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

doctor r

The reality in this situation is that it IS the test that fails. Blind studies are done to prove or disprove a null hypothesis. In this case it would be ?There is NO difference between cable one and cable two?. I have participated in and designed ?blinded? studies and in structure this one is severely flawed. The judges in the study have no base line of judgment that has been qualified or normalized. There are no specific or agreed upon set of parameters that the judges employ to make a qualified decision. In a medical trial you would not have people off the street asked to analyze the treatment tested in a blind trial and come to a conclusion that has any significance. To have non trained or minimally trained listeners asked to make a qualified statement about cable differences is nonsensical. The bias involved between those that actually understand the nuance that they would be looking for in the comparison, verses the completely untrained ears that would not have a clue of any listening baseline to even begin to make a judgment from makes the A/B test, no matter who initiates the study, makes these studies entirely flawed and without scientific basis. To be able to be a judge you would have to already be able to appreciate the subtle nuances that cables can bring, which immediately disqualifies you. To not be able to hear those nuances also disqualifies you as a judge. The A/B cable study will always fail!

Rick

Marty913

Well, that article and the 62 posts in this thread certainly clears a lot of things up regarding cables.

I now know that some extremely expensive cables may or may not sound differently than lamp-cord when listened to by a roomful of random strangers.

DarqueKnight

doctor r wrote: »

The reality in this situation is that it IS the test that fails. Blind studies are done to prove or disprove a null hypothesis. In this case it would be ?There is NO difference between cable one and cable two?. I have participated in and designed ?blinded? studies and in structure this one is severely flawed. The judges in the study have no base line of judgment that has been qualified or normalized. There are no specific or agreed upon set of parameters that the judges employ to make a qualified decision. In a medical trial you would not have people off the street asked to analyze the treatment tested in a blind trial and come to a conclusion that has any significance. To have non trained or minimally trained listeners asked to make a qualified statement about cable differences is nonsensical. The bias involved between those that actually understand the nuance that they would be looking for in the comparison, verses the completely untrained ears that would not have a clue of any listening baseline to even begin to make a judgment from makes the A/B test, no matter who initiates the study, makes these studies entirely flawed and without scientific basis. To be able to be a judge you would have to already be able to appreciate the subtle nuances that cables can bring, which immediately disqualifies you. To not be able to hear those nuances also disqualifies you as a judge. The A/B cable study will always fail!

Rick

In addition to all of the above, the blind test for audio proponents insist that blinding is absolutely required in order to remove the effect of visual bias. However, scientific studies have shown that bias can be removed or the effect of bias can be removed through training and education. In the field of economics this is called a "debiased consumer". In the fields of psychology and sociology, people have been able to overcome extremely strong biases through training, education and therapy.

If people can learn to set aside visual bias and evaluate products based on value and performance, if ravenous drug addicts can kick years long habits, if racists and misogynists can learn to love the objects of their former hate, why is it impossible for some people to accept that it is possible to learn to not be influcenced by an audio product's brand, price or appearance?

The answer is, if it is accepted that people can be debiased through training and education, then the justification for blind testing for stereo evaporates. The stereo blind test is the last line of defense for those who want to fantasize that high quality, high performance audio gear offers no audible performance advantages over common, basic audio gear.

Audio Naysayer Pseudo-science Debunked-Post #356

Erik Tracy

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The stereo blind test is the last line of defense for those who want to fantasize that high quality, high performance audio gear offers no audible performance advantages over common, basic audio gear.

Dang - now I have to decide if I'm gonna change my sig....Polkies do say the most clever and astutely truthful things!

cnh

You guys do realize that the only "biasing" we really have to worry about is the one required when we "re-tube"! Right?

