Ars prepares to put “audiophile” Ethernet cables to the test in Las Vegas

[wgscott]

The chances of finding one person in 1,000 from the public who will prove positive on this blind test is infinitesimally small. the test is a flawed test to begin with - set-up with almost 0% chance of success for all the reasons I already gave (& some more, I didn't).

 

Fine. Pick Michael Fremer, or the President of Audioquest, or one of the folks here who honestly believe they hear these differences. Pick 1000 of them.

[mmerrill99]

Fine. Pick Michael Fremer, or the President of Audioquest, or one of the folks here who honestly believe they hear these differences. Pick 1000 of them.

Do you know that is what is being done or are you just plucking that out of the air?

 

What about the test environment? How is that being handled?

 

You really know nothing about their test & yet you hold out the pretence that it might produce one positive result.

 

I, on the other hand, suggest that is fundamentally flawed from the few details that I've read & have no doubt of the outcome

[wgscott]

What we have here is failure to communicate.

 

[wgscott]

i.e.,

 

........

OK, for the sake of argument, consider a hypothetically flawless experiment, so we can focus (just for now) purely on the interpretation of the results. Put down the manual and think about what it means for one person out of your random sample of 1000 listeners who can, in a statistically robust and reproducible manner, can reproducibly identify the expensive cable in a (hypothetically) perfect double-blind trial.

[mmerrill99]

What we have here is failure to communicate.

 

Ah, yes "Cool Hand Luke" - a great film & another great quote from it "shakin' the bush, boss"

 

 

That pretty much defines what's going on with the Ars technica blind test - "they's shaken the bush"

In other words there's nothing really happening but the pretence of something actually being done is being given

[wgscott]

There are two issues:

 

(1) Flaws in the experiment

 

(2) Flaws in the interpretation (which would persist even in the hypothetical case that the experimental design itself is perfect).

 

Can we just focus on one of these at a time.

 

I'll take your word for (1), although I confess I don't fully understand why. But lets assume, just for the sake of discussion, that we can eliminate the objections in (1), so now what happens when one test subject alone reliably can identify differences.

[mmerrill99]

Sorry, I missed that post of yours - I find that happening when a post is at the bottom of the page & you have another post directly after it on the top of the next page.

 

Originally Posted by wgscott

OK, for the sake of argument, consider a hypothetically flawless experiment, so we can focus (just for now) purely on the interpretation of the results. Put down the manual and think about what it means for one person out of your random sample of 1000 listeners who can, in a statistically robust and reproducible manner, can reproducibly identify the expensive cable in a (hypothetically) perfect double-blind trial.

 

Anyway, yes hypotheticals are fine & if 1 person can hear a difference further testing is required, agreed.

 

Now back to reality - what's the point? It ain't going to happen!

[wgscott]

I'm a cable difference atheist, so I'm not the right person to argue the rest of this.

[mmerrill99]

I agree with you. If any ONE person can, in a statistically robust and reproducible manner, identify the better cable double-blind, that should be sufficiently compelling. There is no need for more than one test subject.

 

It isn't a mistake at all. If physically significant differences do not exist, then they cannot be detected by anyone, ipso facto.

 

If one person can detect differences in a statistically reliable manner (and the experiment itself is not flawed), then those differences most probably do exist, and the burden is then shifted upon those who want to claim that there are no significant, audible differences. They have to demonstrate that the person who perceived the differences is audiologically or neurologically atypical, which is a very difficult thing to do (given the extraordinary nature of the claim).

 

I'm a cable difference atheist, so I'm not the right person to argue the rest of this.

 

It's not even about cable differences - it's about the test itself & whether it has any chance of uncovering an actual difference - whether the design is robust enough to do what it purports to do.

 

As soundandmotion said - if the object is to see if anybody from the general public can hear this difference then they should stop wasting everybody's time - we know the chances of finding that one person is very, very remote. Case closed.

 

If they are intending to test if this cable has some audible differences then the test design needs to be far more robust & rigorous than it currently is.

[firedog]

I agree with you. If any ONE person can, in a statistically robust and reproducible manner, identify the better cable double-blind, that should be sufficiently compelling. There is no need for more than one test subject.

 

Hasn't this already been done for individuals? I seem to remember reading reviews/articles where the professional listener did such a thing.

 

One of my problems with the whole subjectiveist/objectivest/DBT debate is that I think there are experienced/professional listeners like Barry D. that have learned to hear things about 99% of listeners can't.

[toddrhodes]

Hasn't this already been done for individuals? I seem to remember reading reviews/articles where the professional listener did such a thing.

 

One of my problems with the whole subjectiveist/objectivest/DBT debate is that I think there are experienced/professional listeners like Barry D. that have learned to hear things about 99% of listeners can't.

 

Agreed - I would never submit myself to a blind test, but I will gladly read the musings of Barry, Chris C, and a few others on this and various forums to get their opinion. Obviously their experience is theirs alone but it generally correlates to perceptive gains in the real world (see: equipment isolation in multiple dimensions, Server 2012R2, Audiophile Optimizer, etc...). However - my issue is with the pricing on some of this stuff. I don't know what the BJC stuff costs but my guess is it is more in line with reality. Even a hand-wound Cat6 cable with the best connectors available should not exceed let's say $50 including labor (having built more Ethernet cables than I care to remember, it simply is not that laborious a process). Yet, you'll find cat5/6 cables, SATA cables, etc... that reach almost $300. That to me is gouging because it's such a niche market. Then there's the matter of what is already strung in the walls...

[Paul R]

It isn't a mistake at all. If physically significant differences do not exist, then they cannot be detected by anyone, ipso facto.

 

If one person can detect differences in a statistically reliable manner (and the experiment itself is not flawed), then those differences most probably do exist, and the burden is then shifted upon those who want to claim that there are no significant, audible differences. They have to demonstrate that the person who perceived the differences is audiologically or neurologically atypical, which is a very difficult thing to do (given the extraordinary nature of the claim).

 

 

Seriously? So two people, one a symphony conducter, the other a person who is an ardent death metal fan, both with 20 years of doing what they do, are going to hear exactly the same signal the same way?

 

Two people can hear the exact same physical signal very differently. Which isn't at all surprising though. We already know that two playbacks of exactly the same data are going to be very slightly different anyway, if measured at a normal listening distance, or even with headphones. I might not be able to hear the difference, but you might. Or vice versa.

[JW Audio]

I believe the test is skewed from the start.

 

If I'm listening to a piece of music I'm extremely familiar with on MY system, in MY music room, I believe the test would be fair. But to take me out of my element and have me listen to a system and music I am unfamiliar with... now the test is skewed.

 

I've replaced a cheap Ethernet with a Audioquest Cinnamon between my NAD HD and my Linksys WRT 1900AC router, I could definitely hear a difference in my system. Fortunately, it was a slight improvement.

 

 

Had I been somewhere else on a different system... maybe I couldn't have heard the difference.

 

Being intimately involved in your own system, one will be able to pick up on changes that he or she might not pick up on in an unfamiliar environment.

 

 

Sorry for the redundancy.

[wgscott]

Seriously? So two people, one a symphony conducter, the other a person who is an ardent death metal fan, both with 20 years of doing what they do, are going to hear exactly the same signal the same way?

 

Two people can hear the exact same physical signal very differently. Which isn't at all surprising though. We already know that two playbacks of exactly the same data are going to be very slightly different anyway, if measured at a normal listening distance, or even with headphones. I might not be able to hear the difference, but you might. Or vice versa.

 

Huh?

 

You missed my point so completely, I have no idea where to begin.

[LCC0256]

my 2 cents is this. (I admit it may not even be worth that..) I too think the test was skewed BUT it matters not on this general subject matter...i am convinced that the learned women and men on this forum have in fact a very heightened AND sophisticated hearing sense...i also believe the overwhelming majority of them are HIGHLY intelligent. Coupling those two FACTS together (if in fact you accept my premise) then that universe of people would be under a "bell curve" that was nothing like bell curves for most other testing groups...IMO it is not whether or not the test was valid (i suppose many in this most delicate and rare heights of abilities class would like it to be if only to justify their expenditures and sense of accomplishment) But that doesn't matter either really. What matters is the fact that listeners on this forum DO IN FACT ascertain differences no matter how nuanced they may be. This group can isolate and identify the cause/effect of those differences. Alas for me i most likely will never reach the elemental stage of comparison since none of my systems total more than $2500... I say that because there is a built in bias here also that the more expensive your system is the more legitimacy you have to offer opinion. I have been reading this same line of thought in magazines for 40+ years. Back in the day it was all about amps and speakers. Then on to turntables and cartridges. Then on to analog vs digital...now it basically is about processors but still with the caveat that a "certain acceptable basic amp/speaker combo" must be part of your system.

The good news for me is that i have not yet reached the point of no more positive increment (or diminishing returns) in SQ for my ears. I am sure basic SQ data IS IN FACT statistically discernible and quantifiable under a "normal" bell curve. That is to say i believe all those who like to listen to music can in fact hear differences nearly en masse up to ascertainable distinct diminishing points as properly conducted individual tests are run - where from an economic decision standpoint they become totally irrelevant (as well as physically inaudible)

 

 

On a less serious note....when i have a doubt on the subject i go with Paul !!(a Great American) but i listen to everything Jud has to say too just so i feel like i have heard 360 on the subject...LOL

[Paul R]

Huh?

 

You missed my point so completely, I have no idea where to begin.

 

Not really, just couldn't resist the opportunity to pull your leg a little bit. Want it back now?

 

-Paul

 

P.S. Ah! The paragraph that would have clued you in that was a joke is somehow not attached to that message. No wonder! Sorry.

-PR

[plissken]

I believe some here are missing the larger context. Ars has had some email back and forth with Michael Lavorgna from Audiostream.

 

I want everyone here to concentrate on two really critical items:

 

Mr. Lavorgna's statement is the first thing to consider. Please consider it in the whole and that he meant exactly what he meant when he said it:

 

"The perceived differences between the Vodka, Diamond, Cinnamon, and Cat. 5 cable are plainly apparent and easy to hear"

 

Does the above context place him and his claim into or out of the scope of some form of blind testing? IMO he should sit for some blind testing. If you think not then please pontificate as to why his statement precludes him from that.

 

2: He also stated that he heard the difference in a room full of people at a show.

 

So this bolsters what he said in the first item I pointed out and now leads me to my next point:

 

If one can hear, in a room full of people at a show, a plainly apparent and easy to hear difference with a $350 vs $5 cable then why can't that also happen at another venue with a room full of people?

 

I doubt anyone is going to crack the logic diagram I just postulated but will be interested in any contrary views based on his two statements only.

[joelha]

"The perceived differences between the Vodka, Diamond, Cinnamon, and Cat. 5 cable are plainly apparent and easy to hear"

 

Does the above context place him and his claim into or out of the scope of some form of blind testing? IMO he should sit for some blind testing. If you think not then please pontificate as to why his statement precludes him from that.

 

The reason is simple: Michael and others like him, myself included, simply don't feel the need to convince others of the "truth" of our listening experience. We believe we heard what we heard and we leave it to others to take or reject our experience. I think, for most of us, who and how many people accept our comments is unimportant.

 

The sooner the evidence seekers can accept that some will make a simple judgment concerning a sensory experience, the sooner we can all move on to talk about ideas and, yes, even other experiences which might advance the enjoyment of our hobby.

 

Joel

[Teresa]

Personally, I have zero confidence in AB or ABX tests either sighted or blind. Why? Even before my memory problems when I compared two things even knowing which was which (sighted) I would play the first (A) and then the second (B) and if I believe I heard a difference I would replay them and the difference would be gone. It's a problem with how normal human brains work. There are two main issues:

 

• Cognitive bias - your brain will fill in missing information thus making both sound the same on repeated listening.
  
