Stupid things you hear from the DBT/Null test crowd....

nooshinjohn

I will get the ball rolling with this classic!

There is no audible difference between a pro audio Crown amp and a top of the line Pass Labs!

Wow...

halo71

Hell, you could have put this in my Dumb things you've heard from "audiophiles"... thread! lol Did Juju author that jewel of "knowledge"?

sucks2beme

Blind testing isn't all together a bad thing, but DBT?
Is the guy making the changes flashing hand signs to the
guy listening? Please. How's the guy making the changes
going to NOT know what he's connecting? This is the part
that drives me nuts. There's a bunch of guys over at head-fi
that beat DBT to death. Yet none of them have performed this
magic. They just dangle it out there as "if you didn't do this,
it doesn't count". I understand that your head can play tricks,
but I know that I've had amps that stand out like a sore thumb.
The answer I get- all properly designed amps should sound the same.
Anything else isn't properly designed. Nice catch 22.

Drenis

I hope I'm not the only one who's wondering what DBT stands for?

txcoastal1

^^^^^^^
Double-Blind Procedure: This is one type of experimental procedure in which both the patient and the staff are ignorant (blind) as to the condition (or group) that the participant is in. This would make it impossible for the participant or researcher to know if the participant is receiving the treatment (for example a drug) or a placebo. This type of design is commonly used in drug evaluation studies, and is used to prevent the researchers from acting differently to people in one group, or from giving the participant any information that could make them act and/or behave unnaturally.

steveinaz

How can one be "double blind"...is that like being "extra broke?"

Rivrrat

I think I'm double blind and extra broke.

civilian

Double blind is both eyes right?
I find it better to just get really drunk while testing that's like triple blind testing lol.

Syndil

I am guilty of this mistake myself, but the term "double-blind test" does not really apply to judging audio equipment. The "double" in double-blind means that both the patient and the observer are blind as to what is being tested. In a drug trial, for example, this would mean that neither the patient taking the pill would know what he was taking, nor would the doctor observing the patient. The potential for bias exists in either, so it is necessary for both to be blind in order to eliminate the possibility of bias from the results. However when judging audio equipment, you are both the observer and the patient simultaneously. You don't know which equipment you are listening to, but you are the one making the ultimate determination as to which sounds better to you, not someone else observing you.

It does not matter if the person changing the equipment knows which is which, and making that person blind does not make it a double-blind test, since he is neither the patient nor observer. He is simply functioning as an aide to the experiment--a tool, if you will. However, if that person is indeed cheating and sending indications to the listener regarding which equipment is being tested, then it is simply no longer a blind test.

newrival

Syndil wrote: »

I am guilty of this mistake myself, but the term "double-blind test" does not really apply to judging audio equipment. The "double" in double-blind means that both the patient and the observer are blind as to what is being tested. In a drug trial, for example, this would mean that neither the patient taking the pill would know what he was taking, nor would the doctor observing the patient. The potential for bias exists in either, so it is necessary for both to be blind in order to eliminate the possibility of bias from the results. However when judging audio equipment, you are both the observer and the patient simultaneously. You don't know which equipment you are listening to, but you are the one making the ultimate determination as to which sounds better to you, not someone else observing you.

It does not matter if the person changing the equipment knows which is which, and making that person blind does not make it a double-blind test, since he is neither the patient nor observer. He is simply functioning as an aide to the experiment--a tool, if you will. However, if that person is indeed cheating and sending indications to the listener regarding which equipment is being tested, then it is simply no longer a blind test.

corret, which is why the ABX method is performed. There is also a very vocal opponent of this method that frequents this forum. I don't exactly share all of his views, but he has a solid arguent against it.

At any rate, as far as Comparison testing goes, ABX is about as good as it gets for audio components, IMO.

Strong Bad

When you get a look at Doro in assless chaps, you'll be double blind!

