Does high quality digital cables matter?

headrott

Around age 25, at the time my brother was attending The Conservatory of Recording Arts & Sciences in Tempe, Arizona. We had discussions about what he was learning with regard to audio recording techniques: Microphone placement and type, room treatments, type of tape deck used, type of mixing board used, mixing of albums, etc. This greatly increased my knowledge in the subject and made me more curious about what to listen for and how to listen to it. My brother and I still have very long (hours) discussions about audio when we are on the phone. My brother is definitely more knowledgeable about the subject than I am. Much of what I learned about audio I leaned from him.

At age 27, I purchased my own amplifier. It was made by AMC and was a hybrid tube amplifier. I used my Denon receiver (which had once again been upgraded) as a pre-amp, along with a newer 20 bit quad DAC tube CD player made by AMC and still used the Monitor 10A's as speakers. I had also upgraded my interconnect cables to a new company I had heard of named "Aural Thrills". I purchased a set of their Air RCA in both silver and copper. I compared both of them in my system, to each other and to the Monster cable IC's that were in my system. I listened to the differences each of them brought. I noticed the copper cables had more bass, slightly less detail, and were slightly less transparent than the silver Air RCA IC's. I began taking notes about the differences I heard between them. I also bought a pair of the Aural Thrills speaker cables and replaced the Radio Shack cables in my system. I also compared them by taking notes of the differences I heard between them. I found I much preferred the copper Air RCA IC's and the Aural thrills speaker wires over the Monster Cable IC's and the Radio Shack speaker cables. I liked the tonality, detail, clarity, imaging, and soundstage they brought.

Later that year, I purchased my first pair of SDA's from someone in the Bay Area. They were a pair of 2B's. i had read much about the 2B's, but had never actually heard a pair of any SDA's, and this would be my first opportunity. I did some searching on the internet about how to properly set them up. Thankfully, the IC cable was included in the purchase. I hooked the up to my system and wow was I impressed with the soundstage of these speakers! I was not impressed with the high end, however. The treble hurt my ears. Thankfully, a number of years later Polk would produce the RD0-194/198 tweeters to replace the SL-2000/SL-3000 tweeters. The differences in soundstage width depth and height were huge compared to the Monitor 10A's! This was my first real experiences in how big of a difference there can be in soundstage and spatial localization.

I then turned to switching out tubes in my CD player pre-amp, and amplifier while noting differences in tonal qualities, detail, imaging, soundstage, and clarity. I tried different tubes such as RCA clear tops, Mullard long plate 12AU7's, Amperex long and short plate 12AX7's and RCA 6550's in the CD player, pre-amp and amp.

At age 35 I purchased a set of Polk SDA SRS 3.1TL's to upgrade my 2B's. I found greater soundstage height width, and depth and imaging was better when switching to these speakers. I also found the bass to be slightly deeper and image weight was slightly better. I started searching online to find what these terms meant as I had heard them talked about, but had little clue what the meanings were. I came across the Polk Audio forum and became a member (in 2008). I then began modifying my 2B's into 2BTL's and switched out the SL-2000's to RD0-198's, I did the same for my 3.1TL's and modified their crossovers with upgraded capacitors. I did listening tests comparing one modified speaker to another unmodified speaker to listen for differences between them. The upgraded capacitors improved ALL aspects of the stereophonic audio produced. There was no downside to replacing the stock capacitors and resistors to Sonicap/Mills. A couple years after modifying the SDA crossovers, I was fortunate enough to have been able to purchase some of Larry’s coupling rings and install them into my 2BTL’s and 3.1TL’s. The clarity, detail, and bass response improved dramatically in both sets of speakers.

I really made a point of setting up my 3.1TL’s in the prime location in the listening room so that they were perfectly level to the floor. They were as far from the side walls as possible and still about 6 feet apart and about 8 inches from the back wall. This improved the imaging, bass response, and soundstage immensely. I had also began to use isolation devices under my equipment (the first isolation devices I purchased were vibrapods and cones). This increased clarity, detail and imaging further when used under all the equipment (placed under wooden boards). I especially noticed large increases when used under the source equipment (Denon DCD-3000), tube pre-amp (AMC CVT-1030) and Tube amp (AMC CVT-2100as). This was before I had tried tube dampeners. I took notes during listening sessions to hear the differences in the clarity, detail, and imaging before and after adding the vibrapods and cones.

I was ready then to upgrade my pre-amp and amp. I wanted a solid state amp and a tube pre-amp. I purchased a Luxman amplifier to go with my AMC CVT-1030 pre-amp. When I hooked up the Luxman, I was not really satisfied with the sound I got. It was a powerful amp, but the soundstage, detail, and clarity, were all decreased compared to my tube amp. I decided to try something else. I decided on an Aragon 8008bb as I was wanting to get into a balanced system to decrease the noise floor. I purchased the Aragon, along with some different XLR cables made from a gold alloy. They are made by Aural Harmony and brought warmth to my system that was not there before. The bass was solid (like the copper cables) but the tone was warm and smooth. The Aragon 8008bb was the most powerful amp I have owned. It made driving my 3.1TL’s seem “easy”. The tone of the amp (IMO) was very bright and “forward” sounding, however. The soundstage was very wide and somewhat deep, but I didn’t like the high end from the amp.

I decided to give some MIT Shotgun S3 XLR cables and speaker cables a try in my system. I received them and installed them. I listened while taking notes on the differences in the audio signal. The soundstage was wider and deeper, details increased, the imaging was better. The MIT’s were keepers. I still haven’t replaced them.

I also purchased a BAT VK-3i pre-amplifier and installed some Amperex 7308 tubes into it along with the Bendix 5992 tubes. This brought a big positive change to my system. The clarity, detail, soundstage, imaging, transparency, etc. all significantly increased compared to my AMC CVT-1030 pre-amp. I again took notes in comparing the two pre-amps in the system.

With the never ending pursuit of SDA “perfection”, I purchased a set 2.3TL’s from another forum member. They had Sonicap/Mills modded crossovers in them. I compared the 2.3TL’s with Sonicap/Mills boards to the 3.1TL’s with Sonicap/Mills boards. The comparison is found here: http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?120466-My-impressions-of-SDA-SRS-2.3TL-s-Vs.-3.1TL-s I purchased some Clarity Cap ESA’s from another forum member along with some Duelund Cast resistors and some of Gimpod’s replacement boards. I replaced the Sonicap/Mills boards with the ESA/Duelund boards. I again did comparisons between the Sonicap/Mills boards to the Clarity Cap ESA/Duelund boards in the 2.3TL’s. The ESA/Duelund boards brought greater detail, clarity, and transparency. The imaging was better, the soundstage increased by about 2 feet in width and 1 foot in depth. The ESA/Duelund boards were keepers!

I needed a new amp though. I decided to give the Pass Labs Aleph 30. It was low power, but pure class A. I replaced the binding posts in it and dynamatted it to reduce “ringing”. I took notes while I listened to the Aleph 30 compared to the Aragon. The Aleph 30 definitely had better tone than the Aragon. The bass from the Aragon was better however. Also, the Aleph 30 had a tendency of running out of “oomph” when pushed too hard. I needed the tone of the Aleph 30 and the power of the Aragon.

When I noticed a BAT VK-200 come up on the forum, I purchased the amp from zingo. I received it, and dynamatted it, replaced the IEC inlet (Oyide), XLR jacks (with Furutech) and installed it. This is what I was looking for! The BAT had the tone of the Aleph 30, but the power, detail, soundstage, and imaging of the Aragon 8008bb. I took notes while listening again to distinguish the differences.

The latest piece of equipment I have replaced is the VK-3i with a BAT VK-31. This further increased the detail and transparency from my system.

I have also replaced power cords, digital cables, and isolation devices in my system. This post is getting WAY too long so I will not go into the listening sessions I did to compare the differences in them.

Finally, I hope this satisfies what you were looking for. With regards to “parroting” DK, unless he had the same upbringing as I did, I seriously doubt he would say the same thing as I. I’ll leave that up to you, however.

F1nut

Being the man of few words that I am, damn Greg. :cool:

How did you remember all that!?!

headrott

Definately, blind tests helped me remember all of that Jesse. :razz:

Reading it back, I did notice there is actually a lot left out. There were many more pieces of equipment, cables, etc. added to my system and evaluations of them. Hopefully, it wil be enough to satisfy teekay though.

Habanero Monk

Have BJC cabling ordered. Should have the computer assembled ~Tuesday/Wednesday. Test out and let it run for a few days to make sure equipment isn't going to fail.

So that would put me at a weekend in June in Des Moine.

DarqueKnight

headrott wrote: »

Finally, I hope this satisfies what you were looking for. With regards to “parroting” DK, unless he had the same upbringing as I did, I seriously doubt he would say the same thing as I. I’ll leave that up to you, however.

My path to audiophilia was quite different, and my story provides some insight into why I have an atypical interest in the more technical aspects of audio.

We always had music in the home while I was growing up and I had a small all-in-one stereo system in my room as a teenager. However, I never gave any thought to the quality of audio equipment. As long as it played loud and clear and had good bass, I was happy. I was totally focused on the music.

My interest in quality audio gear was piqued by one of my electrical engineering professors who used audio examples to illustrate some of his lecture points. One of his frequent remarks was "...and that's why good hifi systems cost a lot of money". After hearing that for the 10,001th time, I decided to go to some audio stores on weekends and see what he was talking about. At this time my stereo system consisted of a cassette player boombox, which I was perfectly happy with. Mind you, this was during the mid 1980s when audio stores were still in existence in abundance, and when sales people would take the time to properly demonstrate gear and educate consumers on the differences in sound quality among different levels of gear. It was during these visits to audio stores that I learned about stereo imaging, clarity, detail, bass quality, etc., and the different levels of realism that different levels of gear would provide. Although I was a college student and didn't have a lot of money to spend, salesmen were always courteous and patient. Perhaps they thought I would remember them once I graduated and had more money to spend.

After about a month of browsing audio stores, even some in neighboring cities, the boombox wasn't cutting it anymore and I bought a nice all Kenwood system consisting of a receiver, cassette player, and speakers. I also started reading Stereo Review and High Fidelity audio magazines. Even after the Kenwood purchase, I continued auditioning audio gear for the remainder of my college years. The original Kenwood speakers were replaced with Cerwin Vega, then Bose, then Advent. I also added a Sony linear tracking turntable and started collecting records.

Soon after getting settled in my first job after graduation, I began shopping for a new and better stereo system. Some of the electrical engineers at work had formed a high end audio club and they would post notices about their meetings on the bulletin boards at work. I introduced myself to some of them and asked for upgrade recommendations. They were all very helpful and they all invited me to their homes to listen to their systems. Although these guys had some high dollar systems, they were good about recommending good quality, but affordable options. I was looking to upgrade without spending a small fortune. One brand that kept coming up was Polk. It was during this time that I was introduced to Polk speakers and SDAs. I loved the sound of the SRSs, but didn't have the space for them and I wasn't looking to spend that kind of money. The SDA 1s or SDA 2s were also too big and expensive. The CRSs were the "right size", but again, I wasn't looking to spend over a grand for speakers. I settled on the Monitor 10s. I also bought a Nikko receiver, Sony CD player, Yamaha turntable, and Monster Cable speaker wire and interconnects. A year later I purchased a pair of SDA 1Bs, an Adcom GFA-555 power amp and an Adcom GFP-555 preamp.

I started reading Stereophile and The Absolute Sound upon recommendation from the audio club members at work. I never did join the audio club, although I was welcome, but I definitely learned a lot from them. Stereophile sparked my interest in modifying audio gear to improve performance. My first equipment modification was on my Sony CD player. I replaced the output op amps and coupling capacitors. My first speaker mod, done in 1990, was upgrading the crossover components in my SDA 1Bs. The Absolute Sound helped me further refine my system setup and tweaking skills and it also sparked my interest in critical listening and critical performance evaluation of audio gear.

I have always had an intellectual interest in high end audio, but never took the plunge until fairly recently (around 2006). At the beginning of my audio journey, I never aspired to have a high end system similar to the ones I heard at the audio club member's homes or in audio stores. The stereo system I have now and the level of activity I have now is the result of gradual learning, practice, and development over close to three decades in this hobby. As I was "growing up" in audio, I had resources that are difficult to come by these days: knowledgeable and patient teachers, abundant places to audition high quality audio gear, and several high quality audio publications that had a strong tutorial component. Audio publications are still around, but the tutorial component of today's audio magazines is close to nonexistent. The Internet has been both a blessing and a curse because, while much credible information is readily available, much credible misinformation and disinformation is redily available.

teekay0007

headrott wrote: »

You cannot find and link the post where I said that I was afraid of trying blind studies because people probably couldn't tell the differences between it and cheap gear, because I never said anything like that, in any fashion. Paraphrased or not; what you are stating was never said, nor implied. What you posted is from your imagination. Or, you completely misinterpreted what I actually said.



Right, if you noticed that I defined "ears" in my previous post as:



So again, you don't trust your "ears".



Yes, you are correct that training and experience in listening to stereophonic audio is self taught. A person can learn the different aspects of stereophonic audio by learning about the concepts of soundstage height, width, and depth, imaging, detail, transparency, tone(s), image weight, etc. etc. etc. by reading about them, but actual training and experience by DOING are what is necessary. Why do so many on this forum ask "what cables have you tried?" Because that shows what level of experience you have. It however does not show what amount of training you have. Both are necessary to properly hear the differences between pieces of gear. If one already doesn't believe that there are differences between cables, etc., then I can see why one would feel that one is biased and cannot trust one's "ears"; this is because this person is biased. Got it?



Ok, you asked for it, so here it goes (I will go through both my experience AND training as both can be and are acquired at the same time):

I started listening to stereophonic audio when I was about 7. My dad would put on reel-to-reel tapes and records of Led Zeppelin, Paul McCartney, The Beatles, etc. (most of the music I listen to today) and my older brother and I would listen for hours at times. My dad was into hi-fidelity music even before I was born. He would set his system up and listen quite regularly. He passed this love of music and love of stereophonic audio on to my brother and I (and the rest of my siblings).

At about the age of 14, I purchased my own stereophonic audio system. It consisted of a Sansui receiver, Denon tape deck, and Pioneer speakers. Compared to what I own now, this stuff was vey low fidelity, and low resolution. I enjoyed that for a number of years (as I didn't know there was anything better out there). It was also in grade school where I learned how to play the trumpet and by high school I had learned how to play the trumpet very competently taking part in honor band and touring the US in our band. Through this experience, I was able to pick up on tones and pitches where I was able to learn and identify different keys and modes which would later allow me to listen to music in a very analytical manner. I could (of course) also listen to music in a less, or non-analytical fashion, but that has little to do with what this reply is about.

At the age of 17, I purchased my first set of Polk speakers (Monitor 10A's with the peerless tweeters) as well as upgraded my Sansui receiver to a newer (what I thought was much better) Denon receiver (which I also used for A/V) a newer Denon tape deck, and a new at the time Denon CD player. I heard an immediate improvement in the audio produced by this system (from a tonal, detail, and clarity perspective). I still had absolutely no clue about how to properly set up the Monitor 10A's to have them image correctly or produce a soundstage properly, however. In fact, I had no idea what those terms even meant.

At age 20, I heard my brothers Harmon Kardon linear tracking turn table, hooked up to his Mcintosh solid state amplifier and using my Monitor 10A's as speakers. My brother was the one who showed me how to correctly angle the Monitor 10A's to get the correct timing and imaging with them. This was my first lesson in what a difference in HOW the gear was set up made. I also leaned that having a powerful, well designed amplifier can drastically increase the clarity and detail of the audio from your speakers. I had also began experimenting with some Radio-Shack speaker cables (where previously I had been using some inexpensive (hardware store) copper cables) as well as upgraded, Monster cable interconnects (previously I had used the IC cables that came with components). I noticed a definite difference when used with the rest of the equipment. The music was more refined, with greater detail, and sounded "more pleasing". At this time, I didn't know anything about taking notes to distinguish differences in pieces of audio gear so it was all done in my head. I can still remember what that system sounded like, vaguely however.

Those Monitor 10A's sound nice, don't they?

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL wrote: »

First second and third weekends of June are out as I have obligations those weekends. The fourth weekend, I have an awards dinner on Saturday evening but the rest of the weekend is open.

What does July look like?

badchad

ZLTFUL wrote: »

I've got a new name for this thread...

"An electrical engineer, a pharmacologist and a network engineer walk into a bar..."

I hate when that happens, as I have to drink everything blindfolded.

Even the greats sometimes fail when blinded.

http://www.livescience.com/44651-new-violins-beat-stradivarius.html

I don't have the publication yet, but apparently it appears in PNAS. One of the most highly regarded scientific journals in the world.

PolkieMan

I think my problem is I can't hear or see as well as I used to at 59. So I can't appreciate the super fine details that you all can but I can still enjoy and hear the SDA difference.

DarqueKnight

badchad wrote: »

I hate when that happens, as I have to drink everything blindfolded.

Even the greats sometimes fail when blinded.

http://www.livescience.com/44651-new-violins-beat-stradivarius.html

The part that a casual reader would miss here is that expert soloists and even modern violin makers are not necessarily expert instrument evaluators. The lack of objectivity is revealed in this violin maker's statement:


"As a violin maker, like most people in the violin world, I grew up absolutely believing there was a difference between an old sound and a new sound, and most violinists could readily distinguish it," Curtin told Live Science. "I thought I could, until I put on some goggles and was really forced to listen with my ears, rather than my preconceptions."

By the way aren't you the one who smugly said blind tests didn't use blindfolds? :razz:

badchad wrote: »

I'll assume you know that "blinding" doesn't refer to literally, blind-folding subjects, right?

