Blind Listening Comparison

[wil]

As I said before, still waiting to read about a proper audiophile blind test with current high end equipment.

I'm doubtful there is anyone on WBF who has ever conducted a blind test that would meet your criteria of "proper."

That, however, in my opinion, does not invalidate the use of less rigorous unsighted listening tests as a likely, or at least potentially, more useful evaluation tool than a similar evaluation done sighted.

Manufacturers use unsighted evaluations in making decisions as well. I've read here of Emile at Taiko doing so. Lukas at Lampizator discussed how they used unsighted listening to decide upon different resistors for the Horizon. And, Mike Moffit of Schitt when evaluating different DAC circuits.

I'm sure none of them followed a procedure that would meet the standards of a peer reviewed scientific journal, but yet they still find it useful.

 

[Gregadd]

I

It's not confirmation bias to read the results of *blind* tests that find no audible difference between generic and esoteric speaker wires, for example, and then draw the conclusions that I have expressed here. If you look at the gear in my signature (Trinnov Altitude, JVC RS4100) you can see that I do indeed spend significant money on A/V gear that I believe will improve my experience. I can afford fancy cables, but choose not to buy them simply because I don't believe that they will improve what I hear. Have I personally demo'ed high end cables? I've heard them connected to high end equipment at audio shows and stores, but there was no A/B testing involved that would allow me to conclude that one cable was superior to another.

Power cables, the subject of this thread, are just wires. RCL - resistance, capacitance, and inductance are the characteristics of a wire. I assume that the standard power cable that comes in the box with each piece of A/V equipment should be sufficient to power the equipment without degrading the sound. If altering the RCL characteristics of that stock power cable yielded some audible improvement, wouldn't high end audio equipment manufacturers already include cables with those characteristics?

Again, no intent to ruffle feathers. It would be easier to give weight to my arguments if I could link to articles, measurement data, & threads on other forums that support my position. It would not be appropriate to do that however, so I'll just leave it there...

I have fifty dollar power cables that make a huge difference to me.

Phrases llke "I assume", "should be sufficient" ,don't inspire confidence to me.
Manufacturers do believe power cables make a difference .They have come along way from the two pronged plugs ad sixteen gauge wire. Indeed they have changed to IEC connectors to facilitate the use of premium power cords. They use aftermarket cords in their factory and at shows as you pointed out. They (most of them)chose to allow their customers to make their own choice based on costs and sonic benefits.
if you chose to rely on the tests of others that is fine by me. It just seems to me, if nothing else audiophile curiosity would peak your interest. You could try it in you own system.

 

[henrich3]

Don't worry, you're not ruffling any feathers, certainly not mine. You might if your convictions made me insecure about mine, but they don't.

I have been in your place of thinking, at least with respect to AC cables, and I have abandoned that position for a better place. If you want to keep sticking in yours, that's entirely your choice and perfectly fine. It's your system and your pleasure, after all.

Above I have posted a link to a post by someone that made me think, as he points out why so-called objectivists may be technically wrong on AC cables (there are important follow-ups, also by him, on that thread). If you are not interested in the subject as I was, that's your loss, not mine.

Excerpt from your linked post:
"The error is here "what about the thousands of feet of crap copper cables in your walls, huh?" - Its the last 6 feet of cable that supplies the power, believe it or not, out of the space around the cable, weird!

No electrons (i.e zero) from the power station go anywhere near your amplifier, all ac does is jiggle them an inch one way or another. How can they get from the power station if they are moving back and forth? The key electrons are in the last 6 feet of cable! Only in DC do they drift very, very slowly, but power is instantaneous => Poynting

The thing that moves is the induced E-M field caused by potential difference moving electrons one way then the other. This wave moves at approx the speed of light which is why a power switch seems instantaneous. Power per unit area is given by the Poynting vector going radially into the wire from outside the wire. In a mains cable, the power is kept within the dielectric coating into the wire, Poynting vector is zero outside the dielectric if its thick or good enough."

I did not see evidence in your linked post or the first several responses to it for the audible superiority of high end power cables over OEM cables.

