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: CINCH cables blind test (Read 70745 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #50 –
Very nice test. Good work!

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #51 –
Quote
Quote
Certainly in an actual scientific experiment, there would be an attempt to reduce the switching intervals to be essentially instantaneous, to avoid this sort of criticism.


I didn't get this critisism at all. 99% of audiophile people acknowledge that all cable sound the same when switched quickly (Edit : interconnect cables without RLC filters). There is no debate about this fact.  One of the main criticism was exactly the opposite : the listening sessions were too short !

<snip more of same>


I think there's a misunderstanding here.  Shortening the switching *interval* does not mean that the listening sessions have to be short!  What I mean by swithcing interval, is the time it takes to *change* from cable A to cable B...not the time it takes to listen to them.  (I would call that the 'listening interval')

Short switching intervals are more sensitive because audio 'memory' only remains accurate for details for a short time.

Quote
direction sound better than stadard ones. Audiophile never said that expensive cables sounded better than standard ones in the wrong direction. There is no need to test it. Everyone agrees on this.



I think you need to be careful about claims of 'audiophiles never said'.  Audiophiles have said *A LOT* of kooky things in my experience, one being that 'direction' of the cable is important -- Robert Harley of Stereophile says this in his book.  He attributees it to the crystal structure of copper or some such
pseudoscience.


Quote
In the same way, no audiophile pretends that high end cable sound better than standard cables when an ABX switcher is plugged in the middle of the path of the signal.


What makes you so sure that no audiophile ever perceived such a difference in an ABX test , Pio? 


Quote
I'm not going to test this. All I want to test is audiophile claims, and this is something that no audiophile claims.


Again, what makes you so sure?  Do you mean, you 've simply never *seen* such a claim?

You might want to ask guyes like Tom Nousaine or Arny Kruger about what audiophiles have claimed, when using ABX boxes.  Remember that any ABX test involves first perceiveing a difference between A and B -- even when connected to the ABX box. 

It's true that audiophiles might (and have) claim that an ABX box itself 'masks' differences...but if they hear differences when comparing A and B, that can't be globally true, for the same reason it wasn't true in your test:  people heard differences in phase 1.

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #52 –
I can't tell all that audiophile have claimed. What I say only reflects the common opinion that I have gathered in different shops, in the press, among audiophile firends, and on some audiophile forums.

To put it otherwise, if a test with an ABX box fails, it leaves a valid objection for audiophiles : the box is not as transparent as the cables tested, and masks the difference.
If I let a hardcore audiophile setup everything in phase 1, and he says that the difference is huge and that I am deaf, then he can't tell after the test that the system was not transparent enough to reveal the difference.

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #53 –
Quote
I can't tell all that audiophile have claimed. What I say only reflects the common opinion that I have gathered in different shops, in the press, among audiophile firends, and on some audiophile forums.

To put it otherwise, if a test with an ABX box fails, it leaves a valid objection for audiophiles : the box is not as transparent as the cables tested, and masks the difference.
If I let a hardcore audiophile setup everything in phase 1, and he says that the difference is huge and that I am deaf, then he can't tell after the test that the system was not transparent enough to reveal the difference.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=298870"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The *same* objection can be made about your tests, due to the time it takes to switch cables: that your method was not as 'transparent' as one using short interval cable switching would be.

For an ABX box test that has already been performed, and whose results were null, all the audiophile can claim is that the the ABX box masked differences *OTHER THAN* the ones that were 'heard' when the subjects were comparing A and B,  *using the ABX box*.  People , including audiophiles, *can* and *do* hear such differences when they switch between A and B using an ABX box.  If they don't, there's no reason to continue to test.  Subjects have to hear differences *during* ABX box tests, in order for the test to be meaningful.  And subjects do!

Just as with your test, if no one had claimed to hear difference in the phase 1 part, there would be no reason to continue.  But they did claim to hear differences, and so you did continue with the test.

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #54 –
You have to think what this test is about. Most audiophiles don't care about the switching intervals. No audiophile uses a procedure to perform quick switching when comparing cables. They don't need it, they hear clear differences. This was a test aimed to check audiophile claims, not limits of human hearing. As such, the test was performed using usual "audiophile" procedures, except for the blind and statistics part, of course.

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #55 –
Quote
You have to think what this test is about. Most audiophiles don't care about the switching intervals.


Well, most of them don't care about objectively substantiating perceived differences *at all*, much less whether short or long switching intervals were used to do it!

Quote
No audiophile uses a procedure to perform quick switching when comparing cables. They don't need it, they hear clear differences. This was a test aimed to check audiophile claims, not limits of human hearing. As such, the test was performed using usual "audiophile" procedures, except for the blind and statistics part, of course.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=298990"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Points taken, but I'm playing devil's advocate -- I have lots of experience debating 'audiophiles' at this point , and I'm giving Pio a taste of the sorts of objections they could raise to his protocol, though unlike them I'm focusing only on the ones that have scientific validity -- there are a half-dozen flooby-based objections 'audiophiles' would raise too!

