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

DarkHorror

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. 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.

this isn't what people are arguing, the question isn't the differences be if there is a difference. But lets say you do what to know what the difference is. Lets say you do the test I had presented earlier in this thread. It should be easy to tell with 100% accuracy if it's that easy. After doing that test it would mean that not only would you know the differences but know that those differences are accurate.

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.

Ok so you have scientific studies that say that people can be trained to overcome biases. That sounds reasonable to me, the problem is that those who are still biased won't see it or even if they do, do you have a way to know if someone is still biased or not? Thus the blind test makes sure the biases isn't there. I am not sure why you are so against blind testing of equipment. How does knowing what you are testing make the evaluation different?

You keep on saying people can be trained to overcome biases, but when doing the test how do you know that people aren't making biased responses? This is why testing while not knowing what you are testing should give you best results.

I am not sure why people are so against blind testing.

headrott

DarkHorror wrote: »

this isn't what people are arguing, the question isn't the differences be if there is a difference. But lets say you do what to know what the difference is. Lets say you do the test I had presented earlier in this thread. It should be easy to tell with 100% accuracy if it's that easy. After doing that test it would mean that not only would you know the differences but know that those differences are accurate.


Ok so you have scientific studies that say that people can be trained to overcome biases. That sounds reasonable to me, the problem is that those who are still biased won't see it or even if they do, do you have a way to know if someone is still biased or not? Thus the blind test makes sure the biases isn't there. I am not sure why you are so against blind testing of equipment. How does knowing what you are testing make the evaluation different?

You keep on saying people can be trained to overcome biases, but when doing the test how do you know that people aren't making biased responses? This is why testing while not knowing what you are testing should give you best results.

I am not sure why people are so against blind testing.

You are going in circles..........

heiney9

DarkHorror wrote: »

Ok so you have scientific studies that say that people can be trained to overcome biases. That sounds reasonable to me, the problem is that those who are still biased won't see it or even if they do, do you have a way to know if someone is still biased or not? Thus the blind test makes sure the biases isn't there. I am not sure why you are so against blind testing of equipment. How does knowing what you are testing make the evaluation different?

You keep on saying people can be trained to overcome biases, but when doing the test how do you know that people aren't making biased responses? This is why testing while not knowing what you are testing should give you best results.

I am not sure why people are so against blind testing.

Have you been paying attention at all? Seriously, I can't beleive you are asking these questions. It's been presented atleast 1/2 dozen times amongst atleast 3 different threads. Either get your read on or stop posting.

DarkHorror

I am sorry you guys aren't understanding this at all, but I guess it isn't very surprising considering the deep belief in what you currently believe. Nothing I say will change your mind, and nothing has been said to address any of these points. And stating your opinion as fact doesn't make it so.

heiney9

DarkHorror wrote: »

I am sorry you guys aren't understanding this at all, but I guess it isn't very surprising considering the deep belief in what you currently believe. Nothing I say will change your mind, and nothing has been said to address any of these points. And stating your opinion as fact doesn't make it so.

Your questions have been answered. Please point out where the answers are invalid, specifically showing a counter arguement with citations and/or published papers specifically about the very narrow topic we are talking about. If you can't do that, then I'll consider you another naysayer wack job who likes to see his words on the screen rather than adding substance to the discussion. I am tired of hand holding and constantly having to repeat things.

The answers to the inquiries you posted are here and in atleast 2 other very recent threads about the same topic.

DarkHorror

Making a large response doesn't make it true, and just goes against your argument.

It's not hard to understand. Simple question, once two cables are evaluated, then the cables are switched around a good number of times while not knowing which is used can you tell which cable is being used 95%+ of the time?

Now you may say oh this isn't needed since you can tell differences without this test. But the question still stands, it's not hard to answer. If you do think you cant or can tell a difference why not do the test so you will know if you are correct?

DarqueKnight

DarkHorror wrote: »

this isn't what people are arguing, the question isn't the differences be if there is a difference. But lets say you do what to know what the difference is. Lets say you do the test I had presented earlier in this thread. It should be easy to tell with 100% accuracy if it's that easy. After doing that test it would mean that not only would you know the differences but know that those differences are accurate..

Here is the "test" you presented earlier:

DarkHorror wrote: »

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.

1. Educate yourself on how stereo works.
2. Educate yourself on the types of tests that are appropriate to the sensory information included in a stereo sound field.

The "test" you mention is a test of the listener's ability to hear a difference rather than a test of stereophonic performance.

Do you really think that the people who invented stereo meant for consumers to have to set up a group exercise every time they needed to evaluate a new piece of gear? No. Of course not. These were serious scientists working at the world's premier electronics and telecommunications research and development laboratory. They meant for people to educate and train themselves on sound localization perception and to learn to describe the quality of sound images they heard.

As a stereo consumer, telling me that one piece of gear sounds different than another is meaningless to me. Telling me that one piece of gear has a wider sound stage, has greater clarity, has more articulate bass, heavier image weight, etc., etc. is important information within the context of stereophonic performance.

If you, and others like you, really understood the intent and operation of stereo, you would not be proposing a test methodology that is appropriate for other types of audio. You just don't get it.

DarkHorror wrote: »

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.

Another reason for the fog in so many people's minds is that they have no understanding of the technical performance parameters than influence signal integrity. In another thread, I asked a stereo blind test believer to state his stereo performance metrics and he didn't have a clue as to what I was talking about. He thought I was asking him about laboratory testing. This same person went on to state that he does an "XY" (A/B) test and he selects the component that "draws out the most emotion". People in Denmark heard us roaring with laughter at that one.

Signal integrity can be affected by the geometry of the wires, the dielectric properties of the insulation, the amount and type of shielding, the type and quality of terminations, the metal used in the conductors, etc., etc. It is not just a simplistic matter of "contact issues" that causes differences in cable performance.

DarkHorror wrote: »

Ok so you have scientific studies that say that people can be trained to overcome biases. That sounds reasonable to me, the problem is that those who are still biased won't see it or even if they do, do you have a way to know if someone is still biased or not? Thus the blind test makes sure the biases isn't there. I am not sure why you are so against blind testing of equipment. How does knowing what you are testing make the evaluation different?.

You are talking in circles.

The target always keeps moving doesn't it? First, naysayers were shouting from the mountain top that bias, or the effect of it, cannot be trained away. Now, when scientific evidence that bias, or the effect of it, CAN be trained away, the question devolves to:

"Well, we still have to use a blind test anyway because some people don't know that they are biased and they won't know that they can be trained to be unbiased."

Again, audiophiles are not "against" blind testing. It is unfortunate that you refuse to educate yourself to the point that you understand that one type of test is not appropriate for all types of audio.

DarkHorror wrote: »

You keep on saying people can be trained to overcome biases, but when doing the test how do you know that people aren't making biased responses? This is why testing while not knowing what you are testing should give you best results.

You either accept that people can be trained to overcome bias or you don't. Let me ask you this: how do you know when any person is making unbiased responses? The answer is, the person makes an evaluation based on a set of performance criteria. In the realm of stereo performance, these things are pertinent: Either more musical detail is heard or it isn't. Either the sound stage is wider/deeper/taller or it isn't. Either the sound images are sharply defined or they aren't. The price, brand or appearance of two competing audio products does not matter if they are being measured by the same standards.

DarkHorror wrote: »

I am not sure why people are so against blind testing.

I am not sure why you need other people to adopt this method that is not designed for the types of stimuli that stereo produces. I am not sure why you do not see the need for people to train themselves to evaluate stereo gear on performance, rather than if there is a simple difference.

In spite of all the scientifically credible evidence presented that people can be trained to overcome bias, you still insist that blind testing gives the best results. What scientifically credible evidence do you have that blind testing is the most appropriate for stereo systems?

Are you one of the people referred to in the statement below:

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.

heiney9

Ray, you have far more patience than I do to constantly keep repeating/reposting the information that has already been posted and disgarded by someone like Darkhorror. I believe this is atleast the 6th time you have answered the same question with the same information, as I have yet to see a single naysayer who has asked for this information, counter it with anything other than vague stabs at very general ideas or snide comments.

H9

DarqueKnight

heiney9 wrote: »

Ray, you have far more patience than I do to constantly keep repeating/reposting the information that has already been posted and disgarded by someone like Darkhorror.

It's not patience H9, it's schadenfreude!

heiney9 wrote: »

I believe this is atleast the 6th time you have answered the same question with the same information, as I have yet to see a single naysayer who has asked for this information, counter it with anything other than vague stabs at very general ideas or snide comments.

