Looking at speaker cable from an electronics point of view which will affect sound. 1. The current capability of the wire. 2. The inductive and
capacitive reactance with frequencies. Conductor spacing will affect this and the resistance of the wire too. Given both speaker cables can carry more constant and peak current your amplifier can produce that leaves how it reacts. I personal have only heard difference in the Gauge size and current capability affecting the low end. It would be interesting to see the spectrum analysis between a cheap 10 GA Speaker cable and some of the speaker cables from $200.00 and up to 15ft. Can the $5,000 cable prove it has a spectrum advantage? If so to what extent?
It's bad enough that "fake news" is used in politics to avoid the truth and the debate that should ensue but here, on an audio forum, it's a bit much. Ditto heads and cult followers scream "fake news" but I trust that no one here is that dense.
Now for something completely different. A Global Tweak. Let’s see if we have any players. I’m going to do something, a tweak, I’m not saying what, so it will be blind, this afternoon AFTER 4 PM sometime, but not after 5. So you won have to wait too long. This will give anyone a chance to get familiar with the sound of his system BEFORE I do it, so he can compare BEFORE and AFTER the Global Tweak.
I will post on this thread to give a heads up 😳 right after I do whatever it is I’m going to do. The only thing I will say about it is it should be audible on any system anywhere. It’s a Global Tweak so you should be able to hear it anywhere in the world.
Yes, what’s also fascinating is the blind test advocates or dogmatists whatever have obviously made their minds up already, without even waiting for the test. I mean, come on people! Hel-loo!
If it doesn’t make sense it’s not true. - Judge Judy
All the more reason not to accept blind tests, uh, blindly. There is no reason why ANY blind test protocol should be considered above all others as being infallible.
Of course. That’s part of why I think blind testing has very little value to most audiophiles.
What’s interesting about this thread about blind testing is that its noisiest advocates aren’t scientists, cite special exemption from blind testing for their claims, and don’t even understand proper testing protocols. One of them is staying one step ahead of the moderators and is still trying to hustle his $25,000 scam "challenge."
One assumes you’re speaking for yourself. I remember very clearly what I heard yesterday. And the day before. And last week. And last year. I always considered limited audio memory to be an old wives tale.
gdhal Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Disbelievers have the right to place a burden of proof on any individual(s) who state the *impossible*. Those who state the impossible are under no obligation to prove anything. The right to state whatever one happens to believe is granted to everyone. I may not agree with what you have to say/write, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Anyone who can audible detect a difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed from speaker to amp and vice versa while maintaining polarity has an opportunity to <undefined term> benefit. All are invited as I do not discriminate but like any other professional require privacy. Inquire within.
It’s unfortunate that this thread - which is about the science of double blind audio testing - has become one of the ugliest ever on Audiogon.
@cleeds Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Disbelievers have the right to place a burden of proof on any individual(s) who state the *impossible*. Those who state the impossible are under no obligation to prove anything. The right to state whatever one happens to believe is granted to everyone. I may not agree with what you have to say/write, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Anyone who can audible detect a difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed from speaker to amp and vice versa while maintaining polarity has an opportunity to <undefined term> benefit. All are invited as I do not discriminate but like any other professional require privacy. Inquire within.
All the more reason not to accept blind tests, uh, blindly. There is no reason why ANY blind test protocol should be considered above all others as being infallible. That’s because there are too many things that can go wrong with ANY test protocol, at least for audio related tests. The difference with the Cold Fusion Test was that results were POSITIVE. What Uber Skeptics are saying is that a blind test will prove some audiophile claim to be false, I.e., test results will be NEGATIVE. Which means nothing, as I’ve said.
Many
scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details
available. Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications,
the withdrawal of many reported positive replications ...
We are not really in disagreement here. The results obtained through scientific research are not always as hoped, and not every experimenter finds himself able to duplicate the results reported by another. The point I was trying to make is that from the beginning of a supposedly scientific test, the methodology must be something others can duplicate in an effort to confirm the result. That a result cannot be confirmed - as was clearly the case with Pons & Fleischmann - isn't "anti-science," but science at work. And to make trying to replicate a result worthwhile, the experimenter should be assured that the test itself was scientific.
Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[8][9] In 1989 the United States Department of Energy (DOE) concluded that the reported results of excess heat did not present convincing evidence of a useful source of energy and decided against allocating funding specifically for cold fusion. A second DOE review in 2004, which looked at new research, reached similar conclusions and did not result in DOE funding of cold fusion.[10]
No, it means the results must be repeatable. Remember Cold Fusion. They had rigged the rest or whatever.
Are you referring to Pons & Fleischmann? If so, you are the first to suggest that they rigged anything. Indeed, the opposite was the case, and they freely shared their test procedure.
