On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:16:23 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:



http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I didn't get the reasoning behind why the cable changer necessarily
needs to be sceptic. Though it's no big deal in the end, since a
"subjectivist" (?) will be present at cable changes monitoring that
indeed the cables are being screwed in properly, etc..

Just to ensure that there is no collusion. The cable changer will be
making the choice of cables with his coin; the observer will make sure
he fits the right cable. The cable changer makes sure the observer
makes no communication with the subject.

Bear in mind that anything which goes wrong in this department will
tend to make the job of identification easier, not harder.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:42:08 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


What I do not understand about this "vituperation" is that why is it
that some of you engineer types are not agreeing to do a reverse
"test". Just get yourself some demo exotic cables from a slimy
high-end boutique and plug them in to your systems (provided that you
guys have any such corresponding "system"s as some of us audiophools
do). Do they have any effect? Just listen and tell us. Just do it.

Well, we have - and we hear no difference.

Mentioning

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...kracables.html

again may be useful here.

FWIW I have also, repeatedly, engaged in tests like this, both on myself,
and trying them on others. The results were as Don says, and as implied by
the above reference.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Thus spake Don Pearce:
OK, I've had a bit of a think - and I've written a protocol, which I
believe would be a basis of fair testing of audio components to
resolve such issues as cable sound etc.

I invite all here to read what I suggest, and let me know if I have
either missed something, or am being unfair on one direction or
another.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I think this could be a way of defusing the vituperation that
currently surrounds the subject.

So what do you think?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


This subject, for good or bad, really fascinates me but I'm sceptical that
anyone would score that much over 50%. The reason I suggest that has little
to do with what I happen to believe (well, I hope that but anyone
proclaiming their own impartiality often isn't) but due to the nature of our
hearing skills (for want of a better phrase) would mask anything but huge
differences that could be easily measured. The glaring problem is memory - a
somewhat arbitory concept & very subjective. Sorry, but I can envisage, in
theory, that differences between cables is provable as opposed to being
non-existent. An alternative view might be that differences between cables
are indeed real but are swamped by differences due to alcohol consumption,
level of wakefulness, medical conditions, mood etc to the point of
diminishing returns. I'm suggesting that there are huge differences to our
auditory perception without throwing cables into the mix!

There's obviously no harm in people running their own informal tests with
some friends but to draw any conclusions from scientific & statistically
valid tests, /would/ cost a fair penny & would possibly run over a long
period of time. Part of the testing may need to calibrate a threshold where
differences /can/ be heard using differences of volume, changing resistance,
capacitance, inductance, group delay frequency response, amplitude
compression etc. If subjects prove inept at hearing these *real*
differences, I feel the testing methodology of DBT as postulated was
inappropriate. I haven't researched the subject enough to know how much is
already known but was curious to know how for instance, anyone could
determine the average frequency response of the human ear but it has been
done. IIRC, a single fixed tone is alternated with a stepped tone then
repeated probably thousands of times over many subjects who have to judge
loudness. Someone must have also conducted many psycho-acoustic tests on
lossy compression formats where the results were largely subjective, so it
might be indeed possible but only if great care is taken.

So what other methods can one use apart from sequential stop start tests? AB
comparison test validity could be improved even if switch noise was present
by randomising the order, eg A B A A B A B B A to lessen the auditory memory
uncertainty.

I presume that the test cables would need to be characterised regarding
their F, H & R but how - just at spot frequencies? To widen the subject
slightly to include specifications such as distortion, is the harmonic
content of one frequency (often 1KHz into a resistive load) telling us much?
Do even swept measurements give any idea how "good" an amplifier will sound.
It is theoretically possible that these differences are real but the tests
are inadequate - heresy to some. However, we are discussing cables here
only.

I hate auditioning new stuff & would love to be able to select equipment on
specification, looks, build quality, ergonomics, power consumption, price
etc.

I don't presume to be an expert, so several points I've made may well have
many weaknesses but any tests done without much thought would just
perpetuate the schism.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:54:11 -0000, "Paul B" wrote:

Thus spake Don Pearce:
OK, I've had a bit of a think - and I've written a protocol, which I
believe would be a basis of fair testing of audio components to
resolve such issues as cable sound etc.

I invite all here to read what I suggest, and let me know if I have
either missed something, or am being unfair on one direction or
another.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I think this could be a way of defusing the vituperation that
currently surrounds the subject.

So what do you think?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


This subject, for good or bad, really fascinates me but I'm sceptical that
anyone would score that much over 50%. The reason I suggest that has little
to do with what I happen to believe (well, I hope that but anyone
proclaiming their own impartiality often isn't) but due to the nature of our
hearing skills (for want of a better phrase) would mask anything but huge
differences that could be easily measured. The glaring problem is memory - a
somewhat arbitory concept & very subjective. Sorry, but I can envisage, in
theory, that differences between cables is provable as opposed to being
non-existent. An alternative view might be that differences between cables
are indeed real but are swamped by differences due to alcohol consumption,
level of wakefulness, medical conditions, mood etc to the point of
diminishing returns. I'm suggesting that there are huge differences to our
auditory perception without throwing cables into the mix!

There's obviously no harm in people running their own informal tests with
some friends but to draw any conclusions from scientific & statistically
valid tests, /would/ cost a fair penny & would possibly run over a long
period of time. Part of the testing may need to calibrate a threshold where
differences /can/ be heard using differences of volume, changing resistance,
capacitance, inductance, group delay frequency response, amplitude
compression etc. If subjects prove inept at hearing these *real*
differences, I feel the testing methodology of DBT as postulated was
inappropriate. I haven't researched the subject enough to know how much is
already known but was curious to know how for instance, anyone could
determine the average frequency response of the human ear but it has been
done. IIRC, a single fixed tone is alternated with a stepped tone then
repeated probably thousands of times over many subjects who have to judge
loudness. Someone must have also conducted many psycho-acoustic tests on
lossy compression formats where the results were largely subjective, so it
might be indeed possible but only if great care is taken.

So what other methods can one use apart from sequential stop start tests? AB
comparison test validity could be improved even if switch noise was present
by randomising the order, eg A B A A B A B B A to lessen the auditory memory
uncertainty.

I presume that the test cables would need to be characterised regarding
their F, H & R but how - just at spot frequencies? To widen the subject
slightly to include specifications such as distortion, is the harmonic
content of one frequency (often 1KHz into a resistive load) telling us much?
Do even swept measurements give any idea how "good" an amplifier will sound.
It is theoretically possible that these differences are real but the tests
are inadequate - heresy to some. However, we are discussing cables here
only.

I hate auditioning new stuff & would love to be able to select equipment on
specification, looks, build quality, ergonomics, power consumption, price
etc.

I don't presume to be an expert, so several points I've made may well have
many weaknesses but any tests done without much thought would just
perpetuate the schism.


Interesting stuff, but sort of wide of the point. The purpose of the
protocol I have published is not to establish whether it is possible
to hear differences between cables. It is to confirm whether
differences that have been identified as readily audible are genuine
or imagined; that is a very different thing.

The measurements are designed to establish basic levels of competence
for the cables to make sure that they do not exhibit gross frequency
response differences that would be audible, masking the subtle "magic"
effects claimed by the boutique cable houses.

As for auditioning new equipment - would you really bother apart from
speakers? Anything else you buy on looks and features.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Thus spake Don Pearce:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:54:11 -0000, "Paul B" wrote:

Thus spake Don Pearce:
OK, I've had a bit of a think - and I've written a protocol, which I
believe would be a basis of fair testing of audio components to
resolve such issues as cable sound etc.

I invite all here to read what I suggest, and let me know if I have
either missed something, or am being unfair on one direction or
another.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I think this could be a way of defusing the vituperation that
currently surrounds the subject.