Some people are slow to catch on. Aren't you enjoying the irony of emotionalism, vague stabs and snide comments from those who profess to want scientific accuracy, yet refuse to provide scientific justification for their "beliefs"?

Isn't it ironic that the audiophile concepts of subjective testing with trained listeners, debiasing of consumers, noise theory pertaining to cables, etc. are all backed by decades of peer-reviewed scientific research, yet the naysayers have to go and grab some test that is totally inappropriate for stereo in order to "justify" their position?

Who are the real scientists and who are the actual "believers".

DarkHorror

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Here is the "test" you presented earlier:



1. Educate yourself on how stereo works.
2. Educate yourself on the types of tests that are appropriate to the sensory information included in a stereo sound field.

The "test" you mention is a test of the listener's ability to hear a difference rather than a test of stereophonic performance.

Do you really think that the people who invented stereo meant for consumers to have to set up a group exercise every time they needed to evaluate a new piece of gear? No. Of course not. These were serious scientists working at the world's premier electronics and telecommunications research and development laboratory. They meant for people to educate and train themselves on sound localization perception and to learn to describe the quality of sound images they heard.

As a stereo consumer, telling me that one piece of gear sounds different than another is meaningless to me. Telling me that one piece of gear has a wider sound stage, has greater clarity, has more articulate bass, heavier image weight, etc., etc. is important information within the context of stereophonic performance.

If you, and others like you, really understood the intent and operation of stereo, you would not be proposing a test methodology that is appropriate for other types of audio. You just don't get it.

This has nothing to do with what is trying to be done. We don't care about the performance of the items, we are simply testing to see if there is a difference. Now I assume you are trying to say that this implies that you don't need a blind test since you can compare them using certain language. The problem is that when you are talking about minor differences the description isn't going to be accurate enough to know if what you are listening to is any different. So lets say you have these people who know how to listen for the differences and write down the differences they hear using two different cables. Now after you do that you do these changes in cable while they don't know which cable is tested. They should be able to tell what cable they are listening to 100% of the time correct?

Another reason for the fog in so many people's minds is that they have no understanding of the technical performance parameters than influence signal integrity. In another thread, I asked a stereo blind test believer to state his stereo performance metrics and he didn't have a clue as to what I was talking about. He thought I was asking him about laboratory testing. This same person went on to state that he does an "XY" (A/B) test and he selects the component that "draws out the most emotion". People in Denmark heard us roaring with laughter at that one.

This one person who doesn't know what he is doing, this is meaningless. I am not sure why you would even bring this up.

Signal integrity can be affected by the geometry of the wires, the dielectric properties of the insulation, the amount and type of shielding, the type and quality of terminations, the metal used in the conductors, etc., etc. It is not just a simplistic matter of "contact issues" that causes differences in cable performance.

Yep it can, but you can't hear the differences unless there is something seriously wrong.

You are talking in circles.

The target always keeps moving doesn't it? First, naysayers were shouting from the mountain top that bias, or the effect of it, cannot be trained away. Now, when scientific evidence that bias, or the effect of it, CAN be trained away, the question devolves to:

"Well, we still have to use a blind test anyway because some people don't know that they are biased and they won't know that they can be trained to be unbiased."

Again, audiophiles are not "against" blind testing. It is unfortunate that you refuse to educate yourself to the point that you understand that one type of test is not appropriate for all types of audio.

You either accept that people can be trained to overcome bias or you don't. Let me ask you this: how do you know when any person is making unbiased responses? The answer is, the person makes an evaluation based on a set of performance criteria. In the realm of stereo performance, these things are pertinent: Either more musical detail is heard or it isn't. Either the sound stage is wider/deeper/taller or it isn't. Either the sound images are sharply defined or they aren't. The price, brand or appearance of two competing audio products does not matter if they are being measured by the same standards.

I stand by my comments, biases can effect it. What you posted doesn't change that at all, can people know their biases and do stuff to eliminate or know that they are biased? Sure they can, but who knows if they are going to still be biased based on something and all who are listening will be biased. Everyone has their biases these will effect them it is impossible to remove all biases.

But that is just one reason why people might hear differences even if they aren't there. But the why doesn't really matter, we are simply trying to see if certain people who know what to listen for can hear a difference between cables. Removing the more variables the better.

