[=bob53]
Jaxvon: Thanks for your reply, I have read through Dunlavy's material and find it humorous that after all of his documentation that cables, when constructed properly are cables, he charges an astronomical amount for his cable products - funny huh?
What is interesting is that John would tell his customers that there is no audible difference between his expensive cables and 12ga Home Depot cable. He designed his cables as an exercise and some of his customers were asking for expensive cables. No, he doesn't hide the facts. He provides what his customers want, just like some speaker makers put bi-wiring capability on the speaker so they don't loose sales. It's about $$$.
Mtrycrafts:
A questions: Do you conduct a DBT test on everything you do
I research products that matters or when I detect the BS that is peddled in their ads.
Why do I want to pay extra for name brand sugar? Would you? Or, is that too simple?
- food selection,
Ah, an issue of preference, right? CR does DBT on food stuff. Do you ever read it? And, posters have done just that on their family members. Guess what, some couldn't tell the difference.
Besides, I try not to make testable claims for food.
car selection,
I have certain goals for a car. I research CR for it. Besides, who said all cars are the same, anyhow?
Same here, try not to make testable claims.
Didn't think so... In part it's because some of these cannot practically be done by DBT and if they could, do you have the time? I don't 
Well, you could do a rudimentary one if it was important enough. Audio is to many. And, it is not like there have not been any over the past 25+ years with similar results.
It's actually incorrect to assume all sighted tests are completely invalid - they are not but it is true that a blinded test is more reliable... A few of the statisticians I work with are amused by the idea of a DBT in audio gear as the holy grail as you assume the outcome are free of bias - WRONG!
Sorry to hear that from a scientist.
Others will disagree with you, like
http://www.crc.ca/en/html/aas/home/evaluation/evaluation#recent_tests
You get a bunch of guys and have them choose A or B and soon, out of frustration or simple paranoia for fear of choosing differently than their neighbors, they try to guess and to the results drift toward a 50:50 split.
Obviously you are speculating and have no idea about it. Not a problem. Even scientists can be biased of tend to leave their baloney detection bag at the office.
You should check out some of the world class companies that use DBT in audio, one way or the other. Or, the international standards. But, that is not required for home DBT.
Maybe you should check out some of the Canadian Speaker companies if they rely on DBT listening? Or, contact Harman International and discuss this with Dr Toole, a 25 year veteran at the Canadian NRC.
Or,
http://miragespeakers.com/nrc_story.shtml
It really happens and that is very hard to control.
Well, you run one at a time, no? They don't get the data until the end.
I suppose that sighted listeing for differences has no such anxiety?
I'm not trying to suggest DBTs are an incorrect means to compare two cables or whatever but even the DBT has some problematic issues arising from listener anticipation.
Such as? There is no listener anticipation in a sighted comparison? That is what rules such comparisons, bias, period.
Do I have the DBT's to prove my observations, no, do you?
There have been number of published results over the past 25+ years, yes. I posted som citations. Maybe you should check them out?
We are talking about technology and equipment that we perceive, not measure...
So, you cannot tesat your perception, how reliable it is? After all, human perceptions are very easy to fool. That is why DBT is the gold standard in human studies, no?
I don't use an SPL meter to interpret my music, I listen to it.
I don't either. However, if I want to compare two components, it would be very nice to have their levels matched so you don't get fooled into believing the louder is the better. Just one of those inconvenient part that levels the playing field.
That said, I do keep a notebook for things like imaging, soundstage width, (depth is impossible to record) where I use control music selection to see how changing out a CDP or cables affects these parameters...
What good is that? You have biased notes in it, unless of course, you had no idea which component you are grading, commenting about and were able to replicate those perceptions.
Have I heard differences, yes...
Maybe yes, maybe no. You cannot say as you are biased and were biased. No, you cannot control it, you were, we don't know what you perceived- you don't either.
Does every change affect these, not that I've heard. I'm not disregarding science but I am suggesting the possibility (OMG!) that our testing equipment does not measure all of the critical variables -
What testing measurements? You listen and use your hearing in a DBT. Then, if diffrerences are demonstrated, one can search for the cause. Many have.
http://miragespeakers.com/nrc_story.shtml
we would need to know all of these and have the money to build it before comparing cable A to B could be as simple as putting it on a test bench.
Actually, it is that simple already with cables. Knowing the limits of perception, it is rather simple.
Ok, let me turn this around on you - from this very shootout here on Audioholics, the Cardas Crosslink speaker cable tests fairly poorly from an optimal speaker cable point of view... So despite these bad results on the bench, can I assume that it will sound identical to the River Cable that tested better?
Not worried about the cliff. History speaks when it comes to cables. And yes, they would sound the same as those measured differences are minimal when it comes to perceptions. I think you need to do more research in audio, what can be differentiated and what is below the thresholds.
How about the flimsy IC's that come with mass market stuff? They must sound the same? I wish that were true.
You wish because you don't know.
Actually
http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_wire.htm
DBT data favorsme, not you.
But, I am open to evidence, not speculations from biased comparisons.
and the subtleties of complex waveforms is where any small differences that a well constructed cable, amp, CDP, etc. will manifest.
Well, I have to grant that the ear does transform sound so our brain can interpret it. That same brain can fool you what it thinks it heard, real or imagined. Yes, the brain can imagine what is not there in sound.
As to believeing that your hearing, has no limits and that these components are not below those limits, you are the one mistaken a 100%. Why, because you have not tested it, or researched into it.
I'm not here to argue but unless you happen to have better credentials in medicine and science than myself (and I seriously doubt it) your commentary and "facts" are nothing more than your own opinion.
I see, now one speaks from authority? Please supply the supporting data that audible differences are heard in cables and many audio components.
You see, you don't speak from audio authority but opine from flawed comparisons of components.
Cables, IMHO (not facts nor backed up with DBT evidence), impart subtle characteristics to sound...
But you are speculating, not speaking from facts. The subtle differences they impart are below threshold of detection, unless you can sunstantiate it with credible data. You don't have any. No one has.
Think of it as well made speakers get you to 90%, amps and preamps 95%, CDP 98%, Better cabling (not using 18 AWG power cords on your 400 WPC amp with poor contact pressure at the IEC terminals) get you to 99% and that last 1% ????
Poor contact pressure on the recepticle? I think you have been reading too much audio voodoo and mythology.
Facts would impress me. Speculation doesn't.
Can we get back to the original post? Are they well made or junk? Do they sound good?
Thanks,
Only a DBT will know. Until then, wire is wire.
Bob[/QUOTE]
