Just spotted this. Results were posted 2 days ago. Posted at http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1104.html with more commentary at http://www.zerogain.com/forum/showthread.p...20&page=1&pp=15.

The test setup was rather, um, interesting. I definitely don't think it would pass muster around here, but the results still give a lot of people pause for thought apparantly.



Four listeners, four cables tested against one stock cable, one trial per cable.

Heh, 6 standard better vs. 7 aftermarket better. What a suprise!

Edit:
OMFG. Just noticed "Shunyata PowerSnakes Black Mamba - Price: circa £700.00"
How the hell can people brainless enough to spend that kind of money on a power cord be making enough money to afford it in the first place?

Management? Investment Banking? Estate Agency?

It's the tester's comments that I find interesting. He states:
And then
This is true, and it's not the sort of conclusion you see often in tests of high end hifi gear. The conclusion I was expecting was the "8 points vs 7 - the high end cables win!".

I liked the first comment by super moderator analoguekid; kinda puts things into perspective:


Heh, are there any more cables, apart from speaker/power cables, in the reproduction chain, that can easily be replaced with custom ultra expensive ones, so I can make some money?

Can anyone makes heads or tales of what these people actually did? I've read their method and its still opaque.

*One* trial per pair? With six people responding per trial? That's nuts...at least as far as drawing conclusions about a given pair.

As far as I can see, there were three listeners and five cables.
Don't forget that they first tell how many listeners heard a difference, then how many among these ones prefered the audiophile cable.
If A is the standard cable and B, C, D, E, F are the audiophile ones, they listened to :

A/B
A/C
A/D
A/E
A/F
A/A

Each pair played once, in a random order.
Beside their opinion, about which no statistics can be made since there are only two or three answers per parameter tested (and there might have been uncontrolled influence between listeners), the choice given to the listeners was between hearing a difference or not. However, there might have been cables that sound different from the standard one, and some that don't.
And anyway, since the only "right or wrong" choice given to the listeners was not about a random parameter (only the playback order was random), we cannot drive any conclusion from this test. If, for each test, there was exactly one chance out of two to listen to different cables, and one chance out of two to listen to identical ones, a small evaluation of the results could have been made, but they deliberately chose to test all audiophile cables once, and to introduce at least one control pair. That's very far from randomness !


This logic is flawed. They assume that someone who doesn't hear the difference between two identical stimulus won't be influenced by anything. In this case, why run a blind test at all ? Just eliminate the two listeners who "rated the reference", and run a sighted test with the last one.
We could also have said that 40 % of their results were the same as the control one, thus the cables used in these sessions sounded identical. Flawed logic too.
In order to run a blind test properly, a random variable must be introduced (for example X is A or X is B), and the listeners must identify this variable under blind conditions.
Since they are open to discussions, I will have to register to their forum and discuss it with them... when I have the time.

Duno, go check out the "you thought cables were bad" up in "General Audio".

as a member of that forum thought I would come and pass a few comments on the thread
Axon said

The test setup was rather, um, interesting. I definitely don't think it would pass muster around here, but the results still give a lot of people pause for thought apparantly.

So what would pass muster around here then how would you carry out tests ?

then was said

Heh, 6 standard better vs. 7 aftermarket better. What a suprise

Why ? on what facts do you base your comments, what was the "SUPRISE"
what did you expect? and how did you come to expect what you expected?

then was said
How the hell can people brainless enough to spend that kind of money on a power cord be making enough money to afford it in the first place?

people save money to spend on hobbies can think of many people I know both sides of the pond that spend much more on kit

as for your comments "brainless" hello you lot have just voted Bush in again ?
not saying that to start a flame war but your comments asked for that one

I'll prefix this by saying I am not a statistician by trade, and do not have much training in statistics, so most of what I know about this is from HA. You can safely call me a Yes Man if you want.

The canonical way to do it would be an ABX test, but Pio2001 actually didn't do straight ABX for his test. His comments about cable selection are quite valid - it's very hard to analyze these results to get any sort of statistical meaning out of them, and from what I've read of the discussion, nobody on wigwam/zerogain was able to equate the results to any sort of p-value or any other figure of merit. Even the statistical analysis at the bottom of the article only goes as far as basic means and standard deviations of the measured probabilities, which are wholly inadequate tools for a rigorous analysis. A different testing model would make that analysis much easier.

Rating the stock cable above the aftermarket cable is an interesting result, but again, it's hard to analyze this beyond a strictly polemical context. It could be argued that the stock cable was simply perceived as better than some of the aftermarket cables, and that result could not be told apart from not being able to tell a difference.

I guess it depends on what kind of result you're trying to look for. If you're looking for obvious and clear differences, then any sort of test will work, including this one. If you're looking for a very subtle effect that perhaps is not caught by most of the listeners, you need to be careful with how you do the test, and understand beforehand what results you'd need to justify the conclusion. The impression I got from this test was that it was sort of a dry run of a real test.


You do realize you just posted in the leading skeptical audiophile community on the Internet, right? 99.9% of the people here agree that aftermarket cables are snake oil.

I kind of get the feeling you are trying to start one, actually. Replying to this would, in fact, start a discussion that has been done a hundred times before here, and you're free to use the search to find all of them.

I guess the most direct single response I have is that while it is true that many hobbies justify far more than the hundreds of dollars typically asked of aftermarket cables, and many of those justifications are quite silly, none of those justifications seem quite as ineffable and unsupported by sound engineering or rigorous testing. (And no, rattling off all the theoretical ways that a cable could cause distortion is not sound engineering, it's grasping at straws.)

Yes some of is, in fact many of the ways cable can affect the sound is theoretical


yet some of the affects that can affect sound going down a cable is fact, ie RFI

with some screened cables its not theory its fact, thats why British Land rovers and Humvee both in use by our forces use screened cables to help protect radio signals

Yeah, RFI is one of the few effects that are really noticable. My headphones buzz whenever my cell phone goes off, in fact. It's a shame there's not a more thorough analysis of how it affects the signal, especially since so much audio equipment seems to be affected by it.

However, RFI is something with effects that, I would expect, are quite obviously justified by the math (having not actually seen them yet though). Most of the engineering justifications made with aftermarket cables involve effects that are not nearly as prominent as simple RFI shielding, or whose effects cannot be extended credibly into the audio domain, or else have no public, mathematical, well-defined theoretical basis at all. ie. - cryo treatment, Bybee filters, silver, characteristic impedance matching, ultra-pure copper, single crystal domain copper, etc. Those were the sorts of things I was getting at rather than RFI.

This is getting off topic btw. You are free to msg me with comments.

Bloody hell !!! this is on topic by most uk forum standards, no one has spoken about last trip to loo

no one has brought up last mights tv and the topic is still cables

With regards

I think the first that will get put to bed...... and just might have some truth in it

is cryo treatment its the snake oil sellers that give this a bad name

but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity gives interesting information on this subject

@ Davewhit:

Why ? on what facts do you base your comments, what was the "SUPRISE"
what did you expect? and how did you come to expect what you expected?
The "what a surprise" comment was sarcastic. The correct way of interpreting it was "I do not believe that expensive power cables make any audible difference in terms of my systems transparency level"

Also, please refrain from making ad hominem arguments against people on Hydrogen-Audio. Ad hominem is offtopic when speaking about transparency of audio equipment. This is the reason I dare to keep my signature. Ad homimen is irrelevant.

Also, when you mention "cryo treatment", I suppose you mean "Cryogenic treatment of cables". Not wanting to break your bubble, but any cryogenic treatment any equipment could have undergone, is either reversed or destroyed once the equipment returns to its normal state of temperature.



Let's all just stick to the facts...

Here are guidelines that a blind listening test should comply with : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16295
And here is an example of such a blind test. The only drawback is that it's not double blind : http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4...ds-12-2004.html

The main problem of the WigWam power cable test is that the objective choice that the listeners had to make (difference or no difference) was not about a random parameter. Thus we can't evaluate their expected rate of success, called "p", if the cables make no sonic differences.

In order to analyze the listeners preference and see if they are significant, I've given a rating for each cable : the standard one is rated 2, the other ones are rated 1 if they are judged inferior, 2 if they sound the same, 3 if they sound better.
Which gives the matrix :



And I ran a Tukey HSD analysis on it :



Even with the loose 0.10 threshold, the data are not significant at all. Answers are just like if they were random.
Otherwise, it would be stated in the report.

Good evening chaps.

A quick google search on my own domain name (testing some optimisation) returned this thread.

It looks as though you do a fair bit of testing and on that basis I posted a link back on my forum.

The lads that ran the test are all intelligent chaps that had invested a fair amount of spare time into the test. This is as a result of endless debate on our forum about power cables, we decided to do our best to resolve the issue once and for all..

It is a relatively small forum and wee couldn't muster a big enough test group to do the method justice.

However, many of the chaps that put a fair amount of effort into the test were a bit cheesed at your off hand comments, and rightly bit the bait (you didn't know you were baiting of course but it was there none the less.)

Any constructive comments you have would be genuinely welcome. We are "going again" in a different way. This test is designed to maximise the test group, and any experiences you can share with us would be welcome.

Thanks and all the best,
James (forum owner) hifiwigwam.

oooohhh, get her!!!

c'mon dood chill a little, its only hifi, doesn't need to be so serious, some of the conflict here seems to be a cultural difference, we have fun on our fora in the UK, we wander off topic, we het into arguments, but we allways endeavour to have fun whilst doing it, for us discussions on these fora are just like long distance conversations, and as such will wax and wane around the topic, so forgive us if our butt cheeks are not as tightly clenched as yours, we can still get an Amex card between ours.

Seriously dood, these chaps actually wanted to stir up a serious bit of discussion around the topic, and in that respect they have succeded, and should be applauded, incidentally every one of them was a bona fide audiphool, and had actually quite a lot to loose, the Hifi Dealer is primarily a cable manufacturer, so instead of throwing insults, join in the discussion over there, and suggest a more robust method, within the realms of it being financed by those taking part.

And sometimes someof you guys should put the meters and EAC progs aside, switch off yer sillyscopes, get yer favourite tipple, some romantic comapny, and listen to the Music, hey you may even end up dancing, I know I do.

Whats and SPL meter?


BTW Alive if you really can't tell the difference re your sig, I suggest you look at the replay chain, wires are the least of your problems, but different strokes n'all if yer happy....

What facts, all I see are statements.

Been asked to post this, by the originator of the test, best let him explain it.

Also to Moderators, I'm not flaming, just trying to provoke debate, best to get an idea of each others perspective, some of the claims on here re lossless encoding etc are as fanciful to us as our ideas are to you.

They inherited the money from their parents, who were obviously much smarter than their offspring

Sorry, I was a being sarcastic. The surprise for me was that coin flipped 13 times is likely to be as sensitive to differences between the power cables as the testers.

Maybe being a student gives me a different perspective on money, but seriously, £700.00?

This is an international forum. I am not from the US.

Can you find your way back?

show me your evidance to prove your statement ?


thats not expensive look here now this lot is expensive
http://aca.gr/pop_jyk.htm

Thats kind of mean spirited.



From an electrical standpoint, the most effect you're going to have from thermal treatment is going to change the resistance of the metal, a property which irrelevent on a properly chosen cable. And to do so in a measureable way is highly unlikely.

Sorry if this is getting completely OT:

The first thing I noticed when I viewed that page was the details for his CD 'transport': "output 88.2 kHz"
I fail to see how resampling CD audio which is at 44.1 kHz could increase quality. If anything, isn't it going to decrease quality? (although I suppose simply doubling sample rate would be negligible in quality loss since adjacent samples would simply have the same value..)

