Are those blind ABX tests valid??

sk1939

LOL to the above.

ben62670 wrote: »

Copper is copper? So water is water? Drink the water here, and drink the water from a mountain stream. There is more to it than that. Dielectric means a lot. Also when testing wire they test for RCL. Seeing audio is more than just a single test frequency your theory does not hold water. Also maple is maple right? Mahogany is mahogany right? If this were true than all wood instruments would sound the same if made to the same dimension.
Sorry sk. I used to believe like you then I used my ears when a Polkie was kind enough to bring over a few sets of wires;)
Take care.
Ben

And yes, not all copper is the same, but once you get pure copper, it doesn't get much better than that, unless you get pure gold. Yes, things like dielectrics play a part, and there is so much stuff out there on this I won't continue. There are alot of honest things (like the dielectrics, hospital plugs) , and there is even more snake oil (tech flex helps sound, cryogenicly treated plugs) , and it's harder to sort the difference.

As far as cables go, afaik maybe the cables really do make a difference, i don't really know ( I don't have access to $700 cables). All I know is for my uses, the cables I use work just fine (Mogami brand cable, same as most recording studios). I'd be curious to see if I could hear a difference with different cables, but I don't think I'd buy them if I did anyways (I can't afford upgrade-itis lol). If you couldn't tell, I'm not really much of an audiophile lol, I don't care as long as it sounds good to me.

ben62670

Please consider that I thought that these guys were **** when I first came here. I thought these guys were rich dummies with nothing better to do with their money. Also keep in mind most measurements are taken at 50-60hz. I worked at a copper smelting factory. I saw how some cables were made. Some were smelted to near their intended diamater, and some were run through dies till they were at their desired diameter. The cold die process left a directional "scale" looking appearance on the microscopic level. This affects how higher frequecies are carried. If run in one direction the higher frequencies are "pushed" twords the center. The other they were "pushed" tword the outside. When I first saw "directional cables" I thought these guys were off their rockers;) Also keep in mind that most recording studios use the NE5xx opamps which are less than desirable, and they used lots of them, but yet finer audio gear uses much better opamps, or heaven forbid relatively high distortion tubes:eek: My best advice is find a local Polkie and try it for yourself, or buy used and sell them at no loss, or even a profit! You don't hear a difference sweet. You do hear a difference I feel for you!
Take care.
Ben

Edit: BTW if you are ever in the area swing by:)

CoolJazz

Jesse, thanks for dropping that Robert Harley quote in! His first paragraph is exactly what I'm getting at. The last sentance really nails it...

Rather than bolster the objectivist's case, the "all amplifiers sound the same" conclusion of this blind test in fact discredits the very methodology on which hangs the objectivist's entire belief structure.

The event he's referring to matches, to me, the "test" that I begin this tread with for believability. Can you really see a way that quality equipment can sound the same as the run of the mill?

SK, you jump right on and do the dance of all the reasons why what was done could be all wrong. Who knows, maybe somebody did glance at somebody else during the test when they dumped a beer in their lap. And you even procede to try to reduce Mr. Harley to pond scum! Why? Have you just for one minute privately stepped back and really asked yourself why it is that going into a "controlled" situation seems to yield such questionable results? If your going to "test" something don't you want the test to be believable? When it starts to show evidence that the result is flawed, then it's time to step back and reassess why.

When you make something in the shop, you often try test fitting it. If the test fit seems good and you procede with a whole lot more work to get it done and then the final fitting time arrives, what do you do if it doesn't fit? Accuse the wood or metal of fudging the results? Question it's heritage? No, you go back to the difference between the test fit and the final and see where you went wrong. This whole "test" procedure seems to be thrown up as the end all, be all, only way to procede, don't pass go with out it. Yet, it shows a ton of evidence to make a guy stop and ask questions as to why it all seems like something is misfit! If it can't detect the big differences, then how can it be asked to detect tiny ones?

I've met and stood and chatted with RH and he's just as nice and unassuming as anybody you'll meet. He is absolutely serious about audio though. Seems to me he's got much more on the line to get it right than any of us out here anonymously posting to the web. Not to mention that what's written isn't going away and therefore has to meet the challenge of withstanding the long haul.