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #56 –
For my own sanity, I don't need to convince them - I just need to convince me.

Any kind of listening experience where I can hear differences one moment, but not the next - and the only thing that's changed is that I have the identity of the sound source hidden from me - that's enough to convince me that I'm imagining the differences.

I don't care what anyone else thinks about the matter!

I don't discount stranger things happening though - in one test, I could detect phase correction of a loudspeaker on a Friday afternoon, but not on a Monday morning - both times blind. Conclusion: it was either chance, or altered perception - either way, it suggested to me that it wasn't that important, but speakers should be phase linear if possible because it might be audible. If you can fix something cheaply that might be audible, do it. If you're tempted to fix something, at great expense, which you can't hear - find something better to do with your money/time/life!

Cheers,
David.

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #57 –
Pio2001, would it be possible to put a couple of late-incoming follow-up questions? My French is really lousy, so I can't figure out these things:

1. How long were the usual timespans between the observations in phase 1 and phase 2 respectively?

2. Was phase 2 performed on CDs only, or also on SACD media?

Thanks in advance (with no obligation)
FA

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #58 –
Quote
1. How long were the usual timespans between the observations in phase 1 and phase 2 respectively?


10 to 30 seconds. Shorter and shorter as Patrice improved his performance

Quote
2. Was phase 2 performed on CDs only, or also on SACD media?


On CD only.

While I'm here, I can add that there was a follow-up. Other audiophiles gathered in Toulouse in order to repeat the test in different conditions. This time, the main listener (called Rorominator) of the test was at home, listening his own CDs on his own system, with cables that he was certain he could identify without any effort. 4 other listeners joined him.
Thus the arguments about "unknown system", "unknown room", "lots of cables", and "unknown CDs" were ruled out. He also used an easier protocol. Each session was composed of two playbacks. One with the standard cable, the otrher with the audiophile one (an Ecosse cable, sold 1300 €). The order was random. Listeners had to tell which was the first cable.

Rorominator scored 9/20. But one of the 4 others scored 10/10 ! Which leads to p=0.5%
After some time, I got the detailed results from Rorominator. We discovered that they made a mistake about the score. He only scored 8/10, and not 10/10, which is p=25 % !

The lesson to learn is that it is always useful to make all the raw results available for everyone to check .

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #59 –
Quote
Rorominator scored 9/20. But one of the 4 others scored 10/10 ! Which leads to p=0.5%
After some time, I got the detailed results from Rorominator. We discovered that they made a mistake about the score. He only scored 8/10, and not 10/10, which is p=25 % !

Yeah, yeah - "sure to be able to identify" and then 9/20. This test satisfies. What about the scores of the three remaining folks ?
I know that I know nothing. But how can I then know that ?

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #60 –
Thanks. I was thinking of a similar test together with a friend who ended up with two DVD players after a messy guarantee repair :-). I'm not yet sure I can lure this guy into this. But just in case, I would appreciate feedback on the methodology I have in mind:

1.- Identical CDs, i.e. same edition of an album well known by the participants.

2.- Mid-end speakers and stereo amplifier, well known by the owner, but not by me.

3.- Identical upper Low-end CD/DVD-player, i.e. same brand and model, delivered same year.

4.- Lower Mid end cable pair + Unbranded cable pair.

5.- Test person leaves room. Random connection of players to amp. Left player always connected to Input 1, Right player to Input 2. But which cable pair goes where is decided by flip of coin.

6.- Test person returns, and compares players Left and Right by listening and switching freely for X minutes. Scores cable pairs as "better" and "worse" by some predefined criterias.

7.- Steps 5 and 6 are repeated until sample size N is reached.

8.- Test is repeated with me as test person and my friend as "investigator".

Thanks in avance
FA

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #61 –
Quote
What about the scores of the three remaining folks ?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


All links : [a href="http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29786006&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=255]http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/viewtop...r=asc&start=255[/url]

All scores :

Rorominator (home listener) : 9/20
Abricot : 8/15
Nolwenn : 6/15
Phoenix_prt : 8/10
Usa_satriani : 3/5

Quote
which cable pair goes where is decided by flip of coin.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313670"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ok.
Rather use a dice if you can. Flipping a coin can give weird results according to the way it is flipped.
Best : a certified dice with a dice cup (available in Backgammon specialized shops).

