Are those blind ABX tests valid??

sk1939

hearingimpared wrote: »

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.

Does he say that they are audiophiles? Or is this an assumption? Again, I did not have the full article, just the quote.



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.

Not all audiophiles have good memory, and notice that you said should play familiar recordings, doesn't mean did. Not nitpicking, just stating what I think.

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.

In the test shown in by the original OP, they did not take notes, they were simply asked to rate on a scale a couple different categories. The quote did not state that they took notes either. While scientific process dictates that notes should be taken, they may or may not have. I also notice that in the OP's test, they were using a cheap surge protector for both tests, for better or for worse.

Who? Superman?

Musicians actively alternate between left brain and right brain usage and an incredible rate, this is an indisputable fact which has been proven many times over. Most of the population however, depending on the person, either utilizes mostly the right side of their brain, or the left side.

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.

An expert in audio can still give bias, your argument makes no sense. A medical expert on the witness stand called by the defense will give testimony favorable to the defense. Conflict of interest means that could the article be swayed if he's being paid by sponsors, and the answer is yes, it could. I would also be quick to point out that Mr. Robert Harley Robert Harley has a very poor reputation among respected audio engineers and other commentators in the field (especially the engineers), nor can I find any reference that he had anything to do with Popular Mechanics other than writing a single article.

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

To quote a review of a book written by said "expert":

1) It contains many, many, factual errors. These errors would be easily spotted by any freshman physics student, and should have been spotted by the publisher. For example, the author Robert Harley apparently doesn't understand the difference between electrical current and voltage.

2) It doesn't actually explain things. To me, an explanation shows how something works in terms of basic principles. Mr. Harley simpley states "facts", e.g., an outboard D/A converter will improve your sound, without explaining how or why.

3) Many photos and diagrams have mistaken or even irrelevant captions, leading me to conclude that Mr. Harley doesn't understand his own diagrams. For example, a diagram of an amplifier that uses feedback is used to "illustrate" a point about amplifiers that don't use feedback.

I don't really trust the opinion who doesn't understand the difference between current and voltage.

sk1939

hearingimpared wrote: »

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.

I already corrected that.

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.

I have yet to hear the difference between my Mogami cables and some Audioquest interconnects (not exactly super high end). As far as the return policy/money back guarantee, it varies, and it's something that does have to be accounted for

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

I think several hundred dollars for anything is expensive, especially when you have to buy several pairs of them, I'm not exactly swimming in cash considering I still have to pay tuition as well.

"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.

It's an allusion the "half decent" part, and no power cable is "designed" to eliminate EMI unless it has some sort of built in filter. It's why you have a power conditioner. The power conditioner part is if nothing else, something we can agree upon.

hearingimpared

unc2701 wrote: »

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?

Minor ones. I'm saving up for a full scale assault. I know first hand the benefits of room treatments as an integral component as I have heard their benefits in other's rigs. I just happen to think they should come after the rig is complete.

hearingimpared

sk1939 wrote: »

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.

I made that point several posts up.

BlueFox

sk1939 wrote: »

To quote a review of a book written by said "expert":

1) It contains many, many, factual errors. These errors would be easily spotted by any freshman physics student, and should have been spotted by the publisher. For example, the author Robert Harley apparently doesn't understand the difference between electrical current and voltage.

2) It doesn't actually explain things. To me, an explanation shows how something works in terms of basic principles. Mr. Harley simpley states "facts", e.g., an outboard D/A converter will improve your sound, without explaining how or why.

3) Many photos and diagrams have mistaken or even irrelevant captions, leading me to conclude that Mr. Harley doesn't understand his own diagrams. For example, a diagram of an amplifier that uses feedback is used to "illustrate" a point about amplifiers that don't use feedback.

I don't really trust the opinion who doesn't understand the difference between current and voltage.

Can you post a link to this review? Thanks.

TroyD

Wow.

But the real point is...whodafuk cares?

I mean, if you think double blind testing is definitive...and you think everything sounds the same: great! You just saved yourself a lot of money and time.

If you are a round-earther....GREAT! You get to enjoy this hobby and all it's joys and frustrations. Incidentally, the more flat-earthers there are...less competition for used gear and such!

For the life of me, I can't see why the two parties can't coexist. It's a subjective issue. Now, I'm all about a good throwdown....but this one has been beat to death over and over in a million places....which I think the OP knows, he's just trying to stir the **** pot here...which I think is douchebaggery of a pretty large magnitude.

BDT

heiney9

CoolJazz wrote: »

Again Tony, because I've never seen it asked.
CoolJazz

You are about 250th person to bring this up here on CP. If new people would take the time to search the archives they'd find answers to atleast 90% of their questions.

It's a tired, tired, tired, tired subject. It pains me to even type what I have about this subject

H9

unc2701

hearingimpared wrote: »

Minor ones. I'm saving up for a full scale assault. I know first hand the benefits of room treatments as an integral component as I have heard their benefits in other's rigs. I just happen to think they should come after the rig is complete.

Fair 'nough, but as others pointed out room treatments are predictable once you figure out what your room needs. Change your system and you might need to move them around a little, take one out, add one in, but that's cheap and easy. You've got no idea how much gets lost rattling around in the typical room until you give it a go. Trust me, it'll blow your mind more than any cable. I recently moved to a new place and I'm not doing a damn thing with my system until I get the room right cause a lots of things that I could hear at the old place are completely gone here.

I had no idea what the room could do until my friend finished his studio. His treatments aren't feasible for a house (about half the volume of the control room was eaten up by treatments), but the results are astounding. In my old place, I did something closer to his secondary control room and it was akin to getting new speakers.

CoolJazz

Ok...we can pull the sidewalks in and wrap it up then. Some of the guys think this is too much of the same and it offends them so deeply they have to jump into personal attacks.

I'd ran across that "study" and thought the conclusion they reached was the opposite of the one I'd reach and found that rather interesting. I really wanted to step back a step further and talk about it. But if that's not to be...then fine.

I won't return the name calling as I prefer to talk about audio when I can't get to actually enjoying it. Came home from Christmas with a really, really slammin' cold and didn't feel like much but setting in the easy chair...sure can't listen to audio when your ears are plugged up this much. Didn't realize it was So off limits.

...you may now resume conversations about the pretty blinky blue lights and HDMI cables. Screw it!

Out!

treitz3

Can't say that I blame you there, Mark.

madmax

I was going to say chill out and enjoy the music but with a head cold thats not really possible. ABX and cable threads always lead to kaos, just enjoy yourself.
madmax

heiney9

CoolJazz wrote: »

Ok...we can pull the sidewalks in and wrap it up then. Some of the guys think this is too much of the same and it offends them so deeply they have to jump into personal attacks.

I'd ran across that "study" and thought the conclusion they reached was the opposite of the one I'd reach and found that rather interesting. I really wanted to step back a step further and talk about it. But if that's not to be...then fine.

I won't return the name calling as I prefer to talk about audio when I can't get to actually enjoying it. Came home from Christmas with a really, really slammin' cold and didn't feel like much but setting in the easy chair...sure can't listen to audio when your ears are plugged up this much. Didn't realize it was So off limits.

...you may now resume conversations about the pretty blinky blue lights and HDMI cables. Screw it!

Out!

Hey man, it's not so much about you..........but what kind of crap gets posted about this subject. It turns ugly and very little solid info is gleaned. You didn't offend me deeply, just tired of the same trolls (not you) pontificating about stuff they know nothing about.

ABX tests are flawed, that's really all one needs to know.

H9

sk1939

BlueFox wrote: »

Can you post a link to this review? Thanks.

I certainly hope I didn't offend anyone.

Review, although from a not very credible source. I have talked to engineers from dbx, Crown, Kiplisch, McIntosh, and others and they don't agree with what he says.
IMO although, I agree with the reviewer, below is the description of a paper that he authored, and goes against the scientific process.

Subjective critical listening can reveal aspects of audio equipment quality not exposed by traditional objective methods. Subjective listening impressions, however, are often unfairly dismissed as mysticism, even when conducted by conscientious, technically oriented practitioners. This paper outlines the methods and underlying philosophy of professional critical listening, explores the reasons why subjective listening is rejected by the scientific audio community, and draws the distinction between serious listening and pseudoscientific claims.

treitz3

Nice post, sk1939.

TroyD

CoolJazz wrote: »

Ok...we can pull the sidewalks in and wrap it up then. Some of the guys think this is too much of the same and it offends them so deeply they have to jump into personal attacks.

I'd ran across that "study" and thought the conclusion they reached was the opposite of the one I'd reach and found that rather interesting. I really wanted to step back a step further and talk about it. But if that's not to be...then fine.

I won't return the name calling as I prefer to talk about audio when I can't get to actually enjoying it. Came home from Christmas with a really, really slammin' cold and didn't feel like much but setting in the easy chair...sure can't listen to audio when your ears are plugged up this much. Didn't realize it was So off limits.

...you may now resume conversations about the pretty blinky blue lights and HDMI cables. Screw it!

Out!

If you sincerely didn't know that double blind testing is probably the single biggest **** storm on audio boards....well, I apologize. That said, I find it pretty unlikely....

BDT

Montoya

Sit back and enjoy your home depot wire and drink natty light as for me I will enjoy the comforts of MIT and some Sam Adams.

Good day Sir!

hearingimpared

sk1939 wrote: »

I certainly hope I didn't offend anyone.

Review, although from a not very credible source. I have talked to engineers from dbx, Crown, Kiplisch, McIntosh, and others and they don't agree with what he says.
IMO although, I agree with the reviewer, below is the description of a paper that he authored, and goes against the scientific process.

Subjective critical listening can reveal aspects of audio equipment quality not exposed by traditional objective methods. Subjective listening impressions, however, are often unfairly dismissed as mysticism, even when conducted by conscientious, technically oriented practitioners. This paper outlines the methods and underlying philosophy of professional critical listening, explores the reasons why subjective listening is rejected by the scientific audio community, and draws the distinction between serious listening and pseudoscientific claims.

