The paper is misleading and a confused mess. For instance it was commented upon already, the post before mine, of the superiority of straight wire over monster. The paper does no such thing it uses 2 different cables through 2 different pathways which were never tested for distortion and noise and concluded the pathways sound different. The subjects were only given 2 choices there should have been a third choice , neither. Tests like this lead the respondents, the methodology is flawed.
Cables that measure the same but (seem?) to sound different
I have been having an extended dialogue with a certain objectivist who continues to insist to me that if two wires measure the same, in a stable acoustic environment, they must sound the same.
In response, I have told him that while I am not an engineer or in audio, I have heard differences in wires while keeping the acoustic environment static. I have told him that Robert Harley, podcasters, YouTuber's such as Tarun, Duncan Hunter and Darren Myers, Hans Beekhuyzen, Paul McGowan have all testified to extensive listening experiments where differences were palpable. My interlocutor has said that either it is the placebo effect, they're shilling for gear or clicks, or they're just deluded.
I've also pointed out that to understand listening experience, we need more than a few measurement; we also need to understand the physiology and psychological of perceptual experience, as well as the interpretation involved. Until those elements are well understood, we cannot even know what, exactly, to measure for. I've also pointed out that for this many people to be shills or delusionaries is a remote chance at best.
QUESTION: Who would you name as among the most learned people in audio, psychoacoustics, engineering, and psychology who argue for the real differences made by interconnects, etc.?
In response, I have told him that while I am not an engineer or in audio, I have heard differences in wires while keeping the acoustic environment static. I have told him that Robert Harley, podcasters, YouTuber's such as Tarun, Duncan Hunter and Darren Myers, Hans Beekhuyzen, Paul McGowan have all testified to extensive listening experiments where differences were palpable. My interlocutor has said that either it is the placebo effect, they're shilling for gear or clicks, or they're just deluded.
I've also pointed out that to understand listening experience, we need more than a few measurement; we also need to understand the physiology and psychological of perceptual experience, as well as the interpretation involved. Until those elements are well understood, we cannot even know what, exactly, to measure for. I've also pointed out that for this many people to be shills or delusionaries is a remote chance at best.
QUESTION: Who would you name as among the most learned people in audio, psychoacoustics, engineering, and psychology who argue for the real differences made by interconnects, etc.?
- ...
- 74 posts total
djones51, I don't agree that this paper is a "confused mess," but it does have both strengths and limitations that must be considered in interpreting the results. I agree that the paper doesn't show that Straight Wire cables are consistently better than Monster cables, but this was not the goal of the study. What it does show is that a moderately expensive balanced cable from Straight Wire sounds different than a less expensive single-ended cable from Monster, when each cable is connected using its intended pathway (i.e., either balanced XLR or single-ended RCA). Because methodological limitations in prior listening studies have made it difficult to identify reliable cable differences, the cables were chosen to be as different as possible to maximize the likelihood of finding a difference during double-blind listening trials. This approach made it impossible to tease out the specific contributions of the cable topology (XLR vs. RCA) from the effects of the cable geometry, conductors, dielectrics, etc. Studies that are designed to test those specific factors should be carried out in the future. It appears that you believe that the 2-choice stimulus-matching paradigm for the listening trials is too simple and should have employed a third choice as well. However, as the author discusses in the paper, the use of a rapidly changing ABX paradigm (or some other more complex format) is not ideal for listening trials involving musical passages. Using pilot testing with a small group of subjects, he identified problems with rapid stimulus presentations and with more demanding cognitive loads. Keeping the decisions simple and anchored to descriptors was used to maintain the subject's attention and prevent deterioration of performance due to fatigue. Most people who have participated in ABX listening trials know how frustrating it can be to have to juggle the data that go into same-different decisions and then to make rapid sonic judgments, especially when they worry that someone is trying to confuse or fool them by manipulating the way the stimuli are presented. These problems can often lead to reduced attention and performance later in a trial, even when the stimuli are simpler than complex musical passages. |
It's important to clarify that the use of a "placebo" in drug trials is different than controlling for the expectations of participants when comparing differences between two audio cables. In both cases, the use of a double-blind design can be used to control for expectation bias, but neither cable should be considered a placebo because both cables actually deliver an audio signal. |
unreceivedogma In pharmaceutical clinical trials, the placebo effect is A Thing, people get better because they think they are not in the control group ...Not exactly. Placebos won’t cure cancer. Those that prattle most consistently about placebo affect insist they have science on their side. Here's a gem from @mijostyn, who claims he's done the research: It is safe to assume the placebo effect as 50%. If I give 100 people with headaches a sugar pill 50 will tell you it made them better. This is why we always run controls.He runs controls! You'd think he'd be anxious to share his research - after all, he claims to be a medical doctor. But for some reason, the "proof" always goes "poof." Why is that? Of course, he's probably not a doctor, either. |
- 74 posts total