[THROWBACK]

If ears consistently hear things that "scientific tests" do not, then the problem is likely with the tests. I.E., not measuring the right things; not sensitive enough; something.

In an earlier post, I mentioned that I heard a "whang" sound when I used solid wires in my system. I can not even describe that in scientific terms. I have no idea how one could measure it. But that does not mean that it doesn't exist.

[FullRangeMan]

If you read my posts, I've described them. Didn't like the two 22g + 1 14g. set up. (So that means this is done four times - two to the negative terminals and two to the positive terminals.)

OK, if possible use bare wire contact to avoid additional connections.

[Steve]

Everyday differences in audio are proven.
In fact the listening tests have gotten so sensitive, that these small differences arn't audible when listening to music.

AmplifierDesigner333. 

If they won't provide scientific proof, and they say anything like "you just need to hear it, and you'll understand", you're being swindled.

I see no proof, just opinion. By the way, some of those really pushing tests on other forums (not AC forums) have patents whose revenue is tied to those patents. Conflicts of interest for sure. Please provide the evidence that proves "everyday differences in audio are proven".

Please explain how one obtains 95% confidence that a difference is perceivable when 50% of the test group is in the bass increasing mode area while 50% is in the bass decreasing mode area of the venue.

If one cannot answer these questions, then one does not know whether the tests were performed correctly, and the only responsible scientific response is you do not know.

By the way, I have already demonstrated, more than once, that a wire and a twisted cable has inductive reactance on top of the dc resistance. So you left out some basic scientific fact. Please state all the facts gentlemen.

cheers and happy Memorial Day Speed.

steve

[planet10]

I have yet to read any PROOF, scientific or otherwise, that there is a significant (or even existent?) difference…

Yet you say this and expect to be believed? Not that i has a view either way, but isn’t it a bit disingenuous?

The DAC DAC 2 sound is more textured.  Deeper imaging, blacker background.  It's simply amazing!  Maybe it's the lower noise. Maybe it's the lower distortion.  I can say without a doubt that the DAC DAC 2 combined with the MEGAschino is the sweetest sounding setup I've heard yet!

dave

[JohnR]

OK this is getting into industry people sniping at each other, which never ends well. Stop it. Just agree to disagree.

[Speedskater]

In good listening tests, it's easy to confirm that differences were heard, although in very sensitive tests uncontrolled variables can mess up the results.
But on the other hand it's hard (or impossible) to prove a negative.

[Early B.]

In good listening tests, it's easy to confirm that differences were heard, although in very sensitive tests uncontrolled variables can mess up the results.
But on the other hand it's hard (or impossible) to prove a negative.

A listening test is like going to a restaurant and asking the waiter to conduct a taste test with the strangers at the next table so you determine what to order. It's a useless charade. 

[Steve]

In good listening tests, it's easy to confirm that differences were heard, although in very sensitive tests uncontrolled variables can mess up the results.
But on the other hand it's hard (or impossible) to prove a negative.

So where is your evidence? I certainly have not seen nor heard about these easy to confirm sonic differences via good listening tests. How do you know the tests are good? Please provide an example that we can all read, because all I have ever heard is that all capacitors, wiring schemes, resistors, materials sound the same.

I have yet to see anyone on any forums explain how one obtains 95% confidence that a sonic difference exists when 50% of the test group is in the bass increasing mode area while 50% is in the bass decreasing mode area of the venue. Please explain in detail.

cheers and happy Memorial Day.

steve

[charmerci]

So where is your evidence? I certainly have not seen nor heard about these easy to confirm sonic differences via good listening tests. How do you know the tests are good? Please provide an example that we can all read, because all I have ever heard is that all capacitors, wiring schemes, resistors, materials sound the same.

I have yet to see anyone on any forums explain how one obtains 90-95% confidence that a sonic difference exists when 50% of the test group is in the bass increasing mode area while 50% is in the bass decreasing mode area of the venue. Please explain in detail.

cheers

steve

This is an interesting read about that.


https://www.dagogo.com/audio-by-van-alstine-abx-comparator-review-part-1-audio-store-wiring/

[Steve]

This is an interesting read about that.


https://www.dagogo.com/audio-by-van-alstine-abx-comparator-review-part-1-audio-store-wiring/

Unfortunately the article does not include any variable confounds that skew the testing results. Maybe one. Covering only a very small portion of all the testing procedure, material etc. does not procure an accurate result.

1) Does testing procedure mimic actual normal listening? Does the test itself mimic normal listening? If it does not, one is comparing apples to oranges and attempting to push there error results upon all of us.

2) What materials are used in the test? Is it silver, copper, bronze that is used?

3) What is the venue's characteristics?

     a. Is the bass heavy, bass light, how heavy are the bass modes?

     b. Are there echo's in the venue?

     c. What types and very important is the quality of recordings are being played?

4) How is the procedure performed?

5) Has medical experts, 3rd party, ever been consulted?

6) Does one us a circuit, even if it is just like a passive? Is it perfect, or does it degrade the signal as well?

etc, etc, etc.

As one can see, simply performing a test with little consideration to any variable confounds will skew, 100% of the time, toward a conclusion of no sonic difference. In fact, leaving out even one variable confound will skew the results toward no sonic difference.

I don't call that an accurate test.

The more one knows, the more power one has.

cheers and happy Memorial Day.

steve

[planet10]

I have yet to see anyone on any forums explain how one obtains 90-95% confidence that a sonic difference exists when 50% of the test group is in the bass increasing mode area while 50% is in the bass decreasing mode area of the venue. Please explain in detail.

It is much easier to staistically show DUTs are different. And many of the “these sound the same” are extending a null ABX test to where it cannot go. ie many of those results are bogus. We have David Clark to thank for the broad misuse of ABX tests to “conclude" that many DUT do not sound different.

dave

[Steve]

It is much easier to staistically show DUTs are different. And many of the “these sound the same” are extending a null ABX test to where it cannot go. ie many of those results are bogus. We have David Clark to thank for the broad misuse of ABX tests to “conclude" that many DUT do not sound different.

dave

Virtually all testing is inaccurate due to major procedural problems, as I have mentioned previously. Almost all testing does not include even two confound variables, not even two. Not addressing all the variable confounds will tend to skew the results. If the testees understood the confound variables involved, I do not believe they would have never become involved in David Clark's comparative tests. Again, the confound variables skew, to some extent, every single time.

cheers

steve

[planet10]

Virtually all testing is a fraud due to major procedural problems.

Indeed. A valid blind test is harder than many think.

dave

[Steve]

Indeed. A valid blind test is harder than many think.

dave

I agree, very difficult and takes much time, not a session or two, or even dozen. Of course the marketers won't tell the public, or they don't understand the problems themselves. I also know of some, pushing the agenda hard on other forums (not AC), who have paid for patents (in perception) so a huge financial incentive. So the public never learns of the problems, thinking their position is fact/all the science.

Cheers and all the best Dave.

steve

[charmerci]

I'd like to say that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. IF you believe that people believe that they are "hearing" differences in speaker cables that are not there - then that can also mean that those that believe that there are no measurable sound differences in speaker cables are not hearing differences that are there!

Also us audiophiles (sorry to those that don't like that term) are generally an extraordinarily intelligent group. We are scientists, engineers, etc. We are not all dumb, follow the standard line ordinary folk. Just using me as one example, I never wanted to believe that IC's and speaker cables made a difference in the sound. I DON'T WANT THEM TO!!! I don't want cables that cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars to sound better than $10 monoprice cables. (I'm cheap and have low income.) I wish, I wish, I wish! I want a $300 receiver to sound fantastic but when I crank up a new component or cheap set of cables and my ears scream - TURN IT DOWN!!! - every time, it's hard to believe those people that say that IC's, (for example) don't change the sound of my system. Again, this isn't a one time (period) thing, it's been happening to me - and us - for decades. But because "we" can't measure it - we must be fooling ourselves.