Speaker cable..
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
JustinP1 said:
The taste of fruit juice is actually heavily defined by colour.
Ok so the colour psychologically influences the sense of taste. In an analogous way, knowing the cable is expensive influences your sense of hearing?Edited by hairykrishna on Thursday 13th January 14:40
It's as though they've never heard of the placebo effect, double-blind trials, or confirmation bias.
NorthernBoy said:
hairykrishna said:
JustinP1 said:
The taste of fruit juice is actually heavily defined by colour.
Ok so the colour psychologically influences the sense of taste. In an analogous way, knowing the cable is expensive influences your sense of hearing?Edited by hairykrishna on Thursday 13th January 14:40
It's as though they've never heard of the placebo effect, double-blind trials, or confirmation bias.
That said, just as bad are the 'moral crusaders' on the other side of the argument who reprint the legendary 'coat hanger' article gained from a forum post somewhere.
Out of all of the research I have done, although naysayers refer to 'double blind testing' and failures I can find not a single academic study where a double blind test has been passed or failed.
Even so, it is also very bad science to assume that even if a double blind ABX test can be trusted that this is empirical proof that speaker cables are all the same or that any differences are inaudible. Then you would be not just testing 'results' but also the big variable of perception.
Consider if the same double blind test was carried out on antibiotics for minor ailments:
Half get antibiotics, and half get a placebo. If a week later you asked the patients if they 'thought' the pills had helped the placebo effect and perception would have totally masked any meaningful results down to where statistically the results would be identical. If antibiotics were tested in the way that speaker cables have been they would have been dismissed as 'snake oil'.
Of course, that test for antibiotics does not prove anything, and neither does the speaker cable test. The antibiotics would of course be tested scientifically by taking readings and measurements to ascertain their effectiveness *without* the masking effects of the 'perceptual' test.
Clearly, to settle this, more, properly scientific testing needs to be done. At the moment, two variables (human hearing and the effect of speaker cable) and tested at the same time with a qualitative result. The way to do scientifically that would be the two 'variables' would have to be tested independently so that quantitative results could be measured.
To do that, you would design a test whereby the ability of the listener would be tested to find the range of sensitivity that is possible to be heard.
You would then test the different speaker cables to find exactly how much difference it does make to the sound output of the speakers.
Then you'll get your empirical answer.
I would suggest though that there would be a wide range of results in both tests, some people hear better than others, and some cables make more effect than others.
Yes, it'd need to be a well done and well controlled study to give a definitive answer, but we can still speak of the plausibility of certain claims in the absence of these tests, and I think that the plausibility of there being audible differences between "decent" and top-end speaker cables is low.
I'd be more likely to let the claims of audiophiles sway me if they were not wont to come up with such frequent lunacy. The stick-on blue dot, for example, or the claims that two identical digital files differ because of the "quality" of the 1s and 0s.
Most claims, it seems, are at the homeopathy end of plausibility, rather than, say, the SSRI end.
I'd be more likely to let the claims of audiophiles sway me if they were not wont to come up with such frequent lunacy. The stick-on blue dot, for example, or the claims that two identical digital files differ because of the "quality" of the 1s and 0s.
Most claims, it seems, are at the homeopathy end of plausibility, rather than, say, the SSRI end.
NorthernBoy said:
Yes, it'd need to be a well done and well controlled study to give a definitive answer, but we can still speak of the plausibility of certain claims in the absence of these tests, and I think that the plausibility of there being audible differences between "decent" and top-end speaker cables is low.
I'd be more likely to let the claims of audiophiles sway me if they were not wont to come up with such frequent lunacy. The stick-on blue dot, for example, or the claims that two identical digital files differ because of the "quality" of the 1s and 0s.
Most claims, it seems, are at the homeopathy end of plausibility, rather than, say, the SSRI end.
I actually feel that there is clear evidence that speaker cables can make a degree of difference in some circumstances, and in my professional opinion I would expect that in some instances (but not all) that this may be in the range that should be able to be heard by a proportion of people.I'd be more likely to let the claims of audiophiles sway me if they were not wont to come up with such frequent lunacy. The stick-on blue dot, for example, or the claims that two identical digital files differ because of the "quality" of the 1s and 0s.
Most claims, it seems, are at the homeopathy end of plausibility, rather than, say, the SSRI end.
The reason I say this is that I have seen on many, many occasions people accurately hear the difference between sources which by calculation were a fraction of 1% different.
However, to bundle all people who care about speaker cables as audiophiles, and bundle all them into being people swayed by blue dots, wooden knobs, and reactive resonant stones is incorrect. That is just as incorrect as grouping people who *don't believe* the difference between speaker cables are non-believers in science like Mormons.
In fact, I have to say on looking back through this thread, and comparing those with very polarised views one way or the other it is actually those who *don't believe* that there is a difference that 'shout the loudest' and much less willing to take on any other view, despite the weight of real evidence.
Belief and thinking (hoping) you are correct works with both groups. Those who have spent a decent amount of money on speaker cable don't want to believe that they are wearing the 'Emperors New Clothes', and those running cable from B&Q don't want to admit that they might not have been able to tell the difference (even if they could afford to), and if they did a test they would be just as susceptible to the placebo effect and the reaffirmation of the believe that they would hear nothing...
Edited by JustinP1 on Saturday 15th January 16:12
Me again Found a bit of time. I'm going to do this in points, if you could reply (if you feel like it) per point that would be great with all this sub-quoting which gets complicated:
1)
So why don't they?
2)
3)
Somebody is selling an extremely expensive cable which they justify by saying that it makes the audio sound better.
You are saying that, depending on the exact moment of the test, due to human perception, the cable may or may not sound better.
Bear in mind we're talking about an expensive outlay here so you'd hope that it would work all the time. ie make things sound better.
If the difference in sound is so fine that this difference is variable then:
a)How can it possibly be considered an upgrade and an expensive one at that, especially since:
b)If you can go from "good" to "no difference" then conceivably you could also go to "sounds worse" depending on the day of the week you did the test, due to this difference in human perception.
Now everyone would agree that that is a ridiculous situation and would be pointless (and a waste of money).
(note that I don't agree with existence of this variable perception to the extent that you are talking about).
4)
If it was a real double blind test you couldn't ask the patients if the pills had helped because they wouldn't be told what the pills were for. And they would be asked "how they felt" not "did the pills have an effect".
So yes, that test for antibiotics wouldn't work but a real and *pure* perception test would because you are just testing perception.
This test would involve using the same expensive speaker cable (of course the listener/tester doesn't know what is connected at any one moment) and asking the listener if they hear a difference over several hundred or thousand tries.
My opinion is that, using the same cable, they would hear no difference at all. And, as above, if they can convince themselves that they hear a significant difference then that just rubishes the idea of buying expensive speaker cables which "sometimes" work.
5)
But either they wouldn't perceive a difference which then goes against your perception argument or they might think they hear a difference in this same cable which then rubbishes the cable test.
Once again, how can you justify a cable that "sometimes sounds better" and shows "variable" improvements.
Either it's better or it's not.
Found a bit of time. I'm going to do this in points, if you could reply (if you feel like it) per point that would be great with all this sub-quoting which gets complicated:1)
JustinP1 said:
Out of all of the research I have done, although naysayers refer to 'double blind testing' and failures I can find not a single academic study where a double blind test has been passed or failed.
I know what you mean and I find this very suspicious. It would be so simple for one of these big companies to set up a proper, scientific test and publish. The results would be irrefutable. So why don't they?
2)
JustinP1 said:
Even so, it is also very bad science to assume that even if a double blind ABX test can be trusted that this is empirical proof that speaker cables are all the same or that any differences are inaudible.
Why so? People claim that changing that one variable makes an audible change. Do exactly that in a recorded experiment and you have proof (or otherwise) of that claim.3)
JustinP1 said:
Then you would be not just testing 'results' but also the big variable of perception.
You mentioned this earlier and for me this cannot be a factor if the claims are true. Here's my reasoning:Somebody is selling an extremely expensive cable which they justify by saying that it makes the audio sound better.
You are saying that, depending on the exact moment of the test, due to human perception, the cable may or may not sound better.
Bear in mind we're talking about an expensive outlay here so you'd hope that it would work all the time. ie make things sound better.
If the difference in sound is so fine that this difference is variable then:
a)How can it possibly be considered an upgrade and an expensive one at that, especially since:
b)If you can go from "good" to "no difference" then conceivably you could also go to "sounds worse" depending on the day of the week you did the test, due to this difference in human perception.
Now everyone would agree that that is a ridiculous situation and would be pointless (and a waste of money).
(note that I don't agree with existence of this variable perception to the extent that you are talking about).
4)
JustinP1 said:
Consider if the same double blind test was carried out on antibiotics for minor ailments:
Half get antibiotics, and half get a placebo. If a week later you asked the patients if they 'thought' the pills had helped the placebo effect and perception would have totally masked any meaningful results down to where statistically the results would be identical. If antibiotics were tested in the way that speaker cables have been they would have been dismissed as 'snake oil'.
Bad example, as you say yourself later, since the antibiotics have a therapeutic action which can be irrefutably tested for. It is not a question of perception.Half get antibiotics, and half get a placebo. If a week later you asked the patients if they 'thought' the pills had helped the placebo effect and perception would have totally masked any meaningful results down to where statistically the results would be identical. If antibiotics were tested in the way that speaker cables have been they would have been dismissed as 'snake oil'.
If it was a real double blind test you couldn't ask the patients if the pills had helped because they wouldn't be told what the pills were for. And they would be asked "how they felt" not "did the pills have an effect".
So yes, that test for antibiotics wouldn't work but a real and *pure* perception test would because you are just testing perception.
This test would involve using the same expensive speaker cable (of course the listener/tester doesn't know what is connected at any one moment) and asking the listener if they hear a difference over several hundred or thousand tries.
My opinion is that, using the same cable, they would hear no difference at all. And, as above, if they can convince themselves that they hear a significant difference then that just rubishes the idea of buying expensive speaker cables which "sometimes" work.
5)
JustinP1 said:
Clearly, to settle this, more, properly scientific testing needs to be done. At the moment, two variables (human hearing and the effect of speaker cable) and tested at the same time with a qualitative result. The way to do scientifically that would be the two 'variables' would have to be tested independently so that quantitative results could be measured.
To do that, you would design a test whereby the ability of the listener would be tested to find the range of sensitivity that is possible to be heard.
You would then test the different speaker cables to find exactly how much difference it does make to the sound output of the speakers.
Then you'll get your empirical answer.
Agreed. To do that, you would design a test whereby the ability of the listener would be tested to find the range of sensitivity that is possible to be heard.
You would then test the different speaker cables to find exactly how much difference it does make to the sound output of the speakers.
Then you'll get your empirical answer.
But either they wouldn't perceive a difference which then goes against your perception argument or they might think they hear a difference in this same cable which then rubbishes the cable test.
Once again, how can you justify a cable that "sometimes sounds better" and shows "variable" improvements.
Either it's better or it's not.
JustinP1 said:
In fact, I have to say on looking back through this thread, and comparing those with very polarised views one way or the other it is actually those who *don't believe* that there is a difference that 'shout the loudest' and much less willing to take on any other view, despite the weight of real evidence.
If you can bring me "real evidence" that anyone at all can tell the difference between £1 a metre cable and the most expensive cable in the world over, say, a 5m run, then please do so. I think it very, very unlikely that such evidence exists, but am happy to change my mind if you can produce it.Someone who knows when the switch happens claiming that they can hear the difference is clearly NOT evidence that they can really hear it, any more than someone teling me that 200C oscillococcinum cleared up their piles is evidence that homeopathy works.
Do you actually have such evidence?
Driller said:
Somebody is selling an extremely expensive cable which they justify by saying that it makes the audio sound better.
Yes, quite.If the claim was that you might, on a very good day, just, very possibly, detect a difference at the limit of hearing, then the objections would be valid. What is generally climed, though, is that the sound is immediately richer/clearer/more open/insert your choice of subjective term here.
As you rightly say, it's a nit suspicious, isn't it, that the companies don't shut up the naysayers, which they easily could if they were telling the truth.
It's notable that Audi can prove their performance claims, as can Glaxo, but that mediums, psychics, homeopathists, and top-end component manufacturers cannot.
NorthernBoy said:
Driller said:
Somebody is selling an extremely expensive cable which they justify by saying that it makes the audio sound better.
Yes, quite.If the claim was that you might, on a very good day, just, very possibly, detect a difference at the limit of hearing, then the objections would be valid. What is generally climed, though, is that the sound is immediately richer/clearer/more open/insert your choice of subjective term here.
As you rightly say, it's a nit suspicious, isn't it, that the companies don't shut up the naysayers, which they easily could if they were telling the truth.
It's notable that Audi can prove their performance claims, as can Glaxo, but that mediums, psychics, homeopathists, and top-end component manufacturers cannot.
TonyRPH said:
NorthernBoy said:
Driller said:
Somebody is selling an extremely expensive cable which they justify by saying that it makes the audio sound better.
Yes, quite.If the claim was that you might, on a very good day, just, very possibly, detect a difference at the limit of hearing, then the objections would be valid. What is generally climed, though, is that the sound is immediately richer/clearer/more open/insert your choice of subjective term here.
As you rightly say, it's a nit suspicious, isn't it, that the companies don't shut up the naysayers, which they easily could if they were telling the truth.
It's notable that Audi can prove their performance claims, as can Glaxo, but that mediums, psychics, homeopathists, and top-end component manufacturers cannot.
Nobody takes them to court in the same way that nobody takes the priest to court over the non-existence of God after contributing to the church roof.
NorthernBoy said:
JustinP1 said:
In fact, I have to say on looking back through this thread, and comparing those with very polarised views one way or the other it is actually those who *don't believe* that there is a difference that 'shout the loudest' and much less willing to take on any other view, despite the weight of real evidence.
If you can bring me "real evidence" that anyone at all can tell the difference between £1 a metre cable and the most expensive cable in the world over, say, a 5m run, then please do so. I think it very, very unlikely that such evidence exists, but am happy to change my mind if you can produce it.Someone who knows when the switch happens claiming that they can hear the difference is clearly NOT evidence that they can really hear it, any more than someone teling me that 200C oscillococcinum cleared up their piles is evidence that homeopathy works.
Do you actually have such evidence?
Obviously, I cannot tell you that anyone can hear in a double blind test. The reasoning in in my posts below it.
However, in a double blind test, you would be hard pressed to hear the difference between say a CD player and another CD player. In fact I would wager that you couldn't - because I have done tried it myself non-blind and there is no way I could tell in ABX test conditions.
So, is everyone on the thread who doesn't believe that speaker cables make a difference because of the failure to prove in ABX conditions going to apply the same double blind test to the rest of their equipment?
I'll be checking ebay.
JustinP1 said:
If you check the first post of this page, it is some very compelling evidence that cables perform differently.
Is that supposed to be a joke, as I genuinely don't get it. It's a few quotes by mainly anonymous people on the internet claiming that they can hear a difference.If that is what you view as compelling, I really don't know what to say to you. There is stronger evidence that we are being visited by aliens, that Elvis lives, that Mohammed was right, and that chiropractic works.
Either you are trying a subtle joke, or utterly don't get how evidence works in the case of testable physical claims. I'll ask again, can you point to something other than Internet anecdotes, or is that really the best that you have?
NorthernBoy said:
JustinP1 said:
If you check the first post of this page, it is some very compelling evidence that cables perform differently.
Is that supposed to be a joke, as I genuinely don't get it. It's a few quotes by mainly anonymous people on the internet claiming that they can hear a difference.If that is what you view as compelling, I really don't know what to say to you. There is stronger evidence that we are being visited by aliens, that Elvis lives, that Mohammed was right, and that chiropractic works.
Either you are trying a subtle joke, or utterly don't get how evidence works in the case of testable physical claims. I'll ask again, can you point to something other than Internet anecdotes, or is that really the best that you have?
That it physical testing, and results from a paper written by Phillip Newell, former technical director of Virgin Records, who has been involved in the design of over 200 studios, and Dr Keith Holland, PhD in Acoustics, a member of the Institute of Acoustics and a lecturer in electro-acoustics at the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton.
Referenced are papers entitled:
'The Effect of Various Types of Cables on the Performance of High Frequency Loudspeakers, Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics" written by Newell among others, and;
'Loudspeaker Cables for High Frequency Transducers A Further Assessment , Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics' written by Newell, Dr Holland among others.
Are you seriously, seriously suggesting that this is 'internet anecdotes' written by 'anonymous people on the internet'? Or indeed, that they are somehow fraudulent or lying, or that this reference is of so low quality that there is more evidence that Elvis lives...?
I am astonished...
Just in case you missed it Justin
Driller said:
Me again Found a bit of time. I'm going to do this in points, if you could reply (if you feel like it) per point that would be great with all this sub-quoting which gets complicated:
1)
So why don't they?
2)
3)
Somebody is selling an extremely expensive cable which they justify by saying that it makes the audio sound better.
You are saying that, depending on the exact moment of the test, due to human perception, the cable may or may not sound better.
Bear in mind we're talking about an expensive outlay here so you'd hope that it would work all the time. ie make things sound better.
If the difference in sound is so fine that this difference is variable then:
a)How can it possibly be considered an upgrade and an expensive one at that, especially since:
b)If you can go from "good" to "no difference" then conceivably you could also go to "sounds worse" depending on the day of the week you did the test, due to this difference in human perception.
Now everyone would agree that that is a ridiculous situation and would be pointless (and a waste of money).
(note that I don't agree with existence of this variable perception to the extent that you are talking about).
4)
If it was a real double blind test you couldn't ask the patients if the pills had helped because they wouldn't be told what the pills were for. And they would be asked "how they felt" not "did the pills have an effect".
So yes, that test for antibiotics wouldn't work but a real and *pure* perception test would because you are just testing perception.
This test would involve using the same expensive speaker cable (of course the listener/tester doesn't know what is connected at any one moment) and asking the listener if they hear a difference over several hundred or thousand tries.
My opinion is that, using the same cable, they would hear no difference at all. And, as above, if they can convince themselves that they hear a significant difference then that just rubishes the idea of buying expensive speaker cables which "sometimes" work.
5)
But either they wouldn't perceive a difference which then goes against your perception argument or they might think they hear a difference in this same cable which then rubbishes the cable test.
Once again, how can you justify a cable that "sometimes sounds better" and shows "variable" improvements.
Either it's better or it's not.
Found a bit of time. I'm going to do this in points, if you could reply (if you feel like it) per point that would be great with all this sub-quoting which gets complicated:1)
JustinP1 said:
Out of all of the research I have done, although naysayers refer to 'double blind testing' and failures I can find not a single academic study where a double blind test has been passed or failed.
I know what you mean and I find this very suspicious. It would be so simple for one of these big companies to set up a proper, scientific test and publish. The results would be irrefutable. So why don't they?
2)
JustinP1 said:
Even so, it is also very bad science to assume that even if a double blind ABX test can be trusted that this is empirical proof that speaker cables are all the same or that any differences are inaudible.
Why so? People claim that changing that one variable makes an audible change. Do exactly that in a recorded experiment and you have proof (or otherwise) of that claim.3)
JustinP1 said:
Then you would be not just testing 'results' but also the big variable of perception.
You mentioned this earlier and for me this cannot be a factor if the claims are true. Here's my reasoning:Somebody is selling an extremely expensive cable which they justify by saying that it makes the audio sound better.
You are saying that, depending on the exact moment of the test, due to human perception, the cable may or may not sound better.
Bear in mind we're talking about an expensive outlay here so you'd hope that it would work all the time. ie make things sound better.
If the difference in sound is so fine that this difference is variable then:
a)How can it possibly be considered an upgrade and an expensive one at that, especially since:
b)If you can go from "good" to "no difference" then conceivably you could also go to "sounds worse" depending on the day of the week you did the test, due to this difference in human perception.
Now everyone would agree that that is a ridiculous situation and would be pointless (and a waste of money).
(note that I don't agree with existence of this variable perception to the extent that you are talking about).
4)
JustinP1 said:
Consider if the same double blind test was carried out on antibiotics for minor ailments:
Half get antibiotics, and half get a placebo. If a week later you asked the patients if they 'thought' the pills had helped the placebo effect and perception would have totally masked any meaningful results down to where statistically the results would be identical. If antibiotics were tested in the way that speaker cables have been they would have been dismissed as 'snake oil'.
Bad example, as you say yourself later, since the antibiotics have a therapeutic action which can be irrefutably tested for. It is not a question of perception.Half get antibiotics, and half get a placebo. If a week later you asked the patients if they 'thought' the pills had helped the placebo effect and perception would have totally masked any meaningful results down to where statistically the results would be identical. If antibiotics were tested in the way that speaker cables have been they would have been dismissed as 'snake oil'.
If it was a real double blind test you couldn't ask the patients if the pills had helped because they wouldn't be told what the pills were for. And they would be asked "how they felt" not "did the pills have an effect".
So yes, that test for antibiotics wouldn't work but a real and *pure* perception test would because you are just testing perception.
This test would involve using the same expensive speaker cable (of course the listener/tester doesn't know what is connected at any one moment) and asking the listener if they hear a difference over several hundred or thousand tries.
My opinion is that, using the same cable, they would hear no difference at all. And, as above, if they can convince themselves that they hear a significant difference then that just rubishes the idea of buying expensive speaker cables which "sometimes" work.
5)
JustinP1 said:
Clearly, to settle this, more, properly scientific testing needs to be done. At the moment, two variables (human hearing and the effect of speaker cable) and tested at the same time with a qualitative result. The way to do scientifically that would be the two 'variables' would have to be tested independently so that quantitative results could be measured.
To do that, you would design a test whereby the ability of the listener would be tested to find the range of sensitivity that is possible to be heard.
You would then test the different speaker cables to find exactly how much difference it does make to the sound output of the speakers.
Then you'll get your empirical answer.
Agreed. To do that, you would design a test whereby the ability of the listener would be tested to find the range of sensitivity that is possible to be heard.
You would then test the different speaker cables to find exactly how much difference it does make to the sound output of the speakers.
Then you'll get your empirical answer.
But either they wouldn't perceive a difference which then goes against your perception argument or they might think they hear a difference in this same cable which then rubbishes the cable test.
Once again, how can you justify a cable that "sometimes sounds better" and shows "variable" improvements.
Either it's better or it's not.
JustinP1 said:
NorthernBoy said:
JustinP1 said:
If you check the first post of this page, it is some very compelling evidence that cables perform differently.
Is that supposed to be a joke, as I genuinely don't get it. It's a few quotes by mainly anonymous people on the internet claiming that they can hear a difference.If that is what you view as compelling, I really don't know what to say to you. There is stronger evidence that we are being visited by aliens, that Elvis lives, that Mohammed was right, and that chiropractic works.
Either you are trying a subtle joke, or utterly don't get how evidence works in the case of testable physical claims. I'll ask again, can you point to something other than Internet anecdotes, or is that really the best that you have?
That it physical testing, and results from a paper written by Phillip Newell, former technical director of Virgin Records, who has been involved in the design of over 200 studios, and Dr Keith Holland, PhD in Acoustics, a member of the Institute of Acoustics and a lecturer in electro-acoustics at the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton.
Referenced are papers entitled:
'The Effect of Various Types of Cables on the Performance of High Frequency Loudspeakers, Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics" written by Newell among others, and;
'Loudspeaker Cables for High Frequency Transducers A Further Assessment , Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics' written by Newell, Dr Holland among others.
Are you seriously, seriously suggesting that this is 'internet anecdotes' written by 'anonymous people on the internet'? Or indeed, that they are somehow fraudulent or lying, or that this reference is of so low quality that there is more evidence that Elvis lives...?
I am astonished...
http://www.eetimes.com/design/audio-design/4015820...
Here's a quote from that paper:
"In the experience of the authors, the differences between cables of appropriate resistance and inductance at lengths below 2 metres are too small to be of any real significance"
Edited to say: note the use of the word "significant".
Edited by Driller on Sunday 16th January 00:00
So, in short, in response to a request for evidence that people can hear a difference he's named a paper where the authors suggest that people will not be able to hear any difference...
This really, really reminds me of homeopathy adherents, with the cherrypicking, the misrepresenting papers' conclusions, and the absolute refusal to provide the evidence that was requested.]
This really, really reminds me of homeopathy adherents, with the cherrypicking, the misrepresenting papers' conclusions, and the absolute refusal to provide the evidence that was requested.]
Edited by NorthernBoy on Sunday 16th January 00:13
Driller said:
Justinp1 said:
Consider if the same double blind test was carried out on antibiotics for minor ailments:
Half get antibiotics, and half get a placebo. If a week later you asked the patients if they 'thought' the pills had helped the placebo effect and perception would have totally masked any meaningful results down to where statistically the results would be identical. If antibiotics were tested in the way that speaker cables have been they would have been dismissed as 'snake oil'.
Half get antibiotics, and half get a placebo. If a week later you asked the patients if they 'thought' the pills had helped the placebo effect and perception would have totally masked any meaningful results down to where statistically the results would be identical. If antibiotics were tested in the way that speaker cables have been they would have been dismissed as 'snake oil'.
Bad example, as you say yourself later, since the antibiotics have a therapeutic action which can be irrefutably tested for. It is not a question of perception....
...So yes, that test for antibiotics wouldn't work but a real and *pure* perception test would because you are just testing perception.
)It is *supposed* to be an example of bad, bad, science. The 'double blind' part is that neither the subject nor the tester knows whether there is a 'real' effect, and the subject is asked to speculate from their experience of the ABX test. Of course, that clearly does not get a fair result, or any useful result at all. Correctly, of course to make any kind of real result you need quantitative testing which removes 'guesswork'.
However, poor antibiotic example is exactly what is being asked of the listener of speaker cables in a blind (or even double blind test). I am not surprised that manufacturers (or scientists) don't do a test like that because it would not prove anything and would be very poor science.
Follow this through: You *could* make the antibiotic test a lot more scientific and get some indisputable results:
1) You would vary the dose. That way you are changing the qualitative answer to quantitative.
2) You would set a 'standard' - everyone would get infected the same illness the same way.
3) You would test scientifically the number of bacteria for each patient in a fixed test before and afterwards to get the result.
4) You would discard asking the subject what they 'perceived' had occurred.
All sensible stuff. You've taken a yes/no test which is totally swayed by a very inaccurate perceptive test to one which is much more accurate as you can now numerically relate dose to results and not only get proof but a relationship. Much more scientific?
The problem with testing speaker cables in an ABX testing situation, is that you are not testing one thing, you are actually trying to test a few at the same time which is bad enough, but at the end that is all totally skewed by perception. What you would effectively be doing is trying to test in a qualitative way is this:
1) Does changing speaker cable A to B physically change the sound produced?
2) Is this difference audible to human hearing?
3) Is this difference large enough to gain a 'prove positive' result in a perceptive ABX test.
By doing the test you have outlined, you would be testing all three at the same time. The only possible reliable and trustable outcome of that test would be a positive result which of course means that the answer to all three questions is 'yes'. However, if the result of the test failed to get a 'prove positive' outcome, all that would proven is that for the cables and listener in that situation, the answer to 3) is 'no'. Of course, the answer to 1) or 1) and 2) still may have been yes, but you wouldn't know.
To do a scientifically significant test, you need to test all three separately. Even better, you more away from qualitative testing to quantitative so that you can not only make relationships between the tests but also 'model' a predictive test.
To do that to get trustable scientific results you could:
1) Does changing speaker cable A to B physically change the sound produced? You would do this with mechanical testing (like in the tests by Dr Holland), and you would maximise the number of cables tested to get a range of results to see how different cables *can* be.
2) Is this difference audible to human hearing? You would simply test to find what is the minimum difference that can be reliably heard by the human ear. You would design the test to see if there are particular things that are easier to compare than others, and repeat this test with a number of listeners to find the range of the best and worst limits of hearing and a mean.
3) Is this difference large enough to gain a 'prove positive' result in a perceptive ABX test. In this you would test the minimum change possible to be heard to get the minimum 'prove positive' score in an ABX test, and relate this to how reliability increases as the change increases.
I reiterate this testing must be totally separate experiments, and separate results. This is the simile to how the antibiotic test was improved above. Then you could relate the results and model them as such:
You may find *for example*, that (percentages used as an arbitrary example figure):
1) Changes between speaker cables make between 0% and 10% difference.
2) A difference of 3% and 7% can be heard by the human ear.
3) A difference of 7% is needed for a 60% correct ABX test, 8% for 70%, 9% for 80% and so on.
Then you really *could* test a cable from then on mechanically, and even reliably model how much difference it would make to each person tested - and answer the original question - do speaker cables make a difference with a little more authority than the rather pointless yes/no malarky that has been tested (and discussed) to far.
Edited by JustinP1 on Sunday 16th January 00:25
Justin, I see you have made a lengthy reply, unfortunately as soon as I read the below paragraph I stopped, something seems to have f
ked up with the quoting. As you know I didn't write what's below, you did. Can you fix it and then I can read the rest of your reply
)
ETA Could you follow the 1-5 number system also? Otherwise things just get impossible to follow and important points seem to not be addressed.ked up with the quoting. As you know I didn't write what's below, you did. Can you fix it and then I can read the rest of your reply JustinP1 said:
Driller said:
Consider if the same double blind test was carried out on antibiotics for minor ailments:
Half get antibiotics, and half get a placebo. If a week later you asked the patients if they 'thought' the pills had helped the placebo effect and perception would have totally masked any meaningful results down to where statistically the results would be identical. If antibiotics were tested in the way that speaker cables have been they would have been dismissed as 'snake oil'.
(Driller, I've hopefully answered all of your questions below in something more useful and positive than requoting your requotes Half get antibiotics, and half get a placebo. If a week later you asked the patients if they 'thought' the pills had helped the placebo effect and perception would have totally masked any meaningful results down to where statistically the results would be identical. If antibiotics were tested in the way that speaker cables have been they would have been dismissed as 'snake oil'.
)Edited by Driller on Sunday 16th January 00:22
Justin I've read through all your post anyway. This really is difficult and frustrating to follow. I deliberately numbered my points because each one was a *direct* response to one of your own.
This response needs to be addressed in turn otherwise each line of argument just trails off and another is created in its place. There needs to be continuity otherwise it's just a waste of time and we are both talking and talking with nothing making sense. I am trying to find the time to debate this but we need to be debating exactly the same things! If you could pick up on those points of yours that I addressed but that you did not in turn address further that ould help a lot
ETA Off to bed will pick this up tomorrow.
Tell you what, here's an idea: let's put the other ideas on hold (I requote them later, these pages are not going anywhere) and let's deal one point at a time.
Once each point is finally addressed we can go on to the next one. So:
1)
So why don't they?
This response needs to be addressed in turn otherwise each line of argument just trails off and another is created in its place. There needs to be continuity otherwise it's just a waste of time and we are both talking and talking with nothing making sense. I am trying to find the time to debate this but we need to be debating exactly the same things! If you could pick up on those points of yours that I addressed but that you did not in turn address further that ould help a lot
ETA Off to bed will pick this up tomorrow.
Tell you what, here's an idea: let's put the other ideas on hold (I requote them later, these pages are not going anywhere) and let's deal one point at a time.
Once each point is finally addressed we can go on to the next one. So:
1)
JustinP1 said:
Out of all of the research I have done, although naysayers refer to 'double blind testing' and failures I can find not a single academic study where a double blind test has been passed or failed.
I know what you mean and I find this very suspicious. It would be so simple for one of these big companies to set up a proper, scientific test and publish. The results would be irrefutable. So why don't they?
Edited by Driller on Sunday 16th January 00:43
NorthernBoy said:
So, in short, in response to a request for evidence that people can hear a difference he's named a paper where the authors suggest that people will not be able to hear any difference...
This really, really reminds me of homeopathy adherents, with the cherrypicking, the misrepresenting papers' conclusions, and the absolute refusal to provide the evidence that was requested.]
First you wrongfully said that it was 'anecdotal evidence' by 'anonymous internet people'. I take it you've now retracted that... Now this? This really, really reminds me of homeopathy adherents, with the cherrypicking, the misrepresenting papers' conclusions, and the absolute refusal to provide the evidence that was requested.]
Edited by NorthernBoy on Sunday 16th January 00:13
I take it you don't realise the astonishing irony of what you have said!?
Driller has cherrypicked half a sentence totally out of context, which you have used to comment on and to misrepresent what the authors have said. They have said nothing of the sort, in fact totally the opposite to what you have claimed even if if you consider just the rest of the same sentence!
Here's the rest of that sentence, and the following one:
Dr Holland report said:
In the experience of the authors, the differences between cables of appropriate resistance and inductance at lengths below 2 metres are too small to be of any real significance, but exactly what section should be used for what power rating of loudspeaker is something that needs to be worked out case by case. For example, as previously mentioned, an excessively large format cable may be detrimental to the response of a tweeter because the increased cable inductance, due to the cable spacing, may be more of a problem than the increased resistance of a thinner cable.
That does not imply that people will not be able to hear a difference - in fact it clearly means that:1) For lengths of cable below 2m, if the cables are not properly 'worked out' for the loudspeaker there will be a difference.
2) For cable lengths over 2m the 'too small to be of any real significance' does not apply.
3) The response of the tweeter is altered by an excessively large cable.
In fact - it shows there certainly can be a difference. This is especially clear in the next section when the 'experience' is put to the test with a test of 2m cables where a real difference is reported.
Are you that single minded in your arrogance to rubbish sources without reading them just because they do not agree with your beliefs?
I haven't read this thread, to be honest I can't be arsed beacuse I've been through it all before and spent a lot of money on cables.
The point of this post is to say that I'me about to get rid of some serious lengths of exposure speaker cable and other mixed speaker cable that retailed at silly money... i.e. £10+ p/m. I don't care what happens to it but I'm just not going to use it so I'll send it to any PHer who advises me of what they need. PM me but also update the thread. I reckon there's about 50m in total and the longest is around 10m.
The point of this post is to say that I'me about to get rid of some serious lengths of exposure speaker cable and other mixed speaker cable that retailed at silly money... i.e. £10+ p/m. I don't care what happens to it but I'm just not going to use it so I'll send it to any PHer who advises me of what they need. PM me but also update the thread. I reckon there's about 50m in total and the longest is around 10m.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff