Does high quality digital cables matter?

Habanero Monk

BlueFox wrote: »

No problem. A sequence of 1s and 0s can be correct, but have timing errors as to when the rise and fall of the 1s and 0s occurs. For most data this is irrelevant. For example, 01000001 represents the letter 'A'. Where the rise and fall time of each bit occurs doesn't matter, since it will always be 'A' when printed or displayed on the computer screen. There is a small +/- tolerance built into this encoding. As long as the frame is within this tolerance, the letter 'A' results.

However, for music, data being transformed into an analog signal the rise and fall time are very important. Otherwise, the music is 'off'. In this case the +/- tolerance can result in a slightly different musical signal than what was transmitted. While the digital frame is correct from an Ethernet perspsective, a little distortion results from the timing errors. This is the jitter aspect. Unfortunately, every link in the chain can add, or subtract, these timing errors. This is nothing new, and is well understood. Whether some people want to believe it is another issue.

Personally, until this better understood and resolved I will stay with direct attached USB storage to my file player. No network music for me.

Signal timing variance happens no matter what. USB, Ethernet, Firewire, Optical, 75 Ohm terminated coaxial.

It's why a good DAC buffers against the input and uses one of the many available clocking methods to get back to 44.1/96/192. The source is always NV Storage of some form then over cable: Ethernet, USB, TOSLINK, AES-EBU, FireWire, Wireless from a feet if not thousands of miles away. Regardless of the transmission line when that stream hits the take, timing variance included a well performing DAC will do it's best (and a lot do a great job) of getting jitter below -110dB (seems to the accepted standard).

Nothing is jitter free, just jitter suppressed from what I have seen. If there is anything jitter free I would like to see it.

It's why DAC manufacturers advertise their ability to re-clock data. They aren't relying on an external stream for timing data. Ethernet 802.11x doesn't even carry audio clock data. It's embedded as part of the packet, transmitted to the computer, buffered in RAM, bitstreamed in the case of USB connected audio, RE-CLOCKED at the DAC and played.

Habanero Monk

pitdogg2 wrote: »

yes like you Tony I think along the same wave length "Standard" = good enough to get good results 99.99996% of the time. Can we make it better yes but can we do it in a cost efficient way to get better results on return of investment. make sense? Sometimes the cost to get better results diminishes the return on investment.

It's still packet data. Order a BJC certified cable, get a $1200 AQ ethernet cable. Take two computers with two GB NIC's and assign static IP's.

Connect them directly. Going with Tony's analogy you should be able to determine which cable is performing the transfer because after you have transferred say a 2 GB file, 10 times for each cable, the AQ is going to have a faster mean time than the BJC.

If you have a cable that specs 70% over GB transmission requirements and the other is 50% over you are going to get the same speeds. It's non-sequitur at this point.

You are talking about realtime audio waveform timing errors in a 780MB album that has just been transferred in 7 seconds in this case.

120MB song (16/44.1) at 1411kbps is 1.5 second for ~11 minute song. Even a 20 second buffer is a lifetime on a modern computer.

DarqueKnight

badchad wrote: »

We can agree to disagree here. I think we all have inherent bias, whether we're aware of it or not. These biases are formed from the moment we're born due to our life experiences. This is Psych. 101. You don't have to agree, but if an individual is blind to the treatment conditions, his/her bias is limited. That's the point.

You can also disagree with all the economic researchers in the field of "debiasing consumers" who stand on decades of solid research showing that the effects of consumer bias can be removed with appropriate training. Here are a couple of references from economics journals to get you started:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

badchad wrote: »

It takes minimal extra effort to blind a study and it all but ensures bias is completely eliminated. This is why its standard practice across nearly every scientific discipline.

Then why did the Bell Labs researchers who used blind tests for monophonic telephone audio abandon blind tests when they turned their attention to stereo? Why are so many economics professors advocating consumer training, rather than blinding, for eliminating the effects of bias in consumer decisions? Why does the field of sensory science specify blind tests for na

ZLTFUL

villian wrote: »

Jitter or not, if the 0's and 1's are the same..bit for bit..then there is no difference. There cannot be any difference. The source equals the playback. Exactly. You can't get Jitter from nothing, and you can't get nothing from nothing..IE: If there's not an 0 or a 1 to support it, then it's NOT there. If you hear something different, then your mind is playing tricks. This is a well documented mental disorder common among ALL humans.

You are WELL out of your depth kid. Move along. Grown folks are conversing.

teekay0007

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I provided two excellent globally accepted sensory science references that explain in detail why different types of tests should be used for trained and untrained subjects (participants). You are also confusing "experience" with "training". They are two different things. One can be experienced at some task and do it improperly. Many people are experienced at listening to stereo systems, yet they are untrained in sound localization and sound characterization techniques.

DK, you've mentioned several times that there's differences between experienced listeners and trained listeners. Can you explain how someone becomes a trained listener, as opposed to being just an experienced one?

DarqueKnight

teekay0007 wrote: »

DK, you've mentioned several times that there's differences between experienced listeners and trained listeners. Can you explain how someone becomes a trained listener, as opposed to being just an experienced one?

No, I'm not going to explain it again for the 10,001th time since I have already addressed this in this thread and several others.

Look up the definition of training. Look up the definition of experience. I think most people understand that a policeman can be trained in the use of firearms, yet have no field experience using them. Likewise, a criminal can have years of experience using firearms in committing crimes, yet have no formal training in firearm use and safety. Anyone can pick up a gun and pull a trigger.

For an answer to your question, I will refer you to the explanation of Bell Labs scientists, who invented home stereo systems, in my "Survey Of Early Stereophonic System Subjective Evaluation" thread.

badchad

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You can also disagree with all the economic researchers in the field of "debiasing consumers" who stand on decades of solid research showing that the effects of consumer bias can be removed with appropriate training. Here are a couple of references from economics journals to get you started:

Let me be clear: I don't disagree that you can reduce bias. You can reduce bias.

My point is that in an experimental (non-consumer) setting, blinding is perhaps easier, and more efficient. How can one be biased, if he/she doesn't know the product that they are listening to?

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Then why did the Bell Labs researchers who used blind tests for monophonic telephone audio abandon blind tests when they turned their attention to stereo?

Because blinded tests in pursuit of knowledge aren't necessarily representative of a consumer market. The goal of Bell labs is to sell products. Blinded tests are less efficient in achieving that.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Why are so many economics professors advocating consumer training, rather than blinding, for eliminating the effects of bias in consumer decisions? Why does the field of sensory science specify blind tests for na

teekay0007

DarqueKnight wrote: »

No, I'm not going to explain it again for the 10,001th time since I have already addressed this in this thread and several others.

Look up the definition of training. Look up the definition of experience. I think most people understand that a policeman can be trained in the use of firearms, yet have no field experience using them. Likewise, a criminal can have years of experience using firearms in committing crimes, yet have no formal training in firearm use and safety. Anyone can pick up a gun and pull a trigger.

For an answer to your question, I will refer you to the explanation of Bell Labs scientists, who invented home stereo systems, in my "Survey Of Early Stereophonic System Subjective Evaluation" thread.

My point in asking is that from what I've seen and read, there's an awful lot of people here on this very forum who I believe would put themselves in the "trained category", when by the definition you're using, they'd actually fall somewhere in the "experienced listener" category. In fact, I'd say with considerable confidence, there's only a handful of contributors on this site that I'd personally put into the trained category as it's been described. I'd put myself in the very early stages of being an experienced listener.

Given this, how are we - those not in the trained listener category - supposed to validly and sufficiently evaluate a new cable, pair of cables or piece of equipment? How can we, short of becoming "trained listeners", know that we aren't making our choices without bias, if not for the use of a blinded trial in our own listening space?

DarqueKnight

teekay0007 wrote: »

Given this, how are we - those not in the trained listener category - supposed to validly and sufficiently evaluate a new cable, pair of cables or piece of equipment? How can we, short of becoming "trained listeners", know that we aren't making our choices without bias, if not for the use of a blinded trial in our own listening space?

Re-read my posts in this thread to find answers to your questions.

Use blind tests, beads and rattles, Tarot cards or whatever else, if you believe you can't trust your ears.

I have provided a lot of credible scientific evidence regarding why blind tests are not appropriate test protocols for stereo audio. You and others asking me the same questions over and over again is not going to make that body of scientific knowledge go away, nor will it support and justify your belief that blind tests are good for everything.

What remains to be done now is to explain why the inventors of home stereo systems, all esteemed Bell Laboratories scientists, were wrong for abandoning blind tests when they moved from monophonic telephone line research to stereophonic system research. This is a question I have been asking for several years. Do you have any credible research documentation to share on that, or do you just expect me to accept your words and opinions without any scientific validation?

tonyb

DSkip wrote: »

I've told people on here before that the best way to learn is to sit down with fellow hobbyists and talk about what you listen for. I've learned so much just from passing guests in rooms at LSAF and sitting down at another Polkie's room while they talk about what they like or don't like, or what now is apparent or has disappeared. Stereophony is hard to train yourself in - even when you think you understand all it has to offer, something else presents itself out of the blue.

This is true my friend. Just talking about it and observing with others won't hurt your journey. On the other hand, there are times when I just simply want to enjoy the tunes and not pick it apart. We all also listen differently as DK pointed out, which makes the whole cable subject even more convoluted. Thing is, when evaluating cables and gear, I'll use more critical listening skills to determine my choices but after that I somewhat relax that nitpicking and simply enjoy. Anything that's new, including recordings gets the once over in the critical listening stage, maybe even 2 or 3 times, but after that I stop picking it apart.

teekay0007

DSkip wrote: »

I've told people on here before that the best way to learn is to sit down with fellow hobbyists and talk about what you listen for. I've learned so much just from passing guests in rooms at LSAF and sitting down at another Polkie's room while they talk about what they like or don't like, or what now is apparent or has disappeared. Stereophony is hard to train yourself in - even when you think you understand all it has to offer, something else presents itself out of the blue.

Yes, DSkip (one in the "handful" I mentioned in my prior post), that makes sense. However, if we don't hang out with audiophiles or have any access to the circles they tend to be in in our current lifestyle circumstances, doing so is much easier said than done. Additionally, discussing through phone conversations or emails with those that we know are into the audio hobby what each other hears or experiences from their gear does little to further our training in this arena. I've also found that talking to salesmen is out since I've never even heard one of them offer so much as one positive word about any item that they weren't selling.

DarqueKnight

badchad wrote: »

Because economics professors are concerned with the study of economics and sales. These aren't often done blinded.

Right. So you are not aware that home stereo systems are merchandise subject to the same laws of economics as other merchandise?

badchad wrote: »

In one of your reviews you described bass articulation as "severely diminished", "more weight" etc. Those are subjective descriptions. Your use of an oscilloscope is objective (e.g., not subject to interpretation).

It becomes objective when I can describe the sonic effects that accompanied the changes in bass articulation. People with a framework of experience in this type of evaluation know full well what I mean. You, and others, who have no real interest in stereophonic audio are on the outside looking in. Concepts that are trivial to trained and experienced practitioners are huge stumbling blocks for you.

badchad wrote: »

In science "blinding" usually refers to a subject (or investigator, or both) not knowing his/her treatment.

According to the lady conducting the "blind" test with blindfolds and the fellow over at the AK forum advocating cable trials while blindfolded, and the scores of blind tests done with curtains and screens, "blinding" in stereo audio trials usually refers to visual obstruction as well as hiding product identity.

badchad wrote: »

For example, if I give you a drug without telling you what it is, you are "blinded" to the treatment. While it CAN refer to visual obstruction or a blind-fold, it often does not.

I have already thoroughly explained why the use of blind trials in medicine is in no way related to the use of blind trials in stereo audio evaluation. There is no scientific basis for it. All you are doing is spouting your beliefs which you have not provided one shred of scientific evidence for.

badchad wrote: »

The goal of Bell labs is to sell products.

Because their goal is "sales" and not knowledge per se. Another plausible reason is that the under blinded conditions, their products failed

I see. Therefore, since Bell Labs was a commercial enterprise, we should not believe anything they say? Did you come to this conclusion by credible research or is this just your opinion according to your religious devotion to blind tests? You obviously don't know anything about Bell Labs (one of my previous employers).

Since Bell Laboratories specifications pertaining to the evaluation of home stereo systems was/is in perfect agreement with principles in the field of sensory science. Are you going to similarly "discredit" the field of sensory science? What would be sensory scientist's economic incentive for scientifically demonstrating that multi-dimensional stimuli, such as a stereo sound field, should be evaluated with nonblind descriptive methods?

teekay0007

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Use blind tests, beads and rattles, Tarot cards or whatever else, if you believe you can't trust your ears.

That's exactly my point. I do trust my ears. That's why I'm asking (Yes, in all seriousness!) what would be wrong with my evaluating speaker cables by using a blinded trial method? It sounds like you're saying that because I did it under blinded conditions, that the results are not valid. Let me give an example:


I have my stereo setup using a fantastic pair of fully hot-rodded SDA-1Cs connected to my power amp using BJC 10-Gauge Belden cables. I'd be very interested in trying some cables higher up the food chain if they were going to make a significant improvement in what enjoyment I could get from my system from using them. If I put a $300 - $500 (most likely used) pair of cables into my system to try out, how could I know if it was actually the cable making the difference, or if it was my preconceived notion of how much better the "new" cable was supposed to sound?


I'd have the cables (both pairs) running from behind my power amp to behind my speakers. I would be able to see both cable pair runs, but I wouldn't be able to see which ones were hooked up. No, I would not be wearing a blindfold. I'd have another person making and changing connections while I'd listen to several familiar pieces of music from a variety of sources. I'd make notes from each sampling as to what I heard and what I preferred, categorizing further with clarity, soundstage placement and dimensions, noise level, detail, etc. When all trials were done, I could compare the results and evaluate whether the difference in the enjoyment from the "new" cables justified the investment over just sticking with the "old" ones.


From what I've gathered from what you're saying and the research you're citing, I would have non-valid results because I didn't know which cables were in play during each sampling. However, in my evaluation process, I would have eliminated any biases introduced during the process and therefore, would not have had to have been trained to eliminate any biases or preconceptions I might have had. Further, the trials would have been conducted in a real world space where my actual listening would be taking place after the testing was completed.

headrott

teekay, I believe you totally missed Ray's point. IF you trust your "ears" ("ears"; including your brain and consciousness), one would not need to blinded to what equipment is being used. How does one gain trust their "ears"? Through training and experience. THAT is what isnecessary to evaluate stereophonic audio equipment, NOT being blinded. Since you feel you need to be blinded to evaluate stereophonic audio equipment, you already admitted that you aren't trained, and you put yourself in the "very early experienced listener" category; you don't need to blind yourself to evaluate setreophonic audio equipment, you need to **train** yourself and gain more **experience**. So in short, you in fact **DON'T** trust your ears. I am not sure how you cannot realise this? I found it to be pretty straight forward in Ray's posts.

badchad

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Right. So you are not aware that home stereo systems are merchandise subject to the same laws of economics as other merchandise?

Studying human behavior and perception is a very different thing than studying consumer and buying habits. Often, in the study of economics the end goal is increasing sales. This is not the case in science.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It becomes objective when I can describe the sonic effects that accompanied the changes in bass articulation. People with a framework of experience in this type of evaluation know full well what I mean.

Simply stating that something is objective does not make it so. Your idea of "tight bass", may not be the same as mine. It is not quantitative. On the other hand we all have a universally agreed upon measure of what "1 liter" is.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You, and others, who have no real interest in stereophonic audio are on the outside looking in. Concepts that are trivial to trained and experienced practitioners are huge stumbling blocks for you.

Cute. You certainly have me pegged. Must be an ultra-exclusive club you're a part of.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I see. Therefore, since Bell Labs was a commercial enterprise, we should not believe anything they say? Did you come to this conclusion by credible research or is this just your opinion according to your religious devotion to blind tests? You obviously don't know anything about Bell Labs (one of my previous employers).

Since Bell Laboratories specifications pertaining to the evaluation of home stereo systems was/is in perfect agreement with principles in the field of sensory science. Are you going to similarly "discredit" the field of sensory science? What would be sensory scientist's economic incentive for scientifically demonstrating that multi-dimensional stimuli, such as a stereo sound field, should be evaluated with nonblind descriptive methods?

Or, you could have just told me. Why did they discontinue blinded testing?

Let me ask an alternative question (and humor me here).

Lets design an experiment. We have the following:

1. "Trained", experienced listeners.
2. A comfortable room (naturalized environment).
3. Really high fidelity equipment (whatever that means to you)
4. An overall, "optimal" listening environment with a great setup.
5. The listeners have full view of the setup so all their tactile senses are intact EXCEPT the variable of interest.
6. The listeners "bias" has been removed through whatever means you deem acceptable.

We want to know whether a single set of ICs,or jumpers, etc. makes a "difference" in the sound quality (whether the trained experienced listeners think its better). Based on this, I have two questions:

1. Do you see any problem or bias when telling subjects: "Good morning, in this test, you will be evaluating one SUPER DELUXE cable made of diamonds, and one piece of junk from Walmart. Your task is to rate each cable. Let's start with the Super Deluxe...." (and you show the the cable and let them know).

2. Do you see any superiority with the alternative, double-blind trial where you simply instruct the subjects to rate two different cables? You don't tell them any other information (e.g. that one is better or worse etc.)

Just curious of your thoughts on the (above) hypothetical example. Apparently you're an expert in these types of testing, so I'm curious of your thoughts (not necessarily a copy paste from a book).

DarqueKnight

badchad wrote: »

Studying human behavior and perception is a very different thing than studying consumer and buying habits. Often, in the study of economics the end goal is increasing sales. This is not the case in science.