SK, I'm asking you to drop the attack mode and look calmly at the "test" that I listed in the original post. Do you really, really see anyway that a almost a throw away CD player, drugstore interconnect, and a Behringer amplifier can sound the same to all those guys as equipment built with much less eye towards cost contraints? Do those guys look like somebody pulled off the street that know nothing about audio and listening? How can a null be the result?

CoolJazz

sk1939

CoolJazz wrote: »

Jesse, thanks for dropping that Robert Harley quote in! His first paragraph is exactly what I'm getting at. The last sentance really nails it...



The event he's referring to matches, to me, the "test" that I begin this tread with for believability. Can you really see a way that quality equipment can sound the same as the run of the mill?

SK, you jump right on and do the dance of all the reasons why what was done could be all wrong. Who knows, maybe somebody did glance at somebody else during the test when they dumped a beer in their lap. And you even procede to try to reduce Mr. Harley to pond scum! Why? Have you just for one minute privately stepped back and really asked yourself why it is that going into a "controlled" situation seems to yield such questionable results? If your going to "test" something don't you want the test to be believable? When it starts to show evidence that the result is flawed, then it's time to step back and reassess why.

When you make something in the shop, you often try test fitting it. If the test fit seems good and you procede with a whole lot more work to get it done and then the final fitting time arrives, what do you do if it doesn't fit? Accuse the wood or metal of fudging the results? Question it's heritage? No, you go back to the difference between the test fit and the final and see where you went wrong. This whole "test" procedure seems to be thrown up as the end all, be all, only way to procede, don't pass go with out it. Yet, it shows a ton of evidence to make a guy stop and ask questions as to why it all seems like something is misfit! If it can't detect the big differences, then how can it be asked to detect tiny ones?

I've met and stood and chatted with RH and he's just as nice and unassuming as anybody you'll meet. He is absolutely serious about audio though. Seems to me he's got much more on the line to get it right than any of us out here anonymously posting to the web. Not to mention that what's written isn't going away and therefore has to meet the challenge of withstanding the long haul.

SK, I'm asking you to drop the attack mode and look calmly at the "test" that I listed in the original post. Do you really, really see anyway that a almost a throw away CD player, drugstore interconnect, and a Behringer amplifier can sound the same to all those guys as equipment built with much less eye towards cost contraints? Do those guys look like somebody pulled off the street that know nothing about audio and listening? How can a null be the result?

CoolJazz

I'm not attacking the guy, more so the motives behind it. It's no secret magazines tend to write articles favorable to people who buy their ad spaces.

I do agree that the results are off on the test you mentioned, and that the process seemed sound, but the results wierd. Who knows, maybe they did sound the same due to the speakers, or the unfamiliar recording. It's sorta hard to judge when your not actually there.

The test I was attacking was the one given as an example in that quote. There are just so many things wrong with it (too large a sample size, too many variables, too many unknowns). Double Blind Testing isn't an end all and be all (like in this case) but it often a good indicator. Plus as someone stated, there is the placebo effect. Like I said I am no audiophile and make no claims to be, I am but a simple musician.

sk1939

ben62670 wrote: »

Please consider that I thought that these guys were **** when I first came here. I thought these guys were rich dummies with nothing better to do with their money. Also keep in mind most measurements are taken at 50-60hz. I worked at a copper smelting factory. I saw how some cables were made. Some were smelted to near their intended diamater, and some were run through dies till they were at their desired diameter. The cold die process left a directional "scale" looking appearance on the microscopic level. This affects how higher frequecies are carried. If run in one direction the higher frequencies are "pushed" twords the center. The other they were "pushed" tword the outside. When I first saw "directional cables" I thought these guys were off their rockers;) Also keep in mind that most recording studios use the NE5xx opamps which are less than desirable, and they used lots of them, but yet finer audio gear uses much better opamps, or heaven forbid relatively high distortion tubes:eek: My best advice is find a local Polkie and try it for yourself, or buy used and sell them at no loss, or even a profit! You don't hear a difference sweet. You do hear a difference I feel for you!
Take care.
Ben

Edit: BTW if you are ever in the area swing by:)

True, 50-60Hz is good for AC power, not so much for audio. I'm upstate PA so I"m not really near anything, and I don't get around out of town much cause I don't drive (no car, I can't afford the upkeep) but a nice offer nontheless. Most of my gear is balanced, so I don't know about interconnects and such as far as who has what....RCA interconnects seem predominant.

ben62670

SK I am actually impressed with your attitude. Your sig indicates that you are younger, and yet you are open minded. A wise man once told me that a mind is like a parachute. If it isn't open it doesn't do you much good.
Ben

AudioFilet

Of all things audio, I'd wager cables would be the hardest to ABX. The difference between a decent quality 12ga stranded cable & a $500 boutique cable would be quite subtle, I imagine. It would probably take a serious listener quite some time, listening to different materiel at different levels, with familiar equipment before realizing it. It could be just a single note or short passage that triggers the "AHA!" moment.

I would say that any sort of "quick & dirty" ABX test for cables is a pointless waste of time. Ditto for just about anything related to audio.

Read this :

http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1367/robert-harley-of-the-absolute-sound-on-blind-listening-tests

ben62670

IC's are much more noticeable, but yes your theory would apply there too.

AudioFilet

To quote:

"The answer is that blind listening tests fundamentally distort the listening process and are worthless in determining the audibility of a certain phenomenon." - Robert Harley, The Absolute Sound

hearingimpared

sk1939 wrote: »

There is a reason this topic never ends. There is a flaw in his argument about the blind test with the Japanese receiver vs. the Mark Levinson et al. and that is that it could be that perhaps to the testers they did all sound the same. It could be that the test pulled all average joes off the street who listen to nothing but the HTIB or ghetto blasters, so anything would sound good to them. It could be that they played an unfamiliar body of songs. It could be that after listening to everything they got fatigued. Or maybe they listened to them all in such rapid succession, that they didn't hear each sample well, or that they thought it sounded the same. There are so many if's it's not even funny.

Your whole logic here is flawed. He is not talking about average Joe's off the street. We are talking about audiophiles who have a trained ear over years of listening to music and every nuance of it. Your second point is also invalid. A blind test is supposed to be played with known music not an unfamiliar body of songs. Your third point is also invalid. The point that Mr. Harley makes is that listening to a rapid succession of music is not the way to test gear. It takes time, weeks even. Time to live with the gear and make notes on a particular piece of gear whether or not the listener knows what gear is being played or not. Your fourth point is even more flawed than any . . . there are not supposed to be "ifs" in a blind test. It is supposed to be a controlled test and the "ifs" eliminated to avoid contraversy.

sk1939 wrote: »

The problem with these tests, forgetting the fact that it is indeed a double blind, is that you listen to one, then to the other. The problem with that is, that the mind and the ear "forget" the differences, and this is even more so after a while listening to the same items. Not to mention as previously mentioned, the unfamiliarity of the recording and the way the components sound.

Here again you are wrong. Audiophile have excellent audio memory and again your logic pertaining to unfamiliarity of recordings or the sound of components is flawed. The test should play familiar recordings to make it a fair test.

sk1939 wrote: »

I think the best way, is to actually run the test with the competing items going at the same time (requires more equipment/money). Thats the only way to actively hear the difference (it's the only way I shop for speakers), and to eliminate the "forgetfulness" of the ear and mind, because what you "thought" you heard may not be what you actually heard. You also have to listen to music your familiar with (right down the the most minute things, and it has to be a recording/version you've heard alot, can't be like you own the Beatles White Album record, and then use the White Album CD as a test base). The person also has to be relaxed, if your blood pressure is increased, the less likely you are to listen to the music.

Again with testing gear you need time to check out each nuance. You need to take notes on what you heard first on one piece of gear then the other. This eliminates the "thought" you heard versus what you "actually" heard which is an absurd assumption to begin with.

sk1939 wrote: »

The problem I have with the above article is where he talks about brain function, and states that musicians use both halves of their brain, but saying that doing so forces the brain into an unnatural condition for anyone else is wrong. There are people who can do both successfully, and Mr. Harley draws too much flawed logic from his closing argument.

