I like the part where they used Coat Hangers and the "Audiophiles" could not tell the difference;
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm
I like the part where they used Coat Hangers and the "Audiophiles" could not tell the difference;
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm
Audiofools hate double-blind tests because it exposes their nonsense beliefs to scientific scrutiny. I participate on a forum where DBT has been used quite a lot to compare lossy audio to lossless - another embarrassment to the so-called "golden ears".
Here's a joke:
I wonder what these audiophools are afraid of the most.
No longer having the reassurance from their "masters" about the "build" quality in the cables cables they purchased from them because they "built" a new one.
An oscilloscope hooked up to the cables to verify "things" that they claim to hear.
A hearing test to check whether they can hear properly.
Audiofools hate double-blind tests because it exposes their nonsense beliefs to scientific scrutiny. I participate on a forum where DBT has been used quite a lot to compare lossy audio to lossless - another embarrassment to the so-called "golden ears".
A computer magazine did such a test 18 years ago. The test setup: they used 17 different music pieces, and people had to listen to 1 minute CD quality first, then either 128 kbit/s MP3, 256 kbit/s or the same CD quality again, for 1 minute. So it was a A/B test. Unfortunately the article doesn't go into the details if it was a double-blind test, but I guess they knew what they were doing. The conclusion: nobody could hear a difference between CD quality and 256 kbit/s MP3, the 256 kbit/s MP3 was classified as CD quality as often as the CD quality test. But some people could hear a difference between 128 kbit/s MP3 and CD quality. But again, for some music, people thought the 128 kbit/s MP3 was better than the CD quality.
I think maybe an even better test setup than A/B is the ABX test, executed as double blind trials as well: "A subject is presented with two known samples (sample A, the first reference, and sample B, the second reference) followed by one unknown sample X that is randomly selected from either A or B. The subject is then required to identify X as either A or B.". The statistical results are less ambiguous than the concept with the arbitrary point system used by the computer magazine test. But I guess audiophools would argue that the relays used to switch the speaker cables influenced the sound, or other silly arguments. BTW, I think using mechanical relays could be a problem, because you could potentially hear different click sounds for different audio paths. Should be well shielded or very quiet relays.
Do it! Hopefully, they'll all stab their eardrums out with them and we won't have to worry about them anymore.
I think one already went deaf.
I re-quote from Audiogoon:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/cannot-find-perfect-sound/post?postid=1643618Quote
Cannot find perfect sound
Nutkenjit
09-21-2018 10:47pm
I've been listening to supposedly some of the finest speakers that currently exist. These include b&w 800 Series, revel high end, vivid audio, Psi audio and kef blades.
They must have excellent hearing and I wonder if they would submit themselves to hearing tests to confirm how good their hearing is to notice the difference.QuoteNutjim204
09-21-2018 10:55pm
I think one because they are probably a centimetre from your ear drum and two they are blasting may100 db as well and maybe they have damaged your eardrums so much that you now can't differentiate good from bad. Them earbuds'll do it every time.
Somewhere up the thread and their hearing is going to or on Dire Straits:QuoteNutpcc677
11-03-2018 1:48pm
Elizabeth, I totally agree. I have noticed many recordings are crap. So I set up playlist of music that sounds the best to me. Dire straits, Diana krall and quite a few others.
So it is the recordings that are crap and not your ears?
Yes, the ABX test is a superior scientific tool to perform DBT and that's what I use for audio codec evaluations. In fact, a proper ABX test allows the user to select the material, the actual sample length and location, and run an unlimited number of selections before choosing each instance. At least (I think) 16 instances per test should be conducted in order to exclude random choice to a <5% level. Properly designed, it eliminates nearly all possible objections to the accuracy of the test. Just FYI, I can barely tell 128K lossy from a lossless source on high quality material; the total test (I only managed 10 instances) lasted half an hour and was quite tiring because I had to strain to hear any difference at all. It would have been entirely adequate for casual listening. I'm pretty sure 192K or higher would be completely transparent for me, even with critical listening.
There existed (and may still exist) an electromechanical test box for comparing amplifiers, cables, etc. which ensured that any audible/visual clues were obscured to the point that specific settings could not be determined independently. I think it actually switched relays whether A, B, or X was selected, and ensured that the path was a constant length + same number of relay contacts just to eliminate another set of objections. It was used by a group called the SMWTMS for numerous tests in which the fallacy of audible differences between cables, interconnects, and quality amplifiers was repeatedly challenged and defeated.
I expect better screen printing for $35,000. It's not even embossed.
“Conductor Material: U.S. laboratory grade precious metal alloys, proprietary formulation”
Meaning; 1% Copper, 99% Bullshit
I agree with you on this.
I admit I was stumped by his claim, after all since when is copper coated aluminium proprietary ?
Yes, the ABX test is a superior scientific tool to perform DBT and that's what I use for audio codec evaluations. In fact, a proper ABX test allows the user to select the material, the actual sample length and location, and run an unlimited number of selections before choosing each instance. At least (I think) 16 instances per test should be conducted in order to exclude random choice to a <5% level. Properly designed, it eliminates nearly all possible objections to the accuracy of the test. Just FYI, I can barely tell 128K lossy from a lossless source on high quality material; the total test (I only managed 10 instances) lasted half an hour and was quite tiring because I had to strain to hear any difference at all. It would have been entirely adequate for casual listening. I'm pretty sure 192K or higher would be completely transparent for me, even with critical listening.
That has been my experience as well. In a pristine audio environment maybe I *might* discern audible degradation in a 128k MP3 vs the source, but in the real world, noisy kitchen/living room at home, the zoo-like cubefarm at work, or God help us all the car, it's a non-issue. Compression artifacts are totally swamped by lousy car speakers and environmental noise.
There existed (and may still exist) an electromechanical test box for comparing amplifiers, cables, etc. which ensured that any audible/visual clues were obscured to the point that specific settings could not be determined independently. I think it actually switched relays whether A, B, or X was selected, and ensured that the path was a constant length + same number of relay contacts just to eliminate another set of objections. It was used by a group called the SMWTMS for numerous tests in which the fallacy of audible differences between cables, interconnects, and quality amplifiers was repeatedly challenged and defeated.
Ah, the South West Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society! I remember seeing that name in old Audio Amateur magazines. Are they still a going concern? I sure hope so, if just for the name!
Roger Russell describes a similar setup that Gordon Gow used to use during his lectures on the ins and outs of speaker cable. http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#gordongow
Last time I actually had a hifi setup, my speaker cables were snipped off a drum of three core mains cable with the earth snipped off. Sounded great! Then again I don't have Ferengi ears.
Y'know I wonder if products like these are important means of laundering or embezzlement. You buy so-and-so from me and I perform so-and-so service for you, and voila, money has changed hands for whatever underhanded purpose. Except it's not just money, but a legitimate good, and who's to say what the fair market value of that good is but its agreed sale price?
The cost of materials and labor that went into such a good, are merely a kind of tax extracted upon the laundered money. The cost of doing business.
The scale doesn't seem quite appropriate for this though; I'd have to think they'd be moving quantities of thousands, to handle the scale of money that's normally needed to be laundered? No idea, I know very little about the economics of such things...
Tim