Ethernet Cables, do they make a difference?

geoffkait

Mutually agreed terms, even with lawyers involved, are no insurance whatsoever that the results of a listening test mean anything if the results are negative.

Quite so. Nor does it necessarily mean anything even when the results are positive. And lawyers are certainly not required to develop a scientifically valid test protocol.

Even if both participants are experienced audiophiles they are subject to the laws of listening tests ... If it were true that all you needed was mutually agreed terms then any two knuckleheads who wanted to “prove” some particular controversial tweak a hoax

Agreed.
But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. While I've stated many times that I think the typical audiophile has little use for scientific listening tests - they're time consuming, cumbersome, sometimes frustrating and tedious - that doesn't mean they have no value whatsoever. But when conducting such tests, researchers need to be sure that the test itself is truly scientific, that variables have been eliminated and that the protocol follows established practices. That's not as easy as it might seem to the casual observer. And failing to use proper protocol yields results that are completely unreliable - perhaps even more so than sighted listening.

But when conducting such tests, researchers need to be sure that the test itself is truly scientific, that variables have been eliminated and that the protocol follows established practices. That's not as easy as it might seem to the casual observer. And failing to use proper protocol yields results that are completely unreliable - perhaps even more so than sighted listening. 

Totally. The tests put forth are not in any way definitive. Nor are they the test to be conducted. As silly as it sounds, the A/B/X test would have to be tested since so far, it's only been a parlor trick. There would have to be short term tests and long term tests in order to eliminate faulty conceptual constructs in the design of the tests.

Looking at what the testers demand demonstrates a skirting of any actual test and instead, conditions guaranteed to scuttle any findings that would demonstrate that there are discernible differences.

All the best,
Nonoise

nonoise

... As silly as it sounds, the A/B/X test would have to be tested since so far, it’s only been a parlor trick. There would have to be short term tests and long term tests in order to eliminate faulty conceptual constructs in the design of the tests.

I agree that ABX testing has not been shown to be the definitive listening test, although it has proven useful in some scenarios. And I agree that long-term testing - which doesn’t necessarily exclude using the ABX protocol - is necessary to produce valid results, imo.

Looking at what the testers demand demonstrates a skirting of any actual test and instead, conditions guaranteed to scuttle any findings.

It looks like that's been their actual intent, hence the demands for contracts approved by attorneys, $25,000 advance payments, the allure of 5-1 odds and other such nonsense. I've actually yet to see any sincere initiative here to design and conduct a proper scientific listening test. Instead, the demands for such testing are placed on others as a red herring by pseudo-skeptics. At least so far.

cleeds

geoffkait “Mutually agreed terms, even with lawyers involved, are no insurance whatsoever that the results of a listening test mean anything if the results are negative.”

Quite so. Nor does it necessarily mean anything even when the results are positive. And lawyers are certainly not required to develop a scientifically valid test protocol.

>>>>>>Nope, sorry to disagree. Positive results are - at a minimum - interesting and can be persuasive. You cannot obtain positive results rational test procedure. Obviously a one shot test that’s positive doesn’t mean as much as say a blind test with 5 trials.

There is no such thing as a scientifically valid audio test or test procedure as I’ve already explained. Looks like a Mexican standoff. 

I found this statement from John Atkinson (the one that measurement obsessed folk fall back on for support) to put a kibosh on most A/B/X tests:  

...2nd order behaviors -eg-distortion signatures and noise modulations that characterize sound quality, and these things take a lot of listening to identify.    

It's what I and others have repeatedly stated: long term listening is the correct way to identify sound signatures and clues. You can get the gist of a cable or fuse or what have you but it takes immersion in the music, over time, to correctly assess anything, unless it's something glaringly apparent.

All the best,
Nonoise