Double blind ABX speaker cable tests

[QuestForThe13thNote]

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)

 

[Andrewjvt]

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

 

[nopiano]

Except that the article appears to prove that the test subjects cannot recognise which is better. It will take me a while to compose my thoughts on that test, but I will try and write something coherent this week. I encourage you to look at the results, rather then the conclusions, and think about them.

Fair enough....I am reasonably familiar with the test, as I have seen it before....but any further insight is always welcome.

By the way, Nelson Pass has done speaker cable tests, Google and you shall find.

SPEAKER CABLES: Science or Snake Oil by Nelson Pass | Jul 1st 1998

Great link, and a very sane analysis of both the electrical characteristics and the audible outcomes.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

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.

 

[Leif]

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.

*wacko* Pot, kettle, black.

 

[CnoEvil]

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)

I was wrong to say the Valhalla was the most expensive...I didn't add up the combined cost and just assumed the Valhalla was the most expensive.

I only linked to the test, as its the only one I know of, that doesn't get too technical and just assesses cables by what people hear.

It's far from perfect....but some patterns emerge, that are more than chance....showing differences that were heard. It's probably possible to view the results in a way that supports the view that one holds....but I think it's fair to say that:

- Price does not necessarily ensure preference.

- Something strange happened with the Siltech in the cheap system, that everybody heard...which didn't happen in the second system.

- The 2 cheapest cables were generally ranked lowest.

- The Chord gave VFM in context of this test

- There was a clear preference for the Valhalla.

It's quite possible that a cable sceptic will interpret the results differently....which is fine and I look forward to seeing that.

Since preference/vfm / belief, play such an important role and tests are usually flawed in one way or another.....I make up my own mind by listening for myself...but I am aware of the flaws here too, but it works for me.

 

[Andrewjvt]

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.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

I agree with you on your bullit point 1 but I'm not sure about patterns emerging more than chance. The chance of one cable group being least ranked is 1/5 on a random basis, which isn't hugely improbable. But what they would have done in a proper science test, for such a low number of samples, is do a test using speaker cables and interconnects all of the same low price but different makes, to see if people would mark them similarly or not. If so (or even if not) you could compare the results of these against the test they did in a t test to work out if the sets of data are statistically significantly different. The other way they could have done that was to have each as a control. But if one of the controls was not used, say the siltech and it was replaced by one of the other cables, it is possible to see the effects on the rankings, as the siltech could have conceivably scored higher. By marking it 10 and not potentially more, the results are effected. However having each as a control, you've applied the same system across each cable. But they did say they didn't have time, so that's why you need time and resource to do these tests better.

there are also so many variables like construction, the electrical properties of the wire too, that would have to be similar or considered by testing within the test or limiting the cables to certain properties. Too many variables to draw reliable inferences and conclusions from the results they have. You might start with a test of the purity of copper and see effects on sound, and then with those results assuming same purity cables can be discerned, you can then reliably choose relevant cables like those in this magazine. But if you haven't excluded a variable you can't draw a conclusion which is reliable. If for argument sake we selected a cable that has same properties to the Valhalla and is constructed similarly but much cheaper, could we then say the Valhalla rightly has a place of being good by expense, if this similar cheaper cable ranked better, which is what the article tries to infer and seems to be its hypothesis. I don't think we can, but that comes back to not necessarily all expensive cables being best.

so I agree with you subjectively in drawing the first bullit point but I don't think you can draw any reliance on anything else.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

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.

stop trying to put people down. I will react every time you do, and call you what you are, but won't get involved in frivolities with idiots.

 

[Andrewjvt]

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.

 

stop trying to put people down. I will react every time you do, and call you what you are, but won't get involved in frivolities with idiots. 

You boring audiobore

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

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.

stop trying to put people down. I will react every time you do, and call you what you are, but won't get involved in frivolities with idiots.

You boring audiobore

well isn't this guy the troll? He comes on an unassociated thread to put someone down by his post a few above, then gets what he should get and to be told in no uncertain terms what he is doing. Then he has the gall to keep reacting which is presumably what he wants. As per his latest idiotic comment.

i reckon this guy is a pig ignorant, arrogant blockey person, of low intelligence, who hides behind a computer to do all this. But yet he seems to get fulfilment out of it. Well whatever you get your kicks out of. Each to their own I geuss. Isn't he making his own argument calling me a bore then coming back to post rather arcane and vacuous comments unrelated to the thread. I mean isn't that really boring.

 

[Leif]

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.

stop trying to put people down. I will react every time you do, and call you what you are, but won't get involved in frivolities with idiots.

You boring audiobore

well isn't this guy the troll? He comes on an unassociated thread to put someone down by his post a few above, then gets what he should get and to be told in no uncertain terms what he is doing. Then he has the gall to keep reacting which is presumably what he wants. As per his latest idiotic comment.

i reckon this guy is a pig ignorant, arrogant blockey person, of low intelligence, who hides behind a computer to do all this. But yet he seems to get fulfilment out of it. Well whatever you get your kicks out of. Each to their own I geuss. Isn't he making his own argument calling me a bore then coming back to post rather arcane and vacuous comments unrelated to the thread. I mean isn't that really boring.

May I suggest that you look in the mirror?

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

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.

stop trying to put people down. I will react every time you do, and call you what you are, but won't get involved in frivolities with idiots.

You boring audiobore

well isn't this guy the troll? He comes on an unassociated thread to put someone down by his post a few above, then gets what he should get and to be told in no uncertain terms what he is doing. Then he has the gall to keep reacting which is presumably what he wants. As per his latest idiotic comment.

i reckon this guy is a pig ignorant, arrogant blockey person, of low intelligence, who hides behind a computer to do all this. But yet he seems to get fulfilment out of it. Well whatever you get your kicks out of. Each to their own I geuss. Isn't he making his own argument calling me a bore then coming back to post rather arcane and vacuous comments unrelated to the thread. I mean isn't that really boring.

May I suggest that you look in the mirror?

oh we have another troll. They call it jumping on the bandwagon, posting off topic subjects in a thread for the benefit of putting people down just for the sake of it. That's the only point of your post mate. But since you've done so, allow me to retort, as I now have to tell you what you are really doing and put you down too.

You seem on the basis of your post to be slightly vindictive. That you seem forever upset that in someone (seemingly to you) putting your stuff down, you take offence at it. For offence is taken in such circumstances not given. And it seems to have upset you to a point you seem to want retaliation, to get everyone on your side, to make it personal. It seems quite unjustified and not rationale. But given the chance you will do so. I also perceive that because you don't react with arguments or points of debate which serve the post, because maybe you perceive no come back, you seem to want to react in these ways by put downs. So if you look back to what I have said, arguing against your points you have made on the point of my view you aren't 'a cable trier', your next post then seems to be a personal and disparaging one. It shows to me that I'm not probably dealing with someone with any level of intelligence too, but then I guess that's par the course with lots of forums. Lots of very decent people and intelligence, but god are there some idiots too.

And to top all of that you respond quoting a post with someone calling me a bore without justification, and you don't consider yourself trolling, then you ask me to look in the mirror? I mean what the f--k?

 

[Andrewjvt]

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.

 

stop trying to put people down. I will react every time you do, and call you what you are, but won't get involved in frivolities with idiots. 

You boring audiobore

 

well isn't this guy the troll? He comes on an unassociated thread to put someone down by his post a few above, then gets what he should get and to be told in no uncertain terms what he is doing. Then he has the gall to keep reacting which is presumably what he wants. As per his latest idiotic comment. 

i reckon this guy is a pig ignorant, arrogant blockey person, of low intelligence,  who hides behind a computer to do all this. But yet he seems to get fulfilment out of it. Well whatever you get your kicks out of. Each to their own I geuss. Isn't he making his own argument calling me a bore then coming back to post rather arcane and vacuous comments unrelated to the thread. I mean isn't that really boring. 

Do you fancy a meet up?
Ad bores is what you called us all on another thread

 

[davedotco]

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.

stop trying to put people down. I will react every time you do, and call you what you are, but won't get involved in frivolities with idiots.

You boring audiobore

well isn't this guy the troll? He comes on an unassociated thread to put someone down by his post a few above, then gets what he should get and to be told in no uncertain terms what he is doing. Then he has the gall to keep reacting which is presumably what he wants. As per his latest idiotic comment.

i reckon this guy is a pig ignorant, arrogant blockey person, of low intelligence, who hides behind a computer to do all this. But yet he seems to get fulfilment out of it. Well whatever you get your kicks out of. Each to their own I geuss. Isn't he making his own argument calling me a bore then coming back to post rather arcane and vacuous comments unrelated to the thread. I mean isn't that really boring.

Do you fancy a meet up? Ad bores is what you called us all on another thread

Are you 'offering him outside' Andrew?

I'll hold your coat!

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

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.

stop trying to put people down. I will react every time you do, and call you what you are, but won't get involved in frivolities with idiots.

You boring audiobore

well isn't this guy the troll? He comes on an unassociated thread to put someone down by his post a few above, then gets what he should get and to be told in no uncertain terms what he is doing. Then he has the gall to keep reacting which is presumably what he wants. As per his latest idiotic comment.

i reckon this guy is a pig ignorant, arrogant blockey person, of low intelligence, who hides behind a computer to do all this. But yet he seems to get fulfilment out of it. Well whatever you get your kicks out of. Each to their own I geuss. Isn't he making his own argument calling me a bore then coming back to post rather arcane and vacuous comments unrelated to the thread. I mean isn't that really boring.

Do you fancy a meet up? Ad bores is what you called us all on another thread

No I didn't call you are bore. I may have generically to such people, but if you want to take yourself as such and it personally then that's up to you.

But that's what I thought - I thought he was going to invite me to the crown and anchor car park. But judging by his comments I don't think a meet up will be wise. Some sort of evacuation and helicopter rescue to hospital might be involved for my part. Alternatively worst case scenario, I could end up with my dismembered body parts in my freezer. Lol.

 

[Andrewjvt]

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.

 

stop trying to put people down. I will react every time you do, and call you what you are, but won't get involved in frivolities with idiots. 

You boring audiobore

 

well isn't this guy the troll? He comes on an unassociated thread to put someone down by his post a few above, then gets what he should get and to be told in no uncertain terms what he is doing. Then he has the gall to keep reacting which is presumably what he wants. As per his latest idiotic comment. 

i reckon this guy is a pig ignorant, arrogant blockey person, of low intelligence,  who hides behind a computer to do all this. But yet he seems to get fulfilment out of it. Well whatever you get your kicks out of. Each to their own I geuss. Isn't he making his own argument calling me a bore then coming back to post rather arcane and vacuous comments unrelated to the thread. I mean isn't that really boring. 

Do you fancy a meet up? Ad bores is what you called us all on another thread

Are you 'offering him outside' Andrew?

I'll hold your coat!

Well we live in an age where you cant openly say that but this quest chap has insulted ne many times now and called me a coward so i now extend an invitation to hime to take up this face to face
And yes you are welcome to hold my coat.

 

[Native_bon]

This has been the most informative cable thread. Yes Quest called us bores, so what. Why does it have to be taken so personal. Am a hi-fi bore, does it bother me nope. Smiles..

 

[CnoEvil]

I but I'm not sure about patterns emerging more than chance.

The chance of one cable group being least ranked is 1/5 on a random basis, which isn't hugely improbable.

But what they would have done in a proper science test, for such a low number of samples, is do a test using speaker cables and interconnects all of the same low price but different makes, to see if people would mark them similarly or not. If so (or even if not) you could compare the results of these against the test they did in a t test to work out if the sets of data are statistically significantly different.

The other way they could have done that was to have each as a control. But if one of the controls was not used, say the siltech and it was replaced by one of the other cables, it is possible to see the effects on the rankings, as the siltech could have conceivably scored higher. By marking it 10 and not potentially more, the results are effected. However having each as a control, you've applied the same system across each cable. But they did say they didn't have time, so that's why you need time and resource to do these tests better.

there are also so many variables like construction, the electrical properties of the wire too, that would have to be similar or considered by testing within the test or limiting the cables to certain properties. Too many variables to draw reliable inferences and conclusions from the results they have. You might start with a test of the purity of copper and see effects on sound, and then with those results assuming same purity cables can be discerned, you can then reliably choose relevant cables like those in this magazine. But if you haven't excluded a variable you can't draw a conclusion which is reliable. If for argument sake we selected a cable that has same properties to the Valhalla and is constructed similarly but much cheaper, could we then say the Valhalla rightly has a place of being good by expense, if this similar cheaper cable ranked better, which is what the article tries to infer and seems to be its hypothesis. I don't think we can, but that comes back to not necessarily all expensive cables being best.

so I agree with you subjectively in drawing the first bullit point but I don't think you can draw any reliance on anything else.

- I think the aim of the test was kept simple ie.

a) Do cables sound different, in a way that can be identified when listening blind.

b) Are more expensive cables preferable to cheaper cables....as "different" may not be "preferable" or "better".

- Too many cables would make the test too cumbersome....so what they needed, were cables spanning a big price range....and make it interesting, by using different constructions. Cable sceptics will tell you that fancy constructions are just snake oil, in order to justify the high price....and to a degree, I'd agree that the profit margins on cables are huge.

- I don't agree with you, when you say that no patterns emerged that were above pure chance.

- The Valhalla was a clear favorite, both in terms of Points and Ranking.

- The QED, both in score and ranking, was far enough below the Valhalla, to be more than chance

- If cables all sounded the same/very similar, then the Siltec wouldn't have shown such a consistantly abysmal score on the first system.

What you are looking for is a much more complicated test, looking at effects of construction etc etc

What I think you can take from the test is:

- There are identifiable differences.

- Expensive cables can sound better....but you can't rely on it to be the case.

- Certain cables seem to perform above their price....and some aren't worth their money (compared to what's available at less money).

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

I but I'm not sure about patterns emerging more than chance.

The chance of one cable group being least ranked is 1/5 on a random basis, which isn't hugely improbable.

But what they would have done in a proper science test, for such a low number of samples, is do a test using speaker cables and interconnects all of the same low price but different makes, to see if people would mark them similarly or not. If so (or even if not) you could compare the results of these against the test they did in a t test to work out if the sets of data are statistically significantly different.

The other way they could have done that was to have each as a control. But if one of the controls was not used, say the siltech and it was replaced by one of the other cables, it is possible to see the effects on the rankings, as the siltech could have conceivably scored higher. By marking it 10 and not potentially more, the results are effected. However having each as a control, you've applied the same system across each cable. But they did say they didn't have time, so that's why you need time and resource to do these tests better.

there are also so many variables like construction, the electrical properties of the wire too, that would have to be similar or considered by testing within the test or limiting the cables to certain properties. Too many variables to draw reliable inferences and conclusions from the results they have. You might start with a test of the purity of copper and see effects on sound, and then with those results assuming same purity cables can be discerned, you can then reliably choose relevant cables like those in this magazine. But if you haven't excluded a variable you can't draw a conclusion which is reliable. If for argument sake we selected a cable that has same properties to the Valhalla and is constructed similarly but much cheaper, could we then say the Valhalla rightly has a place of being good by expense, if this similar cheaper cable ranked better, which is what the article tries to infer and seems to be its hypothesis. I don't think we can, but that comes back to not necessarily all expensive cables being best.

so I agree with you subjectively in drawing the first bullit point but I don't think you can draw any reliance on anything else.

- I think the aim of the test was kept simple ie.

a) Do cables sound different, in a way that can be identified when listening blind.

b) Are more expensive cables preferable to cheaper cables....as "different" may not be "preferable" or "better".

- Too many cables would make the test too cumbersome....so what they needed, were cables spanning a big price range....and make it interesting, by using different constructions. Cable sceptics will tell you that fancy constructions are just snake oil, in order to justify the high price....and to a degree, I'd agree that the profit margins on cables are huge.

- I don't agree with you, when you say that no patterns emerged that were above pure chance.

- The Valhalla was a clear favorite, both in terms of Points and Ranking.

- The QED, both in score and ranking, was far enough below the Valhalla, to be more than chance

- If cables all sounded the same/very similar, then the Siltec wouldn't have shown such a consistantly abysmal score on the first system.

What you are looking for is a much more complicated test, looking at effects of construction etc etc

What I think you can take from the test is:

- There are identifiable differences.

- Expensive cables can sound better....but you can't rely on it to be the case.

- Certain cables seem to perform above their price....and some aren't worth their money (compared to what's available at less money).

I think we are on the same page and I agree with you with your views on cables and expensive cables, but my only issue is what these show is not scientific. And it has to be scientifically constructed to take something from it, and mathematically statistically significant. But I realise I'm actually not helping my cause to my view, but then I'm prepared to scrutinise good and bad. Not saying you haven't, but I think what needs to be tested is to test what all expensive cables or cheap cables do, to see if their is similar variance in ranking. If so then that would show you the actual test has perhaps limited scope to draw conclusions. If it doesn't then it shows you there is possibly something subject to removing all variables. But to people who don't know the actual hi fi systems that well if they haven't lived with them, as with these three testers I think, I think there is probably a lot of subjective variance and I wouldn't be surprised if there is an issue with the memory thing someone mentioned. Ie actually being able to remember what one sounds like over another on an unfamiliar hi fi system and due to cable change time lags etc. Much better a junction box and flicking between the comparable cables. Also the judgements and preferences of the reviewers are a factor with one person just preferring the sound of a cheaper cable. A huge number of variables.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

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.

stop trying to put people down. I will react every time you do, and call you what you are, but won't get involved in frivolities with idiots.

You boring audiobore

well isn't this guy the troll? He comes on an unassociated thread to put someone down by his post a few above, then gets what he should get and to be told in no uncertain terms what he is doing. Then he has the gall to keep reacting which is presumably what he wants. As per his latest idiotic comment.

i reckon this guy is a pig ignorant, arrogant blockey person, of low intelligence, who hides behind a computer to do all this. But yet he seems to get fulfilment out of it. Well whatever you get your kicks out of. Each to their own I geuss. Isn't he making his own argument calling me a bore then coming back to post rather arcane and vacuous comments unrelated to the thread. I mean isn't that really boring.

Do you fancy a meet up? Ad bores is what you called us all on another thread

Are you 'offering him outside' Andrew?

I'll hold your coat!

Well we live in an age where you cant openly say that but this quest chap has insulted ne many times now and called me a coward so i now extend an invitation to hime to take up this face to face And yes you are welcome to hold my coat.

no not really mate. Nobody has called you a coward, unless you have deserved it and triggered offence off. But if you are inviting a fight it's pretty sensible people stay away as worryingly it's sounds like you wish to carry it out.

 

[CnoEvil]

The difference between us, is I don't have a science background and am much more interested in "How" they sound, rather than "Why" they sound.

When it comes to the "Why", I've seen a lot of "debate" over areas that cable manufaturers say are important and cable sceptics say are nonsense, designed to fool the gullible.....so....I decide for myself, by listening.

I have no interest (any more), in making the arguments....and it doesn't worry me if I'm considered deluded.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

The difference between us, is I don't have a science background and am much more interested in "How" they sound, rather than "Why" they sound.

When it comes to the "Why", I've seen a lot of "debate" over areas that cable manufaturers say are important and cable sceptics say are nonsense, designed to fool the gullible.....so....I decide for myself, by listening.

I have no interest (any more), in making the arguments....and it doesn't worry me if I'm considered deluded.

no i perceived that, as when people talk about science like me, people think you have to specialist knowledge. You don't really, but you do to properly draw conclusions - but that would be more for an electrical engineers point of view. But you can show what data shows without much knowledge.

I don't know the ins and out of the electrical engineering side to draw these conclusions fully, I suspect a lot on here don't, but what I do know from my science background is when a test is conducted correctly or not, so trying to eliminate all the variables. And when you read science papers in biology you see how they try to eliminate variables and do t tests etc. Sometimes they can't explain the results as they are always a work in progress anyway.

To know how they sound, you therefore have to know is the test correct and could there be error. And if you haven't done a basic test to see if similar price cables have variances in scores, since if you did that you'd have doubts on the results on the main survey ie price v quality issue. A scientist wouldn't be taken seriously if they hadn't undertaken that test, and is no less different on a test like this. But often I see these tests so rudimentary and people latching onto them. It's not about understanding the science of the cables as to why cables sound different, but understanding their are a large number of variance in these tests, all of which you have to design out in the test as much as possible.

So im interested too in stats showing that cables make a difference ie the how not the why, as the why bit is down to an engineer.

 

[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.

 

[CnoEvil]

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.

FWIW. I have no issue with any of that.