Now that's "my" kind of "bias". lol

cnh

FTGV

doctor r wrote: »

The reality in this situation is that it IS the test that fails. Blind studies are done to prove or disprove a null hypothesis. In this case it would be ?There is NO difference between cable one and cable two?. I have participated in and designed ?blinded? studies and in structure this one is severely flawed. The judges in the study have no base line of judgment that has been qualified or normalized. There are no specific or agreed upon set of parameters that the judges employ to make a qualified decision. In a medical trial you would not have people off the street asked to analyze the treatment tested in a blind trial and come to a conclusion that has any significance. To have non trained or minimally trained listeners asked to make a qualified statement about cable differences is nonsensical. The bias involved between those that actually understand the nuance that they would be looking for in the comparison, verses the completely untrained ears that would not have a clue of any listening baseline to even begin to make a judgment from makes the A/B test, no matter who initiates the study, makes these studies entirely flawed and without scientific basis. To be able to be a judge you would have to already be able to appreciate the subtle nuances that cables can bring, which immediately disqualifies you. To not be able to hear those nuances also disqualifies you as a judge. The A/B cable study will always fail!

Rick

There it is in one nice neat post.Well said dr.

DarkHorror

The problem with just about all of these tests is the sample size and sometimes the test it's self. Like this one tells you nothing.

What you need to do to get accurate results is to take two wires, one being basic cheap shielded 12 gauge wire, other an expensive high quality wire. First take a group of people who know what to listen for then let them listen to both the wires while knowing which wire they are listening to, on what ever they want and for as long as they want. This way if there is a difference they will already know what it is before the actual test. For the actual test have them setup some parts of music where they think this difference is obvious. Now have them not know which wire they are listening to have them listen to those music parts over and over at least 20+ times while sometimes switching wires sometimes not. Have them write down each time which wire they think they are listening to. If most of the group is able to get like 90%+ correct then you can conclude that there is a difference. If you only get a couple or one person to get like 80%+ do the test again with them, and see what results you end up getting.

DarkHorror

Wires can make a difference, but only to a point and usually it takes something that is causing them to perform badly and not make contact that causes these differences.

pearsall001

It's only wire fellows. :idea:

Drenis

I get a laugh out of people who say "wire is wire fellas" but yet they list something they use which was arguably more expensive, flashier and (God for bid), better sounding?..then the crap lamp cord they could have gone with.

If you're happy with the sound from your cables and you know it, clap your hands.

Syndil

Funny to see how this thread started compared to where it has gone, but it was inevitable.

DarqueKnight

The truth only hurts those who are doing wrong.

nwohlford

Syndil wrote: »

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.

It is called the "backfire effect", and we all do it to some degree.

DarqueKnight

Syndil wrote: »

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.

A reasonable person would assume that one type of test, or one type of tool, is not appropriate for every situation.

transmaster

I am walking away from this endless waste of time. As I have pointed out I have been a musician for many decades I have either played or have listened at close range to musical instruments, voices, and various sound stages. When I have a cable cretin dismiss My perceptions of a given cable because I am a musician this does not enhance their creditability in my eye.

heiney9

Right, because since you are a musician and listen to live music your POV somehow has more merit than anyone else's. Just the fact that you are a musician (self appointed) and listen to live music doesn't make your opinion anymore right or wrong or plausable or somehow more credible than someone who doesn't play an instrument. Get over yourself. If you are Irving Berlin or George Gershwin or Itzahk Perlman or someone noteworthy, your POV would carry more weight. You are no different than anyone else here who has a passion for music.

H9

gp4jesus

I expected a greater difference in the final results to make it worth starting yet another opportunity to fling mud*, er, cable thread. So I didn't read all the replies.
* at other opinions

Yeah this test clearly makes a good case for BIGGER, BETTER cable but not a strong enough argument for the $uper $$ $tuff.

"Cable ?B? was 6ft pair hollow tube design wrapped with an exotic copper winding and terminated with copper spades. Retail price in the $8000 range." guage please?

"Cable ?C? was a 15ft heavy gauge, complex twisted pair in rubber plenum terminated with gold plated copper spades. Price $1,200." Again, guage? give me a number.

