High-quality cables from Hong Kong

[bob53]

Actually, I'm not here to impress you or anyone else, that would be a waste of my time. Additionally, I'm not here to convince you of my point of view... It's cute you can read a few papers and call yourself an expert on the subject but it doesn't make you so... Have you ever run an ANOVA, how about a Chi-Squared test, T-tests? Do you know how they work, their weaknesses, benefits, what sorts of statistical errors they hide? No cheating and looking this stuff up ... Do you run experiments every day, know how to properly design controlled experiments? Do you appreciate the limitations of an experiment and how to intrepret results in a meaningful manner? I can, I do it every day I'm not into psychoacoustics as it is not what I study but I'll bet I have a deeper appreciation of how the ear and CNS works vs. say Dr. Toole (for example)... I'm not terribly interested if you think I'm a credible source, you aren't exactly qualified to make that judgement.

I've actually read through the ABX site before - interesting stuff... I'm not doubting their results but there are a few unanswered questions:

1) Prove to me the the ABX box does not mask any subtle differences between cables - that is prove to me the component in the audio chain with the worst S/N is something other than the ABX box

2) How was the ABX test performed? Did the listener sit there for an hour and choose over and over again? Did the listener begin to fatigue? Did the results in the initial 25 responses differ from the last 25?

3) Demonstrate reproducibility of something that is different - what is the error in something clearly different? Slightly different?

4) Are the variances in the response of people? Can some hear differences others cannot?

All of these issues are crucial and not directly addressed.

In addition over 50% of the journals listed on pcavtech are not peer reviewed journals - worthless... 50% have everything to do with ABX testing and nothing to do with audio... I pulled a few of the peer reviewed journals (JAES) pertaining to ABX testing and even some of these do not provide data suggesting that wire is wire... Many papers give a framework for how to conduct proper ABX testing nothing more. Most of the "conclusive" ABX tests suggesting wire is wire is in the non-peer reviewed journals - again worthless... I can publish my own work in non-peer reviewed journals and I can have glaring inconsistencies in my data or conclusions and it will still be published whereas peer-reviewed journals don't accept such work. This is why companies like Lexicon impress me as the algorithms are based upon work by Lex's own Dr. David Griesinger and this work has been pulished in peer reviewed journals... Other companies employ engineers not scientists - great at copying and application, poor at developing something novel. No offense to the engineers in the crowd

Many of the other websites tell me what? Yes, the NRC is impressive and they helped shape the way the big Canadian speaker companies build speakers based upon sampling a population of people to determine what sounds "good"... Yes Dr. Toole is a very wise and intelligent man, and? How does this directly address my posts? It doesn't.

I find it interesting that despite your picking apart of my post you failed to touch on my point re: the Cardas vs. say the River cable... Hmm, I wonder why... Re: poor IEC connections: Have you ever played with two live wires? Heard of arcing? Do you think that phenomenon is limited to large distances? I work with multimillion dollar NMR spectrometers that prove wire is not wire Copper purity as well as things like proper cable windings (geometries) are crucial to the superconductive nature of the instrument - if a cable is wound ever-so-slightly wrong in a shim coil at the factory the magnet will quench due to resistance variations (arcing) in the wire (same thing goes for copper purity)...

Look, this whole thing has gotten out of hand. I'm not here to argue with you but rather your opinion - you can have your opinion (it is just an opinion as YOU have not done any DBTs) and I can have mine and lets leave it alone I do think that any subtle differences in cables like copper purity, dielectrics, etc. have been blown way out of proportion by the cable industry because yes many people do buy cables based upon marketing and nothing more. Hopefully we can agree on that...

Can we be done with this?

Bob

 

[WmAx]

I've actually read through the ABX site before - interesting stuff... I'm not doubting their results but there are a few unanswered questions:

1) Prove to me the the ABX box does not mask any subtle differences between cables - that is prove to me the component in the audio chain with the worst S/N is something other than the ABX box

2) How was the ABX test performed? Did the listener sit there for an hour and choose over and over again? Did the listener begin to fatigue? Did the results in the initial 25 responses differ from the last 25?

3) Demonstrate reproducibility of something that is different - what is the error in something clearly different? Slightly different?

4) Are the variances in the response of people? Can some hear differences others cannot?

All of these issues are crucial and not directly addressed.

In addition over 50% of the journals listed on pcavtech are not peer reviewed journals - worthless... 50% have everything to do with ABX testing and nothing to do with audio...

While your concerns are certaily valid -- in the overall perspective it seems to me as if you are putting the cart before the horse, per say. Note that I am only replying to your last post. I did not read the entire thread; so please correct me if something is out of context.

If any of these papers/tests to which you refer claim to have proven that audible differences do not exist(e.g.; a negative), then they are absolutely wrong. That's a basic logical impossiblity considering the unknowns that are present. However, that would the incorrecnt(and unscientific) perspective. In light of claims of a previously unestablished parameter that affects an audible difference in wire for example, such must be demonstrated and acheive statistically signficnat and repeatible(peer reviewed) results with that parameter being the only variable. So far, noone to my knowledge has been able to demonstrate that anything other then lumped sum LCR parameters and sheilding of the circuit have relevance to standard analog audio cables covering the audio band such as speaker wiring or line level interconnects. With the long-lasting claims(2 decades now at least?) of unquantifiable and unproven wire audibility -- one might tend to to further find the claim(s) laughable. I know that's how I see it. The ABX/DBT testing so far of things such as cables has attempted to confirm claimed differences that had no seemingly rational explanation(s). If they attempted to prove negatives -- well -- you know that's just silly.

