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

BlueFox · May 2012

DarqueKnight wrote: »

.... nor should any of my comments or views be taken seriously because I am:

1. Silly,
2. Stupid,
3. Arrogant,
4. Hypocritical,
5. Unreasonable.
6. Untrained in Human Subject Evaluation.
7. Exhibiting the symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome...even my system showcase shows hints of it,

You forgot "Internet Bully", which was said in some other thread. Or maybe it was this one.

DarkHorror · May 2012

What we have now is two arguments which boil down to...

H9: I don't believe blind tests are valid.

DK: I don't think a trained evaluator needs to do a blind test.

heiney9 · May 2012

DarkHorror wrote: »

What we have now is two arguments which boil down to...

H9: I don't believe blind tests are valid.

DK: I don't think a trained evaluator needs to do a blind test.

No that's way too simplified. No wonder you can't answer a single question that has been asked, you don't read very well.

I am more against the testing procedure, not so much the method of blinding. I don't think blind tests are invalid, if administered in a way that one would normally sit and listen to stereophonic recordings. Also what I am saying is you don't need to use a blind method to determine if there is a difference. That in NO WAY implies blind tests are invalid, unless they are conducted in the typical manner of listening to short snippets of songs in an unfamiliar environment and on an unfamilar rig and in some cases unfamiliar songs, then yes that testing procedure fails misreably and it would fail even if the test was sighted.

H9

teekay0007 · May 2012

No, no, no! DarkHorror, you've got it all wrong - as you can see by this earlier post of H9's, he isn't quite sure what side of the fence he's on. :rolleyes:

heiney9 wrote: »

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

Thanks for posting this Enders

H9

And what DK's saying is that you should do the test allowing visual bias because you can always factor that out later, or trust that it's been minimized by all audiophile cable evaluators having been self-educated, self-trained and been the recipient of therapy to "debias" them all to the same acceptable and equivalent level. Never mind the fact that you could have simply done the testing blinded and eliminated visual bias all along. This reasoning is quite similar to obtaining a strep throat bacterial culture swab via the ****...:eek: It could probably be done with the right education, training and therapy, but there is a MUCH easier way to do it.

heiney9 · May 2012

What is this "visual bias" you are talking about? I have done sighted comparisons where the uglier, cheaper or less affluent brand cable or component is the clear winner soundwise. So tell me again how the visual bias influences me?

And how is it that in television evaluation this mysterious visual bias isn't an issue? The type and brand of the TV could be hidden, yet it's not.

How is a blind test easier than a non-blinded test? It's the method in which the test is administered that is at fault, because like I stated before using the typical DBT method that has been outlined and accepted as the norm would also fail sighted tests. The METHOD is fundamentaly flawed no matter if it's blinded or unblinded.

H9

Joe08867 · May 2012

DarkHorror, you make no sense at all, really you want to dumb it down to that. Wow, just, Wow! I guess reading isn't your strong suit.

Wow teekay, you are so cool. I love internet tough guys. He also said later that he did not read the article fully and changed his stance. It must be cooler to just pick the parts you like out and post them though.

To both of you, I would love to see your guys answer any of the questions posed to you with just a hint of the professionalism that DK has shown. No name calling, just the facts. I bet you can't do it!

DarkHorror · May 2012

Joe08867 wrote: »

DarkHorror, you make no sense at all, really you want to dumb it down to that. Wow, just, Wow! I guess reading isn't your strong suit.

Wow teekay, you are so cool. I love internet tough guys. He also said later that he did not read the article fully and changed his stance. It must be cooler to just pick the parts you like out and post them though.

To both of you, I would love to see your guys answer any of the questions posed to you with just a hint of the professionalism that DK has shown. No name calling, just the facts. I bet you can't do it!

What am I trying to dispute is nothing to do with what they are talking about.

There arguments are almost exactly what I had written above.

You keep on asking me to answer the questions they have posted, yet I have assumed that what they have posted in those questions is correct as I have posted above.

I have then shown that a blind test assuming what DK has posted is correct would be valid, and if the results come out such that they don't agree with the assumptions. Then one or all the assumptions are incorrect.

It's not that complicated.

After I did here is a quote from H9

You are working on the assumption that the testing methods employed by blinding are valid, they aren't as DK has pointed out several times. You are also working under the assumption that by visually seeing what cable brand, color, etc will skew the results. I don't ascribe to those assumptions because I know that is not the case. I have successfully done it on more than one occasion, that is choosen a cable, a dac, a tube, a pre-amp that if I couldn't overcome the sighted bias all my choices would be based on brand and price. Guess what, they aren't.

Please explain how it is possible for me to do sighted comparisons to choose which one I like the best and in many instances I have choosen the lesser expensive pieces and/or lower branded products or even uglier products.

I have already shown that blind testing, given the assumptions give by DK are valid. I was working on the assumption that what DK had posted was correct aka that you aren't visually biased. Which given what I had posted earlier leads to you being able to tell 100% of the time which cable is which in a blind test. Visual bias doesn't mean you will just choose based on brand and price.

Sure a crappy test like the one that started this thread tells you nothing, just like setting up a bad blind test or using people who don't know how to evaluate a stereo are also useless. But we aren't talking about this. Otherwise we would just be talking about a good way to do a blind test. That shouldn't be part of the discussion, we should be discussing that given a good blind test...

That is also why I had talk about the test above, this takes all the assumptions given by H9 and DK and comes with a test that will give good results.

heiney9 · May 2012

What type of blind test would you administer then Darkhorror? And then explain to me why the test you have devised can't be done sighted. I hope you can write and put together something comprehensive, because again, your writing style, syntax and mis-use of words and poor sentence structure makes it very difficult to follow any of your thoughts.

H9

DarkHorror · May 2012

heiney9 wrote: »

What is this "visual bias" you are talking about? I have done sighted comparisons where the uglier, cheaper or less affluent brand cable or component is the clear winner soundwise. So tell me again how the visual bias influences me?

And how is it that in television evaluation this mysterious visual bias isn't an issue? The type and brand of the TV could be hidden, yet it's not.

How is a blind test easier than a non-blinded test? It's the method in which the test is administered that is at fault, because like I stated before using the typical DBT method that has been outlined and accepted as the norm would also fail sighted tests. The METHOD is fundamentaly flawed no matter if it's blinded or unblinded.

H9

You can compare a television side by side, you have specific evaluation equipment and test patterns. The problems are usually very obvious. You don't have a television use a different hdmi cable then say flesh tones look more realistic, but when tested with evaluation equipment along with test pictures and patterns they measure the same.

And once again a blind test is perfectly valid with televisions.

heiney9 · May 2012

DarkHorror wrote: »

You can compare a television side by side, you have specific evaluation equipment and test patterns. The problems are usually very obvious. You don't have a television use a different hdmi cable then say flesh tones look more realistic, but when tested with evaluation equipment along with test pictures and patterns they measure the same.

And once again a blind test is perfectly valid with televisions.

I can tell you the same by listening to my audio rig. So you are saying everyone see's the exact same thing when evaluating televisions (because problems are obvious), so why can't we all hear the exact same things when listening to audio? If you agree we can, then why do we have to be blinded? Visual bias as stated by naysayers is the phenomenon of being influenced by "seeing" the more expensive, more attractive, more respected brand name before listening. How does this visual bias disappear when evaluating TV's. The new 1" thick Samsung LED 3D TV sure is more attractive, expensive and better respected than the Vizio brand, which would indicate that there could be some visual bias to choose the Samsung not soley based on just the picture performance.

H9

DarkHorror · May 2012

heiney9 wrote: »

What type of blind test would you administer then Darkhorror? And then explain to me why the test you have devised can't be done sighted. I hope you can write and put together something comprehensive, because again, your writing style, syntax and mis-use of words and poor sentence structure makes it very difficult to follow any of your thoughts.

H9

already done, and sure it COULD be done sighted, but the results would be less than useless.

heiney9 · May 2012

DarkHorror wrote: »

already done,

??? Huh?

DarkHorror wrote: »

and sure it COULD be done sighted, but the results would be less than useless

Care to go into specific detail, or are you a "just because" type of person. What exactly is "less than useless"?

If you can't communicate your ideas a whole lot better, then I'm writing you off with the rest of them. It's amazing the amount of space you have taken up and said absolutely nothing.

H9

heiney9 · May 2012

I knew engaging you would lead to a whole bunch of nothing, but I thought I'd give you the benefit of doubt, silly me.

H9

heiney9 · May 2012

In case you don't know the meaning to the word EXPLAIN:

ex?plain/ikˈsplān/Verb: 1.Make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas.
2.Account for (an action or event) by giving a reason as excuse or justification.

DarkHorror · May 2012

heiney9 wrote: »

I can tell you the same by listening to my audio rig. So you are saying everyone see's the exact same thing when evaluating televisions (because problems are obvious), so why can't we all hear the exact same things when listening to audio? If you agree we can, then why do we have to be blinded? Visual bias as stated by naysayers is the phenomenon of being influenced by "seeing" the more expensive, more attractive, more respected brand name before listening. How does this visual bias disappear when evaluating TV's. The new 1" thick Samsung LED 3D TV sure is more attractive, expensive and better respected than the Vizio brand, which would indicate that there could be some visual bias to choose the Samsung not soley based on just the picture performance.

H9

No I am not saying everyone sees the same thing. But can we please avoid bad analogies, where you are testing two different tv's that would clearly look different. Which is very far from what we are talking about. But as I said before, you could do a blind test with these televisions and you would get the expected results. Without seeing the actual television they could tell which one is which just by seeing videos on the screen.

DarkHorror · May 2012

heiney9 wrote: »

I knew engaging you would lead to a whole bunch of nothing, but I thought I'd give you the benefit of doubt, silly me.

H9

Considering you have never added a single thing other than "I don't understand". I guess what I posted earlier about you simply not being intelligent enough to follow some simple logic was true.

Nothing I have said is complicated, and if you can't follow it then any more depth I add to the explanation is just going to confuse you even more.

I even thought we were making progress till you went back to default and posted "You are working on the assumption that the testing methods employed by blinding are valid..."

heiney9 · May 2012

So a tv can look different, but an audio rig caan't sound different? That is absurd on every level. So not everyone see's the same thing, yet they can see that the TV's look "clearly" different? Based on what? Could you be any more general and contradicting?

Right blind or sighted with TV's give the expected results. Explain to me again why the same can't be done by listening? Or is your answer going to be "less than useless"?

heiney9 · May 2012

DarkHorror wrote: »

Considering you have never added a single thing other than "I don't understand". I guess what I posted earlier about you simply not being intelligent enough to follow some simple logic was true.

Nothing I have said is complicated, and if you can't follow it then any more depth I add to the explanation is just going to confuse you even more.

I even thought we were making progress till you went back to default and posted "You are working on the assumption that the testing methods employed by blinding are valid..."

The point is, just because you SAY it doesn't make it true, valid or correct. So unless you can back it up with substance it means nothing to me, and no your logic doesn't follow.

Buh, bye......I'm done with your one sentece cliched remarks that add zero value to this discussion.

H9

DarkHorror · May 2012

heiney9 wrote: »

So a tv can look different, but an audio rig caan't sound different? That is absurd on every level. So not everyone see's the same thing, yet they can see that the TV's look "clearly" different? Based on what? Could you be any more general and contradicting?

Right blind or sighted with TV's give the expected results. Explain to me again why the same can't be done by listening? Or is your answer going to be "less than useless"?

Tv's clearly do look different, but if you switched out two fine working HDMI cables you wouldn't get any difference.

Things do sound different, like if you took two different speakers they should sound totally different. Or something with Room eq engaged vs disengaged. Or a cheap receiver that can't power a full range speaker vs a nice amp that has no trouble. You could do a blind test with any of those and get results that show difference. If you did a good blind test and got results that didn't show a difference then there isn't an audible difference.

As I said it can be done for listening, you do both tests and if you get the same results then you know there is an audible difference. If you do the test and you don't get the expected results then difference isn't audible.

heiney9 · May 2012

Still you haven't explained WHY it has to be a blind test. WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY.

Not sure how much more direct I can ask the question?

Also how do you know if you switched HDMI cables you wouldn't get a difference? So in your above example, why can I hear a sighted difference between what you mention, but have to be blind to hear a difference between other things? You aren't making any sense at all.