Economics is a branch of social science. Social science is science just like physics and chemistry. Look it up if you don't believe me. I have provided several excellent references from the field of economics regarding debiasing customers. Yet, you come back and say that economists do not study human behavior and perception. Inducing people to buy something is directly related to influencing human behavior and perception. I find it incredible that a purportedly educated person would declare that advertising, sales and marketing is a very different thing than studying human behavior and perception.

badchad wrote: »

Simply stating that something is objective does not make it so. Your idea of "tight bass", may not be the same as mine. It is not quantitative. On the other hand we all have a universally agreed upon measure of what "1 liter" is.

It depends on the relevant experience of the receiver of the information. A race car driver mentioning his car has the tightest possible cornering" will have a different quantitative meaning depending on whether the hearer is another experienced race car driver or a sports spectator.

badchad wrote: »

Cute. You certainly have me pegged.

You pegged yourself when you made the bizarre comment that "studying human behavior and perception is a very different thing than studying consumer and buying habits".

badchad wrote: »

Must be an ultra-exclusive club you're a part of.

It's small, but its not exclusive.

badchad wrote: »

Or, you could have just told me.

I have already given you much valuable information which you dismissed without investigation because it did not fit into your belief system.

badchad wrote: »

Why did they discontinue blinded testing?

I gave you many excellent references that discuss the issue. I and others have also answered that question in this thread.

badchad wrote: »

Let me ask an alternative question (and humor me here).

Lets design an experiment. We have the following:

1. "Trained", experienced listeners.
2. A comfortable room (naturalized environment).
3. Really high fidelity equipment (whatever that means to you)
4. An overall, "optimal" listening environment with a great setup.
5. The listeners have full view of the setup so all their tactile senses are intact EXCEPT the variable of interest.
6. The listeners "bias" has been removed through whatever means you deem acceptable.

We want to know whether a single set of ICs,or jumpers, etc. makes a "difference" in the sound quality (whether the trained experienced listeners think its better). Based on this, I have two questions:

1. Do you see any problem or bias when telling subjects: "Good morning, in this test, you will be evaluating one SUPER DELUXE cable made of diamonds, and one piece of junk from Walmart. Your task is to rate each cable. Let's start with the Super Deluxe...." (and you show the the cable and let them know).

2. Do you see any superiority with the alternative, double-blind trial where you simply instruct the subjects to rate two different cables? You don't tell them any other information (e.g. that one is better or worse etc.)

Just curious of your thoughts on the (above) hypothetical example. Apparently you're an expert in these types of testing, so I'm curious of your thoughts (not necessarily a copy paste from a book).

My thoughts are that your hypothetical example is ridiculous and has no semblance to reality. Why would trained listeners in an acoustically treated room with a high resolution system be evaluating "junk" anyway? You are not making sense. Go read some of the sensory science literature and learn when blind tests are appropriate and when they are not. You will then learn that your hypothetical above is just as devoid of knowledge as your comment that blind test advocates really don't use blindfolds.

You obviously cannot get past the fact that a trained listener, or any trained consumer, is not going to let factors unrelated to performance influence a performance evaluation. This fact has been well established in the economics literature and in audio science literature, both of which you have dismissed. Perhaps you are projecting the limitations of your thinking on others. Just because you are swayed by appearance, price, and brand name, you should not assume that others are.

As I said before, it is perfectly fine with me if people want to grab one or more other people to help them evaluate audio gear. It's easier for me, and others, to just use our ears and other sense organs.

As with anything, some people "get it" and others don't.

badchad

DarqueKnight wrote: »

[/B] I find it incredible that a purportedly educated person would declare that advertising, sales and marketing is a very different thing than studying human behavior and perception.

You can study perception in and of itself, without it having anything to do with economics or buying habits. This is basic science. For example, you could study how an instructional set affects perception. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666309000166

Sure, you could use the results for anything you want (including marketing). But that isn't the ultimate goal of many types of these investigations.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It depends on the relevant experience of the receiver of the information. A race car driver mentioning his car has the tightest possible cornering" will have a different quantitative meaning depending on whether the hearer is another experienced race car driver or a sports spectator.

You still don't understand the basic definitions of "objective" versus "subjective". By the way, what numerical value would you assign to a descriptor of "tightest possible cornering"? "Quantitative" means number.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You pegged yourself when you made the bizarre comment that "studying human behavior and perception is a very different thing than studying consumer and buying habits".

Human perception and what they buy are two different things. I can do a study asking people all sorts of things about how they feel. For example, I can ask a group of women how they feel after heart surgery. This will determine their (internal) perception of mood states etc. Has nothing to do with what they buy.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053249802006526

DarqueKnight wrote: »

My thoughts are that your hypothetical example is ridiculous and has no semblance to reality. Why would trained listeners in an acoustically treated room with a high resolution system be evaluating "junk" anyway? You are not making sense.

To determine whether they can discriminate your magic cables, and to determine if the performance of the cables influences their perference for them. We've been discussing this for a few pages now. I'll take your non-response to my question as "I don't know".

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Go read some of the sensory science literature and learn when blind tests are appropriate and when they are not. You will then learn that your hypothetical above is just as devoid of knowledge as your comment that blind test advocates really don't use blindfolds.

I'm glad I could educate you on basic science vocabulary.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You obviously cannot get past the fact that a trained listener, or any trained consumer, is not going to let factors unrelated to performance influence a performance evaluation. This fact has been well established in the economics literature and in audio science literature, both of which you have dismissed. Perhaps you are projecting the limitations of your thinking on others. Just because you are swayed by appearance, price, and brand name, you should not assume that others are.

I commented several times on your "bias" training. Sure, it can be done. I never dismissed it.

Let me know when your paper is accepted for publication. I'd love to read it.

Habanero Monk

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Why would trained listeners in an acoustically treated room with a high resolution system be evaluating "junk" anyway?

They aren't evaluating junk in the 2nd scenario. They are evaluating their ability to discern two unknown quality of cable. It could even be the same cable.

Instead you cherry picked his first scenario and I think you also made his point:

In the 1st scenario he mentioned one piece of junk from Walmart and you picked it right up and made it the point of your response.

That's a form bias right there.

11tsteve

I think what is really important here is the title of the thread should be "Do high quality digital cables matter?", not "Does high quality digital cables matter?"

badchad

11tsteve wrote: »

I think what is really important here is the title of the thread should be "Do high quality digital cables matter?", not "Does high quality digital cables matter?"

lol.

A simpler question would be; "Why must you know the identity/brand of a cable, in order to properly evaluate it?". Couldn't you evaluate a cable without knowing what it is? (blinded).

DarqueKnight

badchad wrote: »

Let me know when your paper is accepted for publication. I'd love to read it.

People are laughing at you because you ask this when I have already given you the citation to one of my stereo system evaluation papers that was published in a peer-reviewed journal several years ago.

You probably think that I am just another guy on the Internet running off at the mouth about things he knows nothing about ... like you.

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

They aren't evaluating junk in the 2nd scenario. They are evaluating their ability to discern two unknown quality of cable. It could even be the same cable.

I have quoted badchad's original hypothetical below. Notice he said the evaluators are trained, experienced listeners. Since they are trained and experienced listeners, one would assume that their evaluation skills would not be on trial.

Since I have quoted the sensory science literature many times regarding the suitability of blind tests for multi-dimensional stimuli and given many credible citations to the peer-reviewed literature, I must assume that your clinging to the notion of using blind tests for situations they are not suited for is similar to religious faith. In that regard, no amount of reasoned argument, documentation, or scientific proof will be acceptable to you. It would be like asking someone to stop worshipping their god.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Instead you cherry picked his first scenario and I think you also made his point:

In the 1st scenario he mentioned one piece of junk from Walmart and you picked it right up and made it the point of your response.

That's a form bias right there.

No, this is an example of your special kind of bias where you always want to put audiophiles on trial and evaluate them rather than evaluate gear.

Your mindset is bent on proving whether or not someone can hear what they say they hear, rather than whether one piece of gear outperforms another.

Outside of training scenarios, stereo equipment evaluations are for evaluating equipment, not for evaluating evaluators.

badchad wrote: »

Lets design an experiment. We have the following:

1. "Trained", experienced listeners.
2. A comfortable room (naturalized environment).
3. Really high fidelity equipment (whatever that means to you)
4. An overall, "optimal" listening environment with a great setup.
5. The listeners have full view of the setup so all their tactile senses are intact EXCEPT the variable of interest.
6. The listeners "bias" has been removed through whatever means you deem acceptable.

We want to know whether a single set of ICs,or jumpers, etc. makes a "difference" in the sound quality (whether the trained experienced listeners think its better). Based on this, I have two questions:

1. Do you see any problem or bias when telling subjects: "Good morning, in this test, you will be evaluating one SUPER DELUXE cable made of diamonds, and one piece of junk from Walmart. Your task is to rate each cable. Let's start with the Super Deluxe...." (and you show the the cable and let them know).

2. Do you see any superiority with the alternative, double-blind trial where you simply instruct the subjects to rate two different cables? You don't tell them any other information (e.g. that one is better or worse etc.)

Just curious of your thoughts on the (above) hypothetical example. Apparently you're an expert in these types of testing, so I'm curious of your thoughts (not necessarily a copy paste from a book).

Do you guys keep asking the same questions over and over again expecting that one day you will get the answer you desperately want to hear? In my case, you do not have to ask me. You can just go to the peer-reviewed science journal articles I have continually referenced for years.

ZLTFUL

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Fairly certain that I will always go with the PhD vs the internet evangelist who is trying to save the virtual world from perceived wrong doing.

badchad

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I have quoted badchad's original hypothetical below. Notice he said the evaluators are trained, experienced listeners. Since they are trained and experienced listeners, one would assume that their evaluation skills would not be on trial.

The evaluators aren't. The cable is.

Using the scenario/setup for evaluation outlined in your JOSS paper, why MUST the evaluators know the identity of the equipment they are evaluating? (the paper is on order from institution, so I don't know if you commented on this in the full text).

WilliamM2

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Your mindset is bent on proving whether or not someone can hear what they say they hear, rather than whether one piece of gear outperforms another.

I think you finally understand what blind testing is used for, and the whole point of Monk's challenge. To see if there is a difference at all. Not sure why it took so long.

BlueFox

ZLTFUL wrote: »

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Fairly certain that I will always go with the PhD vs the internet evangelist who is trying to save the virtual world from perceived wrong doing.

Even more important than the degree is he has tried different cables, and has based his opinion on that experience. Not on some nitwit spouting nonsense of how he thinks things should work.

DarqueKnight

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I think you finally understand what blind testing is used for, and the whole point of Monk's challenge. To see if there is a difference at all. Not sure why it took so long.

I fully understand the audio blind test religion and the irrational, unscientific basis of the faith.

The only difference that matters is the difference made in your own audio system. If someone is tone deaf and insensitive to the point that every cable, CD player, amp, etc. sounds the same to them, their hearing is not going to improve if everyone in the world proves that they can hear a difference, is it?

I find it all very amusing, otherwise I wouldn't participate every once in a while. Since the same questions get asked over and over again, by different people who come in thinking they are sharing some "great new discovery", my effort is minimal since I can just quote myself from years old threads.

Most hobbies that people are serious about have a peripheral naysayer fringe element. The ones in photography are much worse. There is no amount of optical science that will convince them that their 99 cent lenses and $24.95 cameras don't take pictures every bit as good as pro quality glass and cameras. The debates between film enthusiasts and digital enthusiasts make audio cable "debates" look like a family picnic.

teekay0007

headrott wrote: »

teekay, I believe you totally missed Ray's point. IF you trust your "ears" ("ears"; including your brain and consciousness), one would not need to blinded to what equipment is being used. How does one gain trust their "ears"? Through training and experience. THAT is what isnecessary to evaluate stereophonic audio equipment, NOT being blinded. Since you feel you need to be blinded to evaluate stereophonic audio equipment, you already admitted that you aren't trained, and you put yourself in the "very early experienced listener" category; you don't need to blind yourself to evaluate setreophonic audio equipment, you need to **train** yourself and gain more **experience**. So in short, you in fact **DON'T** trust your ears. I am not sure how you cannot realise this? I found it to be pretty straight forward in Ray's posts.

Yes, headrott, please tell me about your training. You're the same one that not too long ago said he was afraid to try blinded studies with their equipment because they probably couldn't tell the difference between it and much cheaper gear. Yes, I'm paraphrasing, but the point is the same. And no, I can't find the post or I would certainly link it.

I would actually gain much more experience and considerably more valid experience from not knowing which cables were connected in the scenario I laid out above. If I were told, "OK, now we're putting in the MIT (Shunyata, etc.) cables, let us know what you think", oh, I'd be hearing subtleties the BJCs could never dream of producing. It's human nature to do this. So, yes again, I trust my ears, but not yet my brain when it throws its two cents (consciously and subconsciously) into the mix.

So, from all of this discussion, I've learned that we cannot make valid evaluations of gear or cables unless we are trained how to properly do so. This training is largely self-administered - meaning what we think is right and best is just that since we have nothing else to compare our concept of "right" with. Then, once we deem ourselves "trained" we can evaluate one pair of cables against another, but only if we know which ones are connected when we're evaluating. To not know which cables were being used would make our observations non-valid. Any biases that can be eliminated by not even letting them enter the equation should not be of concern to us since we were (self-) trained to not let any bias enter into our evaluation process. Got it!

Again, headrott, your "training" in this area consists of what? And parroting DK doesn't count.

DarqueKnight

badchad wrote: »

The evaluators aren't. The cable is.

Using the scenario/setup for evaluation outlined in your JOSS paper, why MUST the evaluators know the identity of the equipment they are evaluating? (the paper is on order from institution, so I don't know if you commented on this in the full text).

If you ever progress to the point of reading the paper, you will see that I blind tested a minimally trained, biased, and disinterested subject. Therefore, I think it is obvious that my methodology can be used in either a blind or nonblind scenario. However, blinding is as unnecessary as Superman buying a plane ticket.

The point you and others seem not to be able to grasp is that blinding adds an unnecessary layer of complexity. When misused, as it often is, it can lead to erroneous results, the nature of which I have discussed in the JOSS paper and in many discussions on this and other audio forums. However, as I said before, if you can't trust your ears, if you are so scared, terrified, and rattled by the thought that one of those bad old audio snake oil purveyors will take advantage of you, by all means follow the tenets of your blind testing religion. I think you should go even further and blind test everything you buy, even FDA approved medicines. After all, there is no guarantee that what worked years ago for the test subjects will work for you. Medicine that helps to heal one person can kill another. It amazes me that people are so scared about being taken advantage of by audio companies, yet they will swallow any and every pill that a doctor prescribes without knowing whether he is taking under the table payments from drug companies for pushing certain drugs.

I'm not sure the following concepts will be accessible to you, as it goes against your faith, but I'm going to take a chance here and "humor you" as you put it.

1. Home stereo systems were designed for home-based consumers. When a consumer buys a piece of audio equipment, they don't do so in a blind fashion. Since people don't buy things in a blind fashion, it does not make sense to insist that they test what is bought in a blind fashion. Bell Labs scientists, whose integrity you have impugned, meant for people to learn to evaluate recorded media and stereo equipment on their own, as they do with any other merchandise.

2. When said piece of audio equipment placed in the consumer's stereo system, it cannot be blind tested without the assistance of one or more persons. Dragging someone else away from what they were doing in order to help you evaluate your audio purchase is not a good plan. What if no one is interested in helping? What do you do then? Please tell me.

3. There is a scientific principle that says a thing should be evaluated in the manner in which it will be used. People don't buy and use things in a blind fashion, so why should the methodology used to test them be blind? Before you pull out the tired old mantra about blind tests being the "gold standard" in medicine, please review my comments on the reasons why medical test scenarios are not similar to consumer product evaluation scenarios.

4. Why can't manufacturers do the blind testing and relieve the consumer of that responsibility? In medical trials, the results from a very small population can be extended to a very large population. This is because human beings have relatively few physiological differences. That is why the same medicine can be safely taken by millions and billions of people. You claim to be a pharmacist, so you understand this. In audio, there are exponential differences in equipment, listening rooms, and hearing ability. There is no way an audio manufacturer can guarantee that a piece of equipment will perform as claimed and specified in all the audio systems and rooms in which it might be used. All the manufacturer can guarantee is that the item will perform up to specification. Final testing, therefore, must be done by individual consumers.

In summary, calm down and understand that no one is trying to take your totem from you. Blind test to your hearts content till the end of time.

Enjoy your music.

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

In the instance of audio, using Philips GoldenEar web site tools as example, the purpose of training is to increase the awareness of what to listen for.

You self administer and it's blind.

https://www.goldenears.philips.com/en/introduction.html

I'd like to thank Habanero Monk for the tip about the Philips Golden Ear challenge web site. I make a few general comments here and will provide more details about my experience with the test in a separate thread.

I completed 93% of the test, comprising the first three levels (Basic, Bronze, and Silver ears), plus over 60% of the Golden ear level in 2.5 hours: 1/2 hour each for the Basic and Bronze levels and 45 minutes for the Silver level and 45 minutes for four sections of the Gold level. I completed the remaining two sections of the Gold level tests in 2 hours the next day. An hour and fifteen minutes of the second day was spent in study and 45 minutes in test taking, for a total of 4.5 hours.



The first day's progress.


Finished on the second day.


For quite a while some people have derisively referred to my "golden ears". Now I have certification from a real audio company that meant it in a nice way.:cool:


Awww man .... we fight our way though that aggravating test and can't get our names on our certificates?:evil:

Parts of the test were easy (for me) and some were very difficult. It was a great ear workout.

At the time I completed the test:

5366 people had completed the Basic Ear level.
3305 people had completed the Bronze Ear level.
2096 people had completed the Silver Ear level.
727 people had completed the Golden Ear level.