In my 30+ years experience as a musician & HiFi enthusiast, anything below 12 is smallish; regardless, guage relavent and deserves equal consideration in any comparo/shootout.

tony

transmaster

heiney9 wrote: »

Right, because since you are a musician and listen to live music your POV somehow has more merit than anyone Else's. Just the fact that you are a musician (self appointed) and listen to live music doesn't make your opinion anymore right or wrong or plausible or somehow more credible than someone who doesn't play an instrument. Get over yourself. If you are Irving Berlin or George Gershwin or Itzahk Perlman or someone noteworthy, your POV would carry more weight. You are no different than anyone else here who has a passion for music.H9

I rest my case.

For you information not only do I listen to live music but I play it and at times in my life have made a good living doing it. I presently enjoy playing ancient instruments and the music of 16th and 17th century. While you all continue to flame each other over overpriced cables I will return to my Sackbut, Crumhorn, Recorder, and natural Flute.

DarqueKnight

transmaster wrote: »

I am walking away from this endless waste of time.

If you really found such discussions an endless waste of time, you would have totally ignored this thread, now wouldn't you?

---

Many of us find these discussions interesting because we hold out hope that naysayers will one day enlighten us with answers to the following questions:

1. Since stereo systems were designed by serious scientists for serious and trained listeners, why would any significance be attached to stereo tests that didn't used serious and trained listeners?

2. The stated reason for the requirement for blind stereo tests is to remove bias induced by knowledge of brand, price and appearance. However, many scientific studies from the fields of economics, psychology and sociology prove that people can overcome the effects of an extremely strong bias through training, education and therapy. This would seem to validate the stereo pioneers' instruction and insistence that stereo evaluation requires trained listeners. It would also seem to invalidate the naysayer's insistence that blind tests for stereo are absolutely required. Obviously, stereo blind test proponents believe that there is some insurmountable influence pertaining to stereophonic audio that prevents the training away of visual bias. We would like to have that insurmountable influence identified.

Some have asked, what is a trained listener? Here it is straight from Bell Labs scientists Harvey and Schroeder:

Critical listeners were sought in these tests because of a desire to set permanent standards. At the moment, only a small percentage of people fully appreciate high fidelity. Even less appreciate or understand stereo. However, there is a growing sophistication evidenced among users of stereo equipment. Anticipating the future, it seemed wise to avoid naive or unconcerned personnel in these tests to prevent establishing loose standards which eventually might have to be abandoned.

The listeners chosen were sophisticated in the art of sound localization either by working in this field or by education before testing. They were felt to be the equal of any serious listener who is accustomed to playing the same records many times and thus becomes familiar with the more subtle artistic and technical effects.

[Source: Harvey, F. K. and Schroeder, M. R., "Subjective Evaluation of Factors Affecting Two-Channel Stereophony", Journal of The Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 1961, pp. 19-28.]

Some people would have us believe that every time a consumer needed to evaluate a new piece of stereo gear, accurate evaluation would require the enlistment and assistance of one or more persons to provide blinding and gear switching services. Moreover, a blind test in the home where the evaluator knows the identities and sound attributes of his/her previous gear, because he/she bought it and has handled it, and the identity of the new gear, because he/she bought and handled it, is not a true blind test. The evaluator could be influenced on a subconscious level by other physical or audible factors. I will illustrate with a personal example:

Signal Cable MagicPower cables and PS Audio AC series power cables make a distinctive noise when they are flexed. MagicPower cable plugs fit loosely in an AC receptacle and make a particular noise when plugged in or pulled out. PS Audio AC series power cables use very tight fitting plugs which are difficult to insert and pull out of an AC receptacle. Therefore, PS Audio AC series power cables make a very distinctive noise when plugged in and pulled out of the wall.