Quote
6.- Test person returns, and compares players Left and Right by listening and switching freely for X minutes. Scores cable pairs as "better" and "worse" by some predefined criterias.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313670"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't think that demanding an aswer after a limited time is a good idea. If the test fails, you leave the tester with valid objections (time too short, conditions too difficult, bad mood...), and you can't run the test again without introducing very complicated influences in the calculus of the success or failure.
By giving unlimited time, or giving limited time, but allowing null answers, that will be left out and won't increase the number of completed trials, you leave no excuse for the listener in case of failure.

Quote
7.- Steps 5 and 6 are repeated until sample size N is reached.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313670"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If the test is between interconnects, I think it would be safer to put it in perspective with the previous tests, as far as mathematical analysis is concerned.  Which means that we should take into account the occurence of one failure already (the very first test, that started this thread, did not pass the training phase, so no failure occured).
The target value for p should be very low, because interconnects having an audible effect is very improbable, and p should always be very inferior to the probability of the positive hypothesis to be right (otherwise, the success by chance will be obviously considered as more probable than the positive hypothesis !)
p < 0.001 should be the maximum, IMHO. It would be interesting to leave some room for very low p. Like p < 0.00001 in case of a perfect test, and p being still < 0.001 if some isolated errors creeps in.
Since one test already failed, these values should be decreased. I don't think that anyone ever calculated the factor by which p should be decreased after each failure in case of a sequencial test. I don't even know if it is possible for the general p of a sequencial test to converge towards a limit value if the local p of each session in divided by a factor k from session n to session n+1. If it was the case, computing the limit value from the starting local p and the factor k would be a very, very useful thing for the community.

Contrary to our tests, where all listeners were listening together, there won't be possible influences between your answers and those of your friends. So you've got the choice.
You can sum up all answers, and compute the general resulting p value, which allows you to perform half as much trials as if you were testing alone. In short, you perform half the test, and your friend performs the other half.
The problem is that if one of you fail, and the other succeeds, the result will be a failure ! Since one of you only is familiar with the listening setup, it's better to leave both of you the possibility to win.
Thus your success condition will be "one listener at least gets a success with a probability of guessing inferior to p1". Then you can calculate the probability p2 of this condition to occur by chance. It will be the real p of your test.
You won't be allowed to sum up both your results. If you both fail, but that the sum of your answers is a success, forget it, the test failed altogether.

If you want to leave the door open for all possible successes, induvidual and collective, then you'll have to do more maths in order to setup the right number of sessions, and compute the real general result of the test.

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #62 –
Quote
Quote
The agressor signals are electric-magnetic waves. Waves with only a magnetic or only an electric field don't exist. Kill the electric part, kill all.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Slightly off-topic: is there a way to shield audio equipment from cell phone interference? Can this problem be eliminated by using high-end equipment (and, of course, properly shielded cables)?]

Quote
LoL, someone made the horrible mistake of trying to post this over at Head-Fi in the cable forum. 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=297387"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Could you post a link, please? (so we can all have a laugh) 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=297817"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sorry for such a late reply! I visited "Head-Fi's" "Cable" forum just to see if these fanatics really exsist... I mean really, I've never actually herd of someone believing cables needed a "break-in" period! 

Alas, its true, here's the first thread I came across!

[a href="http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=127774]Link[/url]

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #63 –
It's amazing there is even a forum for something that doesn't make a bit of difference.  Imagine HA having a filename forum where people discuss filenames with the best harmonic bit patterns that increase the karma of the rest of the audio file, for much clearer whateverness.
Veni Vidi Vorbis.

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #64 –
There isn't a cables forum, although one of the forums includes any discussion about cables.

For me engaging in a heated debate about cables seems a strange thing. But each to his own.

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #65 –
Quote
While I'm here, I can add that there was a follow-up. Other audiophiles gathered in Toulouse in order to repeat the test in different conditions. This time, the main listener (called Rorominator) of the test was at home, listening his own CDs on his own system, with cables that he was certain he could identify without any effort. 4 other listeners joined him.
Thus the arguments about "unknown system", "unknown room", "lots of cables", and "unknown CDs" were ruled out.

Rorominator scored 9/20.
I'm really genuinely curious to hear what was his reaction (excuse) to that failure.

Some people do change their mind after revelation. Thats a sign of intelligence.
It really really did sound different. Not in a placebo way.

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #66 –
He said that he didn't have any excuse for failing !

However, he's still around in cable discussions, and still pretends that sonic differences between cables are very important, like Jason Victor Serinus, still advocating the use of 1000 € power cables after the utter failure of the blind test that he himself organized : http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4...ds-12-2004.html (hey, look, a forum entierely about cables  http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/forum/showt...48&page=4&pp=10 )

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #67 –
Quote
He said that he didn't have any excuse for failing !