Quote from the study you referenced:

"The lights were dimmed, and the soloists wore modified welder's glasses that left them virtually blind and unable to identify the instrument they were playing."



Some of the subjects in this study admitted to being unduly influenced by the myth and mystique surrounding Stradivarius instruments. According to the basic rules of sensory science, that admission puts them in the category of untrained subjects. Yes, they were trained in playing violins and making violins, but that does not equate to training in objectively evaluating the performance of violins. It is the same principle as airplane pilots and airplane assemblers not being able to objectively assess overall airplane performance without specific training in doing so.

Notice that in this blind test, differences between the Stradivarius violins and the modern violins did not disappear. The only thing that disappeared was the preference advantage of the Stradivarius instruments.

Notice also that this was a preference test, not a test to assess the objective performance superiority of one violin over another:

Laurie Niles was a participant in the test and made this point:

"I was not asked to identify specifically which was the modern violin and which was the old violin; only which I preferred. If people are concluding from this study that "professional violinists can't tell the difference between modern violin and old Italians," then I think we need a different study in which violinists are actually asked to identify that."

Laurie Niles Blog - What Really Happened In That Double-Blind Violin Test


Expert Violinist Laurie Niles during the great violin blind test.

One important point the article leaves out is that in sighted trials, many professional violinists prefer modern instruments to ancient, highly revered ones. Therefore, the results of this study, which have been widely misrepresented in the media (and on audio naysayer forums) as "shockingly new", are not shocking and are certainly nothing new. This is from Laurie Niles blog (at the same link as given above):

"Old violins have their antique value and can lend a certain wisdom to a person's playing, but they can be inconsistent in their tone from one day to the next and difficult to play, a complaint I've also frequently heard. (People don't tend to voice those complaints too publicly, when borrowing a $10 million violin from a benefactor, but there you have it.)"

Thanks for the reference to the article. My library should have access to the journal and I will pull the article if it does.

Now, I need you to clarify this statement:

badchad wrote: »

Even the greats sometimes fail when blinded.

http://www.livescience.com/44651-new-violins-beat-stradivarius.html

Where, exactly, is the "failure" you mentioned? The violinists were asked to play a number of violins and indicate which they preferred. They did exactly what was asked of them. Where is the "failure" in that? As Laurie Niles (and other professional violinists) have said publicly, newer, more tonally stable, more robustly constructed, modern violins are often preferred over ancient violins.

The only failure I see is the failure of another attempt of audio blind test cultists at using the results of some totally unrelated study to impugn the integrity of proper audio evaluation tests. Again, as stated by one of the violin test subjects, this was not a test to see if highly revered, highly expensive ancient violins were "better" than modern, more affordable violins. It also WAS NOT a test to see if professional violinists could distinguish a Stradivarius from a modern instrument. It was a simple double blind preference test to see which violin the professionals preferred.

Seriously, I find your lack of basic reasoning ability disturbing. I hope you don't display this same level of bias, carelessness, and lack of clarity of thought when dealing with people's medicines.

DarqueKnight

Clarification: Violinist Laurie Niles participated in the first violin preference test in 2010 (published in 2011). She did not participate in the recent violin preference test published in PNAS in April 2014. The names of the 2014 study participants is available on the PNAS website (www.pnas.org).

The title of the 2011 article was:

"Player preferences among new and old violins"

Abstract

Most violinists believe that instruments by Stradivari and Guarneri “del Gesu” are tonally superior to other violins—and to new violins in particular. Many mechanical and acoustical factors have been proposed to account for this superiority; however, the fundamental premise of tonal superiority has not yet been properly investigated. Player's judgments about a Stradivari's sound may be biased by the violin's extraordinary monetary value and historical importance, but no studies designed to preclude such biasing factors have yet been published. We asked 21 experienced violinists to compare violins by Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesu with high-quality new instruments. The resulting preferences were based on the violinists’ individual experiences of playing the instruments under double-blind conditions in a room with relatively dry acoustics. We found that (i) the most-preferred violin was new; (ii) the least-preferred was by Stradivari; (iii) there was scant correlation between an instrument's age and monetary value and its perceived quality; and (iv) most players seemed unable to tell whether their most-preferred instrument was new or old. These results present a striking challenge to conventional wisdom. Differences in taste among individual players, along with differences in playing qualities among individual instruments, appear more important than any general differences between new and old violins. Rather than searching for the “secret” of Stradivari, future research might best focused on how violinists evaluate instruments, on which specific playing qualities are most important to them, and on how these qualities relate to measurable attributes of the instruments, whether old or new.

The title of the 2014 article was

"Soloist evaluations of six Old Italian and six new violins"

Abstract

Many researchers have sought explanations for the purported tonal superiority of Old Italian violins by investigating varnish and wood properties, plate tuning systems, and the spectral balance of the radiated sound. Nevertheless, the fundamental premise of tonal superiority has been investigated scientifically only once very recently, and results showed a general preference for new violins and that players were unable to reliably distinguish new violins from old. The study was, however, relatively small in terms of the number of violins tested (six), the time allotted to each player (an hour), and the size of the test space (a hotel room). In this study, 10 renowned soloists each blind-tested six Old Italian violins (including five by Stradivari) and six new during two 75-min sessions—the first in a rehearsal room, the second in a 300-seat concert hall. When asked to choose a violin to replace their own for a hypothetical concert tour, 6 of the 10 soloists chose a new instrument. A single new violin was easily the most-preferred of the 12. On average, soloists rated their favorite new violins more highly than their favorite old for playability, articulation, and projection, and at least equal to old in terms of timbre. Soloists failed to distinguish new from old at better than chance levels. These results confirm and extend those of the earlier study and present a striking challenge to near-canonical beliefs about Old Italian violins."

BlueFox

I bet owners of these old violins are a bit nervous since this could reduce the value of their instrument. While still an antique, a lot of the value was due to its apparently mythical sound qualities.

Now back to Ethernet cables. Do the old thick Ethernet cables, which actually needed CSMA/CD, sound better than RJ-45 CAT(x) cables?

DarqueKnight

BlueFox wrote: »

I bet owners of these old violins are a bit nervous since this could reduce the value of their instrument. While still an antique, a lot of the value was due to its apparently mythical sound qualities.

These tests were not an indictment of a Stradivarius violin's mythical sound qualities. Objective sound quality was not evaluated. What was evaluated was the professional violinist's preference for a particular violin. Similar to other antiques, I would not expect these test results to have an effect on the value of Stradivarius violins among serious collectors and players, particularly when we consider the extremely small sample sizes: 21 violinists in the 2011 study and 10 violinists in the 2014 study.

These violin blind tests are basically a validation of the sighted tests of many professional violinists who have expressed a preference for modern violins for a variety of reasons.

The sad thing is that some people are using the violin test results as a "reinforcement" of their religious beliefs in stereo blind testing. Other people, outside of the field of audio electronics, are wildly and erroneously assuming that the test results are absolute proof that modern violins are "better" than the revered Stradivariuses. They are not aware that the only thing they are reinforcing is that they don't know the difference between a subjective preference test with untrained subjects and an objective performance test with trained subjects.

drselect

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The title of the 2011 article was:

"Player preferences among new and old violins"


The title of the 2014 article was

"Soloist evaluations of six Old Italian and six new violins"

In other words they were asked if they prefer Bud to Bud light?

DarqueKnight

drselect wrote: »

In other words they were asked if they prefer Bud to Bud light?

Yes...or if they prefer Coke to Pepsi.

It is bizarre that some people view these test results as some type of "failure". There is no way to "fail" a preference test since all a subject is asked to do is try a number of alternatives and indicate a preference.

I should also point out that "liking" and "preferring" are two separate concepts. A person can like one thing but prefer and choose a competing thing in the same category. For example, a man may like the appearance of women with large ****, but prefer to marry a woman with small **** because he does not want to see the large breasted woman's **** as they age and sag considerably. A man may also like the appearance of large ****, but prefer to date women with small **** because they are easier for him to "handle".

I like Ferraris a lot, but given the choice of a free Ferrari or a free Mercedes sports coupe, I would prefer the Mercedes, even though I like the Ferrari more.

txcoastal1

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It is bizarre that some people view these test results as some type of "failure". There is no way to "fail" a preference test since all a subject is asked to do is try a number of alternatives and indicate a preference.

Absolutely...Last year at LSAF, Danny had headphone rigs set up and most preferred one particular rig, I preferred the other. Yes the one that was most liked had more detail and other well performing characteristics but I would rather have had the rig that was not preferred because its own characteristics. It has been said many of times it's your own ears and only you can decide or even give a crap.

Some want to discourage these types of threads (if they get ugly I discourage them too) but all-in-all they need to be taken in as a learning experience. Take in the info, and build your own conclusions by actually testing the pro/cons of the discussion.

If you don't go out an actually test and listen for yourself you really don't have the right to get defensive of the conclusions of others.

tonyb

txcoastal1 wrote: »

If you don't go out an actually test and listen for yourself you really don't have the right to get defensive of the conclusions of others.

Amen again....and that's all we keep saying around here.

DarqueKnight

badchad wrote: »

I hate when that happens, as I have to drink everything blindfolded.

Even the greats sometimes fail when blinded.

http://www.livescience.com/44651-new-violins-beat-stradivarius.html

I don't have the publication yet, but apparently it appears in PNAS. One of the most highly regarded scientific journals in the world.

The original 2012 violin blind test paper and the 2014 violin blind test paper can be downloaded free of charge from the principle author's website:

http://www.lam.jussieu.fr/Membres/Fritz/HomePage/

The principle author, Claudia Fritz, has expressed disappointment in how the media and the general public has wildly misinterpreted the intent and results of the 2012 and 2014 papers. She said this in the comments section of Laurie Niles' blog regarding the 2012 study:

"I'm indeed annoyed by the extrapolation of our results/conclusions in the media, the transformation of what we wrote, what we actually
studied and ... what, in some cases, we told to journalists! And as most people don't have access to the full paper, it would be important to spread the real conditions of the test (which you, Ariane and John have started doing, for example with comments like "But it wasn't actually our task to pick the Italian in this study -- it was to pick our preference") and to explain as well our different choices along the experimental methodology."

Link: http://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20121/13039/

The version of the 2014 paper on Claudia Fritz's website has additional footnotes, one of which expresses continued disappointment that the research results were again misinterpreted and misused.


"While it is very clear in the paper that our results only apply to our 10 participants and to the 12 violins we used in this experiment, it was originally less clear in this paragraph. We have therefore modified this sentence to make it more explicit that we do not generalize our results to all soloists, nor to all new and old violins."

The principle author's website, as well as the PNAS website, have supplementary information on the questionnaires and test conditions of both tests. The test participants in the study were not asked to tell if the violin they were playing was a Stradivarius. They were only asked to guess "what kind" (old or new) of instrument they were playing. This is a quote from the supplementary information for the 2014 paper:

"Part 3 (Session 2 Only). We will now present you with a series of
violins one at a time in random order. Play each for 30 seconds then
guess what kind of instrument it is."

The second author of both papers is Joseph Curtain, who is a violin maker:

http://josephcurtinstudios.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Curtin

Thirty seconds seems an awfully short time in which to expect someone, even an expert player, to make a reasonable guess as to whether an instrument is "old or new". Do you think that a maker of new violins might have some compelling interest in having a panel of experts declare that they couldn't tell the difference between a new violin and an old, extremely expensive, highly regarded violin?

I observed several similarities between the violin tests and the way blind tests in audio are done. I will discuss my thoughts in a separate thread.

Habanero Monk

Has Claudia Fritz expressed any position contrary to the fact they did the violin testing blind? I totally understand, and agree, it was just a preference test.

DarqueKnight

Habanero Monk wrote: »

Has Claudia Fritz expressed any position contrary to the fact they did the violin testing blind?