Who? Superman?

sk1939 wrote: »

Plus, I have to argue here, a major magazine of what? Could it be an audio magazine? Doesn't that mean that there is a writer bias, and that it is a conflict of interest?

What else would he be the editor of Popluar Mechanics. Your logic here is also rediculous. How can he be biased if he's an expert in audio and how is that a conflict of interest. He mearly tests equipment as well as giving subjective reviews.

Your whole arguement is flawed and full of holes big enough to drive a truck through.

hearingimpared

sk1939 wrote: »

I agree, and although I believe that the expensive cable business is nonsense (copper is copper), it doesn't mean that I won't try something else, or that I force others to agree.

Copper is not just copper. There are varying degrees of purity and density. There is also the construction of the cable to take into consideration i.e. dialectric used, capacitance and stray capacitance issues. Inductance issues just to name a few.

sk1939 wrote: »

To me, cables have the placebo effect; you spend $2000 on cables, so you expect to hear a difference, so your mind kicks into gear and voila, you hear a difference.

The placebo effect is BS. You naysayers always go for the uber high priced cable as your target here. If I pay $500 for set of ICs I make sure I have a 30 day money back guarantee so as to have time to test it against existing cables. If I don't like the sound of the $500 cable I can send it back. I personally know someone who purchased a $2000+ power cable and sent it back because he didn't like the way it sounded with the associated piece of gear.

sk1939 wrote: »

People spend $1000's on plugs, wires, outlets, etc. only to realize that the copper in your walls is $.10 a foot romex, and the same as everything else in your house. So is that circuit breaker. There are no such things as "audiophile" circuit breakers. But this is all imo of course..

This line of thinking has been debunked over and over again and there you go again applying the uber high price.

sk1939 wrote: »

To me, the most bang for your buck upgrade is if you have 1/2 decent speakers (with enough power to power said speakers) a power conditioner that does EMI/RFI and voltage regulation. It will eliminate all kinds of power issues, more so than any power cord.

"Half decent speakers" don't cut it. "Half decent speakers" give you half if not less decent music reproduction. Power cords are designed to eliminate EMI/RFI. A combination of both power conditioner, voltage regulator and properly designed power cable is the way to go if one can afford it.

tonyb

I see you guys fell for it...again.

hearingimpared

sk1939 wrote: »

LOL to the above.






And yes, not all copper is the same, but once you get pure copper, it doesn't get much better than that, unless you get pure gold. Yes, things like dielectrics play a part, and there is so much stuff out there on this I won't continue. There are alot of honest things (like the dielectrics, hospital plugs) , and there is even more snake oil (tech flex helps sound, cryogenicly treated plugs) , and it's harder to sort the difference.

As far as cables go, afaik maybe the cables really do make a difference, i don't really know ( I don't have access to $700 cables). All I know is for my uses, the cables I use work just fine (Mogami brand cable, same as most recording studios). I'd be curious to see if I could hear a difference with different cables, but I don't think I'd buy them if I did anyways (I can't afford upgrade-itis lol). If you couldn't tell, I'm not really much of an audiophile lol, I don't care as long as it sounds good to me.

That being said where do you get off making all these statements and theories if you don't have the experience in testing and listening to different pieces of gear, cables included?

hearingimpared

sk1939 wrote: »

I'm not attacking the guy, more so the motives behind it. It's no secret magazines tend to write articles favorable to people who buy their ad spaces.

That's plain old BS. Harley posts scientific test results with the reviews.

sk1939 wrote: »

I do agree that the results are off on the test you mentioned, and that the process seemed sound, but the results wierd. Who knows, maybe they did sound the same due to the speakers, or the unfamiliar recording. It's sorta hard to judge when your not actually there.

That right there proves that ABX testing is flawed.

sk1939 wrote: »

The test I was attacking was the one given as an example in that quote. There are just so many things wrong with it (too large a sample size, too many variables, too many unknowns). Double Blind Testing isn't an end all and be all (like in this case) but it often a good indicator. Plus as someone stated, there is the placebo effect. Like I said I am no audiophile and make no claims to be, I am but a simple musician.

Then you should know that different materials and designs WILL make the same instrument, a saxophone or violin for example sound different from one made of a different material.

hearingimpared

tonyb wrote: »

I see you guys fell for it...again.

Nope just educating a non-experienced naysayer.;)

hearingimpared

sk1939 wrote: »

True, 50-60Hz is good for AC power, not so much for audio. I'm upstate PA so I"m not really near anything, and I don't get around out of town much cause I don't drive (no car, I can't afford the upkeep) but a nice offer nontheless. Most of my gear is balanced, so I don't know about interconnects and such as far as who has what....RCA interconnects seem predominant.

Then how on earth can you make a judgement call on them?:rolleyes:

hearingimpared

ben62670 wrote: »

SK I am actually impressed with your attitude. Your sig indicates that you are younger, and yet you are open minded. A wise man once told me that a mind is like a parachute. If it isn't open it doesn't do you much good.
Ben

Are you reading the same spew I am? Where do you see and open mind?

hearingimpared

AudioFilet wrote: »

Of all things audio, I'd wager cables would be the hardest to ABX. The difference between a decent quality 12ga stranded cable & a $500 boutique cable would be quite subtle, I imagine. It would probably take a serious listener quite some time, listening to different materiel at different levels, with familiar equipment before realizing it. It could be just a single note or short passage that triggers the "AHA!" moment.

I would say that any sort of "quick & dirty" ABX test for cables is a pointless waste of time. Ditto for just about anything related to audio.

Read this :

http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1367/robert-harley-of-the-absolute-sound-on-blind-listening-tests

I heard an instant difference between my original silver ICs and my $500 MIT ICs. I must say that the original silver ICs are no slouch either.

tonyb

Too much coffee this morning Joe ?

AudioFilet

hearingimpared wrote: »

I heard an instant difference between my original silver ICs and my $500 MIT ICs. I must say that the original silver ICs are no slouch either.

Sorry, I was actually referring to speaker wiring (12ga), not ICs.

unc2701

I'm going to thread jack and send everyone over here:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86154

To me, the cable debate is pretty much moot in about 95% of untreated rooms unless you're schizophrenic or on LSD.

Hawkeye

megasat16 wrote: »

^^^ And let's don't forget the medium! The thin air or the thick air? It makes a difference how a speaker sounds and how an ear hears!

I'll be selling Audiophile Grade Air Treatment for optimal air density in the ready to spray canisters. Anyone interested? I guarantee it smells like audiophile ****. J/K!

You may not know how correct you may be. The humidity and dust levels in my house have a direct impact on how my speakers sound. I can tell when the dehumidifier needs to be turned on. My speakers slow down and get thick.

I'll take a couple cans if it is cheaper than running the dehumidifier:D

Gordon

hearingimpared

unc2701 wrote: »

I'm going to thread jack and send everyone over here:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86154

To me, the cable debate is pretty much moot in about 95% of untreated rooms unless you're schizophrenic or on LSD.

How are you going to know what parts of the room are needed to be treated if you don't have a complete system? It doesn't make sense. Am I to hold off on buying a new amp until the room is treated. How about a source or even speakers. The cables are a component too and until they are in place treating the room is a moot point because you would just have to move the treatments around or add to them to compensate for the difference in gear.

hearingimpared

AudioFilet wrote: »

Sorry, I was actually referring to speaker wiring (12ga), not ICs.

I was instantly able to tell the difference between Monster Cable Phase Aligned Time Coherent 2 speaker cables and MIT MH 750 shotgun biwire speaker cables. I should think I would be able to do the same vs. 12g speaker wires.:)

Hawkeye

hearingimpared wrote: »

How are you going to know what parts of the room are needed to be treated if you don't have a complete system? It doesn't make sense. Am I to hold off on buying a new amp until the room is treated. How about a source or even speakers. The cables are a component too and until they are in place treating the room is a moot point because you would just have to move the treatments around or add to them to compensate for the difference in gear.

I personally would not buy a new amp UNTIL the room was treated. A first or second reflection point is a constant unless you move your speakers. Bass loads up in the corners no matter what you have. Trap them. Treatments work with all gear at all price levels. No synergy issues to think about.

Gordon

CoolJazz

unc2701 wrote: »

I'm going to thread jack and send everyone over here:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86154

To me, the cable debate is pretty much moot in about 95% of untreated rooms unless you're schizophrenic or on LSD.