Yes educating on how to evaluate stereo performance is a great thing to do. It lets you figure out what you are listening to where the problems and what you like are.

I am not sure why you need other people to adopt this method that is not designed for the types of stimuli that stereo produces. I am not sure why you do not see the need for people to train themselves to evaluate stereo gear on performance, rather than if there is a simple difference.

In spite of all the scientifically credible evidence presented that people can be trained to overcome bias, you still insist that blind testing gives the best results. What scientifically credible evidence do you have that blind testing is the most appropriate for stereo systems?

Are you one of the people referred to in the statement below:

I think we may be talking about two different things. But given what you have said about stereo performance seems that knowing or not knowing shouldn't make a difference. Which would mean that after evaluating the performance of of two cables if those cables are changed so that you don't know which you are listening to that you should be able to tell which you are listening to 100% of the time.( well if you had evaluated them sounding different.)

You seem to be saying that if you are trained in stereo evaluating that is all you need to know how something sounds compared to something else. Which seams to me if you can make the comparisons and the differences are there it shouldn't matter if you know you are listening to one cable or the other you should be able to tell which is which just by listening.

But I am sure none of you will be convinced to change your mind, so I am done here.

DarkHorror

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It's not patience H9, it's schadenfreude!



Some people are slow to catch on. Aren't you enjoying the irony of emotionalism, vague stabs and snide comments from those who profess to want scientific accuracy, yet refuse to provide scientific justification for their "beliefs"?

Isn't it ironic that the audiophile concepts of subjective testing with trained listeners, debiasing of consumers, noise theory pertaining to cables, etc. are all backed by decades of peer-reviewed scientific research, yet the naysayers have to go and grab some test that is totally inappropriate for stereo in order to "justify" their position?

Who are the real scientists and who are the actual "believers".

The problem is that your scientific knowledge doesn't mean what you think it does. This causes huge problems in all fields of science. It's trying to make jumps from what the science says to what they believe even if it has nothing to do with what they are talking about.

heiney9

I'm glad you are done here, because you write in circles and make very little sense. I have a headache after reading what you have written in this thread because you can't seem to articulate your position nor can you write in a linear way that would make sense to most people.

H9

heiney9

DarkHorror wrote: »

The problem is that your scientific knowledge doesn't mean what you think it does. .

Care to point to any specific details? Or are we just supposed to agree because you say so?

heiney9

DarkHorror wrote: »

This causes huge problems in all fields of science.

What specific problems does this cause in this particular discussion. Please be specific and site examples and or journal links for further reading.

heiney9

DarkHorror wrote: »

It's trying to make jumps from what the science says to what they believe even if it has nothing to do with what they are talking about.

More circular logic that says and substantiates ABSOLUTELY nothing, examples, specific examples?

H9

DarqueKnight

DarkHorror wrote: »

We don't care about the performance of the items, we are simply testing to see if there is a difference.

I fully understand that you don't care about the performance of the items. What you don't understand is that audiophiles are performance oriented and therefore we do care about performance. Therefore, what you are proposing has little to no value to audiophiles.

If blind testing gives you what you need, great.

You should have sense enough to realize that other people, who are performance oriented, would require evaluation tools that provide more descriptive data.

This is how ludicrous you and others of your ilk sound:

"I don't care about performance, but I want you performance audio enthusiasts to prove you can hear what you say you can hear by using a non-performance oriented test."

teekay0007

OK........I've been gone all morning, but I'm back..........what did I miss?

See, I've been in training all morning - they're teaching me how to enjoy listening to my stereo. They (my educators/therapists) were wearing freshly-pressed, long white lab coats and they said I had no business enjoying what I was listening to, especially the way I was listening to it. At first, I felt a little embarrassed by this, but they kept telling me that if I wasn't listening in a way they called "critical listening", that there's no way I could possibly be enjoying my music. Wow, was I wrong! I felt SO stupid!

