I'd assume that ABX tests are done in the design phase of gear all the time. Or at least some form of blind test, whether or not its double-blind or not. I think that's the right place for them, or for those who feel that they need them to make a decision they're comfortable with. I just don't agree with the notion that it's the only right way to choose for any given person.
Speaker cables have shown to made a difference... does it matter?
- Thread starter VinylRob
- Start date
I'm really not sure. I know I have read about blind A/B tests done by multiple big name speaker designers, but I can't think of anything else. I guess if I were making, say, an amplifier, I probably wouldn't share the details of my testing unless maybe it made a particularly dramatic case in terms of marketing. Otherwise, it would be a bunch of "and then we adjusted this bias this way and the results were inconclusive so we chose this way for longer component life", and other such exciting things that even a weird consumer like me doesn't care to read about, but a rival mfg. might.
robgmn
Super Member
No dire consequences, but if you mention that you don't use cryogenically-treated sterling silver garden hose amongst the "upper crust" players, you might get that sideways glance that you are somehow a heathen (or vice versa for the non-garden hose listener).
Since neither has been proven to be right (save for the going with the pre-supposed answer based on electrical theory), people probably would like to know (I base that statement on the fact that a cable vs. cable discussion will hit 600 posts in the blink of an eye with people from both sides).
VinylRob
Vinylphile
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
Jeff, I think that this quote you offer covers much of our hobby, well beyond wires and is rather telling.
Many here have issue with not being capable of dealing with anything that cannot be adequately explained or understood but, I still feel confident that a single person or group of people, with an organized method, can distinguish whether or not a perceived difference has taken place between offered samples. And I'm one who doesn't need to explain everything I experience, yet without denying the experience as being real.
Which is closer to the truth, an experience or the explanation of an experience?
The very act of listening to music and the human response is so continually satisfying partly because it's define ability is so elusive. It stimulates us viscerally, emotionally, and intellectually and the last, more with a puzzle than an explanation. I would not want it any other way. Give me that Je ne sais quoi.
Happy Listening!
Jeff, I think that this quote you offer covers much of our hobby, well beyond wires and is rather telling.
Many here have issue with not being capable of dealing with anything that cannot be adequately explained or understood but, I still feel confident that a single person or group of people, with an organized method, can distinguish whether or not a perceived difference has taken place between offered samples. And I'm one who doesn't need to explain everything I experience, yet without denying the experience as being real.
Which is closer to the truth, an experience or the explanation of an experience?
The very act of listening to music and the human response is so continually satisfying partly because it's define ability is so elusive. It stimulates us viscerally, emotionally, and intellectually and the last, more with a puzzle than an explanation. I would not want it any other way. Give me that Je ne sais quoi.
Happy Listening!
I actually know a number of "upper crust" players and have never experienced even a hint of what is often hinted at in these discussions. Conversely, I have often felt that I had to apologize to the vintage crowd for the cost of some of the gear that I run, gear that I only bought because I felt it was the only way outside of DIY that I could achieve what I wanted.
And I don't think most really want to know, because most already assume that they do know. It's not about finding out the truth its about proving the other guy wrong.
Skirting the need to apologize is the main reason I don't like to discuss my gear, a decision that was roundly criticized by many. Yet my expensive speaker wire is $1/ft, the other is $.80/ft. My interconnect wire comes in 100 ft spools.
Wigwam Jones
Caesar non supra grammati
deleted.
robgmn
Super Member
You state you've never seen snobbery, but have experienced it from the "non-upper" crust players.
We both know it exists on both sides of the fence (show up at Lime Rock on Porsche day with your MR2 that you can drive well enough to run circles around the Porsche drivers. You'll experience plenty.
A scientific cable test would actually be fairly easy with the proper equipment:
Measure signal going into cable, measure signal coming out of cable, measure signal produced by speaker in anechoic chamber.
Compare every aspect of that signal at all points.
If the signal produced by the speaker is identical (or not), then the sound produced will be identical (or not).
'No need even for human testing (unless two completely identical signals/waveforms, etc. produced can still sound different somehow, since two differing signals/waveforms, etc. can certainly sound different)!
Last edited:
You state you've never seen snobbery, but have experienced it from the "non-upper" crust players.
We both know it exists on both sides of the fence (show up at Lime Rock on Porsche day with your MR2 that you can drive well enough to run circles around the Porsche drivers. You'll experience plenty.
A scientific cable test would actually be fairly easy with the proper equipment:
Measure signal going into cable, measure signal coming out of cable, measure signal produced by speaker in anechoic chamber.
Compare every aspect of that signal at all points.
If the signal produced by the speaker is identical (or not), then the sound produced will be identical (or not).
'No need even for human testing (unless two completely identical signals/waveforms, etc. produced can still sound different somehow, since two differing signals/waveforms, etc. can certainly sound different)!
I'm getting a strong sense of Deja Vu here....
Wigwam Jones
Caesar non supra grammati
OK, I'll try again.
I do not think that either side of this argument understands what testing can or cannot prove.
Testing cannot prove superiority of a subjective preference.
Testing can prove that a difference can be shown to exist, or not to exist, within a statistical margin of error.
Testing cannot prove that any two sounds are identical. It can prove that in a rigorously-designed and administered double-blind test, two sounds can (or cannot) be discerned as identical. The difference is subtle but important.
Why is this? Surely science can prove if one thing is identical to another, right? Yes, but within the constraints that we know that what is being tested is what makes them identical. You can measure many things about sound, but you cannot measure what the listener hears - only what you are measuring for, which may not be all there is to measure.
Proper testing can indeed prove that any two speaker cables can be discerned from each other to within a statistical margin of error. If it can be repeated at will, it can be treated as a fact at that point. That does not prove superiority, and indeed, it cannot.
The question about whether or not the testing is scientifically rigorous enough to establish the conclusion is another issue. It is perfectly acceptable, and indeed part of the scientific method, to question the validity of the test itself.
But if we assume for the sake of argument that a proper test can be designed and implemented, there are only two things which can be shown as a result.
1) That a difference either can or cannot be discerned between tested cables.
2) If a difference can be discerned, that a preference among the test subjects can be established.
Both conclusions would have to be repeatable by anyone duplicating the test, assuming they followed the same protocols.
And neither conclusion would prove superiority of one over the other. The best that could be done would be to establish that there *is* a difference, and that a majority of testers preferred one over the other.
It does not invalidate anyone's preference if they choose something other than the 'preferred' cable, nor does it make them 'wrong'. And again, it does not prove superiority.
I think if we were to take a step back and simply look at this as if it were widgets and not something we have emotional attachments to, it would be easier to understand what science can and cannot do for us in this set of circumstances.
There. That's the best I can put it, with malice towards none.
I do not think that either side of this argument understands what testing can or cannot prove.
Testing cannot prove superiority of a subjective preference.
Testing can prove that a difference can be shown to exist, or not to exist, within a statistical margin of error.
Testing cannot prove that any two sounds are identical. It can prove that in a rigorously-designed and administered double-blind test, two sounds can (or cannot) be discerned as identical. The difference is subtle but important.
Why is this? Surely science can prove if one thing is identical to another, right? Yes, but within the constraints that we know that what is being tested is what makes them identical. You can measure many things about sound, but you cannot measure what the listener hears - only what you are measuring for, which may not be all there is to measure.
Proper testing can indeed prove that any two speaker cables can be discerned from each other to within a statistical margin of error. If it can be repeated at will, it can be treated as a fact at that point. That does not prove superiority, and indeed, it cannot.
The question about whether or not the testing is scientifically rigorous enough to establish the conclusion is another issue. It is perfectly acceptable, and indeed part of the scientific method, to question the validity of the test itself.
But if we assume for the sake of argument that a proper test can be designed and implemented, there are only two things which can be shown as a result.
1) That a difference either can or cannot be discerned between tested cables.
2) If a difference can be discerned, that a preference among the test subjects can be established.
Both conclusions would have to be repeatable by anyone duplicating the test, assuming they followed the same protocols.
And neither conclusion would prove superiority of one over the other. The best that could be done would be to establish that there *is* a difference, and that a majority of testers preferred one over the other.
It does not invalidate anyone's preference if they choose something other than the 'preferred' cable, nor does it make them 'wrong'. And again, it does not prove superiority.
I think if we were to take a step back and simply look at this as if it were widgets and not something we have emotional attachments to, it would be easier to understand what science can and cannot do for us in this set of circumstances.
There. That's the best I can put it, with malice towards none.
You state you've never seen snobbery, but have experienced it from the "non-upper" crust players.
We both know it exists on both sides of the fence (show up at Lime Rock on Porsche day with your MR2 that you can drive well enough to run circles around the Porsche drivers. You'll experience plenty.
A scientific cable test would actually be fairly easy with the proper equipment:
Measure signal going into cable, measure signal coming out of cable, measure signal produced by speaker in anechoic chamber.
Compare every aspect of that signal at all points.
If the signal produced by the speaker is identical (or not), then the sound produced will be identical (or not).
'No need even for human testing (unless two completely identical signals/waveforms, etc. produced can still sound different somehow, since two differing signals/waveforms, etc. can certainly sound different)!
There's charts and graphs in here.
http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/spkrcabl.pdf
As for snobbery, I've had discussions about cables with people that run high end, some of them big fans of cable swapping. I've talked to dealers about them, even asking why they carry them and what their thoughts were. I've never once been told I needed them, though some of these people have related positive experience based upon first hand use of the stuff. The pushiest anybody ever got was "here, take these home and bring them back in a few weeks, just to hear 'em".
I'll say again- the vision of the high end as portrayed on much of this website is fictional. Are there some clods? Yeah, that's life. You get enough people in a room and a certain percentage will be insufferable. But I've never found that to be based on the cost of gear somebody runs.
Come to think of it, nobody has brought up the $485 wood volume knob that is so popular among "audiophools". I was under the impression it was a must have item there for a while, it got mentioned quite often.
Never mind that I never heard of a single person who had ever even seen one, but it sure got trotted out as a totem of the hubris of high end.
or the '$22k "cable cooker" that one must have' (see post 279).
VinylRob
Vinylphile
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
Is the reference you have chosen to utter really in the spirit of this forum? IMHO it is the kind of crap that gets threads shut down. Please refrain from that kind of behavior, if you would. The subject matter also has no relevance that I can grasp except to stir the pot of discontent.
Is the reference you have chosen to utter really in the spirit of this forum? IMHO it is the kind of crap that gets threads shut down. Please refrain from that kind of behavior, if you would. The subject matter also has no relevance that I can grasp except to stir the pot of discontent.
VinylRob
Vinylphile
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
C'mon! What's your point?
They're referencing the assumptions made about "audiophools", similar to the assumptions that lead to the demand for tests in the first place, because a number of people have a delusion of what the people who run high end gear are like and what they all "buy" into. Hence the fact that they must need ABX tests to figure things out, because the person that falls for a wooden knob will fall for anything (even though nobody knows that person, or has even met them).
I had no idea my little digression would need to be explained, but thanks for having my back.
I guess the fabled wood knob isn't as well known as I thought, but I still thought my point could stand on its own.