|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.251.236.4
In Reply to: RE: The Power of Poor Memory... posted by E-Stat on October 15, 2010 at 12:26:48
If you had read the whole thread, you would have found that it is not possible to prove the null hypothesis.E-stat
"I still await a single report of any findings to support the "all cables sound the same notion" using equipment better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers."You have evidently given up trying to show that there are audible differences between audio cables, which would mean providing evidence to reject the null hypothesis. You then you try to suggest mtrycrafts should prove a null hypothesis, to provide reports for something it is impossible to establish. There is no burden of proof to establish something does not exist, the problem is to show that they do. So not only have you tried a "tu quoque" argument (which is irrelevant to the audio questions), but you have failed to provide true one.
The real problem is to find reports which establish that there are audible differences between speaker wires -- and and of course, DBTs have found audible differences if the differences in resistance are great enough to audibly affect the frequency response into a speaker load. And you have consistently refused to figure out how much that difference would be.
Now, if you had bothered to read the sophisticated discussion in the whole thread, you would find that one can not establish that two things sound the same--which is the null hypothesis. There is no burden of proof to establish something it is impossible to establish.
Yet you are silly enough to ask the mtrycrafts provide evidence to support a negative hypothesis *YOU* have laid out! The problem is to disprove the null hypothesis. You have still failed to do so. You haven't come up with any studies. Mtrycrafts and Richard Greene have at least looked for them.
mtrycrafts ----- 100%
E-stat ---------- 0%
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Edits: 10/15/10Follow Ups:
My question to him had nothing to do with the null hypothesis. Can't you figure that out?The real problem is to find reports which establish that there are audible differences between speaker wires...
The real problem is finding anyone who bothers to test the highest performance cabling. Such doesn't happen or they use erroneous test procedures using unproven assumptions.
There is no burden of proof to establish something it is impossible to establish.
Ever the pedantic reply. Perhaps if I simplify the story, you might be able to understand it.
1. Mtry claimed that expensive (I would say high performance) cables have been involved in DBTs.
2. I ask him for examples
3. He declines saying he doesn't need to prove his claim.Yet you are silly enough to ask the mtrycrafts provide evidence to support a negative hypothesis *YOU* have laid out!
Are you really incapable of understanding the above? My question to him has nothing at all to do with the null hypothesis. I questioned his claim and he folded. Surely you are smarter than that - even if your memory is poor.
Do you understand the question now?
edit: You probably don't any better today than long ago. here is where we first discussed his inability to document any of his claims. I replied to a really funny post of his where he demonstrates that he is utterly incapable of following a story (like you) and rants on. Here is my reply to his post. I should have included this other line from his post:
"They are not equally expensive as one was $990. the other a cheapo."
One cost $300 while the other, about $110.
rw
rw
Edits: 10/15/10
E-stat
"My question to him had nothing to do with the null hypothesis. Can't you figure that out?"
Nonsense. The concept of a null hypothesis is not limited to audio DBTs. You not only want articles, but you state:
E-stat
"I still await a single report of any findings to support the "all cables sound the same notion" using equipment better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers."
That is a null hypothesis. But, like it or not, you want something which is impossible. You didn't ask for tests using equipment meeting certain parameters, you wanted ones with results which "support" the silly notion that "all cables sound the same," which has been shown to be false--indeed, your own reference to a Stereo Review article from 1983 proves you should know it be false. Thus, what you are maintaining is that he has not met the burden of proof to supply articles meeting criteria which YOU, not mtrycrafts, have set out. It's a scummy little trick. So, you have tried to put forward a "tu quoque" argument, one of the standard fallacies. You're like a little kid shouting "He does it, too." But you even failed in that.
Now let's look at your attempted summary of an exchange in the 2004 AR thread, which simply does not represent what is in the thread.
E-stat
"1. Mtry claimed that expensive (I would say high performance) cables have been involved in DBTs.
2. I ask him for examples
3. He declines saying he doesn't need to prove his claim."
I have already shown that in fact, you said something different than No. 1 and No. 2.
E-stat
"I still await a single report of any findings to support the "all cables sound the same notion" using equipment better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers."
So, you didn't even state what you yourself had said!
Mtrycrafts has quite properly pointed out that those who say that two pieces of equipment are audibly different have the burden of proof. And so, let us go to the context of something you quoted:
"Hey, I don't have to have a single citation. You still have the burden of demonstration for differences. Rather simple science. But then, you don't understand that stuff."
So No. 3 is false as well.
I tried to indicate this more gently below, but you stubbornly persisted in misunderstanding that 2004 discussion.
I should point out that if you look up the AR thread you will Richard Greene participated in a test with expensive cables.
Richard Greene
"Ten feet of Radio Shack 14AWG zip cords versus ten-foot $995 Tara Labs speaker cables at DLC Design, an audio consultancy in Michigan. The test was conducted by DLC owner Dave Clark (inventor of the DUMAX dynamic driver measurement system) and Tom Nousaine. Both work full-time in the audio field and both are internationally known."
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
You remain unable to understand the core concept. Constantly acknowledging that folks can hear the difference between 12 gauge zip and 24 gauge toy wire only has significance to you. No one else cares.rw
Edits: 10/17/10
You say no DBTs have been done with expensive cables, even though Richard Greene's post refutes that. So mtrycrafts was right about that--and, well, see link below.
You maintain mtrycrafts says he has no references, you even said he lied--but he did not say that he had no references. He just asked you to come up with positives. You know there are some, yet you still wanted reference to support the idea that all cables sound the same.
I hope you will not pretend we had not referred to the ABX site before. Below is a link to the results.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
which also includes the need for scientific validity. We already know the unverified assumption that the ABX box and its additional cables doesn't affect the results. Circular reasoning involves the use of more zip cord between each end of the *test*.
I'm learning from Tony about ignore lists. You just made mine.
rw
Now you want to argue about something else. I have shown DBTs have been done on expensive cables--but I don't see you apologizing for saying mtrycrafts lied.
Now you bring up the alleged faults of the ABX box. But here again, you show you don't understand about the null hypothesis. You ask for proof that something makes no difference! You sometimes get it straight that the null hypothesis cannot be proven, but then you turn around and whine about it:
E-stat
"We already know the unverified assumption that the ABX box and its additional cables doesn't affect the results."
You have a singular lack of evidence that it has any audible influence on the results. E. Brad Meyer has given me permission to post this text of his to AA:
"
"I understand that an old issue has arisen here concerning the supposition that the ABX box is not only audible when inserted into a signal chain, but also somehow spoils the sound passing though it, rendering previously audible differences inaudible. To anyone at all familiar with Ohm's law, this would be akin to magic -- and is certainly far enough out of the ordinary to be an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof. I am talking about proof that is required of those claiming audibility; it is certainly not a requirement for anyone conducting such a test to prove that the box is NOT spoiling the sound.
"Here are the facts: Instead of a six-foot connecting cable between the source and the line-level input, the signal goes through a three-foot cable, an RCA jack, an inch of hookup wire, a reed relay with a resistance of about 0.3 ohms (this is in a circuit where the input impedance at the far end exceeds 10 kOhms), though another inch of hookup wire to a second RCA jack, and then another three-foot cable. Yes, two sources are connected to the ABX relay module input. Only one at a time is connected to the output, and in any event having both connected is no different than having two sources connected to a preamp at the same time -- a configuration that I daresay describes virtually all systems out there.
"The original claim, in print, that an early version of the ABX box somehow ruined the sound was made in TAS by John Cooledge (not sure I spelled the name right but everyone remembers JWC). His assertion was entirely unsupported by any evidence other than his personal testimony, based on non-blind listening. I do not consider it credible given the electrical parameters involved. I can't prove he didn't hear anything, of course, but I can't prove that the universe wasn't created ten seconds ago, and neither question really interests me. If anyone wants to blind-test the box, I'd be happy to hear how that goes.
"If you don't think double-blind testing is necessary or helpful, well, perhaps you are the first person in history who can't be fooled, and good for you. But the experience of people who do try it has never, in my experience, been that the test setup changes anything. All the differences we or our subjects hear in sighted tests remain with the box in place, as long as we're just listening to A or B. It's just when X is pressed that things seem to get difficult. I have had a subject (this was in a demo at and AES convention) swear to me that what he heard when X was pressed was different from BOTH A and B, though A and B were the only sources around. And it doesn't really matter whether you use the box, either. That's just a convenience that makes it possible to do the test more easily. Hiding the source from yourself, by any means, is the essential, and the really vexing, thing."
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
The web page lacks basic detail. If one submitted this to a high school science lab back I went to school one would get an incomplete.
One needs complete documentation of the entire equipment set up, starting at the source material used for the tests, and including some kind of diagram of room. Listeners should be identified and described by experience. Other experimental parameters need be noted, e.g. setting of all control knobs on the equipment, physical location of ABX box, wiring lengths of all cabling, SPLs at the listening position(s), power levels out of the amplifier, etc. With this material it would be possible to begin talking about "evidence". Without it, results must be considered "anecdotal". Perhaps this material is available in someone's attic. Perhaps not.
This material would be evidence relating to what the listeners heard on one occasion. Additional testing and evidence would be required before this evidence would have value in a broader context. (This would include, for example, evidence that the test setup was sensitive to the matters to be decided and testing to qualify the listener and verify that their hearing was normal and they had been appropriately trained.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
If you search text "ABX" by me, you'll find nearly thirty times in the past (and you've responded) where I've pointed out the lack of controls used with ABX boxes. Try again.
E Brad can theorize all he wishes. Such does not constitute a scientific approach.
rw
Oh yeah, you mentioned some assertions by Pass, which some knowledgeable people showed were not correct and did not actually reflect the ABX box circuitry.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
"I should point out that if you look up the AR thread you will Richard Greene participated in a test with expensive cables."
I did. The URL was bad. I got beyond that. I looked at all six pages, no reference to Richard Greene's test.
It's best to preview one's posts with the "Preview Message" button, and click through all links to verify they are good.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I am using Firefox.
If you found the thread, you have to realize there are different display modes at AR. If you use the Linear mode, all the texts of the posts should show up.
In the threaded or hybrid modes, you have to look at the thread maps up on top, where you will notice that it tells you there are more posts below some of the subthreads, and you will have to click on the last post and see if it's there, or if not, go to another such and click on it to see if it's there.
I have linked the single post below.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
That worked. I must have missed the post the first time.
I also use Firefox. The original bad link had a double "http" in the string.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
There never was. You'll note that immediately following his claim, I asked for substantiation. It never came.
rw
.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Since you miss the obvious point, I guess I need to spell it out. There have been ZERO valid tests using high performance cables that anyone has ever been able to provide. Fools like Mtry twist the null result into assuming that provides a conclusion. It does not. If all you did was compare a Ford Taurus against a Buick Regal, dialtones like Mtry would conclude that ALL cars had limited acceleration and cornering capability.
Tests speak for only that which is tested. Nothing more. Extrapolation of results to that which has not been tested or (my favorite) what didn't exist at the time of the test is wholly unwarranted.
rw
E-stat
"There have been ZERO valid tests using high performance cables that anyone has ever been able to provide."
And so by your own admission, you have no good evidence that those alleged "high performance cables" sound different from large heavy gauge speaker wire such as my old 12 gauge Angstrom cables or heavy speaker wire from the hardware store--which isn't cheap as it used be, either. And that was mtrycrafts' point then and still is, I think. Whoops! Game goes to mtrycrafts!
A second point is what on earth your assertion actually means. If only we could give some definite meaning to "high performance cables" for audio purposes. How does one know whether a cable is "high performance" or not? How could one test a hypothesis which has no definite meaning?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
By listening to it?
In the absence of blind tests, we have sighted ones. They aren't of coruse completely reliable, but -i-t- -s-e-e-m-s- -t-o- -m-e- -t-h-a-t- they're significantly better than no evidence at all.
Sighted tests are quite reliable for a lot of things. A couple of examples. They can show the equipment works and is not obviously malfunctioning. They can show that an amplifier can drive the speakers to one's satisfaction--or not.
As well, sighted tests can work quite well for forming preferences. I have often advised people to get the equipment they prefer, and to form their preferences by the methods they prefer.
For determining small audible differences--sighted auditions are not reliable.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
The problem is, neither is practical forced choice testing. Just look at the DBT reports on Hydrogen Audio, the results are all over the place. So what do you do, wait for the blind tests to improve (or to be done in the first place, since most equipment one might be interested in buying hasn't been subjected to DBT), or accept the evidence of one's ears?
I suppose I should add that this isn't just a rhetorical question. The purported superiority of certain esoteric cables, the audibility of certain differences in contemporary power amplifiers and converters -- in many cases, I just don't know. All I can do is use my ears and a bit of common sense, and hope I'm right.
Ah, well that illustrates a different concern: what to buy. I don't tell people what to buy, or how they *should* go about choosing equipment, though I can tell them what has worked for me and others. I don't have to change speakers every couple of years because I get tired of them.
This bothers many people. They expect me to tell them what to buy--after all, that's why many of them come here, to get advice on what equipment to buy. I'm not answering the questions they have in their minds--but seldom ask.
