Observations Of A "Good" Cable Test
DarqueKnight
Posts: 6,765
Introduction
A fellow road warrior sent me an email and asked me to click on the included link if I wanted to read something "religious". The link was to a speaker cable test on the AVS Science forum:
The "controlled cable test", unlike the lamentable ABX Power Cord Test, is supposedly a "good" test. I discussed the critically flawed methodology of the ABX Power Cord Test here. It appears that some people are now wanting to characterize the ABX Power Cord Test as, "unrepresentative", "poorly done", and "uncharacteristic" of "good" ABX tests. I disagree with this view. I think the ABX Power Cord Test is an excellent example of the [mis]application of ABX methodology to audio evaluation. This test shares the same heritage as all the other ABX audio tests I have read:
Question: What is with this psychotic need to literally and visually "blind" people during audio trials?
Blind trials can be useful as long as the "blinding" does not result in unrealistic test conditions. For example "blinding" a medical treatment trial participant to the knowledge of whether he/she is receiving real treatment or a placebo is appropriate because both the treatment and placebo is administered the way it would be in actual medical practice.
Question: When you attend a live musical event, do you take blindfolds, curtains and sheets with you?
Which senses do you use when you attend a live music event? I use my senses of touch, hearing and sight.
Guess what? You might be shocked to know that I sometimes don't hear a difference in audio components. Sometimes, the difference is only in what I "see" (image placement) and/or in what I "feel.
Stereophonic Music Reproduction
Stereophonic music reproduction systems are designed to provide a reasonable facsimile (illusion) of the live concert experience. The things that I look for in stereophonic reproduction are the same things I look for at a live concert:
1. Appealing and satisfying musical content.
2. Three-dimensional imaging.
3. Clarity.
4. Detail.
5. Weight (realism).
Therefore, when I read the results of an audio system evaluation and see no mention of imaging or realism, I have to wonder what the evaluators were listening for...what were their performance metrics (if any).
A "Good" Cable Test
In this test, as I understand it, four people were present, but only two participated in critical listening. There were supposed to be 20 trials, but only 8 trials were completed. The reason given for cutting the trials short was listening fatigue:
I'm sure that some of you audiophiles recoiled in horror upon reading this. Like myself, I'm sure you have at least a few songs that you know intimately well and that you never get "tired" of...even if you listen to one of them 20 times in a row. Indeed, I know for a fact that some of you do audio evaluations by listening to a favorite, familiar, well-recorded song many times in succession. It is always a thrill to hear some new detail in a piece of music that I have been listening to for years.
Question: Why would someone conduct music evaluations with music they can't stand to listen to repeatedly? This isn't good, or logical, test methodology.
The test results were as follows:
Data vs. Information
Data = facts. Information = useful facts.:) I really don't see any useful information in this "good" cable test.
1. One of the test specimens is not clearly identified. As far as I could determine, Opus MM speaker cable only comes in one variety (Opus MM2). There are lots of different types of "Monster Cable".
2. What was the associated audio gear used? No mention of gear, but this thread was a continuation of another thread which indicated that "Mike" was Mike Lavigne. Mr. Lavigne has a spectacular audio system and room as shown here and here: Lavigne Room Construction Notes.
Mr. Lavigne moved into his home (and audio room) in January of 2004. This "test" was conducted in November of 2007, at Mr. Lavigne's home. Mr. Lavigne has an ultra high resolution audio system in a custom designed dedicated space (converted barn). Yet, during this test, he could not hear a difference between Monster Cable, Opus MM2 and ordinary 16 gauge extension cord! Really?;)
3. No mention whatsoever of imaging, sound stage characteristics or tactile sensations from the sound stage. These are primary performance metrics for stereophonic reproduction. I don't think the concept of imaging was even in the far reaches of the test participant's consciousness. Stereo imaging was not mentioned (by someone else) until post #16:
4. There was no mention of the length of time musical selections were listened to...only that there was a 1 minute space between switching speaker cables.