I am consciously aware of those physical differences. In other words, I know I can tell the difference between a MagicPower cord and an AC series power cord by the sound of the cable flexing or by the sound made by inserting or removing the cable plug from the wall. Now, what if I were only aware of these differences on a subconscious level, but my conscious mind was being informed and influenced by this information? What if the person doing the switching was not aware that I could consciously or subconsciously tell the difference between the cables simply by the sound the cables make when handled or plugged into the wall?

3. Statistics text books are clear about the kinds of stimuli that A/B, ABX and other forced choice discrimination methods are appropriate for. Since stereophonic sound does not fall within the class of stimuli forced choice methods are designed to evaluate, why use them? A/B tests can be useful if a non-stereophonic parameter (such as clarity or detail) of a stereo sound field is being evaluated. However, the evaluator must be appropriately trained to avoid being distracted by the stereophonic stimuli present.

Don't you want to find the answers to questions 1-3?

---

I have noticed that blind test for stereo cultists only seem to lose interest in these types of threads when they are pressed to provide scientific substantiation for their views.

WilliamM2

Why do you keep pretending that we think blind tests are for evaluation of equipment? They are for determining whether a difference really exists, not determining a preference. If you can see what you are listening to, how could anyone determine whether or not you are really hearing a difference?

As far as your claims that listeners can be trained to eliminate bias, where were you trained, and who was your therapist? Did you get a degree or certificate?

All these years I thought stereo was developed for the enjoyment of music, but since it was developed only for serious trained listeners, maybe some type of license should be required to buy one.

headrott

As far as I know "cable beievers" are not implying or saying that we think blind tests are for determining preference. Where is this coming from?

That said, listening for differences in stereophonic audio equpiment and determining if a difference exists leads to prefering one piece of gear over another, doesn't it? If a difference exists between stereophonic audio equipment, then naturally one would prefer one peice of gear over another. One (listening for differences in audio gear) leads to the other (prefering one over the other).

heiney9

DarqueKnight wrote: »

---

I have noticed that blind test for stereo cultists only seem to lose interest in these types of threads when they are pressed to provide scientific substantiation for their views.

You mean to tell me, "that's the way it is" isn't scientific substantiation?

H9

mantis

Nothing in a cable shootout matter if the testing cables can't perform the job correctly. No matter what the cable costs be it 3 bucks or 3 thousand ,if the cable company didn't construct the cable correctly , price doesn't matter. What matters is getting the signal from Point A to point B as unaltered as possible , do no harm if you will.

I have done these very tests with many audiophile , non audiophiles , fan boys of wire X Y and Z and many times the results are shocking to the ones listening. If you never done a blind test , then you have absolutely nothing to add here what so ever. Going into a listening test not knowing what is what is what really matters to me anyway. yeah there are flaws to every kind of measuring and testing methods. One can say memory has much to do with this. Some say it's the part of getting use to a sound over and over then switching it to another can alter any kind of testing.

I say trust your ears on what you hear. Forget about what brand and what material was used to achieve the goal of signal flow.

We all have preferences as well. The only thing any of these tests prove is the fact that cables sound different , how different is only the one who is listening can truly answer. No one can tell you it sounds different if you can't hear it.

Most people are willing to spend thousands on cables searching for the absolute best performance out of ones system. I say there are much better ways to spend your money. If one is all about cost per performance ratios then find good quality cables that get the job done correctly , forget about how they look and the comments of the companies why you need these in your system and look into room treatments. If you want your system to sound it's best , start with the room your listening in. You'll be shocked how much more you can make your system sound in a properly treated room over any cable upgrade.
Also placement is huge. Moving your speakers into a good listening position will yield much better performance over any cable upgrade.

Now the fact does still hold true. You need cables that can perform the job correctly. I'm not saying any cable will do in any system. This is simply not the case. You must learn about AWG and use this as a guideline when wiring ones system. It works and works well.

Example of wiring correctly. Take a look at your speakers Ohm load vs the distance the speaker wire has to be vs the wattage of the amp driving your speakers. Then go use these figures in the AWG and learn what you should be using.
After you achieve this your still not really done. Some companies do a terrible job of sending signals down their cables and can really hurt your systems overall performance. Why one would spend thousands on a beautiful system and kill it with crappy wire?

Remember this key factor when buying lets keep it simple speaker wire ,If a cable can pass the entire signal to the speakers from the amp , how can a higher end cable do any better? Answer it can't. Cables do not make the sound quality of your system better. There job is to pass the signal and not change it in any way. Some cables try to filter out KHZ in favor of EMI and RF interference. They feel by removing these KHZ , the cable can now pass along all the signals you can hear without interference. This is excellent in theory but what is not understood is how 21KHZ effects how we hear 20KHZ. Removing 21KHZ from the picture is altering.

It's not easy to select speaker cables for your speakers as there are more wire brands out there then there should be. I would love to close shop on all the crappy ones and leave the ones who design their cables for the pure purpose of getting the job done correctly. I'll say this , there are few that are good , most suck **** as they make you buy material that does nothing for the sound. yeah I love pretty cables to but wasting money on cool looking cables that don't do **** is where I feel money is wasted.

I also ask this very serious question to all of you , when does a cable get it the job done? How much does one have to spend on a given cable to get the job done? All things being equal like 10 feet cables on a 100 watt amp and 8 ohm load 90 db speakers? What is the correct cable to use for this given setup? Then when the job is finished , there are cables that cost so much more but offer nothing in return. Again cables do make a difference but how much is the true quest when searching.

DarqueKnight

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Why do you keep pretending that we think blind tests are for evaluation of equipment? They are for determining whether a difference really exists, not determining a preference.

Ohhh...ok. Now you are not evaluating stereo equipment...you are just looking for a difference. In that case, you should stop participating in discussions of stereophonic performance. Serious listeners are interested in substantially more than whether a "difference" exists. Serious listeners need to know the nature (description) of the difference within the context of stereo.

Why waste time determining only whether a difference exists? If the difference is not accurately described and placed within the context of stereophonic performance, what good does the information provide to the consumer?

Difference tests and preference tests are both inappropriate for stereophonic stimuli.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

If you can see what you are listening to, how could anyone determine whether or not you are really hearing a difference?

Through training. Here are a couple of papers you can read. These were previously posted in the "DBT/Null Test" thread. I am including the direct links this time so that you won't go to the wrong paper.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The field of consumer research is full of examples of consumer bias being eliminated or the effects of such bias being eliminated through training and education.

One example is "Consumer Behavioural Biases In Competition-A Case Study", by S. Huck, J. Zhou and C. Duke, Office of Fair Trading, London, U.K., May 2011 (link):

"This is a survey of studies that examine competition in the presence of behaviourally biased or boundedly rational consumers. It will tackle questions such as: How does competition and pricing change when consumers are biased? Can inefficiencies that arise from consumer behavioural biases be mitigated by lowering barriers to entry? Do biased consumers make rational ones better or worse off? And will biased consumer behaviour be overcome through learning or education? (p. 5)

This leaves the possibility that third parties, the press, or government agencies could engage in consumer education and, surely, such efforts cannot have adverse effects. However, there is some literature that throws doubt on the effectiveness of de-biasing and education, certainly from a cost-benefit point of view. For example effective education may not be a simple matter (see, for example, Chater, Huck, and Inderst 2010 or Choi, Laibson, and Madrian 2010). (p. 61)

We also find that firms may sometimes have little incentive to educate consumers. This is particularly severe if educated or sophisticated consumers benefit from the pricing offered by those firms who do not engage in consumer education. However, where learning will eventually eradicate consumer biases, firms may have a clear incentive to establish a reputation for 'fair behaviour' early on. (p. 69)

Another example from the field of economics is "Shrouded Attributes, Consumer Myopia, and Information Suppression in Competitive Markets", Gabaix, X., and D. Laibson, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 505-540, (2006) (link):

"Firms often shroud the negative attributes of their products, particularly high prices for complementary add-ons.

