julian2002 said:
if you wanted to take things even further doesn;t the fact that those participating in a blind abx test KNOW that they are participating in a test and that there will be some mains cables being swapped influence their perception?
Just be to more sensible for awhile. This article is indeed a good read. Not because the outcome agrees with my own personal believe. It is because the way they seems to have done it are more neutral and involve more people compare to the other HiFI+ attempt at blind comparison. Let's see if I could answer your suggestion above.
In the Secrets test those 15 people are ask before the test results are known whether they think they could hear a difference between the 2 cords. Going back to the article.
1) Do you feel that the test procedure was reasonable in its attempt to answer the question of the audibility of power cords?
2) How large were the differences that you heard? (1 = I heard no differences; 5 = Huge)
14 out of the 15 says yes they believed the test was arrange it a way they think they did notice differences. And they all believe they could hear a moderate amount of differences between the 2 types of cords. In a score of 1-5 they are convince there was a noticeable differences and they all give a rating of 2 to a high 4 for one person.
However, they don't seem to be able to demonstrate this when the results are analyse. Their ability seems to be an average 50% or not better then if they all guess the choices randomly. Could the result be skewed by some one with poor ability? They also to try check whether this was the case. In this case they all seems to be have an unhealthy audiophiles tendency, like us? One person seems to have an extra ordinary ability by scoring 70% correct. However, he gave a low rating of 2.5 for question 2. Compare that to two people who think they notice a huge difference only to go on to score a lower 40% in fact.
This test is a better method then the Hifi+ because that only has 3 people. Lower statistical significant. They are ask to give a subjective score of what is better not identify X from a choice of A or B which makes the result difficult to interpret. Do we expect everyone to agree what sounds? If I find Linn CDP is better then how come others prefer Naim or Krell?
In summary I think the test should be repeated by other independent groups to see if they give the same conclusion. Perhaps some would also like to repeat the ABX comparison using a longer period of listening in their own home rather then a short session of 2 hours long. Whether this would provide any stronger ability to differentiate small differences are debatable but unless it is tested it would be difficult to know.
Anyway, what did that have to do with anything?
You simply throw opinions in that may or may not be yours in the interests of stoking the fire so to speak. Follow that up with a few put downs and off for that smug Americano Grande in the plaza.