No, and why would she say that? It was explicitly stated that all tests were done double blind, even to the point of blindfolding subjects.

badchad

I referenced the articles as examples of the use of double-blind testing in evaluating audio equipment (i.e., violins). I note that both, peer-reviewed articles appear in PNAS. PNAS is a respected journal, and often considered one of the best (e.g., top 5) scientific publications in the country. This certainly does not "guarantee" a high quality publication/research study, but nonetheless, one of the most respected scientific publications in the world seems to think the double-blind methodology is sound (pun intended).

You bring up some excellent critiques, but not all of them are relevant to the use of blinded methodology as a whole.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The part that a casual reader would miss here is that expert soloists and even modern violin makers are not necessarily expert instrument evaluators.

Then modify the study. Repeat it in "expert" instrument evaluators.

In ANY human study, subject selection is critically important. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong population. You could have done this study in violin makers, violin players, violin collectors, concert attendees, etc. You could have done the study in 10 year old circus midgets if you wanted. The subject selection isn't related to whether its blinded or not.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

By the way aren't you the one who smugly said blind tests didn't use blindfolds? :razz:

I provided the basic scientific definition of what blinded means. It means a subject (or researcher) does not know the specific treatment or variable that he/she may be receiving. You looked up the quote, so you know I concluded my statement with the fact that it CAN include visual obstruction.

Even within blinded studies, we often consider different "levels" (for lack of a better term) of blinding. For example, in this study, subjects knew they might be playing a "fine violin". Had subjects NOT been told this, their expectation and bias would have been further reduced.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Some of the subjects in this study admitted to being unduly influenced by the myth and mystique surrounding Stradivarius instruments. According to the basic rules of sensory science, that admission puts them in the category of untrained subjects.

Then modify the study. Only use "trained" subjects that you feel are appropriate and change the study instruction so individuals don't even know they have a chance at playing a Stradivarius.

The more important question is: how could subjects have been influences by their perceptions of a Stradivarius when they didn't even know they were playing one?

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Yes, they were trained in playing violins and making violins, but that does not equate to training in objectively evaluating the performance of violins.

Then modify the study. Train the subjects or use a different subject population. These variables are independent of whether or not the study is blinded or open.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Notice that in this blind test, differences between the Stradivarius violins and the modern violins did not disappear. The only thing that disappeared was the preference advantage of the Stradivarius instruments.

Notice also that this was a preference test, not a test to assess the objective performance superiority of one violin over another:

Then modify the study. Add whatever "objective" measures you want. Instead of asking about "preference", you can ask the participants any questions you feel are appropriate, be it "preference", "liking", whatever. More importantly, there really aren't any "objective" measures of perceived sound quality. If these existed, there would be no need for stereo reviews or websites like this. One would simply have an objective index of sound quality. The authors themselves acknowledge that “no [objectively measurable] specification which successfully defines even coarse divisions in instrument quality is known”

None of these factors are relevant to the double-blind design. You could have done them open, single-blinded, whatever.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Now, I need you to clarify this statement:
Where, exactly, is the "failure" you mentioned? The violinists were asked to play a number of violins and indicate which they preferred. They did exactly what was asked of them. Where is the "failure" in that? As Laurie Niles (and other professional violinists) have said publicly, newer, more tonally stable, more robustly constructed, modern violins are often preferred over ancient violins.

The "failure" was of the participants to state their preference for the Stradivarius violin. The abstracts outlines this in the study rationale.

"Most violinists believe that instruments by Stradivari and Guarneri “del Gesu” are tonally superior to other violins—and to new violins in particular."

"Many researchers have sought explanations for the purported tonal superiority of Old Italian violins"

During the study, in addition to basic "preference", the players rated the violins on "tone colors", "playability", "respone" and "projection". Despite the "purported tonal superiority", these violins weren't rated as superior.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Again, as stated by one of the violin test subjects, this was not a test to see if highly revered, highly expensive ancient violins were "better" than modern, more affordable violins. It also WAS NOT a test to see if professional violinists could distinguish a Stradivarius from a modern instrument. It was a simple double blind preference test to see which violin the professionals preferred.

Then modify the study. You don't have to ask a discrete "preference", you could have asked whatever you wanted (e.g., which is "better", which do you "prefer", which violin do you "like")

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Seriously, I find your lack of basic reasoning ability disturbing. I hope you don't display this same level of bias, carelessness, and lack of clarity of thought when dealing with people's medicines.

Despite the pot shots at my intelligence, very few (if any) of the above study critiques have anything to do with the basic study design of being blinded vs. unblinded ("open"). The issues of "training", objective outcome measures, preferences, etc. all have to be considered in BOTH blinded or unblinded tests.

DarqueKnight

badchad wrote: »

You bring up some excellent critiques, but not all of them are relevant to the use of blinded methodology as a whole.

badchad wrote: »

Despite the pot shots at my intelligence, very few (if any) of the above study critiques have anything to do with the basic study design of being blinded vs. unblinded ("open"). The issues of "training", objective outcome measures, preferences, etc. all have to be considered in BOTH blinded or unblinded tests.

I didn't take pot shots at your intelligence, I questioned your reasoning ability based on your written statements. A person can be highly intelligent, yet make poor decisions based on a lack of knowledge and understanding.

You seem to have the idea that I am opposed to blind tests. I am not. I am opposed to blind tests being used in situations for which they are not appropriate. I have said that many times, most recently in this thread:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I want to clarify that I have no problem with blind tests for certain kinds of audio, such as simple narrow bandwidth monophonic signals. As I stated in my A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing thread, blind tests were routinely used by Bell Labs researchers for telephone line and equipment tests. It must be noted that the end users for such equipment were untrained listeners (the general public).

When Bell Labs began developing home stereo systems, the consumer segment was sophisticated trained listeners who were (or who would become) proficient at sound localization and characterization of complex, multi-dimensional sound fields. Simple discrimination tests are not adequate or appropriate for evaluating multi-dimensional stimuli. There are too many distractive elements in a stereo sound field. If a listener, whether trained or not, is asked to simply tell if there is a difference, it is very likely that a distractive element noticed in one trial, but not noticed in a subsequent trial, might be erroneously labeled as a "difference". That is why it is important to learn to catalog, categorize, and quantify all the sonic elements in sound stage. I often do not become aware of differences until I compare notes and sound stage maps among listening trials. I don't listen for differences. I listen to hear and document everything in the sound stage.

