[*Scotty*]

If we postulate, a priori, that cryo treatment of stereo gear changes the sonic qualities of said gear. Then the tour of cryo treated ICs and CDs will at least be a test of listener training and system resolution. While not producing conclusive proof one way or the other of the efficacy of cryo treatment of stereo gear it should still be interesting to those participating.
Scotty

[kevin360]

If we postulate, a priori, that cryo treatment of stereo gear changes the sonic qualities of said gear

Ah, but that's the reason for using three sets. We will all know that one is treated and one is not (of course, we won't know which two those are), but the third could be either way. The unknown third set changes the nature of the test such that it's no longer a simple A/B comparison. It also adds a means of verifying the results. If I say that A and C are superior to B, but C is the only one that was treated, then I will have nullified the value of my statement. If I say that C is the standout of the bunch, then I will have correctly identified A and B as the same (and inferior). This does give a bit of weight to results which follow the latter example, provided that they exceed what could be expected from guessing by a statistically meaningful percentage.

I think this is a usefully constructed experiment and I applaud Dave for the initiative.

[*Scotty*]

The problem of an uncontrolled variable remains. The myriad of systems of unknown resolution makes this a test of the aforementioned variable unless the system used is held constant. This is the fly in the statistical ointment as it were.
Scotty

[medium jim]

The flip side is that the non-Cryo'd is the item that is deemed the lesser.  The a/b/c factor will keep it real and the more who partake, the chances of more valid responses. 

One thing that I personally feel will also be an important factor is that the participants should not share their findings with other participants via email it otherwise as this too will taint the results. The important thing to remember is that this is not a contest of who is right or wrong.

Jim

[*Scotty*]

Communication of any listening expectations would bollix the results pretty thoroughly.
Scotty

[medium jim]

The problem of an uncontrolled variable remains. The myriad of systems of unknown resolution makes this a test of the aforementioned variable unless the system used is held constant. This is the fly in the statistical ointment as it were.
Scotty

Scotty:

I disagree as we are only asked to see if we can hear a difference between something that is cryogenically treated vs something that is not.  Better stated, does a Cryo'd CD sound different or better, same for IC's.  Said items if they do sound better should no matter the resolution of the system.  In that this is an audiophile based forum, the assumption is that most do have decent systems.

The end-user of Cryo treated items will typically be the same, those who take music seriously.

Just my 2cents.

Jim

[kevin360]

Indeed, it is impossible to control for the variability of systems. At the very least, each of the participants will discover whether or not cryo treatment is worth the expense for him/her. If the results are such that 75% correctly identify which cables are the same and prefer the pair/pairs that were treated, then I think the uncontrolled variable is a moot point. If the results are statistically meaningless (or worse ), then I agree that asserting the treatment to be ineffective isn't necessarily supported by the data.

I agree with Jim about not communicating during the data gathering phase of these experiments. We cannot enter the listening evaluations with any such information.

[dBe]

Indeed, it is impossible to control for the variability of systems. At the very least, each of the participants will discover whether or not cryo treatment is worth the expense for him/her. If the results are such that 75% correctly identify which cables are the same and prefer the pair/pairs that were treated, then I think the uncontrolled variable is a moot point. If the results are statistically meaningless (or worse ), then I agree that asserting the treatment to be ineffective isn't necessarily supported by the data.

I agree with Jim about not communicating during the data gathering phase of these experiments. We cannot enter the listening evaluations with any such information.

Everyones' system is different, thus producing an uncontrolled, but constant variable.  If the changes wrought by cryo are audible on all systems then this is irrelevant.

Of course there are other uncontrolled variables that people are skirting.

1.  the individuals' acuity
2.  the individuals' attitude
3.  the individuals' intellectualy honesty

These are a few of them.

We decided early on that there would be NO communication of the results until a statistically meaningful result was determined.

No test is perfect.  True ABX testing is one of the most flawed tests available because it does not allow for unstressed observation plus other issues.

We're trying to have some fun here.  If 8 out of 10 get the identifications correct we know one result.  If 3 out of 10 get them correct we have another result and so on.  Let's try not to overanalyze an admittedly non-scientific test.  A true scientific test would use a random group of participants not knowing what their focus group would be testing in advance to help eliminate prejudices.

Dave

[rollo]

Everyones' system is different, thus producing an uncontrolled, but constant variable.  If the changes wrought by cryo are audible on all systems then this is irrelevant.

Of course there are other uncontrolled variables that people are skirting.

1.  the individuals' acuity
2.  the individuals' attitude
3.  the individuals' intellectualy honesty

These are a few of them.

We decided early on that there would be NO communication of the results until a statistically meaningful result was determined.

No test is perfect.  True ABX testing is one of the most flawed tests available because it does not allow for unstressed observation plus other issues.

we're trying to have some fun here.  If 8 out of 10 get the identifications correct we know one result.  If 3 out of 10 get them correct we have another result and so on.  Let's try not to overanalyze an admittedly non-scientific test.  A true scientific test would use a random group of participants not knowing what their focus group would be testing in advance to help eliminate prejudices.

Dave

   Perfect. Let the games begin.



charles