I was browsing through Barnes & Noble today and came across a
publication from the UK. I believe it was called Hi-Fi+. They ran what
they described as a blind test of cables. I'm not sure if they used an
A/B or A/B/A format as I didn't have time to go through the article in
depth. FWIW, of the cables in the test, Nordost Valhalla's came out on top.

Scott wrote:
I was browsing through Barnes & Noble today and came across a
publication from the UK. I believe it was called Hi-Fi+. They ran
what
they described as a blind test of cables. I'm not sure if they used
an
A/B or A/B/A format as I didn't have time to go through the article
in
depth. FWIW, of the cables in the test, Nordost Valhalla's came out
on top.

After reading through the article, I found that although they claimed
it to be a blind test, there was nothing scientific about their
process. Not only did they start with the implicit assumption that some
cables would sound better than others, they massaged the results in to
discard findings they didn't like. Also, there was no control in the
test. At no point was a cable tested against itself.

Basically, the test was a self fullfilling prophecy fraud to back up
their claims that certain cables sound better than others. Not enough
testing was done to provide any kind of statistical validity, and
because there was no control, the testing process itself recieved no
validation. I'm sure those that took part had a fun day out playing
with cables that cost more than most people's hifi's, but due to absurd
methodology, it was all a complete waste of time. Indeed, no
measurements of the cables were taken so that we could see that the
resistance, capacitance and inductiance changes between cables would
account for any audible differences they perceived.

Graeme

Wasn't that the same wire that was used against junk wire and no
difference heard in a recent test here? If "on top" means prefered then
the nature of the test is suspect, it assumes differences were present at
such a high level of audibility as to make such conclusions possible. If
two wires are used and the question is which do you like better only a
score of 50/50 would show no preference. A 60/40 would show a preference
but not illustrate a real difference was being heard. We are programed to
tend to hear difference where none exists, as shown when a and b are the
same wire and real differences are commonly reported. Thus, if difference
was not demonstrated first, audible preference choice is meaningless.

I was browsing through Barnes & Noble today and came across a
publication from the UK. I believe it was called Hi-Fi+. They ran what
they described as a blind test of cables. I'm not sure if they used an
A/B or A/B/A format as I didn't have time to go through the article in
depth. FWIW, of the cables in the test, Nordost Valhalla's came out on top.

Graeme Nattress wrote:

Basically, the test was a self fullfilling prophecy fraud to back up
their claims that certain cables sound better than others. Not enough
testing was done to provide any kind of statistical validity, and
because there was no control, the testing process itself recieved no
validation. I'm sure those that took part had a fun day out playing
with cables that cost more than most people's hifi's, but due to
absurd
methodology, it was all a complete waste of time. Indeed, no
measurements of the cables were taken so that we could see that the
resistance, capacitance and inductiance changes between cables would
account for any audible differences they perceived.


All valid points...except for your last sentence. The point of a
double-blind listening test is ostensibly to determine *if* there are
audible differences between cables, not what might cause them. That
sort of research makes for a thorough follow-up, but is not necessary
for a legitimate ABX DBT.