The last hour of the morning was my first therapy session (twice a week for 16 weeks) to try to remove any bias I might have that might make me believe that if I see big-a$$ed speaker cables hooked to my stereo equipment that I'm actually hearing something I enjoy more. They really admire my enthusiasm, drive, dedication and the coin I'm willing to put into seeing this process through. They guaranteed me that by the end of the 16 weeks they could have me looking at itty-bitty lamp cord speaker cables connected to my same stereo equipment without developing any preconceived notions about how it might sound when compared to how it sounds with the big-a$$ed cables. :cool:

I was a little concerned at the end of the session though. All five of my trainers/therapists disagreed on how they could tell when I had actually made it to the "unbiased promise land" and four of them were suggesting that maybe for half the price of one of my therapy sessions that it might be a lot easier for them to just come over and switch-out several different cables on my stereo without letting me see them as they were doing it, thereby removing ANY possibility of my being biased in the selection process. The only drawback they saw with that method was that by doing it that way they still hadn't yet taught how to enjoy music properly! :rolleyes:

Oh, what to do?....What to do? :question:

DarkHorror

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I fully understand that you don't care about the performance of the items. What you don't understand is that audiophiles are performance oriented and therefore we do care about performance. Therefore, what you are proposing has little to no value to audiophiles.

If blind testing gives you what you need, great.

You should have sense enough to realize that other people, who are performance oriented, would require evaluation tools that provide more descriptive data.

This is how ludicrous you and others of your ilk sound:

"I don't care about performance, but I want you performance audio enthusiasts to prove you can hear what you say you can hear by using a non-performance oriented test."

I must say these forum arguments are stupid. You take a single line out of context of a long post then respond to it. Thus totally miss the point of the post or any of what I say, or the point I was making. Well I am done here, no point to talk to someone who wont have a reasonable discussion. Which is very simple if you can evaluate stereo performance of two different cables and get different results when you know what the cables are. Then you do the same test but not know which cable you are listening to then are unable to tell which is which that those different results you had before are not valid. If you don't agree with that there is nothing that I can say to change your mind. Thus going back and fourth is useless.

DarkHorror

teekay0007 wrote: »

OK........I've been gone all morning, but I'm back..........what did I miss?

See, I've been in training all morning - they're teaching me how to enjoy listening to my stereo. They (my educators/therapists) were wearing freshly-pressed, long white lab coats and they said I had no business enjoying what I was listening to, especially the way I was listening to it. At first, I felt a little embarrassed by this, but they kept telling me that if I wasn't listening in a way they called "critical listening", that there's no way I could possibly be enjoying my music. Wow, was I wrong! I felt SO stupid!

The last hour of the morning was my first therapy session (twice a week for 16 weeks) to try to remove any bias I might have that might make me believe that if I see big-a$$ed speaker cables hooked to my stereo equipment that I'm actually hearing something I enjoy more. They really admire my enthusiasm, drive, dedication and the coin I'm willing to put into seeing this process through. They guaranteed me that by the end of the 16 weeks they could have me looking at itty-bitty lamp cord speaker cables connected to my same stereo equipment without developing any preconceived notions about how it might sound when compared to how it sounds with the big-a$$ed cables. :cool:

I was a little concerned at the end of the session though. All five of my trainers/therapists disagreed on how they could tell when I had actually made it to the "unbiased promise land" and four of them were suggesting that maybe for half the price of one of my therapy sessions that it might be a lot easier for them to just come over and switch-out several different cables on my stereo without letting me see them as they were doing it, thereby removing ANY possibility of my being biased in the selection process. The only drawback they saw with that method was that by doing it that way they still hadn't yet taught how to enjoy music properly! :rolleyes:

Oh, what to do?....What to do? :question:

LMAO, I like it.

heiney9

DarkHorror wrote: »

I must say these forum arguments are stupid.

Yet you still vigorously participate. Are you sure you aren't using the "stupidity" thing because you can't/won't answer any of the questions posed to you, yet expect everyone else to constantly repeat what's already been said to YOU over and over.

H9

heiney9

DarkHorror wrote: »

Well I am done here, no point to talk to someone who wont have a reasonable discussion. Which is very simple if you can evaluate stereo performance of two different cables and get different results when you know what the cables are. Then you do the same test but not know which cable you are listening to then are unable to tell which is which that those different results you had before are not valid. If you don't agree with that there is nothing that I can say to change your mind. Thus going back and fourth is useless.

Please show me scientific evidence, that this has taken place? I have been asking you all along, yet you seen intent on blowing hot air and using circular logic and then call the discussion topic stupid.

Better yet please show me scientific studies that show blind tests are applicable to evaluating differences in stereophonic reproduction. That would be super!

H9

DarqueKnight

Then:

DarkHorror wrote: »

We don't care about the performance of the items, we are simply testing to see if there is a difference.

Now:

DarkHorror wrote: »

Which is very simple if you can evaluate stereo performance of two different cables and get different results when you know what the cables are.

Well, which is it? Are you interested in performance or not?

DarkHorror wrote: »

Then you do the same test but not know which cable you are listening to then are unable to tell which is which that those different results you had before are not valid.

You sound silly. This is gibberish. Read the sentence above out loud and tell me if it makes any sense at all.

DarkHorror wrote: »

If you don't agree with that there is nothing that I can say to change your mind.

Try this:

heiney9 wrote: »

1. Better yet please show me scientific studies that show blind tests are applicable to evaluating differences in stereophonic reproduction. That would be super!

DarqueKnight wrote:

2. Show me scientific studies that explain why the inventors of home stereo systems used ABX and A/B blind tests for telephone voice circuit quality tests, but did not use such methods for stereo. That would be super!

---

DarkHorror wrote: »

Everyone has their biases these will effect them it is impossible to remove all biases.

But we aren't talking about ALL biases are we? We are talking about visual bias due to knowledge of brand, price and appearance.

Obviously you do not accept scientific research that proved that consumers can be debiased through education and training. I assume you have some credible scientific evidence to debunk the concept of the "debiased consumer". Please link to, or point to, such references.

Thanks.

teekay0007

"Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK


What you aren't understanding, DK, is that even assuming your concept of the debiased consumer is valid, why would you want to rely on that when it would take - if your previous posts are correct - education, training and therapy of each and every study participant. Afterall, you certainly couldn't assume that any participants were without visual bias at the start of the study, could you? If so, by what criteria could you possibly judge them to be so? So........how do you suggest one would go about this process of unbiasing? Who would conduct these education, training and therapy sessions and how could you even verify that they were doing so without adding more bias?

Now, taking the EXTREMELY large leap of faith that this could even be done with a large enough sample of individuals to make the results statistically significant, who's going to pay for all this educating, training and therapy of all of them? Further, assuming we had an endless supply of money and enough participants to get statistically significant results, who would decide when, and based on what criteria, the educating, training and therapy sessions are complete to give us a qualified, un-visually biased test population? These are questions that have no correct answers that would be acceptable to even a majority of those interested in this speaker cables topic. This, without a doubt, is a study that would NEVER work and would therefore, be impossible to conduct.

"Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

DarqueKnight

teekay0007 wrote: »

What you aren't understanding, DK, is that even assuming your concept of the debiased consumer is valid, why would you want to rely on that when it would take - if your previous posts are correct - education, training and therapy of each and every study participant.

Rather than blow smoke out your rear end, why don't you actually read the consumer education papers I linked to and then read some of the evaluative studies done by pioneering scientists in stereo, and then come back with an informed opinion?

teekay0007 wrote: »

Now, taking the EXTREMELY large leap of faith that this could even be done with a large enough sample of individuals to make the results statistically significant, who's going to pay for all this educating, training and therapy of all of them?

Extremely large leap of faith? Wowwwwwww. Why do you think that visual bias in stereo is the most insurmountable handicap in the human mind? Do you need an extremely large leap of faith to understand how people can overcome bias in evaluating houses, cars, televisions...and marriage partners? What is so hard about establishing the important performance parameters for whatever is being evaluated and learning to focus on performance rather than price, brand and appearance?

You act like becoming an informed and educated consumer requires becoming a lab rat and/or enrolling in a formal degree or certificate program.

Let's recap:

1. First, it was stated in absolute terms, that visual bias, or the effect of it, cannot be trained away.

2. Then, when credible scientific evidence was shown that visual bias can be effectively dealt with through training, the party line shifted to "ALL THAT TRAINING IS TOO HARD TO DO, SO WE STILL GOTTA DO A BLIND TEST".

Since you are the one with all the understanding, please take a crack at these:

heiney9 wrote:

1. Better yet please show me scientific studies that show blind tests are applicable to evaluating differences in stereophonic reproduction. That would be super!

DarqueKnight wrote:

2. Show me scientific studies that explain why the inventors of home stereo systems used ABX and A/B blind tests for telephone voice circuit quality tests, but did not use such methods for stereo. That would be zoomin' vundabar!

