Double blind ABX speaker cable tests

[QuestForThe13thNote]

I've been thinking about the HiFi+ Magazine speaker cables review, and it is a perplexing article. Firstly the other tests linked to by several people here show with little doubt that the results of blind tests are quite different from the results of sighted tests. In other words, visual cues play a significant role. This does not force anyone to buy products blind of course, since physical appearance does matter and does add to the enjoyment of a system.

However, that is not what the HiFi+ review did. They did not do sighted tests. They attempted to do blind tests alone. I am still thinking about the results, but a few thoughts do occur. Firstly, they did not test for repeatability which I feel is a serious mistake. Had they tested the cables twice, with the same system, but changed the order and the control, that would have been far far more valuable. It would have told us if the results were repeatable and hence of value. As it is, we have no idea if the results are repeatable.

I am still thinking about the results, but I do think they missed an important trick here if they want to convince people that cables make a difference (and they make it clear they are cable believers). That said there does seem to be more consistency among the reviewers than by chance, but I am no statistician, and a statistician would be needed to analyse the results properly.

My own view is that the price of these cables is ridiculous when you take into account other factors, such as bad recordings, and room acoustics, and they stray deep into the realms of obsessiveness. But we will all reach our own view on this issue I am sure.

1) the links to show results of blind tests show different results of sighted tests - no they dont as they are not scientific, nor do they make proper comparisons

2) I agree with you, you need repeatability, and they could have done that.

3) that wasnt the supposed hypothesis of the test that cables make a difference, in the article. It was that more expensive cables are sometimes worth it.

4) You dont need a statitician to do a t test.

5) Obsessivenss when you dont even try different cables, even basic cheap ones. Crazy.

 

[Leif]

I too find him insulting. His repeated criticisms of my system - which he has not listened too - are annoying.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

Me too. Why not contact the makers, and say that you wish to do blind testing of their cables and see what they say? I bet they refuse. But I suspect if you said you were doing non blind testing, they might say yes.

I gave a link to a blind test...which included the Nordost Valhalla, as the most expensive cable....and it came out on top.

i appreciate you are on the same side of the argument as me on cables, but as regards that 'test' didn't you take it that they were swapping speaker cables at the same time as interconnects of the same brand, such that if you add up the cost of speaker cable and interconnect, the Valhalla wasn't the most expensive, to infer results they did? But I may be wrong in reading how they did that test ie they may have stuck with one speaker cable on the two systems throughout the test and it was just about interconnects. If so I'd look again at what the results showed, but I still think it's a problem to rely on the results as reliable in the sense of being somewhat random, with a small sample size and limited number of people taking part. Also no controls on all the cables ie each cable marked as 10 as a control, which will mark down some cables (and that's what we saw in the results with the two control cables ranked mid place and bottom)

Why did you bother to make that audiobore thread when the person you mocked is who you are?

All that bs about the music is all that matters

I made the thread as I was originally interested in what tests have been done and what they show, as I always like a debate, but it went off at other angles. And if you don't want to add or subtract from that debate/argument - you clearly indicated you hadn't read the magazine article by your previous post, why bother to post?

Is it just about trying to put someone down personally for you because you can't deal with someone making a point of argument. Your post seems all rather unintelligent to me mate.

Unintelligent is insulting pepole because of a hobby/interest calling them boring then being a hypocrite and joining in.

totally agree Andrew

why take the piss and say that all people that like this hobby are over 50 years old boring people on a hifi forum talking about boring hifi when he is quiet happy to start taking about boring hifi in the first place .

i find him very insulting and people that insults people like he dose can't be very bright himself and plus the fact that he is very hypocritical

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Well if it's any help, I find many people on forums are idiots as if they think it's being critical of their system, and act aggressively. And even if someone did say my system is ****, what do I care. Just don't make it personal, and get angry when Leif has no foundation too. And that other guy, have a look in the mirror if he is inviting people to a fight as he did. Now that shows lack of intelligence. Also someone 'getting upset' if someone says I don't like hi fi snobs, and they take it as meaning themselves. That's like someone telling Leif they think his speakers are rubbish, and he thinks he has grounds to put that person down by insulting them and getting aggressive. He again has no cause. But he will do it whatever.

 

[Leif]

Well if it's any help, I find many people on forums are idiots as if they think it's being critical of their system, and act aggressively.

I spend £1,000 on a new system, and then you spend weeks/months harassing me on several forums, instructing me to sell it because you think it is rubbish (even though you have not heard it) and to buy an amplifier that you prefer. I can't post here without you repeating this nonsense.

*crazy*

 

[Leif]

I've been thinking about the HiFi+ Magazine speaker cables review, and it is a perplexing article. Firstly the other tests linked to by several people here show with little doubt that the results of blind tests are quite different from the results of sighted tests. In other words, visual cues play a significant role. This does not force anyone to buy products blind of course, since physical appearance does matter and does add to the enjoyment of a system.

However, that is not what the HiFi+ review did. They did not do sighted tests. They attempted to do blind tests alone. I am still thinking about the results, but a few thoughts do occur. Firstly, they did not test for repeatability which I feel is a serious mistake. Had they tested the cables twice, with the same system, but changed the order and the control, that would have been far far more valuable. It would have told us if the results were repeatable and hence of value. As it is, we have no idea if the results are repeatable.

I am still thinking about the results, but I do think they missed an important trick here if they want to convince people that cables make a difference (and they make it clear they are cable believers). That said there does seem to be more consistency among the reviewers than by chance, but I am no statistician, and a statistician would be needed to analyse the results properly.

My own view is that the price of these cables is ridiculous when you take into account other factors, such as bad recordings, and room acoustics, and they stray deep into the realms of obsessiveness. But we will all reach our own view on this issue I am sure.

1) the links to show results of blind tests show different results of sighted tests - no they dont as they are not scientific, nor do they make proper comparisons

2) I agree with you, you need repeatability, and they could have done that.

3) that wasnt the supposed hypothesis of the test that cables make a difference, in the article. It was that more expensive cables are sometimes worth it.

4) You dont need a statitician to do a t test.

5) Obsessivenss when you dont even try different cables, even basic cheap ones. Crazy.

1) They are more than good enough to draw conclusions.

3) That was not proven as they did not use low grade cable such as mains cable, or the standard grade of cable that most people buy. And the fact that they did not repeat one group of tests means that we have no idea if they can reliably distinguish cables. It looks like an honest attempt but flawed.

4) I assume "t test" is a typo and should read "test". Yes you do need to do statistics when the test is as complex as that one otherwise you have absolutely no idea how likely their outcome was if it was just chance. Or to put it another way, you need to know how much confidence you can have in the interpretation. And curiously you appear to reject all of the tests that demonstrate that blind tests result in quite different results from non-blind tests, and yet you accept this one without question and reject calls for it to be 'more scientific'.

5) Does not make sense.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

1) not so, you just go along with it. Please tell me what tests you think is reliable.

3) I'd agree with you, but they didn't need to use really cheap wire. I think the point was trying to distinguish very expensive, v mid range v budget in the qed. Not that the results were reliable.

4) no t test is a statistical significance test of two sets of data. Like you say confidence. I reject the so called findings of these amateur blind tests and non blind tests, yes. No I don't accept that one by science and provability. I do from my own experience and hearing.

5) But when we get down to why people hold their views. One reason is people don't try. And you fall into that catergory as you've conceded.

 

[chebby]

Why aren't all these cable related threads posted in the 'accessories' forum?

https://www.whathifi.com/forums/accessories