Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: HiFi WigWam Power Cable Test (Read 53437 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HiFi WigWam Power Cable Test

Reply #150 –
Quote
don’t know why there was an audible change.  That does not mean there was no change.  Orville Wright did not know precisely why his airplane flew until twenty five years later, but it did fly.  (Poor Wilbur never found out.)   Most scientific advancement is because someone observes something and starts poking around to find out why it happened.  Very little advancement comes from hearing about something and then trying to deny it could happen because it doesn’t fit some preconceived notion.  No, Mr. Coperinicus the earth cannot circulate around the sun because that is not according to theory, and I will certainly not take a look at your data.  Right now, why it works is irrelevant, because you are still arguing whether it happens or not.   You need to first settle the



To compare the evidence so far offered for *audible* difference between cryotreated and untreated cables, to the years of careful measurement and careful observation behind Copernicus' model, is ludicrous.

We already *have* an explanation that is well-documented scientificaly (unlike the geocentric model, which *wasn't* well documented scientifically) for why two cables sound different: it';s called bias.  Even the *exact same* cable can be reported to sound different, because of bias.  That sort of 'nuisance factor' is the reason all good scientific observations include controls.

YOUR job, if you want scientificially-minded people to believe that your observation is based on something other than subjective impression, is to either present some good, Copernicus-quality  double-blind comparison data that are positive for difference, or some measurements that would support the likelihood of an audible difference.

Other wise, there' s really no reason to take an attitude other than: 'Could be.  Prove it.'
Which isn';t the same as denial.  It';s *skepticism*.

Quote
All I know is that I went into a room for a blind test as a skeptic, and as someone who knew nothing about sound reproduction and still knows very little about it.  There were about thirty people in the room.   A stereo system was set up, and pieces substituted one at a time.  All thirty or so of the people in the room agreed on which sounded better after a substitution was made, then reversed, then made again.  In only one instance was there any dissention over the choice of the better sounding unit, and that was only one person.  Substitutions were made on the  amplifier, the power source, the power cords, the CD player, the interconnect cords, the speaker cords, and even the CD being played.  The crowd unanimously picked out the cryogenically treated piece every time except the noted exception.  The people running the experiment had no financial stake in the outcome.   Do I expect you to believe me?  I expect you to believe that I felt there was a significant difference.



That sounds like one hell of a test.  Was it  single or double blind?) How many DAYS did it take to do all those different comparisons?  Did listeners really confer with each other (which would invalidate independence of results)?  How many trials per comparison? 

I certainly believe you *felt* there was s significant difference.  Why would you lie about that?
But I'm skeptical that this test demosntrated what you think it did...at least as you've described it.

Quote
You come to the conclusion that cryogenic processing doesn’t work on the basis of your supposition that some of the cables tested might have been treated.  That is hardly a basis for any type of scientific conclusion.   Why don’t you listen to treated cables (or amplifiers, CD’s, power sources, or speaker wires or ???)?  Then, if you do not discern any difference you can have something to crow about. 

Take this thing a step at a time.  Buy three moderately priced components.  Send two to a reputable cryo treater (one who will give it a real treatment, not store it near some dry ice for a while) with the instructions to cryo treat one of them, mark it, but hide the marking under some black electrical tape.  A proper cryo treatment is 8 hours down to –300F, hold for 8 hours at –300F, then bring it back to room temp in 8 hours.  Have him put black electrical tape on the untreated part also.  Get the parts back, burn them in, then decide if there is a difference is sound quality between the three pieces.  Then remove the tape and find out which is treated and which is not.  Repeat until you believe you statistically relevent results. 

Now that you have convinced yourself that there is a difference, you can start to look for a reason.  There is no sense in looking for a reason until you have convinced yourself there is something to look for.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=335794"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Leaving aside whether 'burn in ' is needed for cables -- a highly dubious claim in itself -- I heartily agree that before making claims for audible difference from cryo-treatment, that a PROPERLY controlled comparison be done.  Until then, the reasonable attitiude is *skepticism* of that claim, unless there is measurement data indicating likely audible difference.  Btw, self-testing like this runs a serious risk of conscious or unconscious 'cueing' as to which cable is which, based on some non-audible aspect of the cables or the switching.  It would be better if someone else did the masking of the cables and the switching, randomizing the order. 

I don't see that anything you've done so far meets the standard for abandoning skepticism.
Or is there something you haven't told us?
 

HiFi WigWam Power Cable Test

Reply #151 –
Thank you for your insight, warbird436.

However, HydrogenAudio is a community based on controlled blind test listening only. What it is is explained in detail here : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=16295&

All statements about sound quality must be backuped either by some technical evidence (e.g. CD having less background noise than vinyl), or by double blind listening tests (e.g. castanets being a difficult instrument to encode into MP3).
This is a rule which is strictly enforced in all discussions about soundquality, and it applies even if the differences are obvious, especially in such controversial fields as audio cables.

In the test that you describe, were people allowed to communicate with each other ? Were all of the thirty people completely silent and still ? How were the cables hidden ? How were the comments gathered ? etc
Group effect have been demonstrated in psychology, and can strongly influence the listeners answers, leading them to choose the same simulus.

Convince oneself that there is a difference by sighted listening is not, and will never be taken into account here. There are too many examples of people, even very well trained to listening, like sound engineers ( http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....indpost&p=47562 ) or audiophile ( http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/12/...les/23down.html ), who claim to hear a difference "so obvious that you must be deaf for not hearing it" between the same CD played on the same system twice, but with the operator falsely claiming to have changed something.

All controlled blind listening tests between interconnect cables that I know of have utterly failed to show any audible difference between standard interconnect cables and very high end ones (exept maybe MIT and Transparent Cables interconnect, that include RLC filters built-in). Even with the owner of the cables stating before the test that "anyone could distinguish them instantly" ( http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/viewtop...rt=90#168800159 , in French. Test below)

Measurments also show no influence on THD or IMD. The maximum measured frequency response deviation is 0.01 dB at 20 kHz. Electromagnetic noise (hum) depends on the position of the devices and the position of the cable, more than on the cable themselves ( http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/viewtop...der=asc&start=0 , French )

The rest of the inteconnect tests : http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/viewtop...r=asc&start=255 , French

And if you are interested, there are also power cord tests (in English) :
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4...ds-12-2004.html
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/hificabletest

So the problem is not to know wether cryogenic treatment can change the way cable sounds, nor how. The problem is that so far, no one ever observed or measured any audible influence of an interconnect cable plugged between a CD Player and a preamplifier or an amplifier ! And for speaker cables, the known  influences are limited to resistance and inductance.