I have nothing against blind tests when they are appropriately used. My position, which is based on standard principles of sensory science and Bell Labs technical specifications for stereo, is that blind tests are unnecessary and inappropriate for the kinds of stimuli generated by stereophonic sound fields and they are unnecessary and inappropriate for the trained and experienced listeners required to evaluate stereophonic system and equipment performance.

Regards,

Darque "Certified Golden Ears" Knight

badchad wrote: »

I referenced the articles as examples of the use of double-blind testing in evaluating audio equipment (i.e., violins). I note that both, peer-reviewed articles appear in PNAS. PNAS is a respected journal, and often considered one of the best (e.g., top 5) scientific publications in the country. This certainly does not "guarantee" a high quality publication/research study, but nonetheless, one of the most respected scientific publications in the world seems to think the double-blind methodology is sound (pun intended).

Again, I never said or implied that double blind methodology was unsound. I said applying it in situations for which it is not appropriate is unsound.

badchad wrote: »

Then modify the study. Repeat it in "expert" instrument evaluators.

badchad wrote: »

Then modify the study. Only use "trained" subjects that you feel are appropriate and change the study instruction so individuals don't even know they have a chance at playing a Stradivarius.

badchad wrote: »

Then modify the study. Train the subjects or use a different subject population. These variables are independent of whether or not the study is blinded or open.

badchad wrote: »

Then modify the study. Add whatever "objective" measures you want. Instead of asking about "preference", you can ask the participants any questions you feel are appropriate, be it "preference", "liking", whatever.

badchad wrote: »

Then modify the study. You don't have to ask a discrete "preference", you could have asked whatever you wanted (e.g., which is "better", which do you "prefer", which violin do you "like")

Your clamoring for "modifying" the study is amusing. My opinion of both studies is that they are sound and provided some valuable insight. My criticism is not of the studies themselves, as they are appropriate uses of blind test methodology. My criticism is of people, like you, who misinterpreted and misapplied the results of the study. The organizers of the tests, as well as some of the test subjects, have expressed the same criticism.

You don't realize this now, due to your lack of knowledge of appropriate test methods for different kinds of sensory stimuli, but asking for "study modification" is similar to asking for a fork to be modified so that it can be used as a knife.

badchad wrote: »

The "failure" was of the participants to state their preference for the Stradivarius violin. The abstracts outlines this in the study rationale.

For this to be a failure according to your terms, each subject would have had to state a preexisting preference for Stradivarius violins based on personal experience playing them, and then picked a modern instrument in the blind test. I didn't read of such pre-existing conditions in either paper. Did you?

badchad wrote: »

In ANY human study, subject selection is critically important. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong population. You could have done this study in violin makers, violin players, violin collectors, concert attendees, etc. You could have done the study in 10 year old circus midgets if you wanted. The subject selection isn't related to whether its blinded or not.

The statements I highlighted in bold are absolutely incorrect. According to established procedures in the field of sensory science, blind tests are indicated for certain types of subjects. I have provided several excellent references on the subject if you want to educate yourself.

badchad wrote: »

I provided the basic scientific definition of what blinded means. It means a subject (or researcher) does not know the specific treatment or variable that he/she may be receiving. You looked up the quote, so you know I concluded my statement with the fact that it CAN include visual obstruction.

Here is the complete paragraph from post #272 in this thread. Where is your comment that blind tests CAN include visual obstruction? You are making a pitiful attemp to backpeddle after being proven wrong.

badchad wrote: »

Do you honestly believe racial and gender bias has been eliminated? David Sterling wants to speak with you about the difficulty in erasing such things. Returning back on topic, the far simpler (and much more effective) solution to reducing bias is to blind subjects. I'll assume you know that "blinding" doesn't refer to literally, blind-folding subjects, right?

badchad

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You seem to have the idea that I am opposed to blind tests. I am not. I am opposed to blind tests being used in situations for which they are not appropriate. I have said that many times, most recently in this thread:

Glad we agree on something.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Your clamoring for "modifying" the study is amusing.




My opinion of both studies is that they are sound and provided some valuable insight. My criticism is not of the studies themselves, as they are appropriate uses of blind test methodology. My criticism is of people, like you, who misinterpreted and misapplied the results of the study. The organizers of the tests, as well as some of the test subjects, have expressed the same criticism.

I'm curious, which of the suggestions was unfeasible or unsound and why?

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You don't realize this now, due to your lack of knowledge of appropriate test methods for different kinds of sensory stimuli, but asking for "study modification" is similar to asking for a fork to be modified so that it can be used as a knife.

I've used a Spork before, someone invented it. Sensory science is a dynamic field and people can test its methodologies or *gasp* even come up with new ones. This was the idea behind your publication wasn't it? You proposed a new method of evaluating stereo equipment. Are you proposing that the field hasn't changed in the 18 years since those 1996 textbooks were published?

DarqueKnight wrote: »

For this to be a failure according to your terms, each subject would have had to state a preexisting preference for Stradivarius violins based on personal experience playing them, and then picked a modern instrument in the blind test. I didn't read of such pre-existing conditions in either paper. Did you?

I think you can assess preference regardless of pre-existing conditions.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The statements I highlighted in bold are absolutely incorrect. According to established procedures in the field of sensory science, blind tests are indicated for certain types of subjects. I have provided several excellent references on the subject if you want to educate yourself.

People once thought the earth was flat. Thankfully, someone challenged the status quo. You've copied and pasted all sorts of references. The more compelling question is "why". Why do some textbooks claim this and what is their rationale.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Here is the complete paragraph from post #272 in this thread. Where is your comment that blind tests CAN include visual obstruction? You are making a pitiful attemp to backpeddle after being proven wrong.

See #296.

Habanero Monk

BJC cables arrived. Let me know when you get yours back from Kurt.