However, he's still around in cable discussions, and still pretends that sonic differences between cables are very important, like Jason Victor Serinus, still advocating the use of 1000 € power cables after the utter failure of the blind test that he himself organized : http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4...ds-12-2004.html (hey, look, a forum entierely about cables  http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/forum/showt...48&page=4&pp=10 )
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=314853"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When I read your first line I thought, great, another that has seen the light! But alas, no, another that still has his head in the sand. 
daefeatures.co.uk

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #68 –
Quote
It's amazing there is even a forum for something that doesn't make a bit of difference.  Imagine HA having a filename forum where people discuss filenames with the best harmonic bit patterns that increase the karma of the rest of the audio file, for much clearer whateverness.

Personally, as far as Karma for my music goes, my prefered cable is USB. 

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #69 –
Thanks for the advices Pio2001. Regarding the maths, I thought of chi-square on null hypothesis "There is no difference between cable pairs". AFAIK 9/10 is actually a quite strong argument for rejecting H0.

Test person's wife is now heading for a month of playa, let's see if we're lucky. I also think I've found a way to use non-recoded 96 KHz audio...

Cheers
FA

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #70 –
Quote
Thanks for the advices Pio2001. Regarding the maths, I thought of chi-square on null hypothesis "There is no difference between cable pairs". AFAIK 9/10 is actually a quite strong argument for rejecting H0.

Test person's wife is now heading for a month of playa, let's see if we're lucky. I also think I've found a way to use non-recoded 96 KHz audio...

Cheers
FA
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315172"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't know chi-square. I learned the maths of blind tests reading this forum.
By 9/10, do you mean 9 right answers out of 10 for a question with two choices ?
It means p < 1.08 %
For someone who thinks that it is impossible for two cables to sound different, it is still 1 %, thus not impossible to get it by chance. The result will have to come with a very detailed description of how the tests went, in order to check that there were no rejected bad answers because the listener wanted to try a different CD, for example, or because the test was restarted in quieter conditions after the dog was alseep...

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #71 –
Quote
Quote
Thanks for the advices Pio2001. Regarding the maths, I thought of chi-square on null hypothesis "There is no difference between cable pairs". AFAIK 9/10 is actually a quite strong argument for rejecting H0.

Test person's wife is now heading for a month of playa, let's see if we're lucky. I also think I've found a way to use non-recoded 96 KHz audio...

Cheers
FA
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315172"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't know chi-square. I learned the maths of blind tests reading this forum.
By 9/10, do you mean 9 right answers out of 10 for a question with two choices ?
It means p < 1.08 %
For someone who thinks that it is impossible for two cables to sound different, it is still 1 %, thus not impossible to get it by chance. The result will have to come with a very detailed description of how the tests went, in order to check that there were no rejected bad answers because the listener wanted to try a different CD, for example, or because the test was restarted in quieter conditions after the dog was alseep...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=315195"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Is 10 trials really enough to make a robust claim, regardless of the score?

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #72 –
Quote
Rather use a dice if you can. Flipping a coin can give weird results according to the way it is flipped.
Best : a certified dice with a dice cup (available in Backgammon specialized shops).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps easier would be to use a true random number generator like [a href="http://www.random.org]random.org[/url] which uses atmospheric noise to generate numbers - pretty much as random as you can get. Set it to generate integers between 1 and 2, a result of 1 being cable location x and 2 being cable location y. There's also HotBits which uses radioactive decay to generate random numbers, which is also extremely unpredictable.

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #73 –
To get back on the original topic - testing cables, I do find the test very useful. We all knew it, but it is always good to get it straight.

One thing I was wondering is if we could maybe test the shielding of the cable. At home I had to burry my audio cables along with USB, SVIDEO, SPDIF (coax), Antenna and some speakers. Because I have this one place where all my cables go. I'll soon have power in there as well.

Giving that I have 10 meters of cable, I am seriously starting to wonder if a more expensive (and though supposedly better-shielded) cable wouldn't make a difference.

Any tests have been performed such as this one? wrapping a 10 meter cable around an antenna cable or a power cord and trying to abx vs a more expensive cable (or even abxing it against the same one not wrapped)?

CINCH cables blind test

Reply #74 –
One of the cables that I tested was not shielded. I think that we didn't listen to it, but I measured it. You can get some results in the zip file provided in the original message.
It passed all RMAA tests with exactly the same results as the standard cable exept for a 0.01 dB boost at 20 kHz. In fact, looking very closely, we can see that all cables gave 0.01 dB more than the standard one at 20 kHz.

However, these measurments were done with the DAT deck (analog input) on the floor. During previous measurments made with the deck just below the CD Player, and the cables against the wall with some power cords, the unshielded cable exhibited a louder 50 Hz component in the background noise.
Something like -86 dB instead of -100 dB. But there were also big differences between the other cables, the RG179 being below -110 dB at 50 Hz.