H9

F1nut · May 2012

DarkHorror wrote: »

No I am not saying everyone sees the same thing. But can we please avoid bad analogies, where you are testing two different tv's that would clearly look different. Which is very far from what we are talking about. But as I said before, you could do a blind test with these televisions and you would get the expected results. Without seeing the actual television they could tell which one is which just by seeing videos on the screen.

You really don't have a clue, do you!?!

DarkHorror · May 2012

heiney9 wrote: »

Still you haven't explained WHY it has to be a blind test. WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY.

Not sure how much more direct I can ask the question?

Also how do you know if you switched HDMI cables you wouldn't get a difference? So in your above example, why can I hear a sighted difference between what you mention, but have to be blind to hear a difference between other things? You aren't making any sense at all.

H9

So you know that the difference is real and audible, not imagined.

It sounds like you are thinking a blind test means your eyes are closed or than you are blindfolded?

There are real differences and you can hear them sighted or blind. You do the blind testing to test if the differences you think you hear are real or imagined. If they are real, then in the blind test you will be able to choose which you are listening to 100% of the time or close to it. If the differences are imagined you ether will be unable to choose, or if you do choose what you think you are listening the results will be around 50% right and wrong.

DarkHorror · May 2012

F1nut wrote: »

You really don't have a clue, do you!?!

Why bother to post as you clearly have nothing to add. Can you refute anything I said?

heiney9 · May 2012

DarkHorror wrote: »

Can you refute anything I said?

You haven't said one damn coherent thing yet. State something refutable. I keep asking for specifics and yet I get none from you.

H9

heiney9 · May 2012

DarkHorror wrote: »

There are real differences and you can hear them sighted or blind.

So we agree, blind testing is not necessary, since you just stated "you can hear them blind or sighted". And again I will ask, how would you design and administer such a test? I feel like I am beating my bloody head against the wall.

H9

F1nut · May 2012

DarkHorror wrote: »

Why bother to post as you clearly have nothing to add. Can you refute anything I said?

Post #174 based on reality, not your fantasy world.

teekay0007 · May 2012

Joe08867 wrote: »

DarkHorror, you make no sense at all, really you want to dumb it down to that. Wow, just, Wow! I guess reading isn't your strong suit.

Wow teekay, you are so cool. I love internet tough guys. He also said later that he did not read the article fully and changed his stance. It must be cooler to just pick the parts you like out and post them though.

To both of you, I would love to see your guys answer any of the questions posed to you with just a hint of the professionalism that DK has shown. No name calling, just the facts. I bet you can't do it!

Wow, Joe, thanks for thinking I'm cool - very kind of you! :cool: :cheesygrin:

But no, I'm no tough guy, internet or otherwise. Sure, I enjoy the occasional Dirty Harry or John Wayne movie, but I don't think that qualifies me as such. :loneranger:

In regard to H9 and DK - I highly value their opinions and have learned A TON from each of them on this forum. Their contributions here, to date, far outweigh the cumulative contibution I will make here in my lifetime, manyfold. However, on the topic of this thread, I disagree with them and am willing to tell them so. I think I've done so without any namecalling or insulting them personally - well.....maybe a tiny jab here and there, but nothing egregious.

I do find it quite comical that you would take a shot at DarkHorror's reading abilities while in your next breath excusing H9 for the very same offense. :rolleyes:

heiney9 · May 2012

DarkHorror wrote: »

You do the blind testing to test if the differences you think you hear are real or imagined. If they are real, then in the blind test you will be able to choose which you are listening to 100% of the time or close to it. If the differences are imagined you ether will be unable to choose, or if you do choose what you think you are listening the results will be around 50% right and wrong.

Where did you come up with this gem? Please list all sources.

H9

DarkHorror · May 2012

heiney9 wrote: »

So we agree, blind testing is not necessary, since you just stated "you can hear them blind or sighted". And again I will ask, how would you design and administer such a test? I feel like I am beating my bloody head against the wall.

H9

But is what you think you hear real or not? That is what the test is for. It's not that you hear something different in a blind test. It's that your brain and memory isn't tricking you based on what you expect.

You may say you hear better bass with this new cable, but is what you say you hear real or is it imaged?

DarkHorror · May 2012

heiney9 wrote: »

Where did you come up with this gem? Please list all sources.

H9

It's basic logic, can you refute anything said there?

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

Comments