DarqueKnight

badchad wrote: »

Glad we agree on something.

Go back and carefully re-read what I wrote. You didn't understand.

badchad wrote: »

I'm curious, which of the suggestions was unfeasible or unsound and why?

I didn't say your study modification ideas were not feasible. My point was the modifications would shift the purpose to something not intended by the investigators. The study's methodology was fine and appropriate for the answers sought by the investigators.

badchad wrote: »

I've used a Spork before, someone invented it. Sensory science is a dynamic field and people can test its methodologies or *gasp* even come up with new ones. This was the idea behind your publication wasn't it? You proposed a new method of evaluating stereo equipment. Are you proposing that the field hasn't changed in the 18 years since those 1996 textbooks were published?

A new methodology or new invention in a field typically does not change the basic rules, laws and scientific procedures of that field, unless it is a correction of error. A new airplane design does not change the laws of aerodynamics. Likewise, my methodology for evaluating stereo equipment did not change any of the basic of rules sensory science. It was a new application of pre-existing sensory science rules to the evaluation of stereo equipment.

badchad wrote: »

I think you can assess preference regardless of pre-existing conditions.

You are entitled to think whatever you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously when you say things that have no foundation in reality. Just as you were wrong about the fields of economics, sales and marketing having nothing to do with the study of human behavior and just as you were wrong about the use of blindfolds in audio test only being a figurative concept, you are also wrong about this.

Until you take the time to educate yourself on this concept, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

badchad wrote: »

People once thought the earth was flat. Thankfully, someone challenged the status quo.

More correctly, only a relatively small group of people thought the world was flat. Concurrent to the belief in a flat world by one group of people was the practice of traveling the world in sail boats by another group of people. The latter group knew the world was spherical in shape.

badchad wrote: »

You've copied and pasted all sorts of references. The more compelling question is "why".

I think most people appreciate someone who supports their views with credible scientific research.

badchad wrote: »

Why do some textbooks claim this and what is their rationale.

One of the defining characteristics of an educated mind is the ability to critically evaluate literature and documents. Good luck with your studies.

badchad wrote: »

See #296.

Yes, I did see #296. I also saw #272 and #292:

Your #272:

badchad wrote: »

I'll assume you know that "blinding" doesn't refer to literally, blind-folding subjects, right?

My #292:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Blind tests have routinely used a number of visual obstruction devices such as blindfolds and hiding speakers and equipment behind curtains. There are many references to such in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and on audio forums.

The blindfolding nonsense is nothing new. This is from page 13 of Floyd Toole's "Sound Reproduction" book. Notice that it is a reference to a blind test done in 1918:



This "typical" bit of wisdom is from the AudioKarma forum:


Link: Audiokarma Forum Thread: Just Upgraded My Interconnects

Your #296:

badchad wrote: »

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

Habanero Monk

ZLTFUL,

I'm good for the last two weekends in July. The 4th is obviously out and the 12th is the Parts Express GTG in Dayton.

badchad

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Go back and carefully re-read what I wrote. You didn't understand.
I didn't say your study modification ideas were not feasible. My point was the modifications would shift the purpose to something not intended by the investigators. The study's methodology was fine and appropriate for the answers sought by the investigators.

Sure. I guess the point of my (hypothetical) modifications would have been a double-blind evaluation of a musical device. With some minor tweaks, we could have designed a study to assess much deeper characteristics of sound, as opposed to just "preference". The same principles could be applied to the study of cables.

DarqueKnight

badchad wrote: »

Sure. I guess the point of my (hypothetical) modifications would have been a double-blind evaluation of a musical device. With some minor tweaks, we could have designed a study to assess much deeper characteristics of sound, as opposed to just "preference". The same principles could be applied to the study of cables.

Here is a hypothetical for your consideration:

1. A trained listener knows the difference between a male tenor voice, a male baritone voice and a male bass voice. Three singers are brought in to audition in plain sight of the listener. Each singer has a tenor voice. The listener is asked to pick the deepest bass voice. The listener says none of the voices of any of the men before him sing in the bass range. He says they sound like tenors.

2. Three more singers are brought in, each of which has a bass voice. The listener is asked to pick the deepest bass voice. The listener ranks each bass voice from highest to lowest in frequency as well as tactile sensation.

The test results are challenged as invalid because they weren't done blind. The tests are repeated in double blind mode with different singers where the listener is blindfolded and the singers stand behind a curtain. The operator presses a button that randomly turns on the microphone of one of the singers. On/off status of a microphone is indicated by a small red LED. This time the first trial has two baritone singers and one bass singer. The second trial has one baritone and two bass singers. The listener successfully identifies all of the singer's vocal ranges.

The listener was trained in voice frequency description. Was blinding necessary? If so, why? If no, why not? How would seeing the singe influence the trained listener's evaluation of the singer's vocal range since the listener would only be focusing on how a singer sounded?

What if one singer was a world famous bass singer, but an unknown local singer had the deepest voice. Do you think a trained listener would say the famous singer had the deepest voice, even though his ears indicated that the unknown singer had the deepest voice?

Here is another hypothetical for your consideration:

A listener trained in sound localization is asked to spatially map the location of sound images in the sound stage produced by a preamplifier in stock form and in slightly modified form. These are the results:

Sound stage map with music selection #1:


Sound stage map with music selection #2:


If the listener did not know whether he was listening to the stock or modified preamplifier, would his spatial maps have been any different? If so, why? If not, why not? Do you think that knowledge of a modification would cause a trained listener to imagine that sounds had changed positions in the sound stage?

villian

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Do you think that knowledge of a modification would cause a trained listener to imagine that sounds had changed positions in the sound stage?

Absolutely.

Trained listener or not it is an indisputable fact that we're all humans, and therefore all fallible.

BlueFox

villian wrote: »

Trained listener or not it is an indisputable fact that we're all humans, and therefore all fallible.

This does not make any sense. Just because somebody has the potential to make a mistake does not mean they will make a mistake. If that were true then every car trip would result in a crash.