Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with rigorous
scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite
specifics.

Andy

Andrew Korsh wrote:

Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with rigorous
scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite
specifics.

Andy

No, for a very simple reason. No accredited research institution would
bother, since the experiment would do nothing but re-confirm settled
science. We already know what cables can do to signals, and we already know
at what levels those effects will be audible. Scientists have better things
to do than to prove what they already know.

To anticipate the complaint that this demonstrates a lack of
open-mindedness, scientists are always willing to entertain plausible new
ideas, and to test them. Similarly, if presented with a phenomenon that
cannot be explained by our existing knowledge, they are willing to
investigate its cause.

The problem is that those who wave their arms about DBTs here can offer
nothing new, and nothing that cannot already be explained. All of the
objections they raise have been considered and rejected. If they bothered to
inform themselves of the scientific work that has already been done on human
hearing perception, they would know this.

If they really want to advance science, instead of closing their minds to it
(which is what they are doing now), those skeptics should try doing their
own experiments, instead of demanding that others waste our time satisfying
their ill-informed "curiosity."

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max!
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1

"Andrew Korsh" wrote in message
news:01CNb.74975$I06.329093@attbi_s01...
Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with
rigorous
scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite
specifics.

Not that we know of. For any such tests to take place there has to be
someone that has enough need for the results to justify financing the
test. One might expect that a cable company would fall into that
category. So far, tests sponsored by cable companies have been
notable for their absence. i.e. no cable company wants to know the
results of rigorous scientific testing of their product. They most
certainly don't want the public to have access to the results!

Several years ago, I ran a reasonably scientific test of biwiring on a
Vandersteen speaker. Vandersteen himself recommended biwiring, so it
seemed like a good choice of speaker to run the test. None of the 4
people taking the test could identify biwiring v. monowiring using 33'
of #12 or #18 wire. They could, however, using #24 telephone wire;
they preferred monowiring.

It is to my everlasting shame that I failed to properly document this
test, so that the results would be of value to others. I have no
excuse.

Cheers,

Norm Strong

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:QNXNb.70074$sv6.147069@attbi_s52...
"Andrew Korsh" wrote in message
news:01CNb.74975$I06.329093@attbi_s01...
Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with
rigorous
scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite
specifics.

Not that we know of. For any such tests to take place there has to be
someone that has enough need for the results to justify financing the
test. One might expect that a cable company would fall into that
category. So far, tests sponsored by cable companies have been
notable for their absence. i.e. no cable company wants to know the
results of rigorous scientific testing of their product. They most
certainly don't want the public to have access to the results!

Several years ago, I ran a reasonably scientific test of biwiring on a
Vandersteen speaker. Vandersteen himself recommended biwiring, so it
seemed like a good choice of speaker to run the test. None of the 4
people taking the test could identify biwiring v. monowiring using 33'
of #12 or #18 wire. They could, however, using #24 telephone wire;
they preferred monowiring.

It is to my everlasting shame that I failed to properly document this
test, so that the results would be of value to others. I have no
excuse.

Yes you do. You were doing it for yourself and your friends and were not
preparing for publication. No apologies needed. Simply regret that you
don't have it. I've got lots of "experiments" that I wish I had document.
It is after all, a *hobby*.

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:40:44 GMT, (Andrew Korsh) wrote:

Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with rigorous
scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite
specifics.

No, because serious research institutions do not investigate 'the
bleeding obvious'. There have also been no serious researches into
whether the moon is made of green cheese, or whether Elvis is alive.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(Andrew Korsh) wrote:

Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with rigorous
scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite
specifics.


(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
No, because serious research institutions do not investigate 'the
bleeding obvious'. There have also been no serious researches into
whether the moon is made of green cheese, or whether Elvis is alive.


What's "obvious" to you is a subject of much contention here, or haven't you
noticed. The lack of rigorous DBT cable or even audio component tests shows
how small the audiophile universe is compared to other scientific research
areas. No one really cares but a few regular 'debaters' here on RAHE. The
subjectivists hear all of the differences for themselves and the objectivists
deny there are differences to hear. Until someone actually sponsors some
rigorous academic research on the topic, the truth is most likely lies
somewhere in between.
Regards,
Mike

Mkuller wrote:
(Andrew Korsh) wrote:

Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with rigorous
scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite
specifics.


(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
No, because serious research institutions do not investigate 'the
bleeding obvious'. There have also been no serious researches into
whether the moon is made of green cheese, or whether Elvis is alive.


What's "obvious" to you is a subject of much contention here, or haven't you
noticed. The lack of rigorous DBT cable or even audio component tests shows
how small the audiophile universe is compared to other scientific research
areas. No one really cares but a few regular 'debaters' here on RAHE. The
subjectivists hear all of the differences for themselves and the objectivists
deny there are differences to hear. Until someone actually sponsors some
rigorous academic research on the topic, the truth is most likely lies
somewhere in between.
Regards,
Mike

Similary, the scientific community doesn't care about the anti- or pseudoscientific
beliefs of audiophiles.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Similary, the scientific community doesn't care about the anti- or
pseudoscientific
beliefs of audiophiles.

Many memebers of the scientific community care a great deal about
pseudoscientific beliefs.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/register.php

Many scientists devote a great deal in combating the pseudoscience of
creationism. But you already know this.

It looks like audio has not been very interesting to most people who are
interested in debunking pseudoscience and claims of the paranormal.

S888Wheel wrote:
Similary, the scientific community doesn't care about the anti- or
pseudoscientific
beliefs of audiophiles.

Many memebers of the scientific community care a great deal about
pseudoscientific beliefs.

....which is why I was careful to write OF AUDIOPHILES, Scott.
Sheesh.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/register.php

Many scientists devote a great deal in combating the pseudoscience of
creationism. But you already know this.

It looks like audio has not been very interesting to most people who are
interested in debunking pseudoscience and claims of the paranormal.

IOW, like I said. There are bigger and more important
anti-science foes for scientists and debunkers to fight,
than the ill-informed belief systems of a small cadre of
audio hobbyists. The job of 'debunking' should be performed by
the audio press.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Mkuller wrote:
(Andrew Korsh) wrote:

Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with rigorous
scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite
specifics.


(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
No, because serious research institutions do not investigate 'the
bleeding obvious'. There have also been no serious researches into
whether the moon is made of green cheese, or whether Elvis is alive.


What's "obvious" to you is a subject of much contention here, or haven't
you
noticed. The lack of rigorous DBT cable or even audio component tests
shows
how small the audiophile universe is compared to other scientific research
areas. No one really cares but a few regular 'debaters' here on RAHE. The
subjectivists hear all of the differences for themselves and the
objectivists
deny there are differences to hear. Until someone actually sponsors some
rigorous academic research on the topic, the truth is most likely lies
somewhere in between.
Regards,
Mike

Similary, the scientific community doesn't care about the anti- or
pseudoscientific
beliefs of audiophiles.

Actually Mr Kuller is invoking a classic argument argument that a losing side
in a debate falls to. First we invent an argument; forgive me if I'm going to
simplistic with my analogy.

Proponent: The Moon ismade of Green Cheese;

Antagonist: There's no evidence to support that assertion

Proponent: No one has ever proven that the Moon isn't made of Green Cheese.

Antagonist: The landings on the Moon have never reported finding Green Cheese.

Proponent: No one has ever definitively proven that the Moon ISN'T made of
Green Cheese.

And there are 2 'camps' both of which have radicals.One side says the Moon is
ALL Green Cheese and the other (also totally radical) says there is NO Green
Cheese on the Moon. Obviously the "truth" lies somewhere in the middle if you
have a "debate."

So the proponents say. What is so interesting in this faux debate is that the
'truth' of this matter doesn't require a trip to the Moon. All it needs is one
proponent somewhere, anywhere to demonstrate that "amps ain't amps" or "wires
ain't wires" with controls to eliminate known listening bias mechanisms.

Just once, under conditions that can be duplicated, would do it. But in 30+
years of argument no one has. In my 25+ years of truth-soul searching I haven't
found amp/wire/parts sound and believe me I've tried.

During that time I've been called any number of unpleasant things, been
accused of any number of un-ethical opinions yet I've never witnessed a single
human demonstrate an ability to hear nominally competent amplifiers or wires
when even moderate bias controls were implemented.

Never ONCE. Yet I've been called a radical on one end. So the "truth" must be
somewhere in the middle because radicals like myself HAVE to be on the opposite
end of a spectrum where noTWO amplifiers have ever sounded the same ....ever.

So take your pick either M Kuller who has never met two amplifiers that sound
the same or Me who has never seen anybody show that any two reasonably
competent amplifiers will sound different unless driven into clipping.

Mr Kuller seems to be driving to compromise here. A few days ago he never heard
any two ampliifers that didn't sound different but NOW the truth lies somewhere
in between.

So which is it? Do ALL amplifiers sound different or don't they?

(Nousaine) wrote:
snip
So the proponents say. What is so interesting in this faux debate is that the
'truth' of this matter doesn't require a trip to the Moon. All it needs is
one
proponent somewhere, anywhere to demonstrate that "amps ain't amps" or "wires
ain't wires" with controls to eliminate known listening bias mechanisms.


Unfortunately, your mechanism for controlling bias does not appear to be
sensitive enough to detect subtle audible details. The threshold of audibility
with pink noise appears to be 1.75dB loudness differences and much greater than
that for music (Greenhill).

Just once, under conditions that can be duplicated, would do it. But in 30+
years of argument no one has. In my 25+ years of truth-soul searching I
haven't
found amp/wire/parts sound and believe me I've tried.


Obviously, you believe in your method and refuse to consider the possibility
(much less the fact) that it doesn't work for what you are using it for.

During that time I've been called any number of unpleasant things, been
accused of any number of un-ethical opinions yet I've never witnessed a
single
human demonstrate an ability to hear nominally competent amplifiers or wires
when even moderate bias controls were implemented.


I believe you are honorable and well meaning, but blinded by your belieif
system as are many of your colleagues. Then there are others who I would
characterize as not so well meaning...

Never ONCE. Yet I've been called a radical on one end. So the "truth" must be
somewhere in the middle because radicals like myself HAVE to be on the
opposite
end of a spectrum where noTWO amplifiers have ever sounded the same ....ever.


Like I said - you believe what you believe and use methods that continue to
confirm your beliefs without questioning them.


So take your pick either M Kuller who has never met two amplifiers that sound
the same or Me who has never seen anybody show that any two reasonably
competent amplifiers will sound different unless driven into clipping.

Mr Kuller seems to be driving to compromise here. A few days ago he never
heard
any two ampliifers that didn't sound different but NOW the truth lies
somewhere
in between.

So which is it? Do ALL amplifiers sound different or don't they?


There may be two amplifiers somewhere that sound the same; I'll give you that.
By saying the the truth is somewhere in between, I'm giving you the benefit of
the doubt, sometting your side seems reluctant to do - realizing that further
proof is necessary to settle this matter. Otherwise we would not be having
this discussion ad nauseum.
Regards,
Mike

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:4peQb.3852$U%5.23198@attbi_s03...

Proponent: The Moon ismade of Green Cheese;

Antagonist: There's no evidence to support that assertion

Proponent: No one has ever proven that the Moon isn't made of Green Cheese.

Antagonist: The landings on the Moon have never reported finding Green Cheese.

Proponent: No one has ever definitively proven that the Moon ISN'T made of
Green Cheese.


You forgot about the part where the Proponent claims: No one has ever
definitively proven that the landings on the Moon weren't a hoax
fabricated by the government.


So the proponents say. What is so interesting in this faux debate is that the
'truth' of this matter doesn't require a trip to the Moon. All it needs is one
proponent somewhere, anywhere to demonstrate that "amps ain't amps" or "wires
ain't wires" with controls to eliminate known listening bias mechanisms.


Your mixing of metaphors has me perplexed; exactly how WOULD one prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt the Moon either was or wasn't made of green
cheese without actually taking a trip to the moon?


During that time I've been called any number of unpleasant things, been
accused of any number of un-ethical opinions yet I've never witnessed a single
human demonstrate an ability to hear nominally competent amplifiers or wires
when even moderate bias controls were implemented.


I don't know about wires, but by this reasoning the list of
commercially available power amps that falls squarely into the
"incompetant" camp is huge.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 21:54:58 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

(Andrew Korsh) wrote:

Question; have there been any DBT cable tests conducted with rigorous
scientific controls by accredited research institutions? Please cite
specifics.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
No, because serious research institutions do not investigate 'the
bleeding obvious'. There have also been no serious researches into
whether the moon is made of green cheese, or whether Elvis is alive.

What's "obvious" to you is a subject of much contention here, or haven't you
noticed.

The continued survival of Elvis, and alien abductions, are also
subjects of much contention in certain narrow arenas. That doesn't
make either of them any more worthy of serious scientific research
than 'cable sound'.

The lack of rigorous DBT cable or even audio component tests shows
how small the audiophile universe is compared to other scientific research
areas.

Did you somehow miss WatchKing's heroic post regarding both cable
quality and extensive blind comparisons? Presumably not, since you
replied to it. Or did it simply not agree with your preconceptions,
and was therefore swept under the capacious rugs of your listening
room?

No one really cares but a few regular 'debaters' here on RAHE.

Indeed not, the non-existence of 'cable sound' is happily accepted by
the wider audio community.

The
subjectivists hear all of the differences for themselves and the objectivists
deny there are differences to hear. Until someone actually sponsors some
rigorous academic research on the topic, the truth is most likely lies
somewhere in between.

No Mike, there is *zero* reliable and repeatable evidence that 'cable
sound' has any existence outside your skull. If I say that 2+2=4, and
you say that 2+2=5, that does *not* mean that 2+2=4.5.............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Hi,

Thanks for all your very informative answers to my original
question.Please can't we end this thread now,as it's becoming another
rather pointless argument over the validity of double blind
testing.Frankly rather boring as well.Neither side will convince the
other of the wrong-headedness of their ways.

Thanks,
Andy

[ Moderator's note: I agree, it's getting repetitive again, so it's
ended. -- deb ]