I often suggest speakers I think most people would like, or amplifiers that should drive their speakers, if I know. But I don't tell them not to buy expensive equipment, and I don't suggest they buy the cheapest. What I suggest is that they buy the equipment they prefer.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
I think the best you can do is outline some of the options. Needs and tastes differ too much. However, within a given category, there are almost always components that are a better value than others. And some, arguably, that have no value at all, or are ridiculously overpriced for what they are (not that I'm thinking of certain estoteric cables . . .).
And so by your own admission, you have no good evidence that those alleged "high performance cables" sound different from large heavy gauge speaker wire...
How can you find evidence when they have never been tested? How many times do you need to be told the same thing before you understand the concept? Three? Four? Never?
And that was mtrycrafts' point then and still is, I think.
His point? He claimed that there were tests that included what he dismisses as "expensive cables". He lied.
How does one know whether a cable is "high performance" or not?
Smart people know several ways. Do they achieve a low dielectric constant? Zip cord clearly does not. Do you test what countless critical listeners say sounds good? Why would you possibly want to do that?
How could one test a hypothesis which has no definite meaning?
The answer involves a very complex procedure that is likely far beyond your level of comprehension: you include them in your tests. Did you get that?
I'm done with kindergarten for today.
rw
E-stat
"His point? He claimed that there were tests that included what he dismisses as "expensive cables". He lied."
No, mtyrcrafts did not lie. Indeed, if you look in the same 2004 thread at AR, you will find Richard Greene said participated in such a DBT, so you should know what mtry said was true.
Richard Greene
"Ten feet of Radio Shack 14AWG zip cords versus ten-foot $995 Tara Labs speaker cables at DLC Design, an audio consultancy in Michigan. The test was conducted by DLC owner Dave Clark (inventor of the DUMAX dynamic driver measurement system) and Tom Nousaine. Both work full-time in the audio field and both are internationally known."
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Mtry didn't provide that *test*. He remained unable to provide any such information. He admitted that he was unable to provide any such detail. He lied. Let's examine your example of a scientifically valid test. Here's the entirety of the scholarly test procedure, gear used and results:
"Ten feet of Radio Shack 14AWG zip cords versus ten-foot $995 Tara Labs speaker cables at DLC Design, an audio consultancy in Michigan"
That's it? Now, go back and tell us the contents of the very next post in that thread. BassNut's was 11. Read 12. Then, tell us if the question raised in that post was ever answered.
rw
No, mtry did not lie. First, what mtrycrafts said was that tests with expensive cables have been done. I'll link some results below, and I hope you aren't going to pretend you haven't seen the ABX site before.
You maintain DBTs have never been done with expensive cables, yet the refutation of your assertion was in that very thread, in Richard Greene's post.
Second, mtry never said he could not supply any references. He pointed out that he didn't need to do so, since it is up to those who claim there are audible differences to establish it. After all, those null results don't prove a negative(as if we hadn't told you this many times). It doesn't do much good to supply references around as hardly anyone either reads them or bothers to remember they have been given--do you recognize yourself?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
You're supposed to ASSUME that the test was done with something other than Bose Accoustimass and Yorx electronics, somewhere other than a cave, that the people failed to discern differences, and that there was a test at all! Where's your faith???
The question at issue is whether tests of expensive cables have been done. They have.
Now you want to ask some other questions. Fine. Why don't you ask DLC what was done? But why you are interested in more negative results is a question, since so many think negative results mean nothing.
I'm looking for positive results. There are some, as E-stat keeps telling us, but he doesn't like them.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Richard claims to have been present at the test he cited. You happen to believe it was a proper test and, however much I may disagree with his audio beliefs, I've always found him to be honest. But see Tony's post above (titled: Evidence?). Your beliefs and my beliefs have no place in the discussion. E-Stat doesn't share the same faith, and there's no reason he should. Richard's claim is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. I would guess that you don't see this because you share the same audio beliefs.
> I'm looking for positive results. <
Not very diligently. The best way to find positive results is to participate in some blind tests, either as a participant or as an observer. It shouldn't take many... as long as you don't insist on comparing two brands of zip cord or two brands of plastic receiver.
rw
And if it is, why? After all this time?
Can accuse you of succumbing to expectation bias, can we? :)
... than being a fool, is pretending to be an even bigger fool than you really are -
- they are right.
I'm sorry my post was above your head.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Nobody here is bored enough, or has futility fetish strong enough, to have actual audio-related discussion with you, so you'll have to make do with name-calling.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: