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

heiney9

Sometimes the truth hurts.

H9

DarqueKnight

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Insults are the last refuge of the outwitted, Tony.

audiocr381ve wrote: »

Seems to me like that was an insult

You are entitled to your interpretation, but that was an observation. Calling someone stupid, or silly, when their communication and/or actions do not warrant it is an insult. Saying that someone has been outwitted when they display an inability to intelligently articulate and substantiate their views is a obervation.

heiney9 wrote: »

Sometimes the truth hurts.

The truth always hurts when you know you are wrong.

DarkHorror

It's simple.

Lets start with what you seem to believe.

1. A trained evaluator can evaluate a stereo in a meaningful, and accurate way.
2. If they were asked to evaluate the stereo again they would get the same results.
3. If the evaluator tests two different cables on the same system and evaluates them with different results. This means that there is an audible difference in the cables.

Now lets move to a logical conclusion based on what you believe.

Lets take this evaluator, and and a cable test where the evaluator got different results.
The simple conclusion is that it won't matter if you know which cable you are testing. You should always be able to listen and tell which cable is which. It doesn't matter if you know which cable is being used or not. If the cables are switched and the evaluator doesn't know which was plugged in, he should be able to identify the correct cable through listening 100% of the time.

But since you are clearly not interested in a reasonable discussion, I don't even know why I made this post, guess I got bored.

heiney9

More gibberish

H9

BlueFox

DarkHorror wrote: »

If the cables are switched and the evaluator doesn't know which was plugged in, he should be able to identify the correct cable through listening 100% of the time.

Not necessarily. He should be able to tell a difference between the two, and state which he prefers. Which brings us back to the original post and blind test.

DarkHorror

heiney9 wrote: »

More gibberish

H9

I am sorry you don't have the intelligence to follow some simple logic.

headrott

DarkHorror wrote: »

It's simple.

Lets start with what you seem to believe.

1. A trained evaluator can evaluate a stereo in a meaningful, and accurate way.
2. If they were asked to evaluate the stereo again they would get the same results.
3. If the evaluator tests two different cables on the same system and evaluates them with different results. This means that there is an audible difference in the cables.

Now lets move to a logical conclusion based on what you believe.

Lets take this evaluator, and and a cable test where the evaluator got different results.
The simple conclusion is that it won't matter if you know which cable you are testing. You should always be able to listen and tell which cable is which. It doesn't matter if you know which cable is being used or not. If the cables are switched and the evaluator doesn't know which was plugged in, he should be able to identify the correct cable through listening 100% of the time.

But since you are clearly not interested in a reasonable discussion, I don't even know why I made this post, guess I got bored.

You are trying to disregard DK's questions and reverse the argument. You still have not addressed the questions DK brought up. Those being:

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? Good luck.

Since Bell Laboratories, the inventors of stereophonic audio equipment concluded that trained listeners were the best method of evaluating their equipment that is what method should be used logically. Bell Laboratories never intended for blind tests to be used for evaluating their invention of stereophonic audio equipment and so logically, why would one want to use this method and not the intended method the inventors of stereophonic audio intended?

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

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

Isn't that your modus operandi?

You haven't pointed to any specific details at any point in the entire thread. I find it interesting how often you demand proof but never offer any yourself. Your arguments are nearly always bereft of any substantiation that you have provided unless it's a nelson pass discussion, and even then you don't offer any personal analysis or synthesis. Your arguments read like a mash of denigration and textbook superiority complex.

You (and others) let DK do the mental heavy lifting and then dole out the verbal backhands when someone doesn't agree with him. You (and others) come off as little more than DK's lackey in these threads. You're the Chester to his Spike.

Also, I recommend that before you continue to blame people for circular reasoning you learn what it means.

newrival

DarkHorror wrote: »

I am sorry you don't have the intelligence to follow some simple logic.

logic is not his, nor headrott's, strong suit.

heiney9

DarkHorror wrote: »

I am sorry you don't have the intelligence to follow some simple logic.

I am sorry you don't have the intelligence to write in a more coherent manner, rather than in constant circles, basically saying nothing while having a lot of words appear on the screen.

H9

heiney9

newrival wrote: »

Isn't that your modus operandi?

You haven't pointed to any specific details at any point in the entire thread. I find it interesting how often you demand proof but never offer any yourself. Your arguments are nearly always bereft of any substantiation that you have provided unless it's a nelson pass discussion, and even then you don't offer any personal analysis or synthesis. Your arguments read like a mash of denigration and textbook superiority complex.

You (and others) let DK do the mental heavy lifting and then dole out the verbal backhands when someone doesn't agree with him. You (and others) come off as little more than DK's lackey in these threads. You're the Chester to his Spike.

Also, I recommend that before you continue to blame people for circular reasoning you learn what it means.

So put me on ignore then you can blissfully exist here on CP. I am piggybacking on all of DK's research and links (since I agree 1000%). Why would I go through the trouble to rehash all of it when it's obvious most who are discussing this issue haven't taken the time to read it and are unwilling to address anything in the supporting documents and analysis that has been posted atleast 6 separate times.

DarkHorror

headrott wrote: »

You are trying to disregard DK's questions and reverse the argument. You still have not addressed the questions DK brought up. Those being:



Since Bell Laboratories, the inventors of stereophonic audio equipment concluded that trained listeners were the best method of evaluating their equipment that is what method should be used logically. Bell Laboratories never intended for blind tests to be used for evaluating their invention of stereophonic audio equipment and so logically, why would one want to use this method and not the intended method the inventors of stereophonic audio intended?

What I was doing was assuming everything he said was correct, and bringing a logical conclusion of the test. Why stick with the "intended" test if it isn't giving you good results? Which it isn't if the results aren't being repeated.

What you seem to be doing is just assuming that they are correct, and that no more testing is needed since they said so. Where I am saying if what you say is true then this test will give the results you expect. If it doesn't then one or all of your assumptions are wrong.

DarkHorror

heiney9 wrote: »

So put me on ignore then you can blissfully exist here on CP. I am piggybacking on all of DK's research and links (since I agree 1000%). Why would I go through the trouble to rehash all of it when it's obvious most who are discussing this issue haven't taken the time to read it and are unwilling to address anything in the supporting documents and analysis that has been posted atleast 6 separate times.

I gave you a test that assumes everything he said is correct and the conclusion that you would get from the test if all assumptions are correct.

heiney9

DarkHorror wrote: »

I gave you a test that assumes everything he said is correct and the conclusion that you would get from the test if all assumptions are correct.

Where's the supporting evidence to your conclusions? Better yet, because I can't make heads or tails of your writings since it's very circular, I'm not even sure what all your conclusions were/are.

H9

heiney9

Just because the conclusion is logical to you doesn't make it correct. For years it was thought lower distortion figures = better subjective sound. That was a logical assumption, but it's simply not true. That is one general example of applying the type of logic you are using.

H9

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

So put me on ignore then you can blissfully exist here on CP. I am piggybacking on all of DK's research and links (since I agree 1000%). Why would I go through the trouble to rehash all of it when it's obvious most who are discussing this issue haven't taken the time to read it and are unwilling to address anything in the supporting documents and analysis that has been posted atleast 6 separate times.

I don't put anyone on the ignore list. And I don't think you're devoid of useful information, I merely think you are very poor at handling arguments. You say you don't want to rehash the argument, but you're ok with dishing out jabs that have no explaination behind them, and then demand others to provide proof for their arguments?

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

Just because the conclusion is logical to you doesn't make it correct. For years it was thought lower distortion figures = better subjective sound. That was a logical assumption, but it's simply not true. That is one general example of applying the type of logic you are using.

H9

You're right. A logical argument does not mean that it's theory is correct, only that it cannot be dismissed based upon its derivation. I just wish you would talk to people more like you are here than calling their response gibberish, when in fact it is a coherent example.

heiney9

newrival wrote: »

when in fact it is a coherent example.

What he intended to convey might have been a valid response, the manner in which it was conveyed was "gibberish" and circular in nature. In fact I've gone back and re-read his posts and I had to read them atleast 4-5 times to even get an idea what he was talking about. To me that's gibberish.

Also the way he stated his logic made it sound like it was a foregone conclusion. He hasn't even answered whether or not he's even tried to listen to different cables or used different cables, etc. If he hasn't then he has little to no credibility in my eyes. Just another arm chair audio fool.

H9

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

What he intended to convey might have been a valid response, the manner in which it was conveyed was "gibberish" and circular in nature. In fact I've gone back and re-read his posts and I had to read them atleast 4-5 times to even get an idea what he was talking about. To me that's gibberish.

Also the way he stated his logic made it sound like it was a foregone conclusion. He hasn't even answered whether or not he's even tried to listen to different cables or used different cables, etc. If he hasn't then he has little to no credibility in my eyes. Just another arm chair audio fool.

H9

Just because you couldn't understand it, does not make it gibberish or circular. Seriously, you should look into circular reasoning, it is a valid way to discredit an argument, but only if you know what it actually means.

The only foregone conclusion in his hypothetical test is that the evaluator should be able to recognize the cable 100% of the time. 100% of the time is probably the ideal, but I think that even after the scientist determines a standard deviation, it would still be close to that, working on the premises he laid out in points 1, 2, and 3. those items are assumptions derived from the conversation here, and DH is illustrating a hypothetical likely outcome based on those items that raises a legitimate question of legitimacy to the opposing argument.

heiney9

I think I finally have come to the point where my horse is completely dead, and I just don't give a damn anymore what others think on this subject. Cables matter, there are differences and I've choosen the brand and model I feel best integrates into my rig. The rest of you experiement and find out, or don't. I simply don't care enough to continue beating this thing 7 ways from Sunday. As is typical in any on-line, written argument, it's become so diluted and generalized that it's pointless to continue.

I'll be cranking up my tunes tonight running MIT's and I will be grinning from ear to ear.

H9

DarkHorror

heiney9 wrote: »

Just because the conclusion is logical to you doesn't make it correct. For years it was thought lower distortion figures = better subjective sound. That was a logical assumption, but it's simply not true. That is one general example of applying the type of logic you are using.

H9

This is the point I am making.

unc2701

1)DK's evaluation methodology creates a profile of a cable's characteristics: soundstage size, instrument placement, etc
2)This methodology produces very similar results if the same piece of music is evaluated by the same trained person using the same gear. If this is not true, the evaluation method worthless.
3)There exist two cables which have different profiles. If this is not true, the evaluation is worthless.
4)The evaluator should be able to take his notes and with reasonable accuracy identify which of the two cables that they are listening to in a blinded manner.

This would prove without doubt that the evaluator can actually is observing the different characteristics of the cables.

DarqueKnight

Then:

DarkHorror wrote: »

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

DarkHorror wrote: »

I must say these forum arguments are stupid.

DarkHorror wrote: »

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.

Now:

DarkHorror wrote: »

I don't even know why I made this post, guess I got bored.

DarkHorror wrote: »

But since you are clearly not interested in a reasonable discussion, I don't even know why I made this post, guess I got bored.

Let me make sure I have this straight. You resigned from this discussion because you believed it to be "stupid". Then, you return and specifically address me, who you and your anti-audiophile brethren have assailed as

1. Silly,
2. Stupid,
3. Arrogant,
4. Hypocritical,
5. Unreasonable.

I am none of the above. I have stated my positions and I have pointed to credible scientific research that supports those positions. I have asked those with opposing positions to similarly provide credible scientific justification for their positions. What is silly, stupid, arrogant, hypocritical or unreasonable about that?

You have returned to ask the same question you (and others) posed earlier: If a trained evaluator can do something sighted, shouldn't the same evaluator, using the same evaluative criteria, be able to do the same thing blinded?

The answer to your question is yes, absolutely...but, why would you? What sense would it make within the context of quantitative measurement?

Consider this example:

Consider an evaluator tasked with evaluating two wood jewelry boxes, a beautifully finished box made by Cartier costing $1000 and a plain, yet moderately sturdy box made by Walmart costing $50. Both boxes look identical on the inside and are finished in black velvet. The Cartier box is made of better and heavier materials and comes with a lifetime replacement warranty, and has 20% more internal volume. The Walmart box offers a 30 day return/replacement warranty.

1. If a trained evaluator uses the same weight scale to measure both boxes, is the weight reading going to be influenced by the fact that the Cartier box is more attractive, has a prestige brandname, and costs 20X more than the Walmart box? In other words, if each box is placed on the scale while hiding it behind a curtain, will the evaluator be more inclined to read the scale more accurately?

2. If a trained evaluator uses the same measuring tape to measure the internal volume of each box, will the measurements be more or less accurate if a screen is placed over each box so that only the black velvet interior is shown? In other words, if the Walmart box actually had more interior volume, would the evaluator measure, then "imagine" more interior volume in the Cartier box due to visual bias?

3. If a trained evaluator takes a hard plastic rod and taps around the sides and bottom of the boxes while noting the heaviness of the sound, would more "solid" sound be heard due to the thickness and density of the Cartier box walls, or would it be due to the influence of the Cartier's brand, price and appearance?

The evaluator concludes that the Walmart box is a better value if you a few modestly priced items that need simple storage and if the box is not heavily used. The conclusion also states that the Cartier box would be a better value if you have a moderate number of high cost items that require more protection and you want a box that will last longer.

Questions:

1. How reasonable would it be for outraged and offended Walmart customers to demand that the evaluator, after the completion of sighted measurements, to go back and do the measurements blind because they believe his recommendation of the Cartier box was swayed by visual bias induced by price, brand name and appearance? The evaluator counters that the evaluation measurements had nothing to do with price, appearance or brand, he simply measured the weight, construction quality and interior volume of each box and made recommendations accordingly. The evaluator states that the Walmart customers are being unreasonable because they are demanding time and effort be expended on a procedure that would not add value to the measurement process. The evaluator further states that the Walmart customers, enraged as they are, should have sense enough to realize that an interior volume measurement of 150 cubic inches is not going to change whether or not the brand, price or external appearance of the box is known or hidden.

2. How reasonable would it be to ask a trained audio evaluator to repeat sonic measurements blind, when such measurements had nothing to do with price, brand or appearance in the first place? In other words, if a prestige brand preamp generates a sound stage 5 feet wide and another less expensive new-to-the-market preamp generates a sound stage 10 feet wide, is it reasonable to believe that an evaluator trained and experienced in sound localization would "imagine" that the more expensive preamp has the wider sound stage due to visual bias?

3. In situations where trained and experienced evaluators use a formal, quantitative sighted-measurement protocol, please reference the scientific justification for needing to repeat the measurements blind in order to validate the sighted results. Saying that, "if you can measure it sighted, you should be able to measure it blind" implies that there is something about the sighted measurement process that is untrustworthy. If the requested validation is due to visual bias, please explain, with scientific justification (if you have any), how it has been shown that trained evaluators will quantitatively measure something and then report an inaccurate measurement due visual bias.

As I said:

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.

unc2701

DK-
There's a well known experiment pulled on researchers with some regularity:

They give them water, salt water, and a few unknown substances and ask them to measure the density. Nearly everyone finds the density of the water to be VERY close to 1. However, one of the unknowns is the exact same water, which due the variability of the scales, inaccuracy of the getting the volume just right, crap in the water, comes up a good bit off of 1. Same substance, trained professionals, biased result.

This has been done over and over and over again. How much human subject data have you actually worked with?

heiney9

unc2701 wrote: »

DK-
There's a well known experiment pulled on researchers with some regularity:

They give them water, salt water, and a few unknown substances and ask them to measure the density. Nearly everyone finds the density of the water to be VERY close to 1. However, one of the unknowns is the exact same water, which due the variability of the scales, inaccuracy of the getting the volume just right, crap in the water, comes up a good bit off of 1. Same substance, trained professionals, biased result.

This has been done over and over and over again. How much human subject data have you actually worked with?

I know I said I was out, but how does this apply to blinded/unblinded stereophonic reproduction identifying techniques? It's nice you pointed this out, but you didn't in any way connect it to the issue at hand. I'd rather not make assumptions (you know what that leads to) so if you could explain (in detail) how that applies specificially to DK's post #144 I think it would help tremendously.

H9

unc2701

The idea of an unbiased evaluator is completely laughable.

He offered the analogy of a using a tape measure, suggesting that such a result could not be biased, and my example shows that this does in fact happen, with trained professionals. The analogy is also lame in that that is a relatively objective measure and audio is highly subjective.

I've worked on hundreds of clinical trials; I work with human subject data every day. Evaluator bias is huge, even in relatively objective measures.

heiney9

Yet somehow the naysayers cling to the notion that if the test is blinded, bias is removed. I don't think anyone stated that you can completely get rid of all biases, yes that would be laughable, but they can be greatly reduced and or trained to be reduced in a particular set of very narrow circumstance to achieve the best possible, consistent outcome.

So your "clinical" trials mirror how to evaluate stereophonic reproduction? I'd be interested to know more about what you do?

DarkHorror

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Then:







Now:





Let me make sure I have this straight. You resigned from this discussion because you believed it to be "stupid". Then, you return and specifically address me, who you and your anti-audiophile brethren have assailed as

1. Silly,
2. Stupid,
3. Arrogant,
4. Hypocritical,
5. Unreasonable.

I am none of the above. I have stated my positions and I have pointed to credible scientific research that supports those positions. I have asked those with opposing positions to similarly provide credible scientific justification for their positions. What is silly, stupid, arrogant, hypocritical or unreasonable about that?

You have returned to ask the same question you (and others) posed earlier: If a trained evaluator can do something sighted, shouldn't the same evaluator, using the same evaluative criteria, be able to do the same thing blinded?

The answer to your question is yes, absolutely...but, why would you? What sense would it make within the context of quantitative measurement?