• Listener Fatigue - switch back and forth too much and both will sound like crap.
  

The only way I have ever been able to verify differences (if they exist) and which one sounds the best is long term listening over several weeks with a wide variety of music.

 

So I expect this test to have a null result, just as the majority of AB and ABX tests do.

[plissken]

The reason is simple: Michael and others like him, myself included, simply don't feel the need to convince others of the "truth" of our listening experience. We believe we heard what we heard and we leave it to others to take or reject our experience. I think, for most of us, who and how many people accept our comments is unimportant.

 

The sooner the evidence seekers can accept that some will make a simple judgment concerning a sensory experience, the sooner we can all move on to talk about ideas and, yes, even other experiences which might advance the enjoyment of our hobby.

 

Joel

 

Personally, I have zero confidence in AB or ABX tests either sighted or blind. Why? Even before my memory problems when I compared two things even knowing which was which (sighted) I would play the first (A) and then the second (B) and if I believe I heard a difference I would replay them and the difference would be gone. It's a problem with how normal human brains work. There are two main issues:

 

• Cognitive bias - your brain will fill in missing information thus making both sound the same on repeated listening.
  
• Listener Fatigue - switch back and forth too much and both will sound like crap.
  

The only way I have ever been able to verify differences (if they exist) and which one sounds the best is long term listening over several weeks with a wide variety of music.

 

So I expect this test to have a null result, just as the majority of AB and ABX tests do.

 

So basically it's dodge the obviousness of his statements and logic be damned... I'm cool with that. Thanks for not really answering the question but feeling a need to reply to it none the less.

[jabbr]

The reason is simple: Michael and others like him, myself included, simply don't feel the need to convince others of the "truth" of our listening experience. We believe we heard what we heard and we leave it to others to take or reject our experience. I think, for most of us, who and how many people accept our comments is unimportant.

 

The sooner the evidence seekers can accept that some will make a simple judgment concerning a sensory experience, the sooner we can all move on to talk about ideas and, yes, even other experiences which might advance the enjoyment of our hobby.

 

Joel

 

Let's accept your sensory experience.

 

Why not simply use fiber optic cables and be done with concerns regarding multi stranded twisted copper wires?

[joelha]

"So basically it's dodge the obviousness of his statements and logic be damned... I'm cool with that. Thanks for not really answering the question but feeling a need to reply to it none the less."

 

Some people prefer experience and some people rely on the belief that their logic is bulletproof.

If you were cool with the above answers, you wouldn't have offered up such a cynical response.

But then I guess that must be how you feel when people don't agree with you.

Joel

[mmerrill99]

So basically it's dodge the obviousness of his statements and logic be damned... I'm cool with that. Thanks for not really answering the question but feeling a need to reply to it none the less.

Have you done many ABX tests? Got any positive results from them?

[joelha]

Hey jabbr,

 

The truth of the matter is that I've been following the thread on that very option with great interest and in fact have bought the equipment to allow me one optical ethernet connection. Based on what I've been reading, I'm looking forward to seeing what results I get.

 

Joel

[plissken]

"So basically it's dodge the obviousness of his statements and logic be damned... I'm cool with that. Thanks for not really answering the question but feeling a need to reply to it none the less."

 

Some people prefer experience and some people rely on the belief that their logic is bulletproof.

If you were cool with the above answers, you wouldn't have offered up such a cynical response.

But then I guess that must be how you feel when people don't agree with you.

Joel

 

I don't mind people disagreeing with me at all.

 

When someone says they have faith in a god doesn't phase me none.

 

When someone says some deity of a higher plane just friended me on facebook and they are coming over later to crash at my place. Wellllll...

 

Why anyone is surprised when someone unequivocally states they can hear something. That is 'plainly apparent and easy to hear' don't be surprised to be called out on it.

 

The fact that the song and dance routine has already started by the subjective apologists already isn't surprising either. Look you either got the real chops or it's just all so much shop talk. Only the real pros get off the bench ;-)