5. What was the type and quality of the recordings? There was no mention of this, although there was mention of listening fatigue after only 8 trials. Really? Listening fatigue in that room with that equipment? It is interesting that Mr. Lavigne has never mentioned listening fatigue in any of his prior discussions about his room and system.
6. This "test" has no discussion whatsoever of performance metrics. No discussion whatsoever of what they were using to gauge performance differences. No discussion of the resolution capability of the audio system. All were are told is "we couldn't hear any differences" between two speaker cables and ordinary 16 gauge lamp cord. This is a "good" speaker cable test? Really?
In spite of these glaring deficiencies, one reader was quite effusive with his praise:
Now, after such religious ferver was expressed by the "believer", the thread author had to bring things back to reality:
Really? Ya think?
Good luck.:)
A fellow road warrior sent me an email and asked me to click on the included link if I wanted to read something "religious". The link was to a speaker cable test on the AVS Science forum:
The "controlled cable test", unlike the lamentable ABX Power Cord Test, is supposedly a "good" test. I discussed the critically flawed methodology of the ABX Power Cord Test here. It appears that some people are now wanting to characterize the ABX Power Cord Test as, "unrepresentative", "poorly done", and "uncharacteristic" of "good" ABX tests. I disagree with this view. I think the ABX Power Cord Test is an excellent example of the [mis]application of ABX methodology to audio evaluation. This test shares the same heritage as all the other ABX audio tests I have read:
They all use evaluative methods that display an appalling ignorance of the way stereophonic audio systems work.
Question: What is with this psychotic need to literally and visually "blind" people during audio trials?
Blind trials can be useful as long as the "blinding" does not result in unrealistic test conditions. For example "blinding" a medical treatment trial participant to the knowledge of whether he/she is receiving real treatment or a placebo is appropriate because both the treatment and placebo is administered the way it would be in actual medical practice.
Question: When you attend a live musical event, do you take blindfolds, curtains and sheets with you?
Which senses do you use when you attend a live music event? I use my senses of touch, hearing and sight.
Guess what? You might be shocked to know that I sometimes don't hear a difference in audio components. Sometimes, the difference is only in what I "see" (image placement) and/or in what I "feel.
Stereophonic Music Reproduction
Stereophonic music reproduction systems are designed to provide a reasonable facsimile (illusion) of the live concert experience. The things that I look for in stereophonic reproduction are the same things I look for at a live concert:
1. Appealing and satisfying musical content.
2. Three-dimensional imaging.
3. Clarity.
4. Detail.
5. Weight (realism).
Therefore, when I read the results of an audio system evaluation and see no mention of imaging or realism, I have to wonder what the evaluators were listening for...what were their performance metrics (if any).
A "Good" Cable Test
In this test, as I understand it, four people were present, but only two participated in critical listening. There were supposed to be 20 trials, but only 8 trials were completed. The reason given for cutting the trials short was listening fatigue:
"In my personaly [sic] 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.
I'm sure that some of you audiophiles recoiled in horror upon reading this. Like myself, I'm sure you have at least a few songs that you know intimately well and that you never get "tired" of...even if you listen to one of them 20 times in a row. Indeed, I know for a fact that some of you do audio evaluations by listening to a favorite, familiar, well-recorded song many times in succession. It is always a thrill to hear some new detail in a piece of music that I have been listening to for years.
Question: Why would someone conduct music evaluations with music they can't stand to listen to repeatedly? This isn't good, or logical, test methodology.
"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."
He [Mike] 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."
The test results were as follows:
"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."
Data vs. Information
Data = facts. Information = useful facts.:) I really don't see any useful information in this "good" cable test.
1. One of the test specimens is not clearly identified. As far as I could determine, Opus MM speaker cable only comes in one variety (Opus MM2). There are lots of different types of "Monster Cable".
2. What was the associated audio gear used? No mention of gear, but this thread was a continuation of another thread which indicated that "Mike" was Mike Lavigne. Mr. Lavigne has a spectacular audio system and room as shown here and here: Lavigne Room Construction Notes.
"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."
Mr. Lavigne moved into his home (and audio room) in January of 2004. This "test" was conducted in November of 2007, at Mr. Lavigne's home. Mr. Lavigne has an ultra high resolution audio system in a custom designed dedicated space (converted barn). Yet, during this test, he could not hear a difference between Monster Cable, Opus MM2 and ordinary 16 gauge extension cord! Really?;)
3. No mention whatsoever of imaging, sound stage characteristics or tactile sensations from the sound stage. These are primary performance metrics for stereophonic reproduction. I don't think the concept of imaging was even in the far reaches of the test participant's consciousness. Stereo imaging was not mentioned (by someone else) until post #16:
"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."
4. There was no mention of the length of time musical selections were listened to...only that there was a 1 minute space between switching speaker cables.
5. What was the type and quality of the recordings? There was no mention of this, although there was mention of listening fatigue after only 8 trials. Really? Listening fatigue in that room with that equipment? It is interesting that Mr. Lavigne has never mentioned listening fatigue in any of his prior discussions about his room and system.
6. This "test" has no discussion whatsoever of performance metrics. No discussion whatsoever of what they were using to gauge performance differences. No discussion of the resolution capability of the audio system. All were are told is "we couldn't hear any differences" between two speaker cables and ordinary 16 gauge lamp cord. This is a "good" speaker cable test? Really?
In spite of these glaring deficiencies, one reader was quite effusive with his praise:
"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."
Now, after such religious ferver was expressed by the "believer", the thread author had to bring things back to reality:
"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."
Really? Ya think?
Good luck.:)
Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country!
Post edited by DarqueKnight on
Comments
-
....
-
SO it all boils down to placebo effect I guess."
That line...that go to excuse always makes me chuckle a little, yet at the same time it makes me feel sorry for those that have not learned to trust their own senses.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
One thing I think this test was "good" at doing is pushing the agenda that they wanted to push. That is, that cables don't make a difference. That is what I got out of reading your post Raife. Maybe I am reading too much into it though, but maybe not.:)
Greg
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."![:\](https://forum.polkaudio.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
Does anyone know of any A/B or ABX audio tests in which the subject/subjects were legally blind?
Since the objectivists are so enamored with "blinding" test subjects, why not go "all the way" and use subjects who are accoustomed to listening to their systems without the benefit of sight?Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
...this test was "good" at doing is pushing the agenda that they wanted to push. That is, that cables don't make a difference. That is what I got out of reading your post...
Don't just read my post...read the thread that discusses the test...then decide.:)
And...for the record...I do know that, in some systems, cables don't make an audible difference.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Does anyone know of any A/B or ABX audio tests in which the subject/subjects were legally blind?
Since the objectivists are so enamored with "blinding" test subjects, why not go "all the way" and use subjects who are accoustomed to listening to their systems without the benefit of sight?
That would make the test subjects able to audibly pick up much more than the "blinded" test subjects that's for sure. All they would would have to do is find some test subjects who don't have sight AND don't believe cables make a difference.:)
Greg
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Don't just read my post...read the thread that discusses the test...then decide.:)
And...for the record...I do know that, in some systems, cables don't make an audible difference.
Ooops, I didn't know the title was a link. I will do that now. Thanks Raife.
Greg
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
One of the things that really bothered me about this writing and test was this paragraph: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.
He states that he went in with a "fairly open mind", but immediately contradicts that statement by stating his "expectations". You cannot have an open mind about what you are going to hear and expect to hear things in a certain way ahead of time. I think that says it all right there.
Greg
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
Ray, I've read that test several times and as I stated in another of your threads, everytime I read the test and the replys to the OP I get more and more confused. Really, I can't make head or tail of what the hell they are talking about. The test contradicts itself, the OP and the "Mike" contradict the results and I still am wondering why only 8 tests were done vs. the 20 they originally planned. Listening fatigue! . . . Good God, talk about flawed testing. As I've stated before, I use "Lady Be Good" off the Jazz at the Pawnshop recording for my first tests. First I never, I repeat NEVER tire of that piece of music so I've never experienced "listening fatigue" with that particular piece of music. Second, "listening fatigue" hmmm think there used some crappy gear or maybe the Monster cable was causing a shrillness or overly bright presentation?