 

[Gregadd]

I'm doubt there is anyone on WBF who has ever conducted a blind test that would meet your criteria of "proper."

That, however, in my opinion, does not invalidate the use of less rigorous unsighted listening tests as a likely, or at least potentially, more useful evaluation tool than a similar evaluation done sighted.

Manufacturers use unsighted evaluations is making decisions as well. I've read here of Emile at Taiko doing so. Lukas at Lampizator discussed how they used unsighted listening to decide upon different resistors for the Horizon. And, Mike Moffit of Schitt when evaluating different DAC circuits.

I'm sure none of them followed a procedure that would meet the standards of a peer reviewed scientific journal, but yet they still find it useful.
[/Quote
Gregadd
Again late me state there is no "informal science." Turn back over Einstein. Ranking nom-science is folly. No doubt you are being confused that there is such a thing as a blind test. If you don't use scientific method you do not have a conclusion from which you can generalize from. Your well considered opinion not withstanding.[

 

[Al M.]

I'm sure none of them followed a procedure that would meet the standards of a peer reviewed scientific journal, but yet they still find it useful.

What's more. there is no procedure that would meet the standards of a self-respecting peer reviewed scientific journal, since all human perception involves fickle human psychology (even in blind tests). Humans are not robots. Unlike molecules or particles they don't predictably follow laws of nature, and thus cannot readily be subjected to an objective scientific study as molecules or particles can.

 

[Al M.]

Excerpt from your linked post:
"The error is here "what about the thousands of feet of crap copper cables in your walls, huh?" - Its the last 6 feet of cable that supplies the power, believe it or not, out of the space around the cable, weird!

No electrons (i.e zero) from the power station go anywhere near your amplifier, all ac does is jiggle them an inch one way or another. How can they get from the power station if they are moving back and forth? The key electrons are in the last 6 feet of cable! Only in DC do they drift very, very slowly, but power is instantaneous => Poynting

The thing that moves is the induced E-M field caused by potential difference moving electrons one way then the other. This wave moves at approx the speed of light which is why a power switch seems instantaneous. Power per unit area is given by the Poynting vector going radially into the wire from outside the wire. In a mains cable, the power is kept within the dielectric coating into the wire, Poynting vector is zero outside the dielectric if its thick or good enough."

I did not see evidence in your linked post or the first several responses to it for the audible superiority of high end power cables over OEM cables.

That evidence was not the point of the post.

That post also implies that power stations are useless, because in A/C current electrons jiggle back & forth. I would not agree with that, and I expect that most readers on this forum would disagree as well.

Does it imply that? You are misreading this.

 

[wil]

@Gregadd

So, I gather you find any comparative un-sighted listening tests to be invalid, or useless, unless it meets a particular criteria of formal Scientific testing?

Can you be specific, or point to a link, which outlines the procedure that MUST be followed for an unsighted test to useful to an audiophile?

I'm guessing the Science bar for blind testing would be so onerous that no audiophile in their right mind would embark to go there.

Im also presuming that you regard less formal Sighted tests to be equally useless and un-Scientific?

 

[Al M.]

So, I gather you find any comparative un-sighted listening tests to be invalid, or useless, unless it meets a particular criteria of formal Scientific testing?

Can you be specific, or point to a link, which outlines the procedure that MUST be followed for an unsighted test to useful to an audiophile?

I'm guessing the Science bar for blind testing would be so onerous that no audiophile in their right mind would embark to go there.

Im also presuming that you regard less formal Sighted tests to be equally useless and un-Scientific?

( I assume this post is addressed to me.)

You misunderstood. I was actually trying to emphasize your point, not undermine it.

Blind tests can be useful, and so can be sighted tests.

However, to call even the most rigorous blind tests objective or even "scientific", as opposed to sighted tests, is foolish.

There is nothing scientific about any test involving human perception that is also influenced by human psychology. And this psychology affects both blind (or double-blind) and sighted tests. Even the most rigorous procedure does not change that.

Yet the fact that we don't have "scientific" tests does not invalidate the testing that we do. Otherwise we could all go home and listen to a perfectly measuring (even that notion is flawed) but cheapo system, leaving high-end by the wayside and selling all that worthless expensive crap.

 

[henrich3]

I have fifty dollar power cables that make a huge difference to me.

Phrases llke "I assume", "should be sufficient" ,don't inspire confidence to me.
Manufacturers do believe power cables make a difference .They have come along way from the two pronged plugs ad sixteen gauge wire. Indeed they have changed to IEC connectors to facilitate the use of premium power cords. They use aftermarket cords in their factory and at shows as you pointed out. They (most of them)chose to allow their customers to make their own choice based on costs and sonic benefits.
if you chose to rely on the tests of others that is fine by me. It just seems to me, if nothing else audiophile curiosity would peak your interest. You could try it in you own system.

My objectivist audiophile curiosity is currently piqued by room EQ solutions. Not so much about cables anymore since I've read enough test results on that subject to have reached the conclusions which I've already outlined.

If folks enjoy having high end speaker & power cables in their systems, that's 100% fine by me. I'm also very happy with the sound of my system, even with my "low end" cables. They're all of sufficient gauge & do their jobs well. I credit my acoustic treatments & Trinnov room EQ processing & target curve to the sound quality of my system - not my cables which I believe are audibly transparent. Others may disagree and that's fine.

Cheers to all.

 

[Gregadd]

@Gregadd

So, I gather you find any comparative un-sighted listening tests to be invalid, or useless, unless it meets a particular criteria of formal Scientific testing?

Can you be specific, or point to a link, which outlines the procedure that MUST be followed for an unsighted test to useful to an audiophile?

I'm guessing the Science bar for blind testing would be so onerous that no audiophile in their right mind would embark to go there.

Im also presuming that you regard less formal Sighted tests to be equally useless and un-Scientific?

Let's say you wanted to poll something like which is the most popular color, red or blue to do shown on your podcast. Let us suppose you got a thousand responses and red won by 2/3. That poll could be fun . It could be used. Now suppose I di my same poll and 2/3 preferred blue. Which poll is scientific.? Neither. Which poll is more reliable neither? They are straw polls. To find the preference you don't have to question every person in America. But they are are very strict rules if you are going to take those results and apply the to the general public(those not questioned). Moreover, you can't say my poll is better because I followed one rule. Both are straw polls and apply only to the group polled.
If you do a test in your basement the results apply only to those tested (don't even think about the need for a cross section of cables)and you cannot say because I did not hear any difference in my test , then therefore there is no difference.

I did post a link once for a scientific test for small differences in audio equipment. I do not remember where.

 

[Gregadd]

My objectivist audiophile curiosity is currently piqued by room EQ solutions. Not so much about cables anymore since I've read enough test results on that subject to have reached the conclusions which I've already outlined.

If folks enjoy having high end speaker & power cables in their systems, that's 100% fine by me. I'm also very happy with the sound of my system, even with my "low end" cables. They're all of sufficient gauge & do their jobs well. I credit my acoustic treatments & Trinnov room EQ processing & target curve to the sound quality of my system - not my cables which I believe are audibly transparent. Others may disagree and that's fine.

Cheers to all.

I get it your attention is devoted to linear distortions and the lack thereof.
Baby steps.
" not my cables which I believe are audibly transparent. " Is it fair to infer from that you believe cables can have a sonic signature? Or are saying that all cables are transparent?

 

[wil]

( I assume this post is addressed to me.)

You misunderstood. I was actually trying to emphasize your point, not undermine it.

Blind tests can be useful, and so can be sighted tests.

However, to call even the most rigorous blind tests objective or even "scientific", as opposed to sighted tests, is foolish.

There is nothing scientific about any test involving human perception that is also influenced by human psychology. And this psychology affects both blind (or double-blind) and sighted tests. Even the most rigorous procedure does not change that.

Yet the fact that we don't have "scientific" tests does not invalidate the testing that we do. Otherwise we could all go home and listen to a perfectly measuring (even that notion is flawed) but cheapo system, leaving high-end by the wayside and selling all that worthless expensive crap.

Sorry, it was addressed to @Gregadd. I agree with your take on it!

 

[wil]

Let's say you wanted to poll something like which is the most popular color, red or blue to do shown on your podcast. Let us suppose you got a thousand responses and red won by 2/3. That poll could be fun . It could be used. Now suppose I di my same poll and 2/3 preferred blue. Which poll is scientific.? Neither. Which poll is more reliable neither? They are straw polls. To find the preference you don't have to question every person in America. But they are are very strict rules if you are going to take those results and apply the to the general public(those not questioned). Moreover, you can't say my poll is better because I followed one rule. Both are straw polls and apply only to the group polled.
If you do a test in your basement the results apply only to those tested (don't even think about the need for a cross section of cables)and you cannot say because I did not hear any difference in my test , then therefore there is no difference.

I did post a link once for a scientific test for small differences in audio equipment. I do not remember where.

I think the pertinent point is that the testing we are talking about, and that I find (sometimes) personally useful, is not Science. It's simply a low threshold, fallible, way for an audiophile in his basement to possibly make an evaluation that (in my opinion and experience) will be less fallible than an equivalent sighted test.

 

[Gregadd]

I think the pertinent point is that the testing we are talking about, and that I find (sometimes) personally useful, is not Science. It's simply a low threshold, fallible, way for an audiophile in his basement to possibly make an evaluation that (in my opinion and experience) will be less fallible than an equivalent sighted test.

And Idisagree. that's all.

 

[henrich3]

I get it your attention is devoted to linear distortions and the lack thereof.
Baby steps.
" not my cables which I believe are audibly transparent. " Is it fair to infer from that you believe cables can have a sonic signature? Or are saying that all cables are transparent?

I believe that all properly designed power cables of sufficient gauge are (or should be) audibly transparent. I believe that *most* properly designed speaker cables of sufficient gauge are audibly transparent. I've seen speaker cable tests that include cables that have unusually high or low values for their inductance or capacitance. Those cables may not be audibly transparent, particularly with regard to a speaker's high frequency response. It's debatable however whether those unusual-spec'ed cables are "better" than standard designs. They're just different.

 

[COF]

I never said anyone's evaluation was invalid. I did say in order to extrapolate the result to the general public you must follow a strict criteria. Bo exceptions.. Trying to account for one variable does not cut it.
I can't be any clearer..

You could certainly have been clearer. The only reason this conversation continuded is that you've been all over the place trying to find something I wrote deserving of your initial sarcasm and critique. But you haven't been able to find it, falling back on strawmen as needed.

I never claimed my own tests extrapolate to the general public; I've been explicit about that. So raising that complaint had no substance.

But then you asked if I would just accept your claim to hear differences (presumably between AC cables) and I answered why I wouldn't. You didn't really address my reasoning.

You tried to put your sighted evaluations on the same level as my blind tests:

"That makes my sighted test as valid as your blind test."

I've given the argument as to why that wouldn't be the case. If you are not controlling for well known variables like sighted bias and I am (and you can't find a fault in my test procedure), then..no...your sighted test is not on the same footing as the method I used to reach my conclusion.

You also tried to poke holes in my blind test evaluation, and I answered that critique.

But now you've gone back to raising points that has already been established as something I never claimed, and so it doesn't point to anything wrong in what I posted.

Aren't we, then, in the end....actually in agreement?

 

[COF]

Very interesting. Thanks Gregm.

I immediately perceived a difference (more clarity is what I remember), more so after about 10 mins. It was easily discernible, blind or otherwise.

Could you tell us how you determined that the difference was "easily discernable" in blind test conditions? If you did a blind test, how did you perform the test? Thanks.

Whaddya know, the response curve was slightly different, in the upper mids & high frequencies as well. We measured at high amplitudes.

Again, very interesting.

When measurements are included in the evaluation, there are always at least to questions to address in testing such claims:

1. Is there a measurable difference?
2. IF there IS a measurable difference, is it audible?

Because, of course, we can measure things that aren't audible.

Did you determine that the measured differences were audible under controlled listening conditions?

 

[COF]

No, it was not double blind. I don't see how that would have made any difference, since my friend didn't let on even a little bit which was which. Again, to the point where I was seriously sweating it out.

While double blind tests are the gold standard, that doesn't rule out single blind tests as informative.

We never have perfect knowledge, so all inferences are about scaling confidence to the level of evidence we have.

Remember that double-blind testing mostly arose for situations in which the experimenter was in a position to exchange or influence the information in the test (and visa versa). Some single blind tests can be set up so that variable is less likely.
(I've managed a few such single-blind tests, I believe).

I raise a glass in cheer to you, for attempting a blind test. That at least shows a willingness to truly test your hearing...rather than always doing so under conditions in which you are "peeking."

 

[COF]

(As I have written many times I think the whole cable thing is a frustrating, but unavoidable, morass. Unfortunately for me (unlike for you with your policy decision) it is crystal clear to my ears that different cables sound different.

That's cool. Again, a high confidence in the reliability of your perception seems to be your policy, and we all get to do this stuff how we want.

But would you acknowledge that it's at least reasonable for someone else to be skeptical of what you might believe regarding cables? It seems in so many audiophile forums "Everything Makes A Difference" is the default, so you have people claiming everything under the sun "changes the sound" but a skeptical opinion is often taken as some sort of intrusion or muckraking or indicative of a closed mind etc.

I'm on the ASR forum a lot and while I absolutely agree with the general principle that, if we REALLY want to be careful in our
conclusions about audio gear, it doesn't make sense to ignore the relevance of measurements, known theory and practice, and variables like sighted biases.

On the other hand, we audiophiles aren't doing science. That would be impractical if not impossible for much of what we buy. Most of us aren't experts, and blind testing can be difficult and just a drag if you arent in to it, which most people are not. So, as I've said, I view these things as tools any individual can use...or not.

I do my best to scale my confidence to the type of differences I'm looking at. I hear a difference between speakers? I'm good with that. Even with speakers bias can infect our perception, but practically speaking speakers do sound different, so I'm fine with my sighted conclusions (or the reports of other people). If I think I hear a difference between, say, AC cables or music servers...as I seemed to at points!...knowing this is less technically plausible, I prefer to double-check my impressions controlling for my bias. And, in the case of both those items, it turned out I couldn't really tell a difference once I didn't know which I was listening to. I found that helpful.

But then we get in to what I see as more gray areas, for instance differences between amplifiers. Hearing differences between well designed solid state amps (which are appropriate for the load of a given speaker?). That's in to more technically controversial areas so, before I presume a difference I'd prefer to see measurable differences that suggest audible differences and/or someone passing listening tests controlling for bias.

Difference between tube amps and solid state amps? Well...that's in to a technically plausible, and generally widely accepted "there can be measurable/audible differences." And...hey...I am an inveterate Tube Amp guy because I perceive distinct differences between my CJ amps and the solid state amps I've tried. I'm more comfortable provisionally accepting
I'm hearing these differences, because they are at least plausible...though of course it COULD have been a bias effect "Tubes are going to sound warmer, more lush...because...tubes." (As it happens, even there, for kicks I did a blind test between my Benchmark LA4 preamp and my CJ Premier 16SL 2 preamp, and easily and reliably discerned between them...not all blind tests are "negative" for differences).

But then, I also got in to tube rolling. There are arguments for why different tubes can make a difference...but also arguments for why it's often unlikely they will make an audible difference. Over on the ASR forum there are some quite skeptical and would like to see solid data for these claims rather than "I heard a difference."

The thing is: I respect that. Do I seem to perceive a difference between different types of tubes in my CJ - e.g. swapping the 6550s for KT120s? Hell ya!

But I UNDERSTAND that someone else can reasonably be skeptical and not want to rely just on my say-so. I have no problem whatsoever with someone at ASR remaining skeptical. Doesn't hurt or bother me at all.

And, unlike so many audiophiles I've encountered on forums, I'm NOT going to take my ears as So Infallible that I will call anyone skeptical a blinded dogmatist, or cast aspersions on their experience, or their ears, or their gear.

That's the thing with the Golden Ears approach: It's infallible, and allows the Golden Eared person to believe his claim in the face of any objective counter evidence, and to ALWAYS be able to claim "Well, I guess I just have more sensitive hearing and experience than you do...you poor person..."

I could claim to hear angels singing in the background when a certain AC cable was in use. "Oh, you don't hear it too? You must not have my Golden Ears." What if someone says "Can we do a test where you don't know which cable is in use, so we are testing JUST your ability to hear what you claim?" Well, if I reject that method, or the relevance of measurements, then I just leave my claim untouched, unable to be falsified. I can go on forever just claiming "I can hear things YOU can't."

But...nobody else is obliged to take that claim seriously. Yet it's amazing how often the "My claims have more validity because I've played with much more expensive equipment than you have" response, which of course does not address the central problem - the method a person is using for his conclusions - in the first place.

Putting it another way, the whole cable thing would be much less of a morass if we could be confident that we subjectively sonically prefer the more expensive cable every time.)

Like I mentioned before, another way the cable thing would be much less of a morass is if audiophiles followed standard
electronics theory, where the characteristics and requirements for cabling are quite well defined. It's when people start injecting magic dust in to the pursuit, and buying in to countless manufacturer claims and audiophile shibboleths "everything can make a difference" "everything needs burn in" etc, that can lead to a morass.

*I'm just raising a counter-example as a way of thinking about it. A way that many audiophiles IN FACT think about it, and IN FACT don't fuss about the "morass" that many other audiophiles get in to with cabling. Personally, I look mostly at the basic requirements I need to meet with cables, and don't fuss beyond that. It's not the case I'm unfamiliar with high end cables.
I've been in this hobby a long time and have had access to all sorts of cabling. I've heard my own speakers on cabling costing up to $50,000 or more (e.g. high end Nordost, Crystal cable etc). Sometimes my current system has had Nordost, or other high end cables, on lend when I've been in a fix requiring some cables. But, for instance, I recently had on loan a pair of very well reviewed $4,500/pair XLR cables going between my Benchmark DAC and Benchmark LA4 preamp - among the most technically transparent audio devices you can buy. I had to replace the "high end" XLR cables so I just bought good pro grade XLR cables for around $50. I couldn't detect on iota of "lost information" with the cheaper cables. Which is just as electrical/cable theory would predict. So, I'm familiar with high end cabling. No it's not a morass for me - I don't fuss over it (and certainly don't worry about "break in"...).

But, to each his own...

Cheers.

 

[microstrip]

It's not confirmation bias to read the results of *blind* tests that find no audible difference between generic and esoteric speaker wires, for example, and then draw the conclusions that I have expressed here. If you look at the gear in my signature (Trinnov Altitude, JVC RS4100) you can see that I do indeed spend significant money on A/V gear that I believe will improve my experience. I can afford fancy cables, but choose not to buy them simply because I don't believe that they will improve what I hear. Have I personally demo'ed high end cables? I've heard them connected to high end equipment at audio shows and stores, but there was no A/B testing involved that would allow me to conclude that one cable was superior to another.

IMO it is confirmation bias to believe in the results of blind tests when we know that these tests are not relevant in the high end.

Power cables, the subject of this thread, are just wires. RCL - resistance, capacitance, and inductance are the characteristics of a wire. I assume that the standard power cable that comes in the box with each piece of A/V equipment should be sufficient to power the equipment without degrading the sound. If altering the RCL characteristics of that stock power cable yielded some audible improvement, wouldn't high end audio equipment manufacturers already include cables with those characteristics?

Please read for example the Shunyata articles on power cables and a good text book on grounding, such as the last edition of Ralph Morrison "Grounding and Shielding Techniques in Instrumentation" - you would be able to understand why in real world, using current equipment audiophile power cables can make a difference. We have been debating power cables for long, do a search in our past threads if you enjoy the subject.

Again, no intent to ruffle feathers. It would be easier to give weight to my arguments if I could link to articles, measurement data, & threads on other forums that support my position. It would not be appropriate to do that however, so I'll just leave it there...

We have put links in this forum since its early days - they were always welcome. We even debated the color of links in a long thread some time ago ...