Oh funny witty Mr little know it all, some of you guys on here are a touch arrogant, do you have all the answers, yes you know the elctrical properties of wire, but what IF, thats not what changes the sound some people hear, what if those parameters are yet to be discovered, don't be too quick to pour scorn on others, especially when you don't really understand it.
Just try to live and let live, arrogance (especially blind arrogance) is not a nice quality, so perhaps I'll leave you to your own wee worlds, I'm off to listen to music, do you guys do that on here?, or are you just measurement junkies?

You should be the one providing the evidence, not us.

It's clear that you are the one that doesn't understand it. Cable is cable, there's nothing mysterious about it. Cable is used not only in audio, but in much more demanding areas, from many, many years, and still, there's nothing mysterious about it.


We are people that listen to music, but also that know a little bit more what we talk about. And that like to spend our money in things that are worth it.

BTW, I'm from Spain.

I don't profess to have all the answers, some of you on here do, well thats nonsense, besides there aree lots of applications where the wire is different, for different applications, thinking medical and military applications, or are these folks being fooled too?

the other arrogant stance is "value" just coz you don't find the material worth in it, doesn't mean others won't I happen to think $150 is a ridiculous price for a pair od Nike shoes, but plenty feel they are wrth it, doesn't make me right.

Anyway I'll leave you all to your arrogant we world, must really be fun guys

As for burden of proof, we have nothing to prove, you guys are the ones making all the statements.

Again, there's nothing mysterious about cables. Cable properties are well known by science, and some people here happen to have that knowledge. Not only that: you don't need that knowledge to be able to verify with reliable methods (via measurements or via blind tests) the actual effect of cables on the audio chain.


These special applications are not audio, which is little demanding. People that require special cable for these applications know why, and can explain why, because they do know the facts about cables. And they can prove with reliable methods that they need a particular kind of cables.


To pay £700 for something that actually does nothing is more than ridiculous, in my opinion. True, for some people, it does something, but the thing is that it does just inside their heads. So it's not valid for myself.


You are the ones that are claiming that cryogenic treatment does "something" to cables, aren't you? Yet you can't explain what, how, or what effect could it actually have at the end of the audio chain. You just don't know.

Edit: corrections.

While I know that playing back music directly from my computer can cause "enormous intolerable distortions in the long-wavelength field of sound and make all treble sound blunt", etc.*, I am very happy with my audio setup. Please keep in mind that looking for flaws in digital encoding requires training which I do not yet have. My goal is not to be able to hear every little flaw in my music. My goal is to enjoy the music I listen to.
While we're at it, why don't YOU abx the samples I refer to in my signature?

As for all the voodoo statements like cryogenic treatment, I'd only like to ask the people who actually believe in it, to check their logic chain of thoughts.
If we, for example, freeze 1 centiliter of water, using cryogenics, and then defrost it. Will the water's characteristics not be the same AFTER the defrost as they were BEFORE the defrost? Or does the water now have some kind of "soul" that capacities it to "make fish lactate"?*
And how it is different with cables?
Yes, the difference is that copper is a solid-state metal. The cryogenic treatment might shift the nuclear structure of the cable, somehow, but this will only reduce the cables quality, at best.
All I do, is speculate, so please refrain from flaming me should I be wrong.

My point here is, that I think all audio-voodoo is just what tube amplifiers is to people.
People say "it gives warmer sound". That might be true, but the "warmer sound" is achieved through distortion. I think that if someone, in a test, could hear a clear difference between a test cable and an expensive cable, then the expensive cable would not sound different because it's better, but because it would somehow distort the sound and fool the buyer into believing that his audio system should actually sound that way.

* sarcasm
(I would have omitted this, but it seems I shouldn't)

I love the fact that even if cable did make some difference, that only the last 1.5M of cable is replaceable by your cable of choice anyway.

All the wiring in your home, to the junction box, out to the power line, down the street, to the local transformer is all bog standard, probably cheapest they could find fit for the purpose - and you honestly think the comparatively insignificant bit of cable between the wall and your amp is making any difference? Hilarious.

To try to build a bridge between HA and the guys over on WigWam, I don't think there was anything wrong with this test at all.

The problem is in the conclusions that are being drawn from the results.



OK, that's fine - but the problem is that people are drawing such conclusions from this test - comments on the WigWam message boards such as "two out of three people preferred cable X - therefore that one must be better" are missing what your test showed. The test showed, overall, nothing. See below, if you doubt this.



The means to deliver results that are (or have the possibility of being) better than "chance" - i.e. better than tossing a coin or throwing a dice - are open to anyone who cares to make use of them.

You had a hi-fi shop, some listeners, some music, and some cables to test. Whether you chose to do a test that could give you answers, or one which couldn't, was entirely up to you.



That's entirely fine. The problem, you must understand, is that you have to have some way of determining if the results are more due to the cables than to chance.

That's what statistics are for - they're the only tool suitable. They let you look at data and say "is this random, or is there something happening here?"

They go further - they let you say "I'll assume it's random - now, what exactly are the chances that these particular results would have come up if it is just random, and there's no real effect of the different cables?"

If those results only had a 1% (1 in a hundred) chance of occurring at random, then most people would believe the 99 out of a hundred chance that something real has been detected in the test.

We're not even so arrogant as to demand that level of proof here on HA - we typically take 5% (1 in 20) as good enough. And we let people try as many times as they want (so long as no results are rejected from the final analysis, and the number of trials is decided beforehand).

I think the real frustration is that you had the opportunity to carry out a test which would have given you a yes/no answer. You didn't carry out such a test, but some people over on the WigWam boards are pretending that you got such an answer anyway.



But it was a method that couldn't answer the question you posed!

Let's say I have several coins instead of several cables. I'll decide that "heads" is actually a better result from tossing a coin than "tails".

I'll let 3 people toss each coin, and toss a reference coin at the same time as each. I'll record heads-heads and tails-tails as "no difference"; and I'll record heads-tails as a "win" for the test coin, and tails-heads as a "win" for the reference coin.

In this test, some of those coins are probably going to "win" two or three times.

Does this mean that some of these coins are "better", i.e. more likely to give heads than the other coins?

The answer is not yes, and the answer is not no. The answer is that this test just doesn't answer the question! If the coins were all identical and perfectly balanced, I would still expect, on average, some of other of them to "win" in some tests - that's just how chance works. Likewise, if one or some of the coins really were very biassed (i.e. two heads!), they'd win in these tests.

The problem is, I didn't test in a way to be able to see which is the case. If all my coins except the reference were double-headed, then the results would have been so obvious that I could have seen the effect. However, if only some of the coins are doubled headed, or more realistically, if some of the coins are slightly biased due to weight distribution (i.e. the do have a head and a tail side, but one is slightly more likely to win than the other) then I need to do much better testing to detect this.


This is a close parallel with what you've done with your power cables.

So, next time, please run a test where you can do a statistical analysis. Here's a suggestion...

Take the cable and listener(s) that achieved "best" results in the current test. Run the test again, with just that cable (B) + the stock cable (A), just that listener/those listeners, and the same equipment.

Then play them A,A or A,B at random. 8 pairs is enough. I'd even argue (though it's bad practice) that you could use different music for each trial if the participant believed this would help. This should enable you to do more trials without driving them mad. You can split the trials over days or weeks if you want, though no results must be available until the end.

Participants have to answer "same" or "different" for each pair. You can even get them to make notes about the differences they hear, and which one they prefer - this will be interesting, though isn't essential to answer the "can you really hear a difference" question.

Hope this is some help. Let us know if you do manage to carry out such a test.

Cheers,
David.

P.S.


Yes, that would be my advice over on WigWam, if I was a member.