So what do you think?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


This subject, for good or bad, really fascinates me but I'm
sceptical that anyone would score that much over 50%. The reason I
suggest that has little to do with what I happen to believe (well, I
hope that but anyone proclaiming their own impartiality often isn't)
but due to the nature of our hearing skills (for want of a better
phrase) would mask anything but huge differences that could be
easily measured. The glaring problem is memory - a somewhat arbitory
concept & very subjective. Sorry, but I can envisage, in theory,
that differences between cables is provable as opposed to being
non-existent. An alternative view might be that differences between
cables are indeed real but are swamped by differences due to alcohol
consumption, level of wakefulness, medical conditions, mood etc to
the point of diminishing returns. I'm suggesting that there are huge
differences to our auditory perception without throwing cables into
the mix!

That should have read "...I can envisage, in theory,
that differences between cables is unprovable as opposed to being
non-existent."

Snipped

Interesting stuff, but sort of wide of the point. The purpose of the
protocol I have published is not to establish whether it is possible
to hear differences between cables. It is to confirm whether
differences that have been identified as readily audible are genuine
or imagined; that is a very different thing.

Don, it's late & I'm failing to draw the distinction.

The measurements are designed to establish basic levels of competence
for the cables to make sure that they do not exhibit gross frequency
response differences that would be audible, masking the subtle "magic"
effects claimed by the boutique cable houses.

I suspect that's all that's needed with cables.

As for auditioning new equipment - would you really bother apart from
speakers? Anything else you buy on looks and features.

LOL! I did just that fairly recently - I compared a Rotel RCD1072 CD player
against a Rega Planet & bought the Rotel to replace a 17yr Pioneer that had
gone faulty. I sat there thinking "can I really tell the difference?" I
thought that if I could - it was very marginal. As it happened, I was not
too keen on the B&W speakers anyhow. As for buying replacements for my
Celestion SL6s, I'd only audition anything with the proviso that I could try
them at home for at least a weekend.

Speakers obviously vary according to placement & the room they are used in &
IMO, have the most effect on sound for well understood technical reasons.

What I'm suggesting is that anyone is going to get fairly confused listening
to the same piece of music to be able to distinguish between any 2 cables.
If the same person cannot distinguish runs with the same cable but with a
fair degree of inductance/resistance/capacitance added, I would speculate
(rightly or wrongly) that a low score with just different cables *as well*,
points to the test method being unsatisfactory on its own.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:27:48 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Actually, how about you pay my fare?

Well since you will be coming in for business why should I?? I can at
most, pay for the hotel money of extra day or two you for when you will
stick around some extra time for the test.

You will certainly get much more
than that back when you claim your £1,000.

?? I thought it was pinkerton, not you, that put up that 1000 cash
money? I find it just extremely difficult to believe that some creature
of a stewart pinkerton would live up to his promise and actually pay up
any money even if I do "pass the test", as it were. My only take on this
is curiosity, nothing else. In fact, I *know* for a fact that pinkerton
would say and do anything rather then pay up, so don't take that silly
creature into the equation at all, please.

Oh dear, you're not that dickhead Iain Churches hiding behind that
silly alias, are you?

You 'know' nothing of the sort, as one of the basic tenets has always
been that a mutually agreed third party will proctor the test. He can
hold the cash. I find Don Pearce acceptable in that regard.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:35:53 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

The interconnects I use now are "silverfi" .. they are braided in a
special way, hard work, Turkish made, no boxes or somesuch other stuff
in between, and yes "tight bass", "better transients", "liguid, dreamy
midrange" all that mumbo jumbo slimy audiophool stuff. But I can't help
it, they give me joy, I hear the wonderfull difference they make, and
OK, come on over one lazy sunday and let's do that test Mr Pearce. I can
say with %100 percent certainty that I can hear the difference they make
as compared to the interconnect that came out of the 90 euro yamaha dvd
player I recently bought for the kid's room. I have the same "claim" for
the speaker cables I use..

And yet, you duck a chance to *prove* that and pick up an easy £1,000.
How nice, to be that rich, and uncaring of proving your beliefs.....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:42:08 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

OK, I've had a bit of a think - and I've written a protocol, which I
believe would be a basis of fair testing of audio components to
resolve such issues as cable sound etc.

I invite all here to read what I suggest, and let me know if I have
either missed something, or am being unfair on one direction or
another.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I think this could be a way of defusing the vituperation that
currently surrounds the subject.

So what do you think?

