Audio signals sent through copper wire, a banana, or wet mud

[Analogous]

Audiophiles "hurt" over findings that say they spent tooooo much? Shocker!

It’s a stretch to assume that this ridiculous experiment hurts audiophiles?

 

[dafreaking]

did you see the "hurt" in " or choose to completely ignore that like wet mud

 

[Analogous]

did you see the "hurt" in " or choose to completely ignore that like wet mud

If You want it to be so, it will

 

[square_wave]

When the test itself is rigged to align with an opinion, it is neither an experiment nor a finding.

This is quite true. I remember a decade ago having a conversation with a group of "double blind testers" on an audio forum. I tried to tell them that beyond the point where basic mesurements and technical parameters are reliably met, the differences are minor but some of those minor differences are huge differences for some people depending upon their unique context in terms of equipment they own and what they are looking for. So, I suggested an alternative testing method:

The equipment are kept in a different room or kept covered. Do this with an experienced listener who is intimately aware of the system and listening environment where the test is being done. Just the loudspeakers are visible. Now you swap gear or cables without the listener knowing any of it. Let the listener who owns the system listen to however long they want. Redo / Swap as many times as possible while keeping the listener blind to what gear / cable is being used. Do volume matching/swaping using some method that does not affect the signal in anyway. As long as the expereinced listener is able to identify his preference reliably, the test should be valid. This type of a test resembles typical real world scenarios for an audiophile.

The "double blind tester" group will have none of it! They need to do it their way which will get them the results they want.

Many blind tests are:

• Quick A/B switches
• Done in unfamilier systems and environments
• Conducted over seconds using some random music.
• Many participants are not "trained listeners"

However,

• Real differences show up over long-term listening ( Many people look for unique strengths and weaknesses in the gear / cable )
• Fatigue, tone density, spatial cues, and emotional engagement emerge over hours or days
• Rapid switching forces analytical listening instead of musical immersion
• Very resolving systems reveal micro-dynamics and decay differences. Average blind tests use modest gear in unfamiliar rooms
• The room + familiarity matter enormously
• Blind tests rarely happen in optimized, owner-familiar environments.

 

[Analogous]

I am surprised, looking back at this discussion on how much time I have spent discussing this experiment and its findings (flawed or not)
Maybe @dafreaking is right. It has caused a tremor in the very foundation of my audio convictions

 

[arj]

Why waste time talking of this. Those who believe the test can use banana cables and those who feel there is a difference can go bananas over cables

There are enough tests where famous wine lovers are unable to tell differences between cheap and expensive wines or experts even preferring instant coffee over "superior" beans

Its a useless debate unless one listens actually to a system blindfolded.

 

[Analogous]

I agree it’s not a helpful or useful topic that helps in anyway.
I just now realised how much time I spent on this.
It was clickbait for curious audiophiles.

 

[square_wave]

It has caused a tremor in the very foundation of my audio convictions

It does not have to. You know if something works for you after listening to it for about a day or a week max. If it does not, you will know that too. Easy!

Remember, loudspeakers are the only gear that can produce big enough distortions these days. All other devices have reached a point, where measurable distortions have reached a threshold that is miniscule. So it is only the ART aspect of the design that will help you get what you need in your system. Audiophilia is all about the emotional connection so dont get caught up in all these stuff..IMHO.

 

[grindstone]

It's good, IMO, that these things periodically come-up. Part of the trip, at least for those of us with strong interests. All the "audibility of..." sorts of corners can eat some time and, for me at least, they help us decide what we're spending time on. With time and age, most of us refine the process of closing our minds (and it's the right call for us)

One of the greatest things about this group is that it has a wisdom to not take itself crazy-audiophile-over-seriously. People remain civil in discourse and open to experience -- and to others having different experiences. I can't even tell you how valuable that is to me and how rare in my (virtual audio) travels. I don't know how much if any of that is cultural and/or how much is masterful self-discipline. I am simply grateful to have found this place and you people. What I can promise you is that, if distortion were mentioned 35 years ago on Usenet, that would've generated 30 responses regarding any applicability of same to Any subject

It is a useful topic and it was good to raise it. Say that instead you had raised a paper on audibility of group delay or the GedLee metric or impact of VHF freqs or some other, "less-charged" but related topic. You look at any of these things (and now you've read Toole etc) and it reminds one of the statistical characterizations of humans.

I didn't do this test, in particular, so I can't comment, but I've done them in the past a couple times. If I were full of coffee and had spare media, I'd make copies and send them around and turn it into an excuse to make an audio get-together with a couple local friends. There are things, both ways, that I'll never be able to explain. I think these topics help all of us on our audio paths to decide what is of interest. We both grow and better-inform our own directions. A lot of things come-around every 15 years. They're fun, sometimes