[quote=KikeG,Oct 7 2005, 03:52 AM]
[/quote]
You are the ones that are claiming that cryogenic treatment does "something" to cables, aren't you? Yet you can't explain what, how, or what effect could it actually have at the end of the audio chain. You just don't know.

Edit: corrections.

[/quote]


BTW i have claimed nothing, personally I have never heard a cryo treated cable, but I ask if you guys ake any claims that you back them up, my posts on here, are more aimed at living and letting live, NO ONE has all the answers, some of the questions haven't even been asked yet, It may be power of suggestion, it may be that differnces are outwith normal hearing, but still havre an artefactual effect, TBH I don't have all the answers, and whilst this remains the case, then I remain open minded, some on here have already made up their minds, thats not the way forward IMHO.

Anyway post above is one of the most sensible I have read on here (in this thread anyway) I have been asked again to post the thoughts of our test originator

[QUOTE]mosfet@hifiwigwam wrote:

-----------------------------------------------------


http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....pic=37447&st=25

2Bdecided of HA wrote:


but the problem is that people are drawing such conclusions from this test


The method used and results obtained have been accurately reported and people are free to reach whatever conclusion they wish based upon this. In precisely the same way similar conclusion can be reached after reading an article or ‘group test’ in a hi-fi magazine.


The means to deliver results that are (or have the possibility of being) better than "chance" - i.e. better than tossing a coin or throwing a dice - are open to anyone who cares to make use of them.


Not quite. To falsify a hypothetical statement based on the human perception of something, such that conclusions based thereon pass into fact, is beyond the scope of a non-funded group; it’s misguided to think otherwise. To do so requires resources that are not “open to anyone”.

To deliver results that are better than chance, in this case, was not my remit. This was the remit of the aftermarket power cables used. Think about this statement before applying further statistical argument.


But it was a method that couldn't answer the question you posed!


Yes, I know. I’ve gone to lengths to explain why. See my previous (quoted) post on HA.

Otherwise thanks for your comments David.[/QUOTE]

Akid, you may want to believe that nobody has all the answers. You seem to prefer ignoring established knowledge about cables, because that ignorance leaves some room for your expensive cables to do "something" that you don't understand. But the fact is that cables are not some arcane art. Cable science exists, and isn't rocket science, specially when comes to audio. Cables have been used from many, many years, in many areas, and their properties are very well known. The answers ARE there, for anyone that wants to learn them.

Well, we have to be careful here. We know we can't prove the negative. We can't actually prove that something is inaudible. However, we can prove that something is audible, and consistent lack of this proof will allow people to draw their own conclusion, despite the negative being strictly unproven.

Suppose we carry out a test to "prove" that putting a brick on top of an amplifier improves the sound. Under the chosen test conditions, all participants report a positive improvement in sound when they see that the brick is on the amplifier. Then they fail to differentiate "brick on top of amplifier" from "brick not on top of amplifier" when the position of the brick is hidden from them.

This doesn't statistically prove that the effect of the brick is inaudible and the participants are imagining the difference. However, given the results of the above test, I wouldn't be rushing out to buy a £700 brick to put on top of my amp!


I don't understand what resources were not available to you which, in being absent, prevented you from carrying out a statistically valid test, while still being able to carry out the test you reported. You need enthusiasm and persistence, not money (unless you have to buy all the power cables involved!) - I'm sure you have plenty of the first two!


As for carrying out a test so that "conclusions based thereon pass into fact" - the people on HA have done it. Results from one of Roberto's listening tests ( http://www.rjamorim.com/test/ ) were used (along with other evidence) by the Advertising Standards Agency to strike down an advert by AOL for "CD quality" audio at 64kbps. The test, carried out by HA members without any funding, was accepted as evidence against the advertised claim.



Yes, I understand that. My point (I'm sure you know!) is that, even if the power cables were delivering results, and your listeners were detecting them, your experimental methods don't allow you or me or anyone else to differentiate the results from chance. The tossing a coin example shows that I hope.



You're welcome. If there ever is a statistically valid blind test which shows audible differences between power cables (or pretty much any well designed cables), the HA regulars would be very keen to hear about it.

Cheers,
David.

For the small fee of 50€ per 100ml, we will sell you a compound fluid which has been specially treated with complex electromagnetc wave patterns, developed in our in our laboratories. Drinking this fluid will do all sorts of good things for you. Enhance your mental capabilities, improve your immune system, make you more attractive... Only a few drops per day are neccessary for an overall improvement. We recommend a daily dosage of 80 to 100 drops, spread over the day before meals (of course more will never hurt). A 250ml bottle will last you for weeks. How's that for value?

NEW: our scientists have been working extra hours to bring you this exclusive offer: for only 30€ more, the frequencies are carefully tuned to match your age and sex, which increases the dramatic effects even more!

Emily, 23: I've tried it and its totally fantastic! Studying used to be a real drag, but ever since I started using your wonderful product, my grades have been improving!
Steve, 31: Since I've turned thirty things have been going downhill.. until now! The ladies have started noticing me again! And to tell you the truth, my mirror shows it as well! It doesn't even taste bad, just like water perhaps with a touch of lemon!

--< snip >--

Ahem, got carried away. Now, if chemical analysis has shown this to be 99.8% water with some impurities (like salt)... I'd say it is not upon me to disproove the claims made. It should not be difficult, given that they claim radical effects.

There are people who will buy stuff like that and with some there will be positive effects, just not more so than with a placebo.

I'll do my best to reply to this in a friendly way, and not respond to the troll bait.

On arrogance:
It's not about arrogance at all. It's about your worldview. Literally anything could be possible. It's theoretically possible that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster that can't be detected. The existence of this Flying Spaghetti Monster can't be disproved.

Just like "improvments" in power cables and audiophile treatments. Believers will reject ABX results as being unable to detect the improvement in sound due to a plethora of excuses. "What if it can't be detected by your means!"

What if, what if, what if. I prefer to live in a world of relative certainty and stability supported by the scientific method. If you prefer a different way of looking at life, that's fine. I'm all for live and let live, but as I suggested in my first post in this thread, that's what other fora are for.

On a personal note, Akid, I read HA virtually every day for almost a year before I felt I knew enough to register and post here. I still made some embarrassing misstatements, but all in all I feel I've learned a lot, and perhaps even look at the world a bit differently thanks to this forum's influence. For that, I'm deeply grateful to the HA community.

If you truly want to learn, Akid, I invite you to stick around HA. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're more interested in knowledge than trolling. I hope I'm right.

Have a nice day.

What evidance do I have to give when the above Quote is given in reply to me asking a question alive said



I asked for evidance of that statement, which as yet he has not supplied.

thing is I have said nothing about what I believe, I also understand a lot more than some of the condascending remarks suggest, I have looked at this forum and all I find is blinkered condascension, thats no way to learn something, (or do you feel you have nothing left to learn, and perhaps your role is only to preach your learned wisdom)accept that others have a different POV (not me, any others) and that may lead to more a harmoniuos transfer of knowledge, it's arrogant to suggest that I can learn something from here, without accepting that you guys could learn from others, the reason for the test on wigwam was to attempt to discover wether it's all objective, and ther is nothing more we can learn, or is there some other force at play, lets face it too many clever folk can and do hear repeatable differences, are they all hoodwinked, if so the audio industry has pulled off the scam of the century (I say all this, I am also aware of a lot of snake oil salesman out there, but some of the things you pour scorn on are real forr others, and maybe just maybe there is a reason for it that we haven't discovered yet, as a result I will allways be open to learning new things, I certainly don't think for a minute that i am right, and I also don't look down on others who have a different POV, I have seen a bit of that here, from some posters, and yet for all your talk about proof, NO ONE has yet offered any?)

BTW I'm not trolloing, but I reckon I won't be back, you guys are welcome to your measured understanding of the world around us, I will be happily listening to my music, as lets face it, songs don't become popular because they measure well, they get to you on an emotional level, and that is all subjective!!

For sure, placebo effect is subjective...

You are asking for something impossible: he cannot prove the reversal because he cannot prove that something doesnt exist. He would first have to prove that cryogenic treatment results in a difference BEFORE it returns to normal state, so how should he do that?

- Cryogenic treatment has an effect BEFORE the equip returns to normal -> not testable
- Cryogenic treatment has no effect BEFORE the equip returns to normal -> not testable
- Cryogenic treatment has no effect AFTER the equip returns to normal -> not testable
- Cryogenic treatment has an effect AFTER the equip returns to normal -> testable!

So, whats left is that the only thing which could be proven is that cryogenic treatment has an effect AFTER the equipment returns to normal state. Since you were the one who claimed that, YOU are also the one who has to provide evidence.

placebo effect is only subjective when you know about the presence of a placebo, it does not take into account, those whose significant others mention how something sounds different even though they are blissfully unaware of any changes. It's anecdotal avidence lie this that leads some to ask, about parameters other than the current objective measurements.

I have to say I find some comments a bit bizzarre, no one has offered yet, anything other than an opinion, and for supposed scientific minds, you are coming accross as a bit narrow minded, what about the pursuit of knowledge.

FWIW Mosfet is a scientific type, biggest sceptic on the planet until recently, he heard something that made him question those objective beliefs, now, he as well as the rest of us understand that using currently understood objective tests shows no differences, his test was a way of trying to understand if something other than placebo effect was at work, instead of pouring scorn on his efforts, perhaps you need to open your minds, only discussion and experimentation will determine if there are other factors at work, or it really is all in the mind, for that he should be applauded, trying to ridicule others because you already "know" the answers leads to stagnation, and we'll never progress.

anyway feel free to suggest I have embarrassed myself (I haven't) and guys lighten up a little, lifes too short.

Bye now, we may meet again, but feel free to cancel my membership, I will not be back, it's too stuffy in here

Peace

Progress is an understatement concerning what science learned in only the last 10 years(and lossy codecs is only the tip of the iceberg in the digital department). What kind of progress did the audiophiles made in the same timespan?


bye.

It seems you already learnt here that lossless compression does not change the sound.

Edit: maybe we have been a little condescendent with you, but you earnt it!

The very fact that one is aware of something is the proof that something in some form exists -- that existence exists -- existence being all that which exists. Also, to grasp the thought, "I am aware of something," you must be conscious. Existence is axiomatic because it is necessary for all knowledge and it cannot be denied without conceding its truth. To deny existence is to say that something doesn't exist. A denial of something is only possible if existence exists.

Very funny. The thing is, the differences you hear with expensive cables exist just in your mind.

I have learnt that you lot are up yer own arses and you make bold claims without any backup, telling me lossless is the same as original, is not the same as convincing me, I have learnt one thing from this forum, you lot are a poor sad bunch of wankers, now go ahead and ban me, lifes to short to waste on blinkered dogmatic idiots who think so much of their own importance that they have nothing to learn, sheesh.

Couldn't resist a last retort, eh? That's a pity.

Lossless sounds different from the wav? Oh dear.

This sad wanker returns to his melancholy onanism.

ff123

True, it is smaller

he he not true but if there was any truth in what you just posted

taking into account my last post

what causes differances in cheap cables ? as I have myself when taking part in blind double blind and all sorts of other cable tests over the last 20 years never got involved in a cables value till after testing

when companies send me cables and many do I never want to know its value

in fact one chap who made a point of telling me how much all the bits cost got it back untested

I use speaker cable in value from 6 dollars per foot to as much as 70 dollars per meter

over the last 10 years of testing speaker cable the best two I have found tested on 20 amplifiers was one costing $7 dollars next best $30

but cost is never never a factor in testing

let people who have to pay full price worry about that