I sure wasn't offended by anything you said. I was just disputing some of your statements point by point. Sorry if it came off as an attack.

What you posted above is what we anti ABXers have been stating for years.

BlueFox

sk1939 wrote: »

I certainly hope I didn't offend anyone.

Review, although from a not very credible source. I have talked to engineers from dbx, Crown, Kiplisch, McIntosh, and others and they don't agree with what he says.

Thanks. A semi-anonymous customer review on Amazon is not exactly the most credible data available. Why you referred to him as an "expert" is puzzling. His statement that Harley does not even understand the difference between current and voltage was a red flag the writer is a fool. Yet it does makes me wonder if the reviewer konws the difference.

Personally, whenever I read anything by Harley I enjoy it since he goes into such technical detail in his writing. I guess it is just the engineer in me appreciating data along with the subjective result.

Along the same line, The February 2010 issue of the absolute sound arrived today, and Harley reviews a dCS Puccini CD/SACD player and Puccini U-Clock USB Converter/Clock. Good stuff if you like digital music, and like to daydream what if scenarios for when you win the lotto.

One thing I did notice in this month's issue was all the speaker wire advertising. Since the market is always right (mostly), there must be something there, or these companies would either go out of business, or never even get into the business.

sk1939

BlueFox wrote: »

Thanks. A semi-anonymous customer review on Amazon is not exactly the most credible data available. Why you referred to him as an "expert" is puzzling. His statement that Harley does not even understand the difference between current and voltage was a red flag the writer is a fool. Yet it does makes me wonder if the reviewer konws the difference.

Personally, whenever I read anything by Harley I enjoy it since he goes into such technical detail in his writing. I guess it is just the engineer in me appreciating data along with the subjective result.

Along the same line, The February 2010 issue of the absolute sound arrived today, and Harley reviews a dCS Puccini CD/SACD player and Puccini U-Clock USB Converter/Clock. Good stuff if you like digital music, and like to daydream what if scenarios for when you win the lotto.

One thing I did notice in this month's issue was all the speaker wire advertising. Since the market is always right (mostly), there must be something there, or these companies would either go out of business, or never even get into the business.

They wouldn't do it if they didn't make money off of it. It is a very lucrative market with money to be made. After all, HTIB buyers don't care what wire comes with their systems, but those who have more expensive gear do.

I saw that CD player with clock, DAC, and something else, on the Audiogon yesterday, I think the guy was selling for like $15000 or something.

As far as cables go, for better or worse, I bought powered monitors not only for studio use, but so I didn't have to worry about mix and match cables, speakers, amps. They either sounded good, or they didn't, very straight forward. Once I have more time after college, maybe then I'll look at something else, but what I have is more than fine for what I use it for (blows my roommates 2.1 iHome away).

F1nut

They wouldn't do it if they didn't make money off of it.

They made money off your powered monitors too.....it's what all businesses hope to do.

I bought powered monitors not only for studio use, but so I didn't have to worry about mix and match cables, speakers, amps.

In that case, you really don't have a dog in this fight.

sk1939

F1nut wrote: »

They made money off your powered monitors too.....it's what all businesses hope to do.

True enough, at least profitable businesses.

F1nut wrote: »

In that case, you really don't have a dog in this fight.

I guess not.
I do have TSi 100's I use, but thats not really what you would call audiophile with the Monster XP speaker wire and dollar store interconnects (I only use it for movies, coax).

hearingimpared

sk1939 wrote: »

They wouldn't do it if they didn't make money off of it. It is a very lucrative market with money to be made. After all, HTIB buyers don't care what wire comes with their systems, but those who have more expensive gear do.

How do you think HTiB would fare against a custom built HT system in an ABX test?

F1nut

I use to do double blind tests all the time. I'd drink vast quantities of alcohol and forget where my glasses were.....that's a real double blind test, you effing amateurs.

wutadumsn23

F1nut wrote: »

I use to do double blind tests all the time. I'd drink vast quantities of alcohol and forget where my glasses were.....that's a real double blind test, you effing amateurs.

LOL, spoken like a true veteran Jesse.

-Jeff

Fongolio

Cable debate #382 is now over and the conclusion.......same as all the other ones. Only difference is no one gets banned this time.

Now lets talk about how my Bose system with Monster inconnects and speaker wires will kick your systems a$$.

reeltrouble1

C is for Cookie.....

RT1

selkec

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

The abx test is kind of pointless unless done a number of times say 16 or more. The reason is the person listening has a 50% chance of getting lucky and picking X as the speaker he wanted to sound better. I bet if it was ran five times not everytime would the same person pick the same cables or whatever as X.
Im sure some of you have read this but here is a decent read. And ABX test is number 4 on the list...http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_26_r.pdf

wutadumsn23

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

C is for Cookie.....

RT1

LOL Ted

The cow goes Moo!!

-Jeff