Blind cable testing..... Guess the outcome lol

BlueFox

The fact is, in regard to this test, that if the results were reversed such that

1. The majority could hear no difference between cables.
2. Of those that could hear a difference, the least expensive cable was preferred

then all the naysayers who have commented so far would then be saying; "Here is the proof. Cables make no difference."

However, now that the real world is conflicting with their fantasy world, the excuses are flying. :rolleyes:

heiney9

double post

heiney9

Just like I said they would. No test will ever satisfy that group. They modify their POV to fit the circumstance which is to reinforce cables don't make a difference.

H9

P.s. I'll admit the test was poorly done, but atleast some sort of feeble attempt was made to do a blind test and the results weren't favorable to the cables don't matter crowd. No smoking gun for either side.

WilliamM2

BlueFox wrote: »

The fact is, in regard to this test, that if the results were reversed such that

1. The majority could hear no difference between cables.
2. Of those that could hear a difference, the least expensive cable was preferred

then all the naysayers who have commented so far would then be saying; "Here is the proof. Cables make no difference."

However, now that the real world is conflicting with their fantasy world, the excuses are flying. :rolleyes:

I doesn't matter which way the results came out. They weren't testing for differences, or keeping track of "correct" scores. we don't know that they really heard a difference, only that they claimed to. Nothing new there.

heiney9

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I doesn't matter which way the results came out. They weren't testing for differences, or keeping track of "correct" scores. we don't know that they really heard a difference, only that they claimed to. Nothing new there.

WOW just WOW!

H9

WilliamM2

heiney9 wrote: »

WOW just WOW!

H9

Maybe you should go back and read how they conducted the test. WOW, WOW, WOW, WOW, WOW, WOW, WOW......JUST WOW!!!!!

unc2701

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I doesn't matter which way the results came out. They weren't testing for differences, or keeping track of "correct" scores. we don't know that they really heard a difference, only that they claimed to. Nothing new there.

Yeah. This. I don't know how anyone here is looking at those results and reaching any meaningful conclusion. For exampe: Only one cable, when run against 16ga zip cord had more than 50% of the people preferring it. The rest didn't hear a difference or preferred the zip cord. And the alternative in question is the MOST expensive, but it came in second to last on the total win-loss.

I've seen more compelling results from a coin flip.

Those who think this tells a good story, chime in with your reasoning, 'cause it's pretty awful by any logical analysis. What we don't know is whether this is due to design or the cables.

heiney9

Yeah, I'm out of this one. I should know better.....I had more luck discussing the weather with a brick wall.

H9

unc2701

unc2701 wrote: »

What we don't know is whether this is due to design or the cables.

On second thought, the design is crap. Whether the cables are ALSO an issue, we don't know.

Joe08867

First off, Stereophile didn't perform the tests an independant group did and submitted the findings to Stereophile.

Each monthly issue of Stereophile includes an updated calendar of all the different hi-fi events taking place across the United States. We also maintain this calendar on our Facebook Events page. One of the events that really caught our eye was the Blind Cable Comparison Tests performed by the Audio Society of Minnesota, which took place on Tuesday, April 17th. Here is the report as submitted by members of the Audio Society of Minnesota. The Society reported record crowds for this event. Hopefully, this spirit of questioning, discovery, and fun will spread to other audio events across the country.

transmaster

Decal LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know for sure that speaker cable ages like a fine wine. I have 2 15 foot long runs Monster cable vintage 1989. The sound of this vintage year is warm, and smooth, with just a hint of fruit and a finish hinting of a well aged white oak barrel.

What I want to know is if any photon transducers where used in the test

Joe08867

I for one believe that cables make a difference. With that said this test is ridiculous. The only person remotely close to the sweet spot has people in front of them and to the side of them interfering with the sound they hear.

Like DK pointed out, that guy way off to the right was probably in one of the worst spots of the room. How could he really judge. Probably one of the No Difference people. And I will say it. At least 5 of them probably have lost some of there hearing to age. Would that make a difference? I believe so. If more subtle cables add shimmer to the highs and you can't hear it does it really exist?

transmaster

I found a photograph of one of the people that participated in the speaker wire test.

falconcry72

Man, Minnesota is a great State for Audio; Magnepan and ARC, mmm, mmm, mmm.:cheesygrin:

I've always wondered why Magnepan didn't pair up with ARC for their demos, being that they're from the same state, and that, in my experience, tubes sound great on maggies. Magnepan seems to always go with Bryston... not a bad choice either...



As for the test, what I noticed was that whatever cable went first always won. Every time. The winner, cable C, went first every time. The loser, cable A, never went first. Coincidence?

teekay0007

heiney9 wrote: »

I can't wait to hear what the naysayers come up with for excuses why this isn't a valid test. Should make quite the entertaining thread for the weekend. Can't wait for more convoluted logic, back peddling and rationalization.

Thanks for posting this Enders

H9

Quite funny how many of the early posts (the above is #4) made similar statements. Then, when it was pointed out how the results were FAR FROM IMPRESSIVE in favor of the expensive cables the statements were greatly changed. H9 later stated (post #24): "Don't get me wrong, I think this test is flawed for all the same reasons DK and others have mentioned. My point was this is exactly the kind of test a cable naysayer would want us to participate in..." Whoa! Wait a minute! Hee-hee, that post (#24), taken in its entirety, sounds to me like a lot of convoluted logic, back peddling and rationalization! :rolleyes:


Later in that same (#24) post, H9 says, "It's funny because the guys who are quoting the stats that are not that impressive Teekay and Syndil are basing the results on price (a bias) and now stating there should be more a difference because of the difference in price. Why not revel in the fact that the cables sounded different to a bunch of strangers in a room who may or may not have been familiar with the music played or even been in the best seating position for maximum performance." In no way is our stating that the price difference should yield a bigger preference difference adding bias to this study. We're only making this statement after looking at the post-study data. It could only add bias to the study results if the cable price differences were known beforehand. THAT is the whole idea behind a "blind" study, those subjected to the study CAN'T be aware of which item is being tested, nor its price. It's the ONLY way a study can have any hint of validity.


Again, later in that same post, H9 states, "If a crude, poorly implemented blind listening test like this one can reveal differences, image what a properly administered test with trained listeners would reveal. Unblinded of course" So...........what you're saying here is that to get real validity in such a study, I need to enroll only "trained listeners" (define "trained" please) listening by themselves from only the sweet spot to music they are familiar with, all the while knowing (unblinded) which cables are being tested?!? OMG! :eek: You can't be serious! What statistics theory is this based on? Talk about a bias-laden study! :rolleyes:


H9 (and others), this is in no way a personal attack on any of you. I've learned a TON from you here and plan to continue to do so. I consider myself neither a naysayer or a sayer in the cable debate. However, I try to use as critical of reasoning as I can to see both sides of the "better cable" argument and have yet to see anyone, here or elsewhere, present a definative case for either side. Yes, this presented study is flawed in many ways, not the least of which is that it only contained 40 respondents, the fact that it didn't include any "mid-level" cables, nor the fact that none of the cables were tested against themselves. However, it did tell us some things: If we ever have an instance where we might have several people ("trained" and "un-trained" listeners) in the same room as our sound system doing the very things that people do: a) at a party (milling about in and out of the sweet spot); b) moving around, sitting/standing/jumping/yelling/fighting while watching a football game; or C) watching a movie or concert performance from any one of several different viewing/listening areas - they oftentimes may perceive - or equally as likely, not perceive - a sound quality difference between the bottom-end cables and the extremely high-end ones on the given sound system being used. :cool:

This brings us all back to the fundamental question posed by this study: Is the perceived difference, or lack thereof, between the high-end cables and bottom-end (geez, I wish they would have tested some mid-level ones!) ones worth the 333x-to-2600x price difference? :question:

Syndil

heiney9 wrote: »

It's funny because the guys who are quoting the stats that are not that impressive Teekay and Syndil are basing the results on price (a bias) and now stating there should be more a difference because of the difference in price.

Not at all. I am stating that there should be a difference, period. Like I said, a result of 50% +/- 9% is not enough to rule out a non-random result. The entire methodology used to tabulate the "victories"--taking a 50% "win" (41% at the low end, even) and turning it into a 1 vs a 0 for a "loss"--is absolutely laughable to anyone remotely familiar with statistics.

This test proved absolutely nothing regarding the relative sound quality of the tested cables, except that the testers involved were unable to distinguish any cable from another at a rate higher than what could be achieved from random guessing.

teekay0007

transmaster wrote: »

Decal LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know for sure that speaker cable ages like a fine wine. I have 2 15 foot long runs Monster cable vintage 1989. The sound of this vintage year is warm, and smooth, with just a hint of fruit and a finish hinting of a well aged white oak barrel.