I'm not sure where you're headed with that UNC. Sound treatments are a really cost effective way to better, no question! Great back for the buck, no question!

Don't know that I'd want to drag my gear into a different room just to listen, but I've had smallish rooms in the past that I'd throw in what soft stuff I could, but it didn't seem to negate a pretty high level of listening capability. I'd tend to think that intelligent setup to minimize how close first reflection points would be much more important in smaller rooms in particular and in any untreated room in general. But it doesn't seem to me to negate system changes of any type.

CJ

unc2701

hearingimpared wrote: »

How are you going to know what parts of the room are needed to be treated if you don't have a complete system? It doesn't make sense. Am I to hold off on buying a new amp until the room is treated. How about a source or even speakers. The cables are a component too and until they are in place treating the room is a moot point because you would just have to move the treatments around or add to them to compensate for the difference in gear.

To quote some bad music, a whisper on a scream doesn't mean a thing. You'd have an extremely hard time finding an untreated room that does NOT have a 10db + peak/ valley as well as time coherency issues due to reverb. I'm calling it 95% with these problems, but whatever- damn near all of them have it.

I challenge you to find a reasonable cable that induces (or resolves) issues of this magnitude.

Do cables matter? Absolutely, but for the kinda tweaking that they offer, your money is far better spent working on the room first.

Incidentally, do you have any treatments in your room?

erniejade

1st i might get flamed for this..

Behringer A500 is actually not that bad of an amp for a pro type cheap amp. Seems to be a ton of review of it on the web.

Summary:
Bought 2 of these amps. Good for the money, but made too cheap for critical listening use. Compared to the Crowns & Brystons that we already had in the studio, the Behringers weren't as refined or polished sounding. The treble was harsh with certain recordings. We used the Behringer at the studio to powered a pair of JBL LSR speakers and also a pair of B&W speakers, don't know which model. We also hooked the behringers to a pair of JBL MRX for an outdoor setup. Bryston amps usally power the B&W studio speakers, and crown amps are usually used for the outdoor speakers and also the JBL LSR studio speakers. In all the set ups, the Behringer had plenty of power for normal use. The JBL MRX's (PA speakers) would have been under powered if only one Behringer was used, but with two running each in mono, it was fine. Sound quality was fine except for some treble harshness. Bass was powerful, mids good too. Just some grain in the high end that we didn't hear with the crowns or the brystons in the studio. The treble harshness wasn't quite as bad with the outdoor setup, so the A500 would be fine for PA or sound reenforcement use. I mainly see the harshness in the high frequencies to be a drawback for critical listening/studio use.

Weaknesses:
High frequencies could be harsh with cymbals and some with female vocals.


If the speakers they were using were trebble shy or dark sounding, having the Classe CAP-80, YBA 2A, combo would have been a huge mistake since they are both warm sounding to begin with and the cheap Behringer would have made it sound better no matter what the material is.

With us not knowing how the speakers sound, this would be hard to say. It might just be a bad match up.

I took the review from http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/behringer/amplifiers/a500/PRD_337736_1583crx.aspx

sk1939

hearingimpared wrote: »

That's plain old BS. Harley posts scientific test results with the reviews.

I have no idea what he is an editor of, it was 4 am, and I wasn't about to look up the magazine/research someone.

That right there proves that ABX testing is flawed.

But not posted with the quote

Then you should know that different materials and designs WILL make the same instrument, a saxophone or violin for example sound different from one made of a different material.

Thats a precision instrument, not a cable. Stradivarius's and Amati are arguably the most amazing violins the world has ever see, and to this day they have never been duplicated. Yes they were made a certain way, but several of the audiophile cable manufactures mass produce their top cables with machines, regardless of what they say, which while uniform, eliminates some of the uniqueness of the sound (which is part of the problem of why we still can't make a clone Stradivarius), it's not always so much the material, but the process.

sk1939

hearingimpared wrote: »

Then how on earth can you make a judgement call on them?:rolleyes:

That wasn't about the article, that was about trying out more expensive interconnects, like I was saying, idk who has what, all of my equipment is balanced, and the predominant seems to be RCA.