Eupen Power Cords

Respectfully, that is bollox I don't think anyone here is twisted enough to make kit choices in an attempt to prove a point to a forum. A forum which, let's face it, is really quite insignificant.

At least I'm saving money by "proving" my point instead of spending it on expensive cables

merlin - your pathetic wind up attempts do not merit a response.

Michael.

 

I think Mikes erned a bit of creadence for comming out of the closet on this one
My dac 64 experiance isn't fairing too well, but I said I'd give it a week and I will.
Mike, I do feel before you give up completely you should try FFRC, I have a virgin example of Iaasc handiwork here, care to try it out ? T.

 

So I take it you are not up for the challenge of subjecting yourself to a DBT session over here then Michael?

If not, can I ask how you can be sure you cannot hear any differences?

 

As you've pointed out yourself, surely it'd be more worthwhile for you to volunteer as a subject for DBT - Michael is now (at least consciously) not expecting to hear differences between cables etc, so if he reckons cables A and B sound the same, what are we to conclude?

 

Fair point. If a DBT were to be carried out with cable non-believers, it would be inportant to mix in say component changes as well, just to be sure everyone was trying so to speak. Say stick in a DAC64 vs some other DAC (or indeed an optical vs electrical digital connection to the DAC64 )...

 

Exactly Martin,but it appears our esteemed leader is not keen on the challenge.

I do however fail to see how it is any more important for a believer to take this test than it is for a cynic, especially with the possibility of equipment swaps thrown in for good measure.

 

In order to be statistically valid and reasonably managable, a practical DBT can really only be of the ABX kind ie: Here's item A, here's item B, and then here's "X" about 16 times and each time the audience has to decide whether they think X is A or B.

Sticking in the odd CDP change on the way just to trip people up would invalidate the whole test. For that you'd have to make it an ABCX test and it would require significantly more X "sessions" to make it statistically meaningful.

How is it that the subjectivists are suddenly so up for a DBT now that their view has been challenged when previous suggestions of DBTs by the objectivists were all ridiculed?

Michael.

 

I have to say, I'm running a dac 64 and a warmed up tosh 330 at the moment to assertain weather or not its the biz, I have to say it's quieter with the toslink for sure, however, they seem to be a few bits missing from the picture still I'm soldering on.
And yes kit and cable swops throw all in at the same time as well

 

I was thinking more along the lines of doing a seies of tests, each with whatever number of sets ABX is deemed appropriate, with some of the tests being cable type and some component. The important point being that people didn't know if it was a potential cable or component change they were listening for.

 

The problem is that in an aural test of this kind we are in general predisposed to hear a difference - hence the A/B/X protocol rather than simply A/B where it's much more difficult to say if there's a real difference. You could of course do it this way round, it's just that you'd need many more tests before you could say for sure what your results meant - especially if you want to change more than one variable.

 

Sadly Michael, because it's the only kind of test where you might in your current state accept the results. The offer is open, we will change all manner of things behind a curtain and you can say if you notice any change or not. For this we will reserve the right to change all system components, including cabling and supports.

What's wrong with that Michael?

 

We're talking about a guy who swears blind that he cannot hear any difference. I don't think that arguement really holds water in this instance.

 

Merlin, I'm up for the test provided you're prepared to do the same thing.

-- Ian

 

Michael shouldn't of course be singled out for such a 'test'; to be interesting it would be good to have several people, from both camps, take part.

 

Who is we? You are already, before the test starts, trying to influence the person who you (we?) wish to test.
In any case what you propose doesn't sound like double blind anyway. A necessity if you were the one doing the organising I would have thought, since you seem to be out to prove a point rather than discover the truth. A subtle, but important difference.
Why not both do a test on neutral ground, run by a neutral third party, with the ground rules clearly laid out in advance and no idea either of you *beforehand* what is either in the system or may be changed.

 

I've always been up for a DBT that was held on neutral ground and run by a neutral 3rd party and from which meaningful statistical results could be generated.

See here for example.

OTOH "Let's slip in a CDP change now and see if he spots it" is:
just designed to trip me up and the result would be completely meaningless anyway.

I don't mind ABX-ing CDPs to other CDPs, cables to other cables etc but you can't do CDP to cable (or similar) in a single test because you're changing more than one variable for which you'd have to have a far bigger number of tests, to the point where listener fatigue is likely to have set it.

Michael.

 

As a person claiming to hear a difference, I'd be happy to have a DBT if someone wants one in London.

 

I agree. Just to be clear as I brought up the component change idea, I was never proposing mixing up component and cable changes, or trying to 'trip up' someone thinking they were comparing cables by throwing in a CDP change.

You could have two sets of, say, 16 ABX tests, in one of these the difference between A and B could be a cable change and in the other a CDP change. You'd get a group of people to listen to take part in both tests. The important point being that none of the listeners should know which test is the cable one and which is the CDP one.

 

No one is trying to trip up anyone

Michael has stated that there are no differences noticeable between cables. He has also stated that he can hear differences between boxes.

So let's test that. Given his state of denial it would be foolhardy to expect a fair test of cables, as I suspect that Michael has already made up his mind. By mixing it up (but changing one component at a time) the subject cannot be influenced by his own preconceptions. Seems fair

 

It might seem fair, but it's not

You could achieve the same result by doing an ABX test where CDPs are changed and then another one where cables are changed. The listeners don't have to know that the first one is CDPs and the second one is cables, in fact they shouldn't know what's being changed but "A" and "B" must remain the same for each test.

I haven't stated that there are "no differences between cables". I've said that I haven't heard differences between the cables I've tried and that on that basis I find it unlikely that there would be differences between other cables but I'm not ruling it out.

There you go again. Why must I be in denial simply because I don't hear something that you claim to be able to? Perhaps it's you that's being duped instead? It would be a very boring world indeed if we all heard things the same way.

That's just it, I don't have any preconceptions. Preconceptions is what made me think I heard differences where there weren't any. My "conversion" as such was to start afresh, without preconceptions and persuasive influences and honestly see where I could or couldn't hear differences. I was totally prepared for either outcome.

Michael.