Syndil

I dislike ABX for several reasons. In ABX, A and B are known, while X is unknown. You don't really pick a winner, you just pick if X is A or B. Really all you're doing is determining if a difference exists, not which is better. Also each round requires three listening sessions--one for A, one for B, one for X. Listening to the same samples three times over can be very tedious.

I prefer to do a blind AB comparison (XY comparison) instead. Do it five times, for a total of 10 listening sessions. If one is better than the other, it will score as such at least 4/5 times. Otherwise there is no discernible difference. May not be good enough for a laboratory, but it's good enough for me.

tonyb

Syndil wrote: »

I prefer to do a blind AB comparison (XY comparison) instead. Do it five times, for a total of 10 listening sessions. If one is better than the other, it will score as such at least 4/5 times. Otherwise there is no discernible difference. May not be good enough for a laboratory, but it's good enough for me.

I did that same test in High School, hope those girls parents aren't reading this.

Syndil

Blind? You are a brave man.

steveinaz

Take off the lab-coat, and go listen to some music.

BeefJerky

steveinaz wrote: »

Take off the lab-coat, and go listen to some music.

You realize that the scientific and musical enjoyment aspects of audio aren't mutually exclusive, right? One can enjoy and pursue both! While I value science in regards to my audio experience, the music comes first. I nearly always have music playing in some form or another, including at home, work and in the car.

Syndil

I don't believe anyone in this hobby does not take enjoyment from researching, auditioning and ultimately selecting their audio gear. The process itself is part of the enjoyment--at least it is for me. How we go about that process might be different, but don't discount the process.

If the desire to eliminate placebo from my selection makes me a lab coat, so be it. However, it has been proven time and again that the mind is utterly unreliable at making distinctions from memory--hence the terrible unreliability of eyewitness testimony and the mind's ridiculous susceptibility to suggestion. If you were to put one system behind a curtain, play it twice to a listener, lie to them and say that the second time you played it that it was a much more expensive system, the majority of listeners will describe in detail specific differences they heard in the second system that made it better--even though it was the exact same system.

This is a fact that is well-known by marketers of "high-end" audio gear, one which they bank heavily upon. From the downright absurd (i.e. anything from Coconut Audio) to the almost plausible (i.e. cables), I do not believe anyone can seriously claim that absolutely no such shenanigans take place--the disagreement is simply to what degree.

steveinaz

What my 37 years in this hobby has taught me, is it's all about base components; and 99 out of 100 "problems" with dissatisfaction is speaker related. There are people on this forum who have more money in cables, than they do in their speakers. While I am a cable proponent, it's silly to spend more on cables than speakers, IMO**.

Sometimes in this hobby, we don't see the trees for the forest. If you're trying to "fix" tonality problems with cables (note I said FIX), you are on a fools path of wasting alot of money--and suffering lots of frustration. Cables are for very, very fine tuning, again--IMO.

Here's an interesting poll, how much have you paid for cables (just one source to speaker) vs what are your speakers valued at?

My system:
Cables: (Kimber Hero/8TC/Belden dig coax) $742.00
Speakers: $3650.00/pr

My cables represent 20% of the value of my speakers.

**Now, if you adore your speakers, then hey--none of this applies. You've found your bliss, cable it up! But if you're struggling to get the right sound, it might be worth taking a look at your expense priorities.

nwohlford

steveinaz wrote: »

What my 37 years in this hobby has taught me, is it's all about base components; and 99 out of 100 "problems" with dissatisfaction is speaker related. There are people on this forum who have more money in cables, than they do in their speakers. While I am a cable proponent, it's silly to spend more on cables than speakers, IMO.

I do find it odd when people have cheap speakers (not by cost but by quality) but feel the need to get better than basic cables. The only time I feel the urge to get involved in the cable debates is when it appears that somebody with a pretty basic system is being encouraged to spend money on expensive cables when it would be much wiser to look at replacing other components in their system (particularly speakers).

steveinaz

Bottom line, I'd rather have a $1500 speaker connected with $150 cable---than a $800 speaker connected with $850 cable. Anyday.

heiney9

That's assuming price = better. I have a very modest office rig and upgrading to MIT cables made a pretty significant difference. I have as much in my MIT cables as I do my dac, by your methodology that was a waste. One thing I didn't try was adding a "more expensive" speaker, but then $$$ doesn't guarantee better performance.

I am also assuming in YOUR experience the $1500 speaker sounded better than the $800 speaker or you wouldn't be making such a claim. Not every $1500 speaker will sound better than an $800 speaker. But then I will admit not every higher priced cable will sound better than a lower priced cable.

I prefer to work on synergy within my budget and not assign hard numbers to each piece.

H9

steveinaz

Let me put it this way---I have $1650 to buy speakers and speaker cable; $1500 of it would be spent on the speakers. You're over-thinking it.

Just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.

Jstas

I was gonna participate in this thread but these tests never work for me. I can't hear any difference over the sound of how awesome I am.

Sorry I couldn't help.

nwohlford

Jstas wrote: »

I was gonna participate in this thread but these tests never work for me. I can't hear any difference over the sound of how awesome I am.

Sorry I couldn't help.

That is just because you have never heard the sound of how awesome I am. Then you would be blown away and never be able to be satisfied with the sound of how awesome you are.

Jstas

nwohlford wrote: »

that is just because you have never heard the sound of how awesome i am. Then you would be blown away and never be able to be satisfied with the sound of how awesome you are.

What's that?

I...I'm sorry, could you speak up?

Yeah, I have a hard time hearing over the sound of how awesome I am.

nwohlford

Jstas wrote: »

What's that?

I...I'm sorry, could you speak up?

Yeah, I have a hard time hearing over the sound of how awesome I am.

Are you sure that is not the sound of my awesomeness, since that is the only thing I can hear? My awesomeness is like the sound of a pair of Cerwin-Vega Xls-215 hooked up to a Crown XTi4002 which in ABX testing is identical to a pair Focal-JMlab Grand Utopia driven by a pair of Pass Labs X1000.5s.

Jstas

nwohlford wrote: »

Are you sure that is not the sound of my awesomeness, since that is the only thing I can hear? My awesomeness is like the sound of a pair of Cerwin-Vega Xls-215 hooked up to a Crown XTi4002 which in ABX testing is identical to a pair Focal-JMlab Grand Utopia driven by a pair of Pass Labs X1000.5s.

What?

Shane Carwin? Where?

Pass? What? You made a pass at Shane Carwin?

Ah, forget it, I can't hear you. All I can hear is my awesome. It's lovely actually. Sounds like a hundred virgins singing songs about how awesome I am while naked and riding unicorns with solid gold saddles and playing harps made of solid gold. Oh and the unicorns are apparently farting rainbows. There are leprechauns danging jigs too while playing Sousa Marches with **** trumpets and using their hairy, naked behinds as bongos.

Oh, hey! Gotta go! The fanfare and lunch finally are coming up! This is gonna be grand!

nwohlford

Jstas wrote: »

What?

Shane Carwin? Where?

Pass? What? You made a pass at Shane Carwin?

Ah, forget it, I can't hear you. All I can hear is my awesome. It's lovely actually. Sounds like a hundred virgins singing songs about how awesome I am while naked and riding unicorns with solid gold saddles and playing harps made of solid gold. Oh and the unicorns are apparently farting rainbows. There are leprechauns danging jigs too while playing Sousa Marches with **** trumpets and using their hairy, naked behinds as bongos.

Oh, hey! Gotta go! The fanfare and lunch finally are coming up! This is gonna be grand!

Wait. Yours is more than just farting. I thought that is what you meant by awesomeness. I had Mexican food for lunch just to increase my awesomeness.

pietro944

steveinaz wrote: »

Take off the lab-coat, and go listen to some music.

+1.......GAME.......SET.......MATCH......This post says it all

DMara

steveinaz wrote: »

What my 37 years in this hobby has taught me, is it's all about base components; and 99 out of 100 "problems" with dissatisfaction is speaker related. There are people on this forum who have more money in cables, than they do in their speakers. While I am a cable proponent, it's silly to spend more on cables than speakers, IMO**.

Sometimes in this hobby, we don't see the trees for the forest. If you're trying to "fix" tonality problems with cables (note I said FIX), you are on a fools path of wasting alot of money--and suffering lots of frustration. Cables are for very, very fine tuning, again--IMO.

Here's an interesting poll, how much have you paid for cables (just one source to speaker) vs what are your speakers valued at?

My system:
Cables: (Kimber Hero/8TC/Belden dig coax) $742.00
Speakers: $3650.00/pr

My cables represent 20% of the value of my speakers.

**Now, if you adore your speakers, then hey--none of this applies. You've found your bliss, cable it up! But if you're struggling to get the right sound, it might be worth taking a look at your expense priorities.

My experience: I agree to what Steve said.
Here are the cables I own so far:

Power cords:
* Kimber Kable PK10 bought from mantis
* multiple Pangea AC-9 bought from Audio Advisor
* multiple Signal MagicPower & MagicPower Digital Reference & Silver Resolution from Audiogon
* PS Audio xStream Plus & PS Audio xStream Prelude bought from Conradicles

Speaker cables:
* Kimber Kable 4tc bought from mantis
* Kimber Kable 8TC bought from PrazVT
* MIT Terminator2 bought from heiney9
* PS Audio xStream Prelude Speaker Cables bought from zingo
* Clear Day silver bought from doctorcilantro

IC's:
* Signal Cable Silver Resolution Reference Analog bought from Conradicles
* Zu Wylde bought from starkiller
* MIT Terminator2 bought from daboyz
* Audioquest Columbias & Audioquest Cinemaquest & Signal Analog Two XLR's bought from blueboxer
* Kimber Hero XLR's bought from 98Badger

Others:
* Auricle digital cable from pepster
* MAC digital cable from marvda1
* Signal Jumpers from DForman
* multiple Virtue Audio Nirvana USB cables bought from doctorcilantro and virtualaudio.com


Tried all kinds of combination of those cables, and the result? No great improvement at all.

The additions/upgrades that were really worth it, to me, were when I:

* upgraded from the Bose speakers to the Polk LSi set
* upgraded from the Polk LSi set to LSiM set
* upgraded from the Polk microPro 4000 sub to dual JL Audio Fathom F113 subs
* upgraded from Yamaha HTR-5590 receiver to Denon AVR-2808ci receiver
* upgraded from Denon AVR-2808ci receiver to Denon AVR-4810ci receiver
* upgraded from Denon AVR-4810ci receiver to Integra DHC-80.3 receiver
* added the W4S DAC-2


Maybe my ears aren't good enough to pick apart the goodness of the cables, or maybe the new gears don't need the help of the cables as much as the old gears, or something else that I don't know of, but that's my personal experience, and I've spent a lot of dough to come to this conclusion.

heiney9

In my time in the hobby let's say roughly 33 years I never cared about cables, power, speaker or interconnect. Until about 6-7 years ago. Couldn't believe what I was missing out on. I will agree with Steve that you need decent components to take advantage and no matter how expensive a cable is, it can't polish a **** so you need to have atleast a nice sounding base system to begin with.

I also, as a general rule of thumb, wouldn't spend a lot more money on cables than actual components and/or speakers. Meaning don't take that Onkyo receiver and DVDp and Cerwin Vega speakers and add $2K worth of cables and expect it magically sound awesome.

But within reason, within a budget, with an open mind finding extra synergy with cables can be VERY rewarding on the listening end.

H9