A "curse of debiasing" suppresses unshrouding. Debiasing a consumer improves consumer welfare, but no firm can capture or even partially share these benefits. Firms receive lower profits when they interact with debiased consumers. Debiased consumers know how to avoid high-priced items. Moreover, firms cannot drive away such debiased consumers without losing (profitable) myopic consumers as well. Debiased consumers can pretend to be myopes, enabling the debiased consumers to take advantage of the traps that firms set for myopes." (p. 531)

Therefore, in the field of economics and consumer research, the concept of the "debiased" consumer is well established. "Debiasing" occurs when a biased consumer learns to eliminate, or eliminate the effect of, their biases. The concept of debiasing is also well established in the fields of stereophonic audio and television. It is only within a certain subculture within the stereophonic audio community that the concept of training to remediate biases is not accepted.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

As far as your claims that listeners can be trained to eliminate bias, where were you trained, and who was your therapist?

It would be great if you could focus on the topics rather than me personally.

These are not my claims, they are verifiable facts. I was trained in my home, audio dealer showrooms and the homes of friends and associates with various levels of stereophonic gear.

Are you insisting that people cannot be trained to eliminate bias? If so, what is your scientific substantiation for this view?

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Did you get a degree or certificate?

No. Do I need one for my ideas to be valid? Rather than offer an ad hominem red herring argument that seeks to disqualify my ideas because I don't have some type of degree or certificate in stereophonic evaluation, why don't you add some real value by addressing the questions posed?

WilliamM2 wrote: »

All these years I thought stereo was developed for the enjoyment of music, but since it was developed only for serious trained listeners, maybe some type of license should be required to buy one.

I know you think such statements make you seem clever. However, acting like the class clown does not add any substantiation to your ideas. It does not make you seem brighter than the other person. Why would you scoff at the idea of undergoing training to get the most out of a technological item?

I did not need a license to buy a high quality plasma TV, but the training provided by the Avia test and calibration disc, tutorial information found in books and on the Internet, and performance reports from trained plasma TV evaluators, coupled with much viewing experience at home and in dealer showrooms, helped me to get the most out of my plasma TV investment. There is nothing wrong with someone seeing a plasma TV ad, buying it and setting it up in their home with no adjustment whatsoever. However, it would be ignorant for such a person to attempt to ridicule me because I "wasted so much time" educating and training myself so that I could make an informed purchase decision and get the best performance from my investment.

As for who stereo was developed for, you can access the scientific journal papers written by Dr. Fletcher and his colleagues and read explicitly who stereo was developed for. I have quoted them many times. One such quote is in post #80 of this thread.

Again, the issues are:

1. Stereo blind test proponents say such tests are required to eliminate visual bias.
2. Scientific studies show that people can be trained to eliminate, or eliminate the effect of, bias.
3. Stereo was designed for serious listeners trained in stereophonic evaluation.
4. If people can be trained to overcome visual bias and stereo was designed for people sufficiently trained this way, what justifies the need for blind testing in stereo?

Do you have any credible insights or research documentation to share pertaining to items 1-4? Good luck.

WilliamM2

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Ohhh...ok. Now you are not evaluating stereo equipment...you are just looking for a difference. In that case, you should stop participating in discussions of stereophonic performance.

Your not discussing stereophonic performance, your discussing wires.

It would be great if you could focus on the topics rather than me personally.

It would be great if you weren't such a hypocrite as well.

Why would you scoff at the idea of undergoing training to get the most out of a technological item?

I wasn't scoffing at the idea, I was asking where you got your training. Apparently you have none, so we can disregard any listening tests you perform from now on.

DarqueKnight

mantis wrote: »

Remember this key factor when buying lets keep it simple speaker wire ,If a cable can pass the entire signal to the speakers from the amp , how can a higher end cable do any better? Answer it can't.

"If a cable can pass the entire signal to the speakers from the amp....", the truth is, no cable can do this. No cable is completely lossless. Some signal loss will occur even through air or through a vacuum. While it is true that no cable can pass the signal without some added noise and distortion, some cable designs have better loss and noise characteristics than others. The better a cable's noise characteristics, shielding, and termination, the better it is able maintain signal integrity.

Quality termination costs money and is worth paying extra for. Termination joints, whether they are soldered, crimped or cold welded, can be a point of increased resistance (and signal loss) at both ends of a cable. The better the quality of termination, the lower the signal loss at each end.

mantis wrote: »

Cables do not make the sound quality of your system better. There job is to pass the signal and not change it in any way.

Anything the signal passes through, even air, will change the signal in some way. A signal transmitted over any distance, through nothing (a vacuum) will lose energy due to the signal spreading out. Some cables are better at maintaining signal integrity than others.

mantis wrote: »

Some cables try to filter out KHZ in favor of EMI and RF interference. They feel by removing these KHZ , the cable can now pass along all the signals you can hear without interference. This is excellent in theory but what is not understood is how 21KHZ effects how we hear 20KHZ. Removing 21KHZ from the picture is altering.

Actually, this is well understood. EMI and RF fields can induce electric currents in audio cables. These induced currents can generate audible noise in audio signals. This is the reason for EMI and RF shielding of audio and power cables. The telecommunications industry has published much research going back for decades on these concepts.

DarqueKnight

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Your not discussing stereophonic performance, your discussing wires.

Wires and other equipment have no effect or relationship to stereophonic performance? You don't seem to understand that the gear is a means to an end rather than an end unto itself.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

It would be great if you weren't such a hypocrite as well.

Assuming I am a hypocrite, how does that affect your life and leisure activities?

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I wasn't scoffing at the idea, I was asking where you got your training.

And I told you. Where did you learn to read?

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Apparently you have none, so we can disregard any listening tests you perform from now on.

Well, I expect that the "we" you refer to would disregard my listening tests under any circumstance because:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

...if it is accepted that people can be debiased through training and education, then the justification for blind testing for stereo evaporates. The stereo blind test is the last line of defense for those who want to fantasize that high quality, high performance audio gear offers no audible performance advantages over common, basic audio gear.

I understand that you are very fascinated with me, but this is not about me. Please try to focus your energies on these concepts, if you can:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Again, the issues are:

1. Stereo blind test proponents say such tests are required to eliminate visual bias.
2. Scientific studies show that people can be trained to eliminate, or eliminate the effect of, bias.
3. Stereo was designed for serious listeners trained in stereophonic evaluation.
4. If people can be trained to overcome visual bias and stereo was designed for people sufficiently trained this way, what justifies the need for blind testing in stereo?

Do you have any credible insights or research documentation to share pertaining to items 1-4?

---

Now you know them naysayer cultists ain't gonna give you any credible technical substantiation for their beliefs. Why do you keep asking?

Because I am not as cynical and pessimistic as you. ~DK

WilliamM2

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I understand that you are very fascinated with me, but this is not about me.

I'm just amazed that anyone could be that arrogant.

DarqueKnight

Questions:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

1. Stereo blind test proponents say such tests are required to eliminate visual bias.
2. Scientific studies show that people can be trained to eliminate, or eliminate the effect of, bias.
3. Stereo was designed for serious listeners trained in stereophonic evaluation.
4. If people can be trained to overcome visual bias and stereo was designed for people sufficiently trained this way, what justifies the need for blind testing in stereo?

Do you have any credible insights or research documentation to share pertaining to items 1-4?

Answer:

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I'm just amazed that anyone could be that arrogant.

LOL! Ok, I'll take that as a no.

headrott

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I'm just amazed that anyone could be that arrogant.

^^^^^^^^Projection.^^^^^^^^^^