Hello Mr Pearce,

What you suggest seems reasonable. We have done a very similar test with
great success (for speaker cables).

Yeah, riiiiggght. That's what Zipser claimed - *before* the 'Sunshine
Trials' proved him wrong.

In fact, after we did the test and
tried it out again and again just to be sure, I sent a mail to James
Randi himself, stating that I was ready to take the million dollar
challenge with the subject matter being distinguishing between speaker
cables. James Randi refused my challenge stating that "I accept, wire is
not wire"...

Interesting that you are still ducking *my* challenge.........

What I do not understand about this "vituperation" is that why is it
that some of you engineer types are not agreeing to do a reverse "test".
Just get yourself some demo exotic cables from a slimy high-end boutique
and plug them in to your systems (provided that you guys have any such
corresponding "system"s as some of us audiophools do). Do they have any
effect? Just listen and tell us. Just do it.

Done it, many times. No audible difference, not ever.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:55:54 -0000, "Paul B" wrote:

What I'm suggesting is that anyone is going to get fairly confused listening
to the same piece of music to be able to distinguish between any 2 cables.
If the same person cannot distinguish runs with the same cable but with a
fair degree of inductance/resistance/capacitance added, I would speculate
(rightly or wrongly) that a low score with just different cables *as well*,
points to the test method being unsatisfactory on its own.

They clearly aren't going to get confused, because they report that
they can distinguish the cables by listening to the same piece of
music. You are still failing to appreciate the point of the whole
thing - it is not an attempt to find out if it is possible to hear the
differences between two cables, which could lead to such confusion. It
is an attempt to verify whether *already reported* differences do in
fact have a physical manifestation, or are simply delusional. If they
are real, the effect will persist under blind conditions.

Of course if they do find it at all confusing to keep listening to the
same piece of music, they are perfectly free to put on another piece -
and another, and another and another until they are happy.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On 12 Jan 2006 11:59:32 -0800, wrote:

You misunderstand the test and its purpose. I have said before several
times, the purpose is not to see if cables have an audible effect. It
is to see if a person who claims to hear a difference does in fact
hear it, or merely imagines he heard it.

We understand your purpose. What is under discussion is your proposed
protocol for proving the "reality" versus the "imagination"
No evidence exists that any of the proposed "tests" (ABX and its
cousins) do show differences between audio components to most members
of a properly randomised (ie. representative), statistically valid
listener group. (Basic research was never done even though there were
four decades to do it in) On the contrary such, often faulty, studies
as were reported in audio mags. all resulted in "no difference"
verdict- whatever is being studied (cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers ,
dacs and yes loudspeakers.)

You're here again with randomized listener groups. They are *not* what
I am dealing with. There is no reason to believe such groups would
hear a difference even when sighted. I am dealing with one person who
has identified a difference.

And your conclusion that such studies were faulty on the basis that
they yielded result of no difference is flatly ridiculous. Ever heard
of the fallacy of the begged question?

Agreed Mr. Pearce. There is no obligation on you to buy an
ABX switch, get someone to help you with double blinding etc. just to
get the pseudo-scientific confirmation for what you already believe
anyway.
I'd go further and say that there is no pleasure or
*profit* for *anyone* in embarking on a "test" that has never been
properly researched and validated as an instrument for showing
differences between audio components. Take it back : it may be good
teaching exercise for those who never learnt to *listen* to music as
more than wallpaper background noise.

So you think that listening is not a good way to determine what you
can hear? Interesting viewpoint, but not one that I suspect would find
much support among the sentient.

As of now the negative results of playing at ABX are just
a placebo confirming the passionate conviction that "it all sounds
the same" to those who are not interested in hearing differences
between anything and anything else in audio components; sighted, blind
or triple blind.

So you don't know what a placebo is? You think a placebo is something
that prevents the fake medicine having a therapeutic effect? I'm
starting to patience with you, I'm afraid.

I suppose it is a waste of breath to say once again that
a "test" either proving or disproving the perceptions of millions
of individual differences in the the brain cortex auditory receptors
does not exist as yet. ABX it is not.
Ludovic Mirabel

At last you have said something I agree with.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com