The DVD/Dac thing

Hi,

Which illustrates (again) the invalidity of poorly implemented tests, however it does not proove thatno differences exist either.

That is the problem with the religious mode of thinking. I prefer to know, not to believe. I have devised my own largely blind tests and carried them out to my personal satisfaction. As a result I know what makes differences to me and some others and what does not and more importantly I get a good idea what people actually like.

Absolutely. But not should the identity be obscured, BUT ANY HINT OF WHAT BEING TESTED must be obscured. And you still need to find people who can listen analytical enough and who will actually seriously attempt to identify differences and you need quite a few of them and ways to convince them to take part.

There where some early Blind Tests conducted (and reported in an AES Paper) which had actually set a sensible level of trials and significance (requiring 5 Trials and and a score of 4/5 for suggesting the audibility). The tests found audible differences in speakercables with thus a chance of only 20% that the results where by chance. A pretty large room of people gave results, at least around 50 I believe, mot got 4/5 or better.

The emperimentor was ridiculed and his statistics where torn apart, inaccuratly btw, and it was pointed out to him that he needed to analyse to a higher significance. So repeats experiments with 9/10 (.1 significance). Still the results showed a disturbing tendency to suggest audible differences in better than 1/3rd of the participants, so he gets some more heat. Finally, when demanding 19/20 (.05 Significance) only very few people got positives, these where branded "lucky coins" and discarded.

So, finally there was proof that all speaker cables sound the same.

Except there isn't. Actually, if you took from each test ste not the single individuals data but the whole set, you could easily suggest that analysed to .05 Significance in ALL tests differences between the cables where heard, even if virtually no single individual could tell in the tests with the larger number of trials. What does it suggest?

There are lies, damn lies, godamn lies, cable advertisments and finally ABX Test statistics.

I am well tired of hearing the same old harping on from people who merely wish to believe, instead of attempting to understand what is going on.

May I suggest you wake up, leave your stupified state of belief and look at things as they are in reality?

That depends on many factors, including (reverse) psychology, statistical evaluation methodes and test setup. I notice that in not a single case of published ABX/DB Tests relating "Audio Voodoo" was the test setup and listener group benchmarked against known audible (but subtle) changes and thus the test itself validated.

Neither Blind nor ABX Tests are inherently flawed. However, given that the vast majority of people who advocate and seemingly all who actually conduct them try to use them with evangelical zeal in support of the "All equipment sounds the same" hyphothesis with the coroloary "Everyone who sells gear that costs more than the cheapest stuff from major electronic companies and who sells tweaks, cables etc. et all is a Charlatan and Fraudster and should be jailed" it is hardly surprising they get the results they want.

Now their behaviour by definition places them right up with the "Charlatans" all too common on the other side of the argument.

Hence I usually suggest to people simple experiments that can be done even blind and to stop listening to the Charlatans of either side. Make up your own mind, make your own experiments and draw your own conclusions, become at least the leader of yourself instead of sheepishly running after one group or another in blind believe, which your senses will usually and readily confirm.

Ciao T

 

Hear, hear.

Superbly put, Thorsten.

 

Opps....... You forgot to say this is sooooooo BORING.

It would be most interesting if you could provide a copy of this paper or the reference to this as it is a bit difficult to believe AES would publish something as flawed as this. Reading medical and science journals so call experts are extremely keen to ridicule each other works too. That is the culture. However, some times some sensible conclusion prevail in the end when the clever people come along to point everyone in the right direction.

I am not sure where you get the conclusion all DBT advocates are only keen to promote the idea that ALL hifi toys sound similar. From my reading the claim are only reserve to Audiophile cables and modern competent amplifiers.

 

Well, I strongly disagree with Thorsten but I don't know if I have the time or energy anymore to rebutt all the points he made. However, suggesting that people who believe in blind tests and ABX tests are Charlatans is just too outrageous to go unchallenged. What do these "charlatans" have to gain? Nothing. OTOH cable manufactures have a hell of a lot to lose from ABX testing and quite understandably look to discredit them in every way they can think of.

The 5% significance level is the generally accepted level for statistical analysis in everything from drug research to aerospace design, why should audio be any different? Also, it's a common misconception that you can just join together results from various different tests and then analyse them as if they were one.

As I have stated many times, there have been many properly run ABX tests to determine if differences in cables are audible and none of them showed that was the case. Put that together with the fact that there's no sound scientific reason why they should sound different and that they, by and large, measure the similarly then that's a pretty strong case.

Michael.

 

Folks,

I'll save myself any further discussions, I think this has dragged on long enough and illustrated the issues and approaches.

No matter what argument is being advanced, no matter how solid and scientific any criticism is presented, the back talk from psedo objectivists is always the same, without proof being advanced beyond academic authority (which is not proof, but mere religiousness - the Authority remains this book, that book, this paper), without any new arguments, a merely fanatical, religious repeating of their tenents of faith.

No argument, no discussion is possible in the face os such unmovable believe, so I guess we are not having one.

Monty Python Fans will by now have recognised the "Argument" Skit:

From:

The Argument Sketch
From "Monty Python's Previous Record" and "Monty Python's Instant Record Collection"

Originally transcribed by Dan Kay ([email protected])

Fixed up and Added "Complaint" and "Being Hit On The Head lessons" Aug/ 87 by Tak Ariga ([email protected])

The Cast (in order of appearance.)
M= Man looking for an argument
A= Arguer (John Cleese)

(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. (short pause)

A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.

A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.

Pause

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.

short pause

M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

Ciao T