In Reply to: Besides the fact that the conductors of the test have a conflict of interest.... posted by Rod M on April 22, 2003 at 16:20:34:
Have you read this:Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893 (H-5], 20 pages.
Dr. Toole developed a fairly significant DBT lab although he was comparing speakers not cables. Nonetheless, his assertions for how these tests should be conducted as well as who the listeners should be is still fairly impressive.
And I have only third hand info, but he did try several types of speaker wire to make sure he wasn't missing any aspect of testing his speakers and came to the conclusion that the wire was not a factor in the sound of his speaker designs. I highly doubt that now he is in the audio industry he would care to revisit that.
A few of the colleagues he worked with are now employed at the Communications Research Centre in my hometown. They have used his methodology to do their work on audio codecs and perceptual encoders. The link is here: CRC Ottawa audio lab
However, I do agree with you in that there is no will to put forth the proper effort to do these tests on cables. Anybody who presented a paper at an AES conference or an IEEE submission proving cable sonics are a myth would be regarded as a real party pooper. Besides, scientists don't usually spend their time trying to prove something doesn't exist, especially something as unimportant as audio cabling.
Now if some cable company commissioned a proper, third party study and found their cables were better than X,Y and Z, I'm sure there would be a hell of a party. That's what I'm waiting for but I'm not holding my breath, hence the subject of this post.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- A cold day in hell... - Monstrous Mike 18:15:22 04/22/03 (0)