I still haven't seen a good ABX test that I would agree would be a good representation of what we actually here in our own rigs.
This test however, presented by bikezappa is IMHO (although I've not tried it) seems like a better test than the usual ABX testing;
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1381554&postcount=169
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1381567&postcount=170 -
in a subsequent post to the original,,he (Chris) says,,
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.JC approves....he told me so. (F-1 nut) -
I would like to know if I'm the only one who is confused when reading that test and replys. Again no matter how many times I read it I am really confused by the OP, the responders and "Mike."
-
I laughed a little when I saw the picture of the test subjects for this test.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html
Three rows of seating? Quite a bit of distance between listeners. I know how much imaging can change by merely tilting your head one way or another. How could they have possibly expected repeatable results? Mmmmmkay. -
I haven't had a chance to actually read this entire post and the attachments, or DK's other post in this forum regarding ABX testing, but I do have one question (which again may be answered if I read these and did some more research) - Do proponents of double-blind tests own higher-quality components and cables in their own systems at home, or do they believe in the tests so much they own very "standard", lower quality components and cables?
-
It would seem to me it would be best to test with individuals with music they like and are familiar with. Also use equipment that is revealing.
I am confident if I used zip cord and MITs top of the line cable in a HTiB I would not be able to tell a difference.
The cable debates remind of a Harley Davidson T-shirt, If I have to explain you will not understand.
The heck with the doubters, let them eat cake.Speakers: SDA-1C (most all the goodies)
Preamp: Joule Electra LA-150 MKII SE
Amp: Wright WPA 50-50 EAT KT88s
Analog: Marantz TT-15S1 MBS Glider SL| Wright WPP100C Amperex BB 6er5 and 7316 & WPM-100 SUT
Digital: Mac mini 2.3GHz dual-core i5 8g RAM 1.5 TB HDD Music Server Amarra (memory play) - USB - W4S DAC 2
Cables: Mits S3 IC and Spk cables| PS Audio PCs -
In most ABX tests from what I've read they use some pretty decent gear. For the much lamented (DKs words) maligned (my word) ABX power cord test they used;
Parasound Halo JC 1 monoblocks
Theta Carmen II transport mated with the Theta Gen. VIII DAC/preamp
That gear is far from crap.
Others I've read use decent gear. So I don't think we subjectionists could cast aspersions on the gear they are using or claim it to be "unrevealing." -
Question: What is with this psychotic need to literally and visually "blind" people during audio trials?
Maybe to see if there is really a difference? How can you possibly evaluate which sounds better, if you can't determine if there really is a difference?Question: When you attend a live musical event, do you take blindfolds, curtains and sheets with you?
Irrelevant. Nice try though. -
The test contradicts itself, the OP and the "Mike" contradict the results and I still am wondering why only 8 tests were done vs. the 20 they originally planned.
They stopped because the results already showed that he was just guessing. If you play a game with someone, best 3 out of 5, and the results are 3 to 1, do you bother to play the last game? -
Maybe to see if there is really a difference? How can you possibly evaluate which sounds better, if you can't determine if there really is a difference?
Irrelevent. Nice try though.
How do you determine a difference, when you don't know how to determine a difference? How could you possibly determine a difference, when the goal is to prove that there IS no difference?
Unless two products are fabricated exactly the same way, using the exact same components, there are differences. To use every available means to extract those differences, also includes your ears, and should be given the same weight (at least) as any other test instrument. -
hearingimpared wrote: »Ray, I've read that test several times and as I stated in another of your threads, everytime I read the test and the replys to the OP I get more and more confused. Really, I can't make head or tail of what the hell they are talking about. The test contradicts itself, the OP and the "Mike" contradict the results and I still am wondering why only 8 tests were done vs. the 20 they originally planned. Listening fatigue! . . . Good God, talk about flawed testing. As I've stated before, I use "Lady Be Good" off the Jazz at the Pawnshop recording for my first tests. First I never, I repeat NEVER tire of that piece of music so I've never experienced "listening fatigue" with that particular piece of music. Second, "listening fatigue" hmmm think there used some crappy gear or maybe the Monster cable was causing a shrillness or overly bright presentation?
I still haven't seen a good ABX test that I would agree would be a good representation of what we actually here in our own rigs.
This test however, presented by bikezappa is IMHO (although I've not tried it) seems like a better test than the usual ABX testing;
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1381554&postcount=169
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1381567&postcount=170
I have no idea why you would need to be blinded for a ABX test. It seems silly.
ABX tests for me are mentally hard and I get no enjoyment doing them. Just my opinion.
My problem is what differences to look(hear) for during the ABX hearing test. As I undertsand it DK uses and compares the locations of the various instruments during playback. I have never tried this and I also understand why you would need to write down these observations. Please correct me if I have this wrong.
This type of comparisons would require exact seating placement which is also fine. This method would be a better way to hear and document differences and maybe a valuable method for ABX testing.
However, is there a standard for what sound field is best or correct or is it based on our opinion? -
They stopped because the results already showed that he was just guessing. If you play a game with someone, best 3 out of 5, and the results are 3 to 1, do you bother to play the last game?
Sounds like you had an unwilling participant. -
Maybe to see if there is really a difference? How can you possibly evaluate which sounds better, if you can't determine if there really is a difference?
Irrelevent. Nice try though.
Why is that irrelevent Bill?
Also what have the eyes to do with music coming through a hifi system. Feel-vibrations, yes . . . emotional - feel, yes, ear - necessary but I don't understand the blindfold. If we are really trying to determine which piece of gear sounds better to us, if one piece even sounds better than the other, then again why the blind fold.
If you are going tell me it is to pick out the component and name it, THAT is irrelevent. In real home setups we don't sit there and evaluate which piece of gear is which, we look for differences, if any, to determine which we like better in our rig, no?
See what I don't get with these ABX tests is, why do I have to identify the right cable or gear. That makes no sense to me. -
I know when I have been physically blindfolded, it creates an abnormal amount of anxiety even I'm in a familiar location amongst friends. It's a natural response that is difficult to overcome and in my case would certainly skew any results from me.
I would reasonably assume the same for many other participants. Being blindfolded is not natural therefore it would create a listening environment which would be abnormal compared to how we would normally listen to music.
I see absolutely no reason to have to be blindfolded for an audio experiment.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
I know when I have been physically blindfolded, it creates an abnormal amount of anxiety even I'm in a familiar location amongst friends. It's a natural response that is difficult to overcome and in my case would certainly skew any results from me.
I would reasonably assume the same for many other participants. Being blindfolded is not natural therefore it would create a listening environment which would be abnormal compared to how we would normally listen to music.
I see absolutely no reason to have to be blindfolded for an audio experiment.
H9
Did they know your safe word?:p
I sort of get the sighted bias theory, but I also think that any sane, rational adult can put preconceived notions aside and remain objective. The self proclaimed, "scientists" apparently believe that people are too stupid to do anything objectively, well maybe they can't.... -
They stopped because the results already showed that he was just guessing. If you play a game with someone, best 3 out of 5, and the results are 3 to 1, do you bother to play the last game?
Okay, so my question is if he was obviously guessing how is the test in any way valid!?! See Bill this is one of the reasons why I say that no matter how many times I read that by the time I get to end I'm very confused. -
I know when I have been physically blindfolded, it creates an abnormal amount of anxiety even I'm in a familiar location amongst friends. It's a natural response that is difficult to overcome and in my case would certainly skew any results from me.
I would reasonably assume the same for many other participants. Being blindfolded is not natural therefore it would create a listening environment which would be abnormal compared to how we would normally listen to music.
I see absolutely no reason to have to be blindfolded for an audio experiment.
H9
I have a very intense case of claustrophobia. If I were blindfolded for even a few seconds, I would freak and rip the blindfold off. However I can close my eyes while listening to music if I'm alone and ususally do. If there are people in the room while I have my eyes closed I have a rough time keeping them closed all due to the claustrophobia.
So a blindfolded test for me wouldn't work at all. -
I have no idea why you would need to be blinded for a ABX test. It seems silly.
ABX tests for me are mentally hard and I get no enjoyment doing them. Just my opinion.
My problem is what differences to look(hear) for during the ABX hearing test. As I undertsand it DK uses and compares the locations of the various instruments during playback. I have never tried this and I also understand why you would need to write down these observations. Please correct me if I have this wrong.
This type of comparisons would require exact seating placement which is also fine. This method would be a better way to hear and document differences and maybe a valuable method for ABX testing.
However, is there a standard for what sound field is best or correct or is it based on our opinion?
For me Peter it is not just a matter of logging the placement, it is following the one particular instrument or vocal in each test, and logging the tonal qualities as well as "is it real or is it Memorex" thing, you get what I'm say right? Then after finishing the piece of music making sure all oberservations are logged and the placement is logged, I change out to the other gear I want to test and repeat the procedure. Sometimes I need (in the case of subtle changes) to repeat the test a few times to pick up on subtle changes or if there are any changes at all. It very time consuming but very rewarding when the test is complete. -
LessisNevermore wrote: »
I sort of get the sighted bias theory, but I also think that any sane, rational adult can put preconceived notions aside and remain objective. The self proclaimed, "scientists" apparently believe that people are too stupid to do anything objectively, well maybe they can't....
It is amazing how much our current beliefs and experiences impact our judgements. I teach high school science and see this all the time. Say a person has an preconceived incorrect idea/belief. It has been shown in numerous studies that most people will have to experience contradicting evidence (personal experience, experiment ect.) multiple times before they will change their view. Hence the blindfold attempting to limit the preconceived notions. Is it perfect? No. On the flip side, I find my mental/emotional state effects how music sounds. I can listen to a song one day and think it sounds great, and on the next wonder what's wrong with my system. One flaw in this kind of testing is that it's very difficult to control all the variables. -
It is amazing how much our current beliefs and experiences impact our judgements. I teach high school science and see this all the time. Say a person has an preconceived incorrect idea/belief. It has been shown in numerous studies that most people will have to experience contradicting evidence (personal experience, experiment ect.) multiple times before they will change their view. Hence the blindfold attempting to limit the preconceived notions. Is it perfect? No. On the flip side, I find my mental/emotional state effects how music sounds. I can listen to a song one day and think it sounds great, and on the next wonder what's wrong with my system. One flaw in this kind of testing is that it's very difficult to control all the variables.
Ah, hence the reason I say listen to the music while concentrating without thinking. No emotional, physical or any other distractions. They take away from your expereience in a home audio setup.
Greg
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
It is amazing how much our current beliefs and experiences impact our judgements. I teach high school science and see this all the time. Say a person has an preconceived incorrect idea/belief. It has been shown in numerous studies that most people will have to experience contradicting evidence (personal experience, experiment ect.) multiple times before they will change their view. Hence the blindfold attempting to limit the preconceived notions. Is it perfect? No. On the flip side, I find my mental/emotional state effects how music sounds. I can listen to a song one day and think it sounds great, and on the next wonder what's wrong with my system. One flaw in this kind of testing is that it's very difficult to control all the variables.
Which is why I said a sane, rational adult.:) Kids are fickle, and too easily excitable. -
One of my favorite tracks for a demo is Peter Gabriel - Shaking The Tree. (the song, not the entire cd) One of the best cues in that song are the snapping fingers throughout the song. I listen to those with different gear and different cables and different tubes and it's amazing to hear how those finger snaps are affected by all the changes in gear, etc.
With some cables, gear, tubes, the finger snapping is buried in the mix barely audible and with others it's right at the fore front, very crisp and clear, and I can hear the ambience around the finger snapping and then with some gear it's all over in between. How someone isn't able to pick up on a single, simple cue like this is beyond me.
Simply amazing..............that's just one of a couple dozen listening observations I can make with many familiar and varied source material and how I analyze different gear, cables and tubes.
Pretty simple really
H9
P.s. Don;t need a double blind ABX test to hear and process this kind of information."Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul!
