or B. [The up down buttons on the remote allow the listener to scroll up and down between what trial number the listener is voting on, as displayed on an LED readout they look at during the test, by the way.]

". . . and you didn't know which was what. . . "
FALSE. Great job wording it to scare people so they think they are juggling three unknowns in their mind though, Paul. The listener knows exactly what A is, what B is, [and if the test designer chooses, their exact brand, model number, appearance, and price] and can instantly re-hear them as many times as they want, both before and after they hear the mystery sound X as many times as they want, which they are voting on as being A or B.

[*waves hand around to show a state of confusion*] "so the testing people didn't know, you didn't know. And. Um. There were a whole bunch of things wrong with that."

And all these problems [none of which Paul seems to have explained yet] evaporate away by making the test sighted, Paul? NOPE.

Later he mentions the "sound degradation of switching relays".

A. For some reason the input selector relay in his own company's integrated amps somehow manage to be beyond reproach.

B
. You can run a double blind pre-test, of just the switch box against straight wire, to see if the switch/relay indeed causes "audible degradation" as he fears. [It doesn't.]

C
. The music we listen to has passed through hundreds if not thousands of various switches/relays along its journey from the recording studio, to the mixing, mastering, etc.. before it reaches our ears and nobody seems to complain about those.

D
. When I run blind tests, as I explained in my video, I give the listener the option to use hard wire cable swapping instead of a switch. Their choice. [After all, when they "heard a difference" between DACs, USB cords, whatever, wasn't cable swapping exactly how they were doing it?]

"The resolution of the speakers was grim."

[My listeners use whatever speakers, and other peripheral gear they want. I don't choose them, they do.]

"I think they were Snell?"

Interesting he can remember what the speakers were but not what was being tested! [Psst, I bet he picked Snell for his little story as a back handed slam against Meyer and Moran's testing, if you ask me.]

". . . and undisclosed electronics."

In all blind testing, including ABX tests, all the electronics are fully disclosed to the listeners in any I have ever conducted or read about. But again, he is trying to scare people away from even trying it.

"It certainly wasn't setup properly for imaging, spatial cues, and the things I am more sensitive to. . . ." [brag]

I can't speak for everyone, but in my blind amp test the entire setup was done by the recording engineer I tested himself, using his gear of choice, his treated room of choice, his preferred speaker placement and positioning, and his music of choice.


"If we're not in the right frame of mind we aren't going to hear. . . "

So I guess this problem you speak of, Paul, doesn't occur with sighted tests because people are always in the right frame of mind when conducting sighted tests. Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Uri Geller uses the same deception to pass off his failures: "I'm not feeling strong tonight" he says to Johnny Carson in the earlier video. Fine. We'll stop the test and and start a new one whenever you feel you can make decisions about sound using only your hearing, not your sight, Paul.

"If I'm on public display, if there's pressure on me, I clam up. I don't do well at all. If I have an audience and I'm being judged by that audience. My brain just kinda turns off.. . . If I'm being tested I don't do well."

He means in a double blind test he doesn't do well. In sighted testing he brags earlier that he has a discerning ear. Also, when doing a Foobar ABX test nobody is in the room but you, there is no audience during the test, and you can take as long as you want, even pausing the test one day and starting back up hours, days, weeks, or months later, whenever you are feeling in the mood to hear differences using your ears, not eyes.

He ends by mentioning he likes "blind" A/B testing, switching back and forth quickly between A and B, (with a helper in the room). He's done a splendid job in this video of fooling people into thinking this exact same technique of quickly switching from A to B can not occur in ABX testing, whereas in truth many users doing ABX choose to do exactly this. I use this method quite often.

Ratman 08-08-2019 03:04 PM


sk373 08-08-2019 03:09 PM

I can't figure out what is so inherently "stressful" about an ABX listening test? It's not like anyone is being graded on it!

Ratman 08-08-2019 03:12 PM

I can't understand why beating a dead horse and bring in a new horse and beat that one too. :confused:

m. zillch 08-08-2019 03:35 PM

Because that other thread is going to be shut down, if you ask me. This one may be too, but at least the opening post exposes Paul's video with the actual truth so it will be more highly read and can be referred to for future purposes for this specific topic. [Read the title.]

This current thread has nothing to do with USB Cables.

I know of several other people who deceive the public on ABX and DBT, having nothing to do with Paul, and this thread will be a place for those (possible) future posts.

IIDexII 08-08-2019 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m. zillch (Post 58399222)
[Note: This is reposted from another thread on the "audible" differences between USB cables.] It is more pertinent to this section of our forum.



Despite being called the "gold standard" of the prestigious scholarly science journal of the Audio Engineering Society, as one published scientist recently described it, many people pushing audio mythology (usually for profit) can't stand double blind tests such as ABX because it exposes their falsehoods. Here's an example I dissect.





Paul doesn't know what he is talking about, makes numerous factual errors and misrepresentations, and admits that in the case of his ABX test, 30 years ago, he can't even remember what was being tested:



Jump to 47 seconds in (if my link below doesn't take you there directly):



Paul, at 47 seconds in: ". . . and I don't remember what we were trying to test for . . . "



https://youtu.be/3mHaSb8Nc8c?t=47



So for all we know he was testing for example speakers, or any number of other items where we should expect listeners to be able to hear a difference.



He also lies, or perhaps just incorrectly remembers, about how it works:



"You had a button and you could hear

A [*uses hand gesture to show a button being pressed*],

B [*uses hand gesture to show the exact same, single button being pressed*]

or X [*uses hand gesture to show the exact same, single button being pressed*]



WRONG
Paul. You have multiple direct access buttons on the hand held remote so you can jump straight to the sound you want, A, B, or X, instantly and directly, at any time you choose. It is not a sequential thing, as you imply, trying to make it seem like a much more difficult test which requires memory.



Here's the remote he used:

http://djcarlst.provide.net/abxhcm.gif

http://djcarlst.provide.net/abxhcm.gif



Deceptive people do their best to fool people into thinking the way Clark's ABX switch box worked involved having to juggle in one's mind three different sounds, all at once, in memory. THIS IS PATENTLY FALSE. ABX is an open book test so the sounds of A and B, fully labelled and identified for what they truly are, require no long term memory at all. The only sound with a hidden identity is X. [The up down buttons on the remote allow the listener to scroll up and down between what trial number they are on, as displayed on an LED readout they look at during the test, by the way.]



". . . and you didn't know which was what. . . "

FALSE. Great job wording it to scare people so they think they are juggling three unknowns in their mind though, Paul. The listener knows exactly what A is, what B is, [and if the test designer chooses, their exact brand, model number, appearance, and price] and can instantly re-hear them as many times as they want, both before and after they hear the mystery sound X which they are voting on as being A or B.



[*waves hand around to show a state of confusion*] "so the testing people didn't know, you didn't know. And. Um. There were a whole bunch of things wrong with that."



And all these problems [none of which Paul seems to have explained yet] evaporate away by making the test sighted, Paul? NOPE.



Later he mentions the "sound degradation of switching relays".



A. For some reason the input selector relay in his own company's integrated amps somehow manage to be beyond reproach.



B
. You can run a double blind pre-test, of just the switch box against straight wire, to see if the switch/relay indeed causes "audible degradation" as he fears. [It doesn't.]



C
. The music we listen to has passed through hundreds if not thousands of various switches/relays along its journey from the recording studio, to the mixing, mastering, etc.. before it reaches our ears and nobody seems to complain about those.



D
. When I run blind tests, as I explained in my video, I give the listener the option to use hard wire cable swapping instead of a switch. Their choice. [After all, when they "heard a difference" between DACs, USB cords, whatever, wasn't cable swapping exactly how they were doing it?]



"The resolution of the speakers was grim."



[My listeners use whatever speakers, and other peripheral gear they want. I don't choose them, they do.]



"I think they were Snell?"



Interesting he can remember what the speakers were but not what was being tested! [Psst, I bet he picked Snell for his little story as a back handed slam against Meyer and Moran's testing, if you ask me.]



". . . and undisclosed electronics."



In all blind testing, including ABX tests, all the electronics are fully disclosed to the listeners in any I have ever conducted or read about. But again, he is trying to scare people away from even trying it.



"It certainly wasn't setup properly for imaging, spatial cues, and the things I am more sensitive to. . . ." [brag]



I can't speak for everyone, but in my blind amp test the entire setup was done by the recording engineer I tested himself, using his gear of choice, his treated room of choice, his preferred speaker placement and positioning, and his music of choice.





"If we're not in the right frame of mind we aren't going to hear. . . "



So I guess this problem you speak of, Paul, doesn't occur with sighted tests because people are always in the right frame of mind when conducting sighted tests. Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Uri Geller uses the same deception to pass off his failures: "I'm not feeling strong tonight" he says to Johnny Carson in the earlier video. Fine. We'll stop the test and and start a new one whenever you feel you can make decisions about sound using only your hearing, not your sight, Paul.



"If I'm on public display, if there's pressure on me, I clam up. I don't do well at all. If I have an audience and I'm being judged by that audience. My brain just kinda turns off.. . . If I'm being tested I don't do well."



He means in a double blind test he doesn't do well. In sighted testing he brags earlier that he has a discerning ear. Also, when doing a Foobar ABX test nobody is in the room but you, there is no audience during the test, and you can take as long as you want, even pausing the test one day and starting back up hours, days, weeks, or months later, whenever you are feeling in the mood to hear differences using your ears, not eyes.



He ends by mentioning he likes "blind" A/B testing, switching back and forth quickly between A and B, (with a helper in the room). He's done a splendid job in this video of fooling people into thinking this exact same technique of quickly switching from A to B can't not occur in ABX testing, whereas in truth many users doing ABX choose to do exactly this. I use this method quite often.

Paul is old, he forgets all the time, speakers, music, and amps.

In his stories he also forgets, all the time.

That is called aging

I know you are young...

But this is prooven scientific for years..
Aging affects memories.

Abx works for medicine, not in audio not so well and not in food or vine.

I could share the results, you could save a year's budget on food and buy just dogfood. Because it's proven that there is no difference between dog/cat food and luxury food in a scientific test.

m. zillch 08-08-2019 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIDexII (Post 58399466)
Abx works for medicine, not in audio

Tell JAES, not me.

Glimmie 08-08-2019 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sk373 (Post 58399360)
I can't figure out what is so inherently "stressful" about an ABX listening test? It's not like anyone is being graded on it!

Oh this crap has been floating around for a least 10 or so years. When tests come up random or otherwise fail, the audiophiles claim the were stressed. The mood was wrong. They ate something bad.

Just BS excuses, but what else would you expect.

m. zillch 08-08-2019 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sk373 (Post 58399360)
I can't figure out what is so inherently "stressful" about an ABX listening test?

God forbid people make decisions about audio using their hearing, not eyesight.

:D ha ha "Oh the stress! I've never used my ears before!"

Worf 08-08-2019 11:52 PM

It's stressful because someone needs to prove that them spending $5000 on power cables or USB cables or Ethernet cables will out do the plebs with their "factory supplied" generic cables that cost $1 or less.

After all, no one wants to play the fool who paid way too much.

m. zillch 08-09-2019 12:08 AM

Good point. I guess it would also be stressful for, say, a conman marketing snake oil products who knows his gizmo makes no audible difference but keeps selling it because he is unethical and driven by greed. Not that I'm speaking of anyone in particular. I'm speaking theoretically, of course.

m. zillch 08-09-2019 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worf (Post 58400644)
. . . $5000 on power cables . . .

Wow. I didn't know they get that pricey. All I had heard of were these for about a 1/4 that price, which are of course audibly indistinguishable compared to ones costing a hundredth of the price, to all people, through all systems, on all music.

IIDexII 08-09-2019 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m. zillch (Post 58399814)
God forbid people make decisions about audio using their hearing, not eyesight.



:D ha ha "Oh the stress! I've never used my ears before!"

The part with stress in testing is scientific proved.
That topic is called psychology.

We are not testing machines, we are testing individuals.

Further if there are any difference in a test, all humans have different taste of what good sound is.

Childish examples a girl dig vocals, a guy dig Base

The same goes for medicine science tests of sick with placebo and real medicine.

But it is easy to check medical if the person got better.

Sent fra min AGS-W09 via Tapatalk

IIDexII 08-09-2019 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worf (Post 58400644)
It's stressful because someone needs to prove that them spending $5000 on power cables or USB cables or Ethernet cables will out do the plebs with their "factory supplied" generic cables that cost $1 or less.



After all, no one wants to play the fool who paid way too much.

They only sell power cables.

Sent fra min AGS-W09 via Tapatalk

IIDexII 08-09-2019 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m. zillch (Post 58399222)
[Note: This is reposted from another thread on the "audible" differences between USB cables.] It is more pertinent to this section of our forum.



Despite being called the "gold standard" of the prestigious scholarly science Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, as one published scientist recently put it, many people pushing audio mythology (usually for profit) can't stand double blind tests such as ABX because it exposes their falsehoods. Here's an example I dissect.





Paul doesn't know what he is talking about, makes numerous factual errors and misrepresentations, and admits that in the case of his ABX test, 30 years ago, he can't even remember what was being tested:



Jump to 47 seconds in (if my link below doesn't take you there directly):



Paul, at 47 seconds in: ". . . and I don't remember what we were trying to test for . . . "



https://youtu.be/3mHaSb8Nc8c?t=47



So for all we know he was testing for example speakers, or any number of other items where we should expect listeners to be able to hear a difference.



He also lies, or perhaps just incorrectly remembers, about how it works:



"You had a button and you could hear

A [*uses hand gesture to show a button being pressed*],

B [*uses hand gesture to show the exact same, single button being pressed*]

or X [*uses hand gesture to show the exact same, single button being pressed*]



WRONG
Paul. You have multiple direct access buttons on the hand held remote so you can jump straight to the sound you want, A, B, or X, instantly and directly, at any time you choose. It is not a sequential thing, as you imply, trying to make it seem like a much more difficult test which requires memory.



Here's the remote he used:

http://djcarlst.provide.net/abxhcm.gif





Deceptive people do their best to fool people into thinking the way Clark's ABX switch box worked involved having to juggle in one's mind three different sounds, all at once, in memory. THIS IS PATENTLY FALSE. ABX is an open book test so the sounds of A and B, fully labelled and identified for what they truly are, require no long term memory at all. The only sound with a hidden identity is X, which is either A or B. [The up down buttons on the remote allow the listener to scroll up and down between what trial number the listener is voting on, as displayed on an LED readout they look at during the test, by the way.]



". . . and you didn't know which was what. . . "

FALSE. Great job wording it to scare people so they think they are juggling three unknowns in their mind though, Paul. The listener knows exactly what A is, what B is, [and if the test designer chooses, their exact brand, model number, appearance, and price] and can instantly re-hear them as many times as they want, both before and after they hear the mystery sound X as many times as they want, which they are voting on as being A or B.



[*waves hand around to show a state of confusion*] "so the testing people didn't know, you didn't know. And. Um. There were a whole bunch of things wrong with that."



And all these problems [none of which Paul seems to have explained yet] evaporate away by making the test sighted, Paul? NOPE.



Later he mentions the "sound degradation of switching relays".



A. For some reason the input selector relay in his own company's integrated amps somehow manage to be beyond reproach.



B
. You can run a double blind pre-test, of just the switch box against straight wire, to see if the switch/relay indeed causes "audible degradation" as he fears. [It doesn't.]



C
. The music we listen to has passed through hundreds if not thousands of various switches/relays along its journey from the recording studio, to the mixing, mastering, etc.. before it reaches our ears and nobody seems to complain about those.



D
. When I run blind tests, as I explained in my video, I give the listener the option to use hard wire cable swapping instead of a switch. Their choice. [After all, when they "heard a difference" between DACs, USB cords, whatever, wasn't cable swapping exactly how they were doing it?]



"The resolution of the speakers was grim."



[My listeners use whatever speakers, and other peripheral gear they want. I don't choose them, they do.]



"I think they were Snell?"



Interesting he can remember what the speakers were but not what was being tested! [Psst, I bet he picked Snell for his little story as a back handed slam against Meyer and Moran's testing, if you ask me.]



". . . and undisclosed electronics."



In all blind testing, including ABX tests, all the electronics are fully disclosed to the listeners in any I have ever conducted or read about. But again, he is trying to scare people away from even trying it.



"It certainly wasn't setup properly for imaging, spatial cues, and the things I am more sensitive to. . . ." [brag]



I can't speak for everyone, but in my blind amp test the entire setup was done by the recording engineer I tested himself, using his gear of choice, his treated room of choice, his preferred speaker placement and positioning, and his music of choice.





"If we're not in the right frame of mind we aren't going to hear. . . "



So I guess this problem you speak of, Paul, doesn't occur with sighted tests because people are always in the right frame of mind when conducting sighted tests. Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Uri Geller uses the same deception to pass off his failures: "I'm not feeling strong tonight" he says to Johnny Carson in the earlier video. Fine. We'll stop the test and and start a new one whenever you feel you can make decisions about sound using only your hearing, not your sight, Paul.



"If I'm on public display, if there's pressure on me, I clam up. I don't do well at all. If I have an audience and I'm being judged by that audience. My brain just kinda turns off.. . . If I'm being tested I don't do well."



He means in a double blind test he doesn't do well. In sighted testing he brags earlier that he has a discerning ear. Also, when doing a Foobar ABX test nobody is in the room but you, there is no audience during the test, and you can take as long as you want, even pausing the test one day and starting back up hours, days, weeks, or months later, whenever you are feeling in the mood to hear differences using your ears, not eyes.



He ends by mentioning he likes "blind" A/B testing, switching back and forth quickly between A and B, (with a helper in the room). He's done a splendid job in this video of fooling people into thinking this exact same technique of quickly switching from A to B can't not occur in ABX testing, whereas in truth many users doing ABX choose to do exactly this. I use this method quite often.

You don't know what gear ABX they had 30 years ago.

it is possible that you were not born that time.

And the Uri Geller thing is silly.
Uri claimed to have a super power.

There's nothing super power to have Golden ears.
Half has it, the other half don't

The upside to this is that you that doesn't have ear, can use a cheap system.

Chances are that you never had to upgrade, I've upgraded for many many years before I got satisfied.

Sent fra min AGS-W09 via Tapatalk

sk373 08-09-2019 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIDexII (Post 58400860)
The part with stress in testing is scientific proved.
That topic is called psychology.

We are not testing machines, we are testing individuals.

Further if there are any difference in a test, all humans have different taste of what good sound is.

Childish examples a girl dig vocals, a guy dig Base

The same goes for medicine science tests of sick with placebo and real medicine.

But it is easy to check medical if the person got better.

Sent fra min AGS-W09 via Tapatalk


The ABX test we are talking about doesn’t test if one thing sounds “better” than another. It tests whether you can hear a *difference* in the sound between two samples. Preference and “good sound” has nothing to do with it.

And point me to a peer-reviewed scientific study that proves ABX testing in audio is “stressful”. There’s nothing in the methodology that is stressful in the least. You doing are nothing but comparing one sound vs another, using only your ears.

IIDexII 08-09-2019 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sk373 (Post 58401006)
The ABX test we are talking about doesn’t test if one thing sounds “better” than another. It tests whether you can hear a *difference* in the sound between two samples. Preference and “good sound” has nothing to do with it.



And point me to a peer-reviewed scientific study that proves ABX testing in audio is “stressful”. There’s nothing in the methodology that is stressful in the least. You doing are nothing but comparing one sound vs another, using only your ears.

In fact in every way a test is stressful.

Your not in your normal listening mood..

And we listen different to different times and situation.
We are not machines..

Sent fra min AGS-W09 via Tapatalk

Ratman 08-09-2019 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIDexII (Post 58401548)
In fact in every way a test is stressful.

Your not in your normal listening mood..

And we listen different to different times and situation.
We are not machines..

Sent fra min AGS-W09 via Tapatalk

It shouldn't be stressful. It should be informative and relaxing, Bring your own choice(s) of music and take as long as you like. Hours, days, weeks.
Are we not men? We are Devo! :D

sk373 08-09-2019 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIDexII (Post 58401548)
In fact in every way a test is stressful.

Your not in your normal listening mood..

And we listen different to different times and situation.
We are not machines..

Sent fra min AGS-W09 via Tapatalk

I call BS. The exercise is to test if one can hear differences between two samples. "Normal listening mood" has no relevance to this.

An ABX test to listen for differences is no more stressful than going to the optometrist to be fitted for prescription eyeglasses. "Which looks more clear, 1 or 2? Or are they about the same?"

IIDexII 08-09-2019 08:34 AM

I have my share of stress..

I have benzodiasepines prescripted stuffed full in my cabinet that I luckily almost never have to eat.

But hey even people like Paul is stressed.
Maybe he was in the famous group in the late 70s?

Audio takes time, I applaud Mzillich Foobar test, but I don't understand it fully.

I'm thankful for the Foobar it's free, and I have it on my phone now.

It's as I understand bases on trust either from him or my wife...

Controlled tests is only the valid science test, and must happen in a kind of lab.


But I don't believe in this Abx audio not in dogfood, not in audio.

Only in medicine.


How do you know that the test group simply liked the taste of dogfood, or the MP3 music recording or style???

Ratman 08-09-2019 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIDexII (Post 58401838)
How do you know that the test group simply liked the taste of dogfood,

They begged for more.


https://media0.giphy.com/media/fuwcnXOwS0myc/source.gif

IIDexII 08-09-2019 09:00 AM

I'll throw you a bone.

There Are some shady audio dealers.

In Gear this is very easy to discover.

In my country we always remember an Edge Cd player that got raving reviews and description.. it was a cheap Panasonic dvd deck and little more, very bad construction also.

Doubtful is many of the gathering mass happenings on many audio cable dealers also. It's heavy marketing, bring a grain of salt and you're good.

But that doesn't mean that all the industry is crap. If you like Beldon nice.. but don't disregard all hifi dealers..

Gerry1975 08-09-2019 09:16 AM

What really is the purpose of this thread, other than to bash ABX blind testers just because they concude a differing viewpoint on cables that runs counter to your beliefs?
If you find faults with their testing, stop following them. If you find it is silly to be spending more, then go find a 99 cents cable for yourself to make yourself happy.

Ratman 08-09-2019 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerry1975 (Post 58402036)
What really is the purpose of this thread...

More importantly (IMHO), why start a thread knowing that it is going to generate more bickering and nonsense.:confused:
There can not and will not be a "winner".

m. zillch 08-09-2019 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIDexII (Post 58400888)
You don't know what gear ABX they had 30 years ago.

Yes I do. I was working in the industry professionally at the time and there was only one ABX hardware machine back then.

m. zillch 08-09-2019 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIDexII (Post 58401838)
Audio takes time, I applaud Mzillich Foobar test, but I don't understand it fully.

It's a brilliant test I recommend you learn about if you enjoy pursuing state of the art sound based on hearing, not fantasy. My video explains exactly how to do it:

Just to be clear, I have been using it and other related versions of blind audio listening tests for several decades, using high end audio gear, however I had nothing to do with the original creation of the ABX test methodology. [I've interacted with the actual creators of the test several times and gave some advice on some of the on-screen text wording on the results page when updates were applied, however I'd hardly say that qualifies me to call myself one of the creators.]

IIDexII 08-09-2019 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m. zillch (Post 58402500)
Yes I do. I was working in the professionally industry at the time and there was only one then.

Oh jikes was you alive and old in the late old 70s??

You were present on the test I talked about. Impressive elaborate...

I love science when it works.

The measurements to prove Audio Quality today I'm sorry to inform you. It doesn't work, it's not near valid.

But I throw you a bone again.
It's useful to measure your room.

Ratman 08-09-2019 11:28 AM

:)
Fun stuff!


Now we go to room measurements. Diversion and misdirection. Is this a Penn and Teller show? :D

m. zillch 08-09-2019 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIDexII (Post 58400888)
There's nothing super power to have Golden ears.
Half has it, the other half don't

Nobody has the ability to hear a difference between adequately thick AC power cables, including the free one which came with the gear.
The people who claim otherwise are suffering from what you call "the placebo effect" [the better term for this in a non-medical situation is "expectation bias"]. Nobody is immune to it, especially the people who claim they are.

8mile13 08-09-2019 11:31 AM

When i visit the PS Audio music room it is easy to understand why that guy does not like objective testing.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.