Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Cable questions

Offense is in the eye of the offended.

In reply to:

---

If I run 1,000 experiments trying to show that people can hear speaker cable differences, and none of them succeed, then I have proven nothing. Yet with a single successful experiment I could prove that at least some people could detect the difference.

---

This is an incorrect conclusion to make about experimental theory and is a commonly made mistake.
The 5% or less (1% depending on the alpha of the experiment) is not proof that those who fall into this category can detect anything. This is also interpreted as random chance anomalies often called outliers.
Out of 1000 people tested, it should be expected that 5% (or less or more) people may randomly select the 'correct' choices to pass the test. This doesn't mean they actually knew the answers.

And defense is in the other eyeball of the defended Peter.

Just don't cross your eyes or they're liable to annihilate.

Hey, I didn't say I was offended here. I was just pointing out that that's a slippery slope of an argument.

Hey Chess,

Long time no debate . Well you are right that my use of the word "proof" is not very accurate. Technically we're just talking about statistics and probabilities, and the alpha of the experiment determines how certain you are of the result. There is no experimental result with a probability of 1.

But the fact remains that those 1,000 experiments that showed no difference, even with a loose 95% confidence interval, provide less evidence than a single experiment that succeeds at the 95% confidence interval. The former 1,000 experiments provide no statistical evidence at the 95% level, whereas the latter experiment, which may be done on just one person, would provide a statistically significant difference. If you don't trust the results, then run it again. Try different self-proclaimed audiophiles who all claim to hear the difference. It will be a weak conclusion to draw if only backed by a single experiment, but you will have evidence nonetheless.

-Cooper

Cooper, it has been awhile.
I've been on hiatus the past 4 months deep in journal paper hell. I'm still there but for some unknown reason, spending more time on the forums.
Perhaps it is because i'm in such a fluent writing mode on a day to day basis.

In reply to:

---

But the fact remains that those 1,000 experiments that showed no difference, even with a loose 95% confidence interval, provide less evidence than a single experiment that succeeds at the 95% confidence interval.

---

This again comes back to how you interpret the experimental design. Many years ago there was an experiment on cold fusion producing power in a near 4:1 ratio. When this highly touted and successful experiment was UNsuccessfully re-created by at least 3 other labs, scientists disbelieved the first experiment.
Do you think that single successful experiment still provided more "proof" (more evidence) than those other 3?

Many experiments are done with single trials only, although in theoretical terms, no proper experimental design should follow such a protocol. However, in the case of the audio 'differences', as Alan has mentioned and many others have prescribed towards, tests have been done with very trained individuals more than just once over x number of years (Alan may fill in the gaps).
There comes a point where you trust that data as fact and quit second guessing. We could continue to test every week, every one and inevitably, we will still come across those instances where someone guesses correctly providing the 'positive' proof that you allude to.
However, that positive proof is well outweighed by the negative side (for lack of a better contrast in words) and it should be written off as chance, not proof that something still does exist. The same person would have to correctly guess differences, in multiple tests, multiple times consistently in a well controlled environment. (I added the last part b/c i have read about 'group' tests that were done and some miraculous individual did just that. However there was no information regarding the controls of the experiment so as far as we al know, there could have been a sighted flaw, something audible in switching that they figured out or even a hoax by a hosting company to show that 'proof' of their units are better because xx could hear.....)

If any theory of stats holds true, the point of conclusion must be reached and as far as i've seen and heard, it has been reached in regards to things like differences in cable sound.
I do believe that alot of ppl who enjoy audio have not had the chance to even know such data or material exists and again as Alan pointed out, even when put into a published format, masses of companies, and i imagine even hardcore (closed minded perhaps) audiophiles/audiophreaks turned their backs and would not even bother to give the material a second read.
It was refuted before it was even considered.

It is almost like Bush saying that global warming is not occurring because there is no proof for it 100%. Weight of evidence is the term that holds alot of water nowadays. and i hope to god that politicians start believing the weight of evidence sooner than later or the dumbasses are going to fry us all.
Did i just go off on another tangent there?

In reply to:

---

so they might roll off the highs a bit early

---

How on earth can a cable "roll off the highs"? I can buy that a cheap 18 guage cable may suffer signal loss or be subject to interference, but how can a length of copper wire selectively filter certain frequencies?

I will continue to use generic 12 guage speaker wire ($0.25/ft.) until somebody can show me convincing evidence that anything else outperforms it.

Did anybody see "Dateline" (or some other similar show) last night where they showed a clip of some people playing with a basketball? Anyway, they told viewers to count the number of passes made in the clip, and hardly anybody noticed the presence of a guy in a gorilla suit who walked through the frame. Just goes to show that our expectations can radically alter our perceptions. Cooper, it is equally possible that your expectation that your new speaker wire would be an improvement caused you to, in fact, perceive an improvement.

Mark

Actually, a cable CAN roll off highs.

This would never be an issue with speaker cables, but could happen in line level connections with small amounts of current. Every cable acts as a capacitor, just in different degrees. A capacitor, when used in audio applications, rolls off the high end.

Now the debate could be just what threshold of cable capacitance is audible...

Hey Chess,

I hope your papers go along well! It's tough to argue with a man who likes Guinness, so I'll try to make this brief.

The intention of the cold fusion researchers was to recreate the process. One "successful" experiment leads to the hope that it can be reproduced. If it cannot be done, then the reason is typically pinned down to a particular mistake in the original experiment, or to outright fraud.

This is not the case with audio cables. Cable skeptics dismiss all the witnesses' claims because "they wanted to hear it." Audio cables were never claimed to be the silver bullet, the cold fusion, of the audio world, so there's no way to contradict it with experiments. It's simply too well-established in most audiophile circles, contentious though it may be, to be dismissed so easily.

True snake-oil products tend to disappear after awhile, especially on the high end. After all, do you really think people enjoy spending thousands, or tens of thousands, of dollars on audio equipment if they aren't getting a real benefit? And there are satisfied audiophiles going on for decades now. I think the main issue here is that people tend to see expensive products as absurd when they can't afford them. There are plenty of cars that will out-accelerate a Ferrari for a fraction of the price, but so what? What about how it sounds when you start up a V12, what about how the leather feels against your skin, what about how it feels to grip the wheel through a decreasing-radius on ramp while easing on the throttle? Quantify that.

In the meantime I will try to find more objective information online for you non-believers. Here's an interesting, though not terribly well-written, article about cable theory posted by some audio dealer:
cable theory

-Cooper