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

[=bob53]Actually, I'm not here to impress you or anyone else, that would be a waste of my time.

We are all sorry that your visits here may be a waste of your time. It sounded like you had something new to reveal to all not beforehand known.



It's cute you can read a few papers and call yourself an expert on the subject but it doesn't make you so..

Please cite my post where I claimed to be the expert. Please. On th eother hand, I think you claimed to be the scientist so you should be the expert but I am missing your wisdom here.

Have you ever run an ANOVA, how about a Chi-Squared test, T-tests? Do you know how they work, their weaknesses, benefits, what sorts of statistical errors they hide? No cheating and looking this stuff up ... Do you run experiments every day, know how to properly design controlled experiments? Do you appreciate the limitations of an experiment and how to intrepret results in a meaningful manner? I can, I do it every day


Good for you. I wonder where sighted testing is held in such high esteem in the scientific world.



I'm not into psychoacoustics as it is not what I study but I'll bet I have a deeper appreciation of how the ear and CNS works vs. say Dr. Toole (for example)... I'm not terribly interested if you think I'm a credible source, you aren't exactly qualified to make that judgement.

So we are discussing how the ear works or if we can test for audible differences between audio components? Controlling for bias and anything less than that has no real meaning for differences. With your implied credentials, that should be obvious, right?

I've actually read through the ABX site before - interesting stuff... I'm not doubting their results but there are a few unanswered questions:

1) Prove to me the the ABX box does not mask any subtle differences between cables - that is prove to me the component in the audio chain with the worst S/N is something other than the ABX box

2) How was the ABX test performed? Did the listener sit there for an hour and choose over and over again? Did the listener begin to fatigue? Did the results in the initial 25 responses differ from the last 25?

3) Demonstrate reproducibility of something that is different - what is the error in something clearly different? Slightly different?

4) Are the variances in the response of people? Can some hear differences others cannot?

All of these issues are crucial and not directly addressed.

Perhaps you should address it to David Carlstrom. I wonder if your sighted listeing can stand up to those controlled listening. Or, do you even bother to be just a bit scientific about your protocol.



I can publish my own work in non-peer reviewed journals and I can have glaring inconsistencies in my data or conclusions and it will still be published whereas peer-reviewed journals don't accept such work. This is why companies like Lexicon impress me as the algorithms are based upon work by Lex's own Dr. David Griesinger and this work has been pulished in peer reviewed journals...

You mean that his work had DBT listening data? That he conducted or caused to conduct DBT listening tests? I seriously doubt it, but I could be wrong.
Oh, have you published any of your listeing results?
Unfortunately there is nothing better, waste of time as the outcome is well known and predictable.



Many of the other websites tell me what? Yes, the NRC is impressive and they helped shape the way the big Canadian speaker companies build speakers based upon sampling a population of people to determine what sounds "good"... Yes Dr. Toole is a very wise and intelligent man, and? How does this directly address my posts? It doesn't.

Oh, it does. You missed the whole point of the exercise then. They conducted their research using DBT protocols. The speaker companies participating over the years at NRC practice it to improve their ware, not sighted listening that has no real meaning in such endevor.



the Cardas vs. say the River cable... Hmm, I wonder why... Re: poor IEC connections: [/bn]

Oh, the audible differences just have not been demonstrtated by anyone. Why would there be one? You have some evidence that there must be one? How are these two wires so different to cross above the threshold of detection? They are not.

I work with multimillion dollar NMR spectrometers that prove wire is not wire

You mean they sound different in an NMR?


Copper purity as well as things like proper cable windings (geometries) are crucial to the superconductive nature of the instrument - if a cable is wound ever-so-slightly wrong in a shim coil at the factory the magnet will quench due to resistance variations (arcing) in the wire (same thing goes for copper purity)...

Ah, so because it matters in a super conductor, now it must be audibly different from one another? You should test it, properly, not in a flawed, biased, sighted comparison that has no meaning for audible differences.

I'm not here to argue with you but rather your opinion - you can have your opinion (it is just an opinion as YOU have not done any DBTs) and I can have mine and lets leave it alone

Certainly you can have your opinions. I didn't say otherwise, right?
It is really immaterial if I performed zero DBT, 1 or a hundred. Or, if I even have an audio system. Immaterial to what you can demonstrate and what others have been able to demonstrate, right.
After all, if I remember correctly, could be wrong, you claimed to hear audible differences. I am sure people would like to see the evidence for such claim, by anyone on the planet, that can stand up.



I do think that any subtle differences in cables like copper purity, dielectrics, etc. have been blown way out of proportion by the cable industry because yes many people do buy cables based upon marketing and nothing more. Hopefully we can agree on that...

Sure we can. But it goes beyond this

Can we be done with this?

Bob

Sure. We are done Thanks for the exchange

 

[Rob Babcock]

Sorry I came to the discussion so late. This is an interesting, albeit old and tired, subject, but AH does not permit threads promoting particular products. At some point we may add manufacturers forums, but this is not currently within the rules of Audioholics. Therefore I'm locking this thread.

Grubert, you are most welcome to remain at AH and participate in discussions. You're not "banned" or anything like that. You're only prohibited from using our forum as a marketplace.

[Edit: I'm not so sure this was a marketing thread - other than it had one or two people who joined within the last 60 days and talked about a particular inexpensive interconnect cable that will inevitably be resold and priced much higher in the US/UK market... What I do think is that the thread went way off target and now seemingly belongs in The Steam Vent, so we'll leave it closed. - HawKe]