As fate would have it, others couldn’t duplicate their results. But, as I said, that’s how science works. Thank goodness.
No, it means the results must be repeatable. Remember Cold Fusion. They had rigged the rest or whatever. You certainly don’t want to replicate phony test procedures. That’s why you want completely independent tests. As I said before one test all by itself has no meaning if the results are negative. Ideally you want a lot if independent tests that come up with the same results. If one is negative you throw that one out. Problem solved.
It’s unfortunate that this thread - which is about the science of double blind audio testing - has become one of the ugliest ever on Audiogon. It’s proof how some want to politicize this issue - and I say that even as I argue that while such testing has its place, it’s of limited value to most audiophiles. geoffkait
Just to mention, the word repeatable can be misleading
I think "repeatable" in this context means that the test can be replicated by others. That requires that the test protocol be explained to at least allow the possibility of independent verification even if - as sometimes happens in science - another conducts the ostensibly same test, but arrives at a different result.
If the testing protocol is inherently unscientific (as proposed by gdhal here), it saves other experimenters the trouble of trying to replicate the test. If you’re trying to apply science, it’s futile to pursue an unscientific protocol.
Just to mention, the word repeatable can be misleading. The reason being if you mean repeatable by the same person we must insist on independent tests. Even then the word repeatable is a little tricky since the very nature of the initial test could have been flawed. So repeating a flawed test wouldn’t have any value, would it? The tests should be independent in every sense of the word. Different system, different test conductor, different test subject(s). The results, now those should be repeatable.
gdhalm"There is no need to take clearthink’s garbled words for it."
There is no need for anyone to take my word for it unlike you I suggest people conduct they’re own scientific, verifiable, repeatable double-blinded listening tests. The thoughtful and purposeful decision’s of this forum’s moderators to repeatedly delete your posts and provocations is all the proof anyone in this forum should reasonably require to decisively conclude that the undeniable proof is that your $25,000 USD listening "challenge" was a patent fraud and extortion which makes you a fraud or as another contributor observed here in a published and undeleted post a "con." I also note for the benefit of other’s here that you have continued your efforts to pursue your fraudulent test by privately messaging me through Audiogon seeking a skype conversation even though I have already explained to you I will not engage you in private conversation but instead insist that all communications be here in the public forum so that you can be revealed for the fraud that your $25,000 USD challenge is.
OK, I’ll try one more time. The link to the AES meeting minutes found among all those blind test links (as if sheer numbers are supposed to mean something) revealed - now get this! -BELDEN had supposedly conducted BLIND TESTS for wire directionality with some unnamed audio magazine. AND that the results were supposedly negative. So here’s the $64K Question, y’all: where is the evidence of that Belden blind test? Did it just disappear? Hel-loo!
It is immediately apparrant for even a casual reader of the forum to correctly conclude that gdhal attempted to perpetrate a fraud upon the Audiogon community of audiophiles and the many posts of his that have been deleted by the moderators further support this simple observation.
I do recall a number of your threads were also deleted.
As to fraudulence, I look at a bit differently. As soon as I mentioned my rationale for wanting to skype - because seeing and hearing you lends credibility to the authenticity of your interest - and that it is a possibility you are merely a 14 year old school girl without the financial means and/or legal authority to enter into any agreement - did I validate your insincerity.
Speaking of verbal diarrhea, here is an excerpt from one the links willemj referred to, this one apparently minutes of an AES meeting on the dodgy subject of wire directionality. This ought to be interesting, right?
“Steve (guest technician) started by making a distinction between things we can measure in wire (resistance, capacitance, inductance), and those things we can’t measure (soundstage, "detail", "directionality", and other things you can "hear"). There is rarely a correlation between what you can measure and what you can hear.”
>>>>Steve was apparently not aware of the HiFi Tuning data that showed directionality measurements of fuses. Or that ANY wire or cable can be measured with a volt ohm meter and shows resistance differences according to direction. Duh! There is rarely a correlation between what you can measure and what you can hear? Oh, please! Give me a break!
“For best electron flow, you want to use a metal that has low resistance. In circular-mil ohms per foot at 20°C., silver leads the way at 9.9, copper is next at 10.4, gold is 14.7, aluminum is 17, nickel is 47, and steel is 74. Although silver is the best conductor, it has several disadvantages: it tarnishes, which then interferes with connection; it is pretty expensive; and it cannot be annealed. Wire is made by repeatedly pushing metal through ever-smaller dies, until it is the size you want. This process is really boring to watch, and now is all done by robots. After going through the dies, the wire is very brittle and easy to break. Copper wire can be heated to 700 and annealed, which lines up the crystalline structure and removes the brittleness, making it very useful for cable purposes.”
>>>>For best electron flow? Are they kidding? The electrons are not (rpt not) flowing. Photons are flowing. Electrons are barely moving. Hel-loo! I submit that annealing will not “line up” the crystal structure that has been irreparably distorted by being drawn through the die. And establishing directionality! I mean come on, that doesn’t even make sense.
“Directionality, or the idea that electricity flows better in one direction through a cable than the other, is a common concept among certain self-identified audiophiles. Belden did a double-blind test for cable directionality in conjunction with an audiophile magazine. The end result was perfectly random. Belden is still happy to manufacture and sell directional cables to enthusiasts. They make up a long length of cable, cut it in segments, identify the ends of the segments so they know how it came off the spool (length A->B, length B->C, length C->D, etc), and then let the customer identify by careful listening which direction is "better". Over thousands of cables sold, the chosen "best" signal flow is random, for segments cut from the same spool!
>>>>Certain self-identified audiophiles? Whoa! Hey, what are they talking about? Huh? Belden did a double blind test for cable directionality with an audiophile magazine? Where is it? What magazine? Talk is cheap!
>>>>How would Belden or anyone know that the thousands of Belden cables sold were random for directionality? I mean, come, on people! Get real! Where’s the data? Belden must be selling their cables to a different set of enthusiasts since almost everyone on this forum reports obviously directionality. This whole AES report is very hard to swallow. Are they lying? Maybe.
I find it hard to comprehend this verbal diarrhea, but what I do understand is that clearthink thinks science is on his side. Well, have a look at the links I mentioned earlier. Their story is quite different, as anyone here can freely find out. There is no need to take clearthink's garbled words for it.
Yes of course this is another example of a proper, scientific, verifiable, and repeatable excercise that could be replicated by others' who are genuinely interested in exploring the audibility of differences between cables in a Music Reproduction System and those who question such an outcome are suggested to do as you have done and perform there own research before asserting they're beliefs in this forum as though they had scientific validity.
I did a blind test as follows: I had two identical CD players playing the same disc and started them at the same time so they were exactly in sync. With two sets of interconnect running into the amp inputs I could use the remote to switch inputs. If I did this switch rapidly at the start of each test I had no idea which input was playing when the test started. I then tested between the two at a touch of the button. As long as I didn’t peep at the amp display I had no idea which was playing.
Initially I ran two sets of identical £14 Maplin interconnect cable (UK electrical retailer) to ensure the two CD players sounded the same. They did. In this test I could not perceive a difference between the two CD players. Next I simply compared different interconnects.
I had four interconnects to trial (Maplin at £14, 3 others ranging from £800 to £1500). I was testing Maplin (cable A) vs another (cable B/C/D) in each case. With two of the Interconnects (B and C) the differences were subtle: results showed I chose the expensive cable more than 50% of the time, but the differences were minor and for me not worth the money. With cable D the difference was massive, and it was immediately obvious which one I was listening to, so much so I choose cable D over A 100% of the time (each test was done around 20 times). I was intending to go on to test B vs C/D etc but as D was so far and away better I didn’t bother. I bought cable D (which incidentally was the cheapest of B,C and D).
This is is such an easy test to do and so easy to set up I'm surprised Hifi reviewers don’t do it. The only downside was that the only way to get two identical CD players for me was to use two 1990s cheapish Denon CD players, rather than the high end CD player usually in my system. I did double check the results by doing non-blind testing between the interconnects with my regular CD player and found the same results. In this instance by the time I had changed the cables I actually could not detect a difference between A and B/C but the difference between A and D was even more apparent.
It is immediately apparrant for even a casual reader of the forum to correctly conclude that gdhal attempted to perpetrate a fraud upon the Audiogon community of audiophiles and the many posts of his that have been deleted by the moderators further support this simple observation. I am grateful to the dedicated, alert and well informed staff for taking action to prevent gdhal from defrauding someone of good faith of 10's of thousands of dollars and this is why I insisted with him that all discussion of his "challenge" would be in public because it would expose him. What is a rather strange aspect of his extortion-fraud effort is that it was attempted to have been executed under the cloak of "science" and exploration intended to reveal "truth" when really it was an outright fraud the very type of deception so many of these self-proclaimed "scientists" here accuse others of with their frequent accusations of "snake oil" against those who can hear differences in cables!
Imagine
going through life not being allowed to believe something you can hear,
let alone see, taste, smell or touch, because someone else
hyperbolically claims that it's not so.
Well said. That's part of why I think that blind testing really has very limited value to most audiophiles.
Apologize for the removal of all of my posts, but that is out of my control.
Realistically, I’ve already posted more than enough in this thread.
Everyone subscribed to the thread and who have been reading it since its inception, are very much aware of MY parameters (general framework as *I* outline in MY example procedure) AND everyone is aware how to contact me - privately - if you have a genuine interest about pursuing my challenge and demonstrating that you can do the impossible.
I’m done with this thread.
Nothing to tell now; let the words be yours, I’m done with mine.
willemj For those interested in various blind tests, a few days ago on 03-16 2018 in this thread jssmith posted two links to a large range of blind tests. You can argue with some of the methodologies, but the aggregate weight of the results should give audiophiles pause for thought.
>>>>Actually they probably shouldn’t give audiophiles food for thought. 🦀 🐬 🐟 The only time anyone should take notice of blind tests, to be completely up front about it, is when the total number of INDEPENDENT blind tests with negative results - for the SAME DEVICE(S) UNDER TEST -outweighs the total number with POSITIVE RESULTS by a WIDE MARGIN. Positive results are more interesting than negative ones because they can obtained in spite of any mistakes in the system, procedure, bad hearing, etc., assuming there are any.
For a single blind test - regardless of the procedure, listeners, etc. - I recommend throwing the test out. Period. Whereas for a single blind test with positive results I’d say, wait a minute, this looks interesting. Let’s wait and see if there are like this. If you get a whole bunch of negative results from independent tests and ZERO positive results then maybe I’ll start to pay attention. Til then, knock yourselves out. Smoke if ya got em.
pop quiz Why have most Uber Skeptics made up their minds completely BEFORE any tests have even been performed?
Imagine going through life not being allowed to believe something you can hear, let alone see, taste, smell or touch, because someone else hyperbolically claims that it's not so.
"Fake News" proclamations abound here. Are you going to believe me or your lying ears? It's getting old.
For those interested in various blind tests, a few days ago on
03-16 2018
in this thread jssmith posted two links to a large range of blind tests. You can argue with some of the methodologies, but the aggregate weight of the results should give audiophiles pause for thought.
Why should those who claim cables sound different and cables and fuses are directional have to prove anything, much less submit to a test?
Agreed. You don't have to. Unless of course you wish to take me up on my challenge and have an opportunity to win some gold.
I actually don’t think you or any Uber skeptic remains open minded to an alternative, unless of course it helps YOUR case.
True. Forgive me for not wanting to give my gold away.
Now I don't know but I've been told It's hard to run with the weight of gold Other hand I heard it said It's just as hard with the weight of lead
Of course, the other Strawman argument you make is that a person making claims has to prove them.
Nope!
The person does not have to, but should. In the absence of proof, expect the naysayers to scream "balderdash" (or offer challenges, incentives and so forth so as to entice the person making the claim)
There is abundant research on this that conflicts with your claim that quick switching isn't required for a proper audio test. It's a puzzle that you choose to avoid existing research while promoting your < twenty five g> challenge, which increasingly appears bogus.
You can choose to think of this as the beginning of new research, or not. You can also choose to think of this as an improper audio test, or not. Your prerogative. Don't (or do) participate in my challenge. Your choice. Sorry, I'm not giving away the gold.
The story teller makes no choice, soon you will not hear his voice
If you're sincere about double blind testing, I suggest you look at the existing body of evidence about how double blind testing for audio is properly conducted. Then subject yourself to the rigors of such a test before insisting others do the same.
I'm sincere that it's *impossible* to *reliably* hear an audible difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed.
I disagree with cleeds about the onus of proof. I do think it is good practice that those who offer an extraordinary claim that breaks with traditional science provide proof.
Thank you, @willemj
It just seems so logical to me that it is weird that there is so much angst about it.
If the game is lost, then we're all the same No one left to place or take the blame
What stuns me is that the most vocal advocate here for blind testing doesn't know how to conduct such a test and exempts himself from the requirement .
This isn't about proper etiquette. It's about what truth is proof against all lies.
Because you are making this offer the burden is on you to provide the specific terms of the offer and the means under which this test will be conducted and those means should be reviewed in public here by the forum members to insure that there is no fraud on your part after all you have promised <twenty five g> at stake!
@clearthink
You did mention (privately) that you and I should refrain on posting any dollar amount, on account of forum moderation (i.e. our posts are likely to be removed).
Realistically, I’ve already posted more than enough in this thread.
You, and everyone else subscribed to the thread and who have been reading it since its inception, are very much aware of the parameters (general framework as outlined in the example procedure) and you and all others are very much aware how to contact me - privately - if you have a genuine interest about pursuing my challenge and demonstrating that you can do the impossible.
I’m done with this thread.
Nothing to tell now; let the words be yours, I’m done with mine.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
