Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Re: When you claim to hear a difference between wires...

Hello Again Jim,

You've been very civil in our communications, which I deeply appreciate and I want to thank you for. I'll explain as plainly as I can how I attempted to prove to the objectivists here that I can, without a doubt detect diffferences in wires and how they in turn "changed" the rules.

In order to make my position clear we first have to start with the DBT/ABX issue. As I'm sure you know Jim this is something most, if not all objectivists require or else the test isn't valid in their opinion. At the same time doing a DBT via an ABX box is something that most, if not all subjectivists, including myself vehemently oppose. For me it's the uncertainty of the ABX box itself and how it might alter the sound of the system. Then of course there's also the extra wires required to use an ABX, which from a subjectivist POV only adds an additional unknown component and how it might also alter the sound of the system.

So from my POV doing a DBT via an ABX adds two components that will IMHO affect the sound of the system in a way of which I'm uncertain of. Obviously if I'm going to put my hearing acuity to the test in front of others I don't want there to be any uncertainties about the audio components themselves. After much thought I came up with a way to do blind testing sans any ABX or additional wires.

Here's my method for comparing to different sets of interconnects:

1) Setup the system behind a screen or wall with ONLY the speakers being visable to myself & the witnesses present.
2) Have a person behind the screen with the components who'll be manuelly changing the wires. (This person will not be told the reason why he's chaging the wires)
3) Now when the time comes to change wires this person can either change or not change the ICs as he chooses. Of course he has to record which IC was connected everytime.

My contention is as I cannot see or hear this person and he cannot see or hear me, how's that really any different from a box changing the wires? I'll NEVER know which IC is being used! Which is precisely the reason for using an ABX.

My only other stipulation is that I must be intimately familiar with the system being used. So either we use my system or I be allowed to live with the system that's going to be used for 3 months so I can become intimately familiar with this new system. The reason for this stipulation Jim is many of the things I listen for in wires are subtle. So I MUST be intimately familiar with the system in question as it is, so I can recognize when subtle changes occur.

Unfortunately EVERY objectivist I've proposed this test to has outright discarded it as being a bogus test. Then after disparaging my proposed test, they revert to wires don't have a sound so the additional wires when using an ABX is a non-issue, plus in their opinion it's been proven that the ABX box is transparent so that's also a non-issue. Others take a different approach and state it would be a waste of their time to come because they know I'm going to fail anyway. Or before they're willing to waste any of their precious time on a test I'll most likely fail, they want to see documented proof that I've already performed such tests and have passed them. In other words as much as these objectivists claim they'd like to see proof that subjectivists can detect real, not imagined differences in wires, they come up with a myriad of excuses of either a) why the test isn't valid or b) why it would be a waste of their time to come and witness this proposed test. Then they usually end with the reality of the situation is I'm just afraid to take the a "REAL" test and I'm simply making up excuses and chickening out. So they want to change the test into an ABX/DBT or NOTHING!

My rebuttle to this is with wires it most certainly hasn't been proven that wires don't have a sound. In fact that's the very thing I'm attempting to provide proof of for these naysayers, so it's NOT a non-issue. Plus it hasn't been proven to me personally that an ABX is completely transparent, so that too is definitely NOT a non-issue. Just like I believe Wellfed wasn't chickening out neither am I. I simply want a test that's possible to pass, not one that starts with the deck stacked against me. If these naysayers truly believe wires don't have a sound of their own, then even in my proposed test I shouldn't be able to reliably detect differences so what are THEY afraid of?

So that's it Jim. I'm curious what your POV is.

Thetubeguy1954

"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Western Glow Tube Service  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.