Tommy, let me get this straight. Did you just go back and spend time searching all of Merc's old posts? I guess I will respond by quoting you.




[This message has been edited by Jed M (edited July 02, 2002).]

Double post



[This message has been edited by Jed M (edited July 02, 2002).]

thanks Jed

i really do need to get a life

[This message has been edited by tommy2811 (edited July 02, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by tommy2811 (edited July 02, 2002).]

Wow! I've never had a groupie before...

Tommy: go back and search again. If you are careful, you'll see alot more opinions on gear I tried out. After all, I've amassed more than 6000 posts on these forums over the past three years. BTW... what was your point?

BM: How do you know? Did you do DBT ABXs on them all? I'm sure you wouldn't make that statement unless you did, so what trial protocol and design did you use to test them?

Amen, again. I couldn't agree more. I was begining to think maybe my hearing was gone with all the recent negative posts on the 950's musical abilities. 2 Ch and MC SACD thru the 950 is sonic nervana for me.

DB ABX testing performed solo requires a computer controlled audiophile-grade switchbox (or two). Sadly, these aren't cheap. :-(

But, I think the argument being made is that, since no one has ever been able to demonstrate perceptual differences among well-made cables in a DB ABX test (in contrast to other types of equipment, speakers especially), it's safe to extrapolate that you won't either. This argument hinges on the assumption that the listeners' failure was due to the similarity of the cables' performances, not a failure of the ancillary equipment to reveal the differences. It sounds like this is the assumption that you are having trouble swallowing. And that's fair. It's an assumption. (However, at least in some cases, such as at DAL, they use some seriously high-end equipment.)



I agree that using one's own ears is as good as any other non-scientific test, but it belies the real question: using ones own ears and perception, can you do better at differentiating the sounds of well-made cables than a coin toss? If the answer to that question is no, as the available ABX studies suggest, then it doesn't matter if it's your best alternative, it's still random.

Unfortunately, perceptual psychology is overflowing with examples of how "top-down" cognitive processes influence one's "bottom-up" perception of stimuli. I wish I could offer more constructive advice, but buy/rent/borrow and computer controlled ABX setup is the best I can do. :-/

[This message has been edited by neuroaudio (edited July 02, 2002).]

Unfortunately, even any test which used one of these boxes would only be valid for those systems which left this switchbox in the chain as a matter of everyday use. Otherwise, the results are contaminated just by the presence of the switch box. Of course, if you did a DBT ABX trial comparing your system with switchbox versus without the switchbox and the results were then not significantly different versus chance, then you could then use the switchbox.

I guess we're back to just listening to see which sounds better to each of us?

Well FWIW I don't believe an ABX is the only valid test. I would trust any well designed double blind test (including a good ABX) or an instrument measurement that shows differences above or even near the theoretical threshold of hearing.

If the difference is as obvious as sometimes claimed scoring near 100% should be a snap in a DB test.


Charlie

Newsflash:
“Physicists hope to use subatomic particles' imprecise nature to answer questions beyond the reach of today's OutLawer’s”

Research geared towards overcoming the same issues delaying the production of Quantum Computers will be capable of definitively settling the great Interconnect debate.

“Electrons make terrible golf balls, just too ill-behaved. When an ordinary ball rolls across the green and comes to a stop, it's either in the hole or it's not. An electron, on the other hand, can be in many places at once--in the hole, beside it, and at the edge of the green. Like all submicroscopic particles, an electron tends to spread itself out in a sort of hazy ''cloud'' of probability. It's impossible to keep track of where it is at every moment. With quantum mechanics, we can work out the probability that an electron is in a given spot, but the electron won't settle on a single location until something forces it to. This unruly mix of chance and imprecision would ruin a golf game” and downright makes predicting the precise path of travel of electrons through your interconnects impossible.

Unfortunately, even ABX tests using switchboxes have run amuck.
Attempting to measure effectively Shifts the computational trajectory randomly from its path. Such perturbations come from an unintentional coupling to external noise effectively destroying the information.
Scientists are working using variations of superposition to overcome the destructive interference effect (decoherence) of viewing qubits and internal interconnect functioning.

SLL,
At last, the final word on this subject. That's all I need to know. Thanks!