What I want to know is if any photon transducers where used in the test

transmaster, that sounds more like Glenlivet than speaker cables. :cool:

heiney9

I have to admit that I didn't do my homework on this article. Read it quickly and responded quickly. Some good points here about it being an abysmal attempt at a blind listening test. I didn't rationally and critically think things through and yes, I am backpeddling a bit since I did such a poor job of reading and interpreting the data and the article.

H9

EndersShadow

All I have to say is this: If your on the fence about cables..... MIT Shotgun S3.3 Demo. Pay the cost of shipping to the next guy, write a review and tell us your thoughts.....

For anyone who doesnt believe cables make a difference step up be a man and prove it by getting these cables and doing your own Legit double blind test....

heiney9

teekay0007 wrote: »

Quite funny how many of the early posts (the above is #4) made similar statements. Then, when it was pointed out how the results were FAR FROM IMPRESSIVE in favor of the expensive cables the statements were greatly changed. H9 later stated (post #24): "Don't get me wrong, I think this test is flawed for all the same reasons DK and others have mentioned. My point was this is exactly the kind of test a cable naysayer would want us to participate in..." Whoa! Wait a minute! Hee-hee, that post (#24), taken in its entirety, sounds to me like a lot of convoluted logic, back peddling and rationalization! :rolleyes:


Later in that same (#24) post, H9 says, "It's funny because the guys who are quoting the stats that are not that impressive Teekay and Syndil are basing the results on price (a bias) and now stating there should be more a difference because of the difference in price. Why not revel in the fact that the cables sounded different to a bunch of strangers in a room who may or may not have been familiar with the music played or even been in the best seating position for maximum performance." In no way is our stating that the price difference should yield a bigger preference difference adding bias to this study. We're only making this statement after looking at the post-study data. It could only add bias to the study results if the cable price differences were known beforehand. THAT is the whole idea behind a "blind" study, those subjected to the study CAN'T be aware of which item is being tested, nor its price. It's the ONLY way a study can have any hint of validity.


Again, later in that same post, H9 states, "If a crude, poorly implemented blind listening test like this one can reveal differences, image what a properly administered test with trained listeners would reveal. Unblinded of course" So...........what you're saying here is that to get real validity in such a study, I need to enroll only "trained listeners" (define "trained" please) listening by themselves from only the sweet spot to music they are familiar with, all the while knowing (unblinded) which cables are being tested?!? OMG! :eek: You can't be serious! What statistics theory is this based on? Talk about a bias-laden study! :rolleyes:


H9 (and others), this is in no way a personal attack on any of you. I've learned a TON from you here and plan to continue to do so. I consider myself neither a naysayer or a sayer in the cable debate. However, I try to use as critical of reasoning as I can to see both sides of the "better cable" argument and have yet to see anyone, here or elsewhere, present a definative case for either side. Yes, this presented study is flawed in many ways, not the least of which is that it only contained 40 respondents, the fact that it didn't include any "mid-level" cables, nor the fact that none of the cables were tested against themselves. However, it did tell us some things: If we ever have an instance where we might have several people ("trained" and "un-trained" listeners) in the same room as our sound system doing the very things that people do: a) at a party (milling about in and out of the sweet spot); b) moving around, sitting/standing/jumping/yelling/fighting while watching a football game; or C) watching a movie or concert performance from any one of several different viewing/listening areas - they oftentimes may perceive - or equally as likely, not perceive - a sound quality difference between the bottom-end cables and the extremely high-end ones on the given sound system being used. :cool:

This brings us all back to the fundamental question posed by this study: Is the perceived difference, or lack thereof, between the high-end cables and bottom-end (geez, I wish they would have tested some mid-level ones!) ones worth the 333x-to-2600x price difference? :question:

All the points and questions you argue have been BEATEN to death in the other two recent cable threads. For answers you need to look there. No way in HELL am I going to rehash it, nor argue anymore on this subject.

teekay0007

THIS JUST IN !!!! :eek:

I just received word from an insider, in-the-know about how this study was actually conducted. He said that the $3 pair of cables were supported by cable elevators (like the ones pictured here - http://app.audiogon.com/listings/ohm-walsh-4-5000) while the other cables were not! He feels that's a big part of why the $3 cables were rated so favorably!

:cheesygrin:

DarqueKnight

teekay0007 wrote: »

This brings us all back to the fundamental question posed by this study: Is the perceived difference, or lack thereof, between the high-end cables and bottom-end (geez, I wish they would have tested some mid-level ones!) ones worth the 333x-to-2600x price difference? :question:

The questions have vexed audiophiles for decades: Do speaker cables make a difference? Are expensive cables better than cheap cables? The Audio Society of Minnesota tackled these questions with a little experiment involving over 50 members and guests as our test group.

