Test to be carried out under strict controlled DBX conditions and managed by persons in white coats.
Mr ED
Power Cables. Are they overhyped? Part III
- Thread starter Mike42
- Start date
Test to be carried out under strict controlled DBX conditions and managed by persons in white coats.
Mr ED
Tony L
Administrator
Please feel free to start one. There are several ways of framing it so I'd pick the wording carefully, e.g. 'do you think mains cables make a subjective sonic difference?' would be better than limiting it just to amplifiers. Asking 'do you use audiophile mains leads or mains blocks?' may give a slightly different result too. Probably best to make it anonymous too as that will help extend participation beyond the usual thread gladiators.
Im not sure they are. Neils comments above and those that rail against blind testing contradict the research
In Tools books he talks about the fact that there was not consistency in the speaker testing results until they started performing them blind.
I dont think speakers are any different to any other piece of hifi kit just because of their physical variation. Remember its not just the physical attributes, its also things like the price, the manufacturer qudos and reputation, and of course the individuals expectation bias.
You know, I paid 500 quid for this cable full of magic beans, that allegedly filters out all known interference and improves the dynamic current capabilty of my mains supply, so it must be making a positive difference.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
No. it really does make them non-viable as a solution in the sense that one could not predict with any degree of certainty or even probability that any given cable would help (see Jim's many posts above) Cf £10 filter.
This is very much the point. Saying after the event that the rf properties of a cable *might* explain what one thought one heard is not the same as making the cable into a viable predictable solution.
The flapping of a butterfly's wings might have caused the hurricane. Want to buy a gold-plated butterfly-shaped hurricane-creator?
All this energy to defend such palpable tosh! Why bother with the convolutions?
If you are an individual that accepts the idea that adding a funky mains cable improves the sound, by definition you have to accept the fact that the design is defficient. Its an inescapable logical conclusion. The designs performance is affected by the minute difference the cable could make to the mains conditions. Thats not a virtue.
Virtue is not the issue, mains cable improving the sound of "design deficient" amp' is.
We are all agreed here with this "inescapable logical conclusion" ?
Mr ED
Virtue is not the issue, mains cable improving the sound of "design deficient" amp' is.
We are all agreed here with this "inescapable logical conclusion"
Mr ED
Its very evident some are very pleased with their amps allegedly being improved with a funky mains cable. Some seem quite irritated at the dawning realisation that this reflects in a negative way on the design of their amp, the fact that its not a virtue but a deficiency.
I am glad that we are all agreed with this conclusion.
mattgbell
Help the elderly and unwell!
Hands up all those who are irritated.
Anyone?
Mr ED
It seems to me that most of your posts are just noise.
Would you like to address the actual issues?
You seem to be opposed to DBTs. I'd like to know why. So ...
What control experiments would you require to be done to determine whether ABX DBTs are useful or not? Can you specify how these experiments would be conducted and what results you would expect to find?
1. Mea Culpa but not all of them, most are good sounds.
2. I have answered the OP's question........somewhere.
3. No Design Deficient Amp's allowed and the controllers would have to have clean white coats.
4. Inconclusive and of dubious value for listening in the home.
Mr ED
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I've answered this many times, but happy to go again:
Before the results of a DBT can be taken as valid, you have to show that the test methodology is sufficiently sensitive to discern the small differences you are looking for. So some sort of control, where two items known to be subjectively (and measurably) different should first be tested under the chosen test methodology (which, by the way, is for the testers to determine) and only if the test results bear out the known outcome should the test proper go ahead. If the results of the control don't reliably identify the differences (ie to the required degree of statistical significance) then adjust the methodology and repeat until satisfied.
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
It really isn't that difficult to conduct a level matched ,unsighted comparison.
https://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/single-post/2017/02/08/Level-matching-for-fun
Ideally two identical components, ( level matched ) one with standard lead one with aftermarket.
Keith
https://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/single-post/2017/02/08/Level-matching-for-fun
Ideally two identical components, ( level matched ) one with standard lead one with aftermarket.
Keith
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Of course it isn't difficult to conduct. It is, however, apparently more difficult to do so having done the controls I outline above. I say that because, in all the DBTs I hear about, almost none show that they have proven the sensitivity of the test to be adequate. Julf linked to a paper a while back which did address this, but I've forgotten the details. From what I recall it didn't actually give any results (in the sort of context we're talking about here), but did set out what looked like a reasonable control methodology.
Any conclusions drawn from a test which hasn't been shown to be sensitive enough to measure what you are looking for, are essentially meaningless. Yet they still get trotted out. So much for intellectual rigour.
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
I can never really follow that logic, you ensure that two components are level matched and switch between the two, if you hear a difference then you can then determine which you prefer, not knowing which of the components you are listening to simply negates bias.
Keith
Keith
whatsnext
Naimless
I wonder if our IHADs with or without sensitive ears would care to share with us when they first discovered they were hearing a difference and what course this set them upon.
Was it as an adult, previous experiences.
What opened their minds to trying a different mains cable.
Did it dawn on them gradually?
Did they explore and confirm what they heard was due to the cable and not something. i.e. try the wire in different equipment and note if exactly the same thing happened.
How have they satisfied themselves what they experienced was totally due to the cable and not other influences external to the cable and their ears. Supply variations for example.
Would they like to appear on a television program exploring the phenomenon? No fee sorry. Lets hear your story
Was it as an adult, previous experiences.
What opened their minds to trying a different mains cable.
Did it dawn on them gradually?
Did they explore and confirm what they heard was due to the cable and not something. i.e. try the wire in different equipment and note if exactly the same thing happened.
How have they satisfied themselves what they experienced was totally due to the cable and not other influences external to the cable and their ears. Supply variations for example.
Would they like to appear on a television program exploring the phenomenon? No fee sorry. Lets hear your story
Aahhh but this feels like you are being tested, which apparantly sends some audiophiles into total meltdown rendering them incapable of discerning differences
I can never follow the logic either.
In this contex there is a difference or there isnt, you can either hear it or you cant. If you cant you cant. It simply doesnt matter. If you cant You can blame it on your AMC if you like. (Audiophile menstrual cycle)
Whatever the test and control, it is infinitely more appropriate than bringing home a shiney new toy that you are pleased with plugging it in and convincing yourself its made a wonderful difference.
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
Aahhh but this feels like you are being tested, which apparantly sends some audiophiles into total meltdown rendering them incapable of discerning differences
Yes.... odd really, surely serious listeners would value knowing whether any perceived difference is real or 'imagined'.
Keith
mattgbell
Help the elderly and unwell!
1. Mea Culpa but not all of them, most are good sounds.
2. I have answered the OP's question........somewhere.
3. No Design Deficient Amp's allowed and the controllers would have to have clean white coats.
4. Inconclusive and of dubious value for listening in the home.
Mr ED
Fortunately someone else has actually bothered to answer the question without being facetious.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Not necessarily, m'lud.
The point is to see if listeners can reliably (in a statistical sense) 'distinguish' *in the circumstances of the test*. Thus the aim would be to have a test setup of the kind where some listeners have said thay believe they *can* 'distinguish' (or feel they may be able to) when, say the test is run *without* being blind. Ideally, one they also would regard as a 'good' system.
The aim here is to determine if 'independent' awareness of what you're listening to makes a difference to the results. i.e. to check for biases due to information *other than the actual sounds*.
So *if* someone believes that have/can hear a 'difference' in such a situation when the comparison is *not* blind, then it may be an appropriate setup for a blind test.
Yes, it can be useful to run the test both ways. But given a system that most people would think a 'good' one, they may reasonably conclude that any difference which vanishes in a 'blind' test may be too small to fuss much over.
Similarly, yes, it's reasonable for other to *repeat* this test using different systems to see if they can find evidence that a change of system alters this result and shows that in such a case people *can* hear a 'difference' even when run blind.
Science uses replication, etc, to check for any problems with results from any individual experiment. The point of blind versus non-blind is to determine if having info *other* than the sound alone affects the outcome. A change of system is to probe any other factors which might have been systematic to one example.
Alternatively you run the entire argument the other way if no-one has any idea if they might be able to tell. i.e. you can run the test 'blind' and then, if you wish, run it 'non blind' again. But again if the two results differ the implication is that this is down to not having anything other than the 'sound' to go on in the blind test.