DarqueKnight wrote:

3. Tell us what is it about visual bias in stereo that makes it a more powerful mindbender than other extreme visual biases, like racism and misogyny, that people have overcome by themselves. That would be Grrrrrrrrrrreat!

teekay0007

You're silly, DK.

Why all this concern about visual bias and even being concerned about using education, training and therapy to make for "debiased consumers" when the goal is having the least amount of bias as possible in this or any other study? The obvious, simple way of removing visual bias from any study is to do it blind. Best yet, it's free, participants can be instantly qualified to be part of the study and visual bias - whether it exists or even needs to be considered - doesn't even get questioned.

Better yet, show me scientific studies that indicate visual bias exists in blinded studies......that would be super!

headrott

Can we make a case that visual bias is not the most insurmountable bias in stereophonic audio, but rather the bias that "naysayers" are hell bent on proving that "cable believers" cannot prove they can hear differences in audio cables? Can someone answer this please? Then, after answering this please answer DK's questions.

tonyb

teekay0007 wrote: »

You're silly, DK.!

Well, Ray....you asked for scientific studies/proof, there ya have it. Your just "Silly"..LMAO !!

Just curious if he came to that conclusion with a blind test or pre conceived notions.

DarqueKnight

teekay0007 wrote: »

You're silly, DK.

I'll take that as you DO NOT have any scientific substantiation for your fervent religious devotion to blind tests for stereo and that you prefer to "establish credibility" for your views by insulting those with opposing, yet scientifically validated, positions.

teekay0007 wrote: »

Why all this concern about visual bias and even being concerned about using education, training and therapy to make for "debiased consumers" when the goal is having the least amount of bias as possible in this or any other study?

This question would be better asked of your fellow blind test for stereo cultists. They are the ones who insist that performance audio enthusiasts (audiophiles) must use blind tests to remove visual bias from the stereo equipment evaluation process. Don't try to twist things around.

teekay0007 wrote: »

The obvious, simple way of removing visual bias from any study is to do it blind.

Since you did not like my prior questions, perhaps these will be more to your liking as they are more general in nature:

1. People are strongly affected by visual bias in the evaluation of homes, automobiles and marriage partners. People who select homes, automobiles and marriage partners mainly on the basis of visual appearance usually come to be dissatisfied with their choice. Therefore, it would appear that removing the effect of visual bias would be essential to the accurate evaluation of a home, automobile or marriage partner.

Question: Since blind testing is so wonderful, how would you propose to use blind testing in the evaluation of homes, automobiles and marriage partners?

Question: If you believe that blind testing is not applicable to the removal of visual bias from the home, automobile and marriage partner selection process, and if you believe that the effect of visual bias must be effectively dealt with in order to assure a rational selection, what process would you propose in place of blind testing?

2. Credible research indicates that some people can and do learn to evaluate homes, automobiles and marriage partners on the basis of quality, reliability, performance, and character. People who have learned to set aside visual bias and to evaluate homes, automobiles and marriage partners on the basis of quality and performance typically learned to do so through self-study and self-training. The inventors of home stereo intended for serious listeners to educate themselves on sound localization and sound quality evaluation through careful and consistent listening experience. They, nor I, never advocated that people needed academic training and certification in order to learn how to evaluate home stereo systems.

Question: If consumers can use self-study and self-training to learn to set aside visual bias and evaluate homes, automobiles and marriage partners, what is it about stereophonic audio that prevents the same self-study and self-training methods from being effective?

teekay0007 wrote: »

Best yet, it's free, participants can be instantly qualified to be part of the study and visual bias - whether it exists or even needs to be considered - doesn't even get questioned.

Learning to evaluate any multidimensional system, such as a home, automobile, marriage partner...or stereophonic audio system, is not something that people can instantly qualify for. Each of these examples has many variables that must be considered.

teekay0007 wrote: »

Better yet, show me scientific studies that indicate visual bias exists in blinded studies......that would be super!

I never said that visual bias exists in blinded studies. I provided references to peer-reviewed scientific studies that blinded studies generate guessing bias and evaluator stress.

DarqueKnight

tonyb wrote: »

Well, Ray....you asked for scientific studies/proof, there ya have it. Your just "Silly"..LMAO !!

Just curious if he came to that conclusion with a blind test or pre conceived notions.

Insults are the last refuge of the outwitted, Tony.

audiocr381ve

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Insults are the last refuge of the outwitted, Tony.

Seems to me like that was an insult