If I gave a little old lady a Ferrari and then a week later asked her is it better than the Honda Accord she had owned for 5 trouble-free years, she'd probably say no. She'd probably say the Ferrari really wasn't suitable for travel to church, shopping and road trips. What is "better" depends on what your requirements are.

Asking if an expensive cable is "better" than a cheap one is nonsense without defining performance criteria. Better in what regard? The question wrongly assumes that price is always commensurate to utility, quality and performance.

Here is a thread and summary from 2007 of four speaker cables I compared ranging in price from $32 to $3300 per pair:

Mystery-Cable-Theater

Toolfan66

This test is more of a joke IMO!! And almost every cable naysayer won't even try a better cable another joke here as well. I settled with MIT Shotguns not because of cost but performance if they didn't perform they would be gone as I would rather have the cash in hand and settle with something that cost less and put the money else where.

Also I believe most people that try more expensive cables that run a receiver or using a receiver as a pre will not get 100% of what good cables have to offer. I believe there is a price point for cables that match the price point of the gear one runs maybe I'm wrong here but that's how I see it. I'm not going to run a $1000 set of MIT shotguns on a Yamaha receiver and Emotiva amp I find that to be a crazy purchase, now I would settle with a set of AudioQuest Type 4's with that set up or something on the lower end of MIT or even Signal..

Just my .02

LeftCoast

How about putting that cheap cable against maybe some $50 or $100 or $150 cable? You know...the stuff that is more attainable?

Well...On second thought, I'm sure that $8,000 cable will be pretty affordable soon.

F1nut

There is a common denominator with all audio related blind tests and it's not just with cables. The results always hover around 50/50 regardless of the people involved, the music played, the room, the gear, etc., etc. That alone should be proof enough for anyone with an IQ in the triple digits that audio related blind tests are completely worthless.

If someone wants to believe that all amps, cables, etc. sound the same, that's fine, but keep it to yourself because I've had it with you people. Those of us that can hear a difference don't need to be saved. I hope that is clear enough.

Syndil

Yeah, these blind tests keep coming up 50% for some reason, so clearly it's the test that's at fault. I laugh out loud every time I hear that argument. Correct observation, however the conclusion is such an absurd non sequitur it truly is hilarious. I try to explain this argument to other reasonable people and they just give me blank stares, as if they are waiting for the punchline. It is literally amazing to me that people can come to such a conclusion and believe it with fervor. But then again, I'm an agnostic.

F1nut

Clearly, your IQ is in the low double digits.

headrott

Syndil wrote: »

Yeah, these blind tests keep coming up 50% for some reason, so clearly it's the test that's at fault. I laugh out loud every time I hear that argument. Correct observation, however the conclusion is such an absurd non sequitur it truly is hilarious. I try to explain this argument to other reasonable people and they just give me blank stares, as if they are waiting for the punchline. It is literally amazing to me that people can come to such a conclusion and believe it with fervor. But then again, I'm an agnostic.

I think what Jesse is saying is keep your lukewarmness regarding cables to yourself. You have documented very clearly that you are a blind test believer, so go ahead and blindly test yourself with the results being as revealing or as concealing as you find them in the privacy of your listening room. That's all (Jesse and we "cable believers") are saying. Until you decide to train yourself to listen for differences in cables, or that one of your blind tests miraculously reveals differences in cables you're are going to remain lukewarm. Please don't ask us prove to you that we can hear differences in cables and other audio equipment to "change your temperature" regarding audio gear.

Syndil

F1nut wrote: »

Clearly, your IQ is in the low double digits.

F1, keeping it classy, as always. Cheers!

Anyway I said nothing about cables. I was merely remarking about the amazing ability to dismiss an entire testing process with proven scientific merit because the results consistently did not match one's preconceived expectations--nevermind what the test was about. A reasonable person would assume that perhaps it is the expectations that are at fault, not the testing process. To go the opposite direction and dismiss the testing process... It's just so exasperatingly silly it's hard to believe people actually believe it. It's like encountering a person who still insists the Earth is flat, and therefore all the evidence to the contrary is somehow faulty. It truly is astonishing.

tonyb

Syndil wrote: »

with proven scientific merit QUOTE]

Thats your mistake right there, nothing scientific about it.