Consider this example:

Consider an evaluator tasked with evaluating two wood jewelry boxes, a beautifully finished box made by Cartier costing $1000 and a plain, yet moderately sturdy box made by Walmart costing $50. Both boxes look identical on the inside and are finished in black velvet. The Cartier box is made of better and heavier materials and comes with a lifetime replacement warranty, and has 20% more internal volume. The Walmart box offers a 30 day return/replacement warranty.

1. If a trained evaluator uses the same weight scale to measure both boxes, is the weight reading going to be influenced by the fact that the Cartier box is more attractive, has a prestige brandname, and costs 20X more than the Walmart box? In other words, if each box is placed on the scale while hiding it behind a curtain, will the evaluator be more inclined to read the scale more accurately?

2. If a trained evaluator uses the same measuring tape to measure the internal volume of each box, will the measurements be more or less accurate if a screen is placed over each box so that only the black velvet interior is shown? In other words, if the Walmart box actually had more interior volume, would the evaluator measure, then "imagine" more interior volume in the Cartier box due to visual bias?

3. If a trained evaluator takes a hard plastic rod and taps around the sides and bottom of the boxes while noting the heaviness of the sound, would more "solid" sound be heard due to the thickness and density of the Cartier box walls, or would it be due to the influence of the Cartier's brand, price and appearance?

The evaluator concludes that the Walmart box is a better value if you a few modestly priced items that need simple storage and if the box is not heavily used. The conclusion also states that the Cartier box would be a better value if you have a moderate number of high cost items that require more protection and you want a box that will last longer.

Questions:

1. How reasonable would it be for outraged and offended Walmart customers to demand that the evaluator, after the completion of sighted measurements, to go back and do the measurements blind because they believe his recommendation of the Cartier box was swayed by visual bias induced by price, brand name and appearance? The evaluator counters that the evaluation measurements had nothing to do with price, appearance or brand, he simply measured the weight, construction quality and interior volume of each box and made recommendations accordingly. The evaluator states that the Walmart customers are being unreasonable because they are demanding time and effort be expended on a procedure that would not add value to the measurement process. The evaluator further states that the Walmart customers, enraged as they are, should have sense enough to realize that an interior volume measurement of 150 cubic inches is not going to change whether or not the brand, price or external appearance of the box is known or hidden.

2. How reasonable would it be to ask a trained audio evaluator to repeat sonic measurements blind, when such measurements had nothing to do with price, brand or appearance in the first place? In other words, if a prestige brand preamp generates a sound stage 5 feet wide and another less expensive new-to-the-market preamp generates a sound stage 10 feet wide, is it reasonable to believe that an evaluator trained and experienced in sound localization would "imagine" that the more expensive preamp has the wider sound stage due to visual bias?

3. In situations where trained and experienced evaluators use a formal, quantitative sighted-measurement protocol, please reference the scientific justification for needing to repeat the measurements blind in order to validate the sighted results. Saying that, "if you can measure it sighted, you should be able to measure it blind" implies that there is something about the sighted measurement process that is untrustworthy. If the requested validation is due to visual bias, please explain, with scientific justification (if you have any), how it has been shown that trained evaluators will quantitatively measure something and then report an inaccurate measurement due visual bias.

As I said:

If the trained evaluator did the blind tests they should be able to tell 100% of the time which is which. It has nothing to do with if you think it's reasonable to have to do the test. It's IF you did the test would you be able to tell 100% of the time which is which?

Clearly if they did these tests blind and sighted they would get the same results and not knowing which is which wouldn't change the results.

The same should work with listening to speakers, as the test I listed above. I don't care if you think it's unreasonable to do the test.

I don't think it's reasonable to have to test if I drop something that it will fall to the ground due to gravity. But if you were to do the test you will get the results I expect.

heiney9

DarkHorror wrote: »

Clearly if they did these tests blind and sighted they would get the same results and not knowing which is which wouldn't change the results.

So then you agree that the tests don't need to be blinded to be valid. See that's what we've been saying all along.

H9

unc2701

Um. I think you've gotten this a bit turned around. See post 143. If your objective is to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that you are able to discriminate between cables based on how they sound, all you have to do is.... well, discriminate between cables using how they sound. DK's very thorough methodology can be administered in a blinded manner. Can you tell me why my suggestion in 143 wouldn't work?

As for what I do- it's clinical trials, no need for the quotation marks. Human subjects. Most ophthalmology, opioids, asthma and things which require patient reported outcomes, scale validation, etc. When you see heroin addicts reacting to placebo and asthmatics having the FEV1 improve on placebo, it's pretty clear that you can't trust anything a person reports with out assuming some bias.