John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
Alec said:
I did presume that, yes, though sometimes it's worth restating one's position for the benefit of others.
Now, the white I think...
idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,142
- 117
- 19,370
Before and in the main during my forum 'holiday' I started to research the thorny question of cables. I wanted to avoid the round-a-bout nature of cable threads and their inevitable descent into squabbling and moderation. I am not a scientist, but I with my degree and legal training and work I have to evidence what I say and follow that evidence to its conclusion, no matter what the conclusion is.
To blow my own trumpet here, I started the first meta analysis of blind testing of hifi components and cables back in March 2010. The original is on Head-fi and now runs to 1366 replies and 88,819 views. That study is still going strong and continually yields exactly the same results. The result for cables is that it does not matter what a cable is made of or how it is made, it inherantly does not affect sound quality. (It also finds other parts of the hifi chain have different results).
To self check that result I have looked for corroboration and have found it with a study of cable maker claims about cables, how they are made and what they are made of, which finds not causal link between cables and sound quality (ie deeper bass, better sound stage etc). I looked at cable measurements and again found no causal link betweeen how a cable measures and reports of its sound quality. I looked at evidence regarding how the listener themselves can affect or influence sound quality. All of that is in my blog.
The conclusion is that the listener has a huge effect on sound quality, hence the 'night and day' differences reported on this forum, other hifi forums and by hifi professionals from makers to reviewers for hifi components that in themselves should make no difference whatsoever.
Instead of the usual nonsense we could move on and study this topic further. I will continue to do that and post here. But so far not so good as people prefer to ignore the evidence, keep going round and round and the 'scientists' here get a bit of a bashing.
To blow my own trumpet here, I started the first meta analysis of blind testing of hifi components and cables back in March 2010. The original is on Head-fi and now runs to 1366 replies and 88,819 views. That study is still going strong and continually yields exactly the same results. The result for cables is that it does not matter what a cable is made of or how it is made, it inherantly does not affect sound quality. (It also finds other parts of the hifi chain have different results).
To self check that result I have looked for corroboration and have found it with a study of cable maker claims about cables, how they are made and what they are made of, which finds not causal link between cables and sound quality (ie deeper bass, better sound stage etc). I looked at cable measurements and again found no causal link betweeen how a cable measures and reports of its sound quality. I looked at evidence regarding how the listener themselves can affect or influence sound quality. All of that is in my blog.
The conclusion is that the listener has a huge effect on sound quality, hence the 'night and day' differences reported on this forum, other hifi forums and by hifi professionals from makers to reviewers for hifi components that in themselves should make no difference whatsoever.
Instead of the usual nonsense we could move on and study this topic further. I will continue to do that and post here. But so far not so good as people prefer to ignore the evidence, keep going round and round and the 'scientists' here get a bit of a bashing.
John Duncan said:
Imo stating how cables matter or not and why is better than not reviewing them at all.
Imo having part of a mag as an unsubstantiated reviews is poor vfm for me so not good for the mag.
Imo it is also misleading for others.
Imo it also reduces the credibility of other reviews in the mag.
None of these is good for the mag.
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
AlmaataKZ said:
An opinion which, if taken as a whole, I do not agree with, but which has not been moderated nor has resulted in the banning of the poster. If you prefer forum moderation like this, see my post above about magazines.
http://www.whathifi.com/how-we-test
Useful link! It doesn't specify how HDMI cables are tested. So it won't answer your question. It does say over £1m has been invested in state-of-the-art testing equipment, and that the reviews are fair, honest and accurate. Therefore, I would assume this question can easily be addressed should someone from the magazine see it. Seems a simple enough query and they certainly appear to have the relevant equipment and staff to respond fully.
Useful link! It doesn't specify how HDMI cables are tested. So it won't answer your question. It does say over £1m has been invested in state-of-the-art testing equipment, and that the reviews are fair, honest and accurate. Therefore, I would assume this question can easily be addressed should someone from the magazine see it. Seems a simple enough query and they certainly appear to have the relevant equipment and staff to respond fully.
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
goodfellas said:
Welcome to the Forum goodfellas. Interesting first post continuing the recent trend for new members to appear on some contentious thread then disappear into the virtual night when it's run its course. Hope you'll stay around.
Alec said:
For the opinion provided to be considered accurate I would expect it to be supported by factual information/data, to demonstrate how the reviewer reached their conclusion. Without that the opinion becomes less valid but that's not to say it's incorrect or wrong.
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
John Duncan said:
Thanks John.
I did suspect that the cable reviews are purely subjective without the use of any kind of measurements to check for differences but I just wasn't sure.
Also, for what it's worth I think that you're doing a fine job as forum moderator. It must feel like you're walking a tight rope and you'll never be able to keep everyone happy.
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
What sort of balance of opinions the forum users have on increasing objective element in the reviews vs keeping as is? I for one is for increasing it.
What do others think?
What do others think?
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
AlmaataKZ said:
+1 for increasing the objective element.
Although subjective reviewing is still very important aswell.
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
AlmaataKZ said:
I am against it. Not because I think objectivity has no value, but because you would end up without a magazine.
I'll take their subjective opinions - which i respect greatly, but will not slavishly obey - as a starting point and if I think I need to add objectivity, or my own subjectivity, I will do so. The bits I don't agree with I will ignore.
Oh, yes. Increasing objective element In addition to, not instead of the subjective.
Edit - this comment is in responce to steve's above.
Edit - this comment is in responce to steve's above.
idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,142
- 117
- 19,370
AlmaataKZ said:
Imo
1 - sighted cable reviews produce interesting results and are worthwhile
2 - I do not such reviews as unsusbstantiated as they are corroborated many times over by the subjective opinion of people who get to listen to lots and lots of hifis. I always thought it was odd that there are many many very credible people hearing differences that supposedly cannot be there. It just turns out we were looking in the wrong place for the answers. It is accurate for a reviewer to say that two cables sound different as they really do. To say that is not good for the magazine is wrong as it is accurate reviewing.
3 - the issue of misleading is a difficult one. If you hear a difference and there is a good (but unexpected and not fully explained) reason for that difference, why is it misleading to report on such? I see hifi reviews as like music reviews, they are interesting but ultimately a matter of opinion. I think people get it wrong when they think such a review should be objective since we are dealing with opinion. It is like reviewing cars, just because one car has a very expensive suspension set up and the reviewers like it and another car has a cheap set up which the reviewers hate, that does not necessarily mean I will find the same thing. There is a mix of objectivity, one suspension set up is supposed to better and subjectivity over what kind of ride you prefer.
4 - in that case all reviews lack credibity, which to an extent they all do. But they are still interesting and worthwhile. Or what are we all doing here telling each other about our hifi experiences?
5- I disagree. WHF reviews are subjective and they do not contain any science which is misleading. The Big Question with blind comparison tests was the eureka moment for me as I had a brief conversation with Clare just before my 'holiday' as I could not figure out why WHF tests were apparent passes whereas other blind tests were not. Realising that the answer was in comparing sighted with sighted, blind compariosn with blind compariosn and ABX with ABX was the eureka moment. Not surprisingly WHF concentrate on the sighted testing and sometimes do blind comparison. I do not see how that is not good for the magazine.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram