Speaker Cables -- did testing, sorry: now think it's nonsense

[Rich]

For this one particular test you question, the subject chose his own equipment, speaker, source, music, rooms etc etc.

How do you know this? Where is the data? If you want to pretend this test is somehow scientific proof of anything, then there has to be some actual data somewhere on the test conditions and results for each particular test. Where is it? And how could he possibly have conducted large "group" style tests and have everyone choose their own equipment, music and room? What percentage of the supposed 2000 plus people who took the test over twenty years were doing a home audio test in a high end system vs. a car audio test? What percentage were in "group" style tests? The more details that come out about this supposed scientific test, the more holes seem to appear in the story.

 

[Rich]

Just like I told Gordon Golden Ears, if the results like this won't convince you, then nothing will. And I'm ok with that. Carry on

It is not the supposed results that are unconvincing to me. It is the complete and utter lack of documentation of the actual tests and results. If the guy never published the data, then it has no credibility. One guy saying it on the internet provides absolutely zero credibility.

 

[snyderkv]

It is not the supposed results that are unconvincing to me. It is the complete and utter lack of documentation of the actual tests and results. If the guy never published the data, then it has no credibility. One guy saying it on the internet provides absolutely zero credibility.

You'll see every detail if you read his comments for all 30+ pages

http://www.audiogroupforum.com/csforum/showthread.php?t=2759

The challenge was on wiki, but was deleted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Clark_Amplifier_Challenge

Finally, he posted cell/email which may not work now but you could probably PM him or do a bio search and see that he is very real plus nobody is stopping you from meeting him in person since you don't believe anything you read online. You now have the resources, what's stopping you?

I fed you enough information, time to do a tiny bit of your own research

 

[Gordon Gray]

If you can't be convinced with 2000 plus people over 20 years having failed just one of the blind tests noted above, then how will my own findings convince you?

Scientifically, I cannot prove something to you that isn't there like SQ in differing cables. But what blind tests do prove is that there is a very high degree of certainty that you won't hear them. You however have less credibility claiming they do exist in non controlled environments

Feel free to pick this one apart as well

Snyder,

Thanks for answering the question.

As I said before, I have no issue with those who believe in DBT and base purchasing decisions on this methodology.

Based on my personal experience over some 30 years plus of buying hi end gear, my method (extending listening) has served me well.

In the end, that's all that really matters to me.

If you have an issue with that and question my credibility as result of my personal methodology, so be it.

Again, I previously stated that I am not looking for a fight.

I can certainly agree to respectfully disagree. Can you?

GG

PS: I don't recall claiming that I have "golden ears". Given my age, it's likely that my hearing has deteriorated. Realistically, not a "valid" candidate for DBT.

 

[Rich]

You'll see every detail if you read his comments for all 30+ pages

I actually did look through his comments in that thread (on a car audio forum), and I found no actual data anywhere to back up his claims. Just his conclusory statements that he had in fact performed the tests and no one has passed. This is not data. This is one man's statements, with nothing to back them up. He says he has performed the tests in people's home audio systems, but again nothing but his own word to back it up. Where are all these people that have supposedly taken this test? Seems none of them are speaking up about it.

The challenge was on wiki, but was deleted

Yes, and it is instructive to delve into the reasons why it was deleted. According to wiki it was deleted because: "Doesn't seem to be an encyclopedia article. But instead seems to be promotional material." Bingo! As I said before, his "challenge" doesn't withstand scientific scrutiny. And you trying to pass it off as absolute "scientific proof" of your statements is absurd.

 

[amey01]

snyderkv - What amp do you have?

 

[Rich]

Reading a little more about the so-called Richard Clark amplifier challenge, I found what I consider to be the best description of why this supposedly scientific test means nothing, other than that you can design a test that can't be beat. On the 'gon forum, a user by the name "Mcphersn" posted a long analysis of how Clark set up the test to be statistically impossible to beat, even if people heard differences. It is long, so I don't want to copy the whole thing, but here is a good bit of it:

Suppose we allow there to be some difference between the amps, but not enough to be detected every time, say, a p value of .6, meaning that we only can detect the difference about 60% of the time. Now, P (the probability of winning the challenge) is less than .00001, still very unlikely. But notice that there is a real difference between the amps. It's obscured by our jacking around with the signals, our confusion induced by the variability of the music, and the fact that we require perfect performance on each trial, but the difference between the amps is still very real.

What situation would lead us to be able to pass the test more often than not? We would have to be able to detect the difference on every trial more than 97% (p greater than .97) of the time--an extraordinary level of performance for an ambiguous stimulus.

The bottom line is that the challenge is primarily a statistical artifact based on the fallacy of accepting the null hypothesis. We cannot conclude that there is exactly no difference between the amps, because we can never prove that p is exactly .5. All we have proven is that we can set up an experiment with enough ambiguity, and so little statistical power, that the result is a foregone conclusion. The prize money is safe for quite some time.

This just reconfirms my opinion that the amp challenge is proof of nothing when it comes to hearing differences between components, other than that you can design a test that cannot be passed.

 

[snyderkv]

Reading a little more about the so-called Richard Clark amplifier challenge, I found what I consider to be the best description of why this supposedly scientific test means nothing, other than that you can design a test that can't be beat. On the 'gon forum, a user by the name "Mcphersn" posted a long analysis of how Clark set up the test to be statistically impossible to beat, even if people heard differences. It is long, so I don't want to copy the whole thing, but here is a good bit of it:

I just googled up Richard sucks and got 28,000,000 results. Does that mean you suck? I don't see the point of you googling one persons rebuttal and flying with it. That's a little hypocrytical since you are the one claiming internet claims are meaningless yet you just posted one as a rebuttal. Sorry I don't have media attention on this, mythbusters episode or freakin biblical evidence to convince you

There is no magic watt that will improve SQ over another watt. It's about making sure you have enough watts for your listening level. Anything else you hear is a result of intentional tonal changes, gain settings, EQ, filters, etc from the manufacture. Those attributes are different than SQ.

Saying that a more expensive amp provides better SQ at all levels is no different than saying my hair dryer plugged into my power conditioner made my hair more shiny. Or my cables gave my TV more channels

I actually did look through his comments in that thread (on a car audio forum), and I found no actual data anywhere to back up his claims. And you trying to pass it off as absolute "scientific proof" of your statements is absurd.

http://www.stereophile.com/features/141/index.html

Since you only believe documented articles, here is the same test done in the 80s with the same results and on Stereophile magazine.

David Clark at the Los Angeles AES (Audio Engineering Society) show in the late 80's---------David did this test with the help of the Absolute Magazine over a 3 day period---------over 200 profesional audio engineers took the test----------the test amps were straight gain blocks (basic amps with no signal filters and/or processing)--------everyone was confident they could easily pass the test------the Absolute Mag was there in support of their journalistic claims and subjective test reports and approved the test set-up and procedures---------the amps were a generic Crown PSA-2 (about 1K at the time), a class A Threshold (about 10K at the time), and a OTL tube amp (about 15K at the time)--------final results at the end of the sessions????--------49/51---------as an additional note they also tested exotic Monster wire against solid 12ga THHN like is used to wire a house--------results of the wire????------49/50 as well---------did anyone learn anything???--------not at all

 

[snyderkv]

snyderkv - What amp do you have?

Why Is it feeding time already?

Are you going to use my ameature gear against me to prove that I don't know what good sound sounds like?

I'm running more power than you are with better speakers, ESL Reserves. My DVD player alone weighs more than your amp.

Which is why I'm downsizing and selling most of my gear since my listening level never exceeds the amount of watts I'm currently running. Wish I knew this before wasting money on gear I never needed. At my listening levels, I doubt I'll hear a difference in my tiny room with a good AVR and PS3 dvd player vs my seperates

 

[snyderkv]

Snyder,

Thanks for answering the question.

As I said before, I have no issue with those who believe in DBT and base purchasing decisions on this methodology.

Based on my personal experience over some 30 years plus of buying hi end gear, my method (extending listening) has served me well.

In the end, that's all that really matters to me.

If you have an issue with that and question my credibility as result of my personal methodology, so be it.

Again, I previously stated that I am not looking for a fight.

I can certainly agree to respectfully disagree. Can you?

GG

PS: I don't recall claiming that I have "golden ears". Given my age, it's likely that my hearing has deteriorated. Realistically, not a "valid" candidate for DBT.

Roger ....

 

[amey01]

Why Is it feeding time already?

Are you going to use my ameature gear against me to prove that I don't know what good sound sounds like?

I'm running more power than you are with better speakers, ESL Reserves. My DVD player alone weighs more than your amp.

Which is why I'm downsizing and selling most of my gear since my listening level never exceeds the amount of watts I'm currently running. Wish I knew this before wasting money on gear I never needed. At my listening levels, I doubt I'll hear a difference in my tiny room with a good AVR and PS3 dvd player vs my seperates

I didn't ask you what it weighed. I asked what amp you were running?

So tell us - what is this kit? Pics like everyone else has uploaded would be good.

Oh, and by the way - if you want to attempt to be offensive, try and at least spell correctly. Amateur. Because if you use "amateur" spelling, then you likely have "ameature" opinions.

But really, you've answered my question already. You seem to extol the virtues of low-end amplification as it is "all the same", but you seem to think you're running some pretty high-end kit.

If you've got such high end gear, why did you spend all that money when you could hear no difference? You either COULD in fact hear a difference, or it's just abject idiocy, whether it is audio equipment or anything else in life.

Oh, and let me tell you - AVRs are probably one level of amplifier that does become unstable and shut down when driving an ESL load. Enjoy that.

 

[snyderkv]

I didn't ask you what it weighed. I asked what amp you were running?

So tell us - what is this kit? Pics like everyone else has uploaded would be good.

Oh, and by the way - if you want to attempt to be offensive, try and at least spell correctly. Amateur. Because if you use "amateur" spelling, then you likely have "ameature" opinions.

But really, you've answered my question already. You seem to extol the virtues of low-end amplification as it is "all the same", but you seem to think you're running some pretty high-end kit.

If you've got such high end gear, why did you spend all that money when you could hear no difference? You either COULD in fact hear a difference, or it's just abject idiocy, whether it is audio equipment or anything else in life.

Oh, and let me tell you - AVRs are probably one level of amplifier that does become unstable and shut down when driving an ESL load. Enjoy that.

Thanks you've been very helpfull. Moving on

 

[Rich]

I just googled up Richard sucks and got 28,000,000 results. Does that mean you suck?

Not in and of itself, no. But if one of those hits has a logical and rational analysis of why I suck . . . then perhaps.

I don't see the point of you googling one persons rebuttal and flying with it. That's a little hypocrytical since you are the one claiming internet claims are meaningless yet you just posted one as a rebuttal.

I didn't google "one person's rebuttal." I did more research (as you instructed me to) and read a lot. I found this response to be compelling because the guy understands statistics and breaks down the challenge in a rational way to show just how impossible Clark made it to pass. If you understand statistical analysis, this guy makes some very good points. And ultimately, he proves the key point. Clark's challenge does not allow for someone to hear a difference more often than random chance would account for and still win. In other words, you can only win if you are correct virtually every single time (which is a much bigger deal than just being correct enough to know it is not random chance). Thus the challenge tells us absolutely nothing about the issue at hand -- whether people can actually hear a difference. Only that they can't hear a difference 97% of the time or more, under conditions where the amps have been toyed with to sound more similar to begin with.

Sorry I don't have media attention on this, mythbusters episode or freakin biblical evidence to convince you

Sorry you are so tied to your beliefs that you get so upset when you can't convince others of them. The funny thing is, earlier in the thread I made clear that I thought DB testing was a good and valid way to audition between components. I just don't think it is the only valid way or the end-all, be-all holy grail that you seem to think it is. I see where it has several limitations. I don't quite have the religious loyalty to it that you seem to have. But then you had to bring up the Challenge, and I think in doing so you really hurt your case. Because it is obvious once you delve into it that the Challenge was all about PR for Richard Clark, and not in the least about an honest assessment of whether people could actually hear differences between different amps.

There is no magic watt that will improve SQ over another watt. It's about making sure you have enough watts for your listening level.

I don't believe in any "magic watt" either. But I do believe that quality of components and construction, circuit topology, and lots of other things make a true difference in sound quality. But, of course, if you nullify the effects of different circuit designs by putting an EQ on one amp to alter its response, well then I guess it isn't too hard to see why people have a harder time hearing a difference between the amps. As an example, most everyone that has experience with Sunfire amps knows that you get a different sound between the voltage and current outputs, because one rolls off the highs a little bit. But under Clark's challenge, you would never be able to hear that real difference between the outputs, because one would have to be eq'd to match the other. Pretty ridiculous.

Saying that a more expensive amp provides better SQ at all levels is no different than saying my hair dryer plugged into my power conditioner made my hair more shiny. Or my cables gave my TV more channels

I would never say such a thing. An amp doesn't have to be more expensive to sound better. In fact, I have often found a less expensive component to sound better than its more pricey brethren. Price alone is never determinative of quality, and certainly not determinative of synergy in a particular sound system.

Since you only believe documented articles, here is the same test done in the 80s with the same results and on Stereophile magazine.

Thanks for the link. Great discussion on both sides. I remain unconvinced. And btw, what does this have to do with the validity of Richard Clark's results? You said his results were scientific proof of your case, yet his results are published nowhere.

David Clark at the Los Angeles AES (Audio Engineering Society) show in the late 80's---------David did this test with the help of the Absolute Magazine over a 3 day period---------over 200 profesional audio engineers took the test----------the test amps were straight gain blocks (basic amps with no signal filters and/or processing)--------everyone was confident they could easily pass the test------the Absolute Mag was there in support of their journalistic claims and subjective test reports and approved the test set-up and procedures---------the amps were a generic Crown PSA-2 (about 1K at the time), a class A Threshold (about 10K at the time), and a OTL tube amp (about 15K at the time)--------final results at the end of the sessions????--------49/51---------as an additional note they also tested exotic Monster wire against solid 12ga THHN like is used to wire a house--------results of the wire????------49/50 as well---------did anyone learn anything???--------not at all

Ummm . . . where exactly did you cut and paste this from?

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Snyder,

Just thought I'd pass on a couple of comments.

First, I find it very interesting that the DBT results resemble a "coin toss".

Secondly, and this is one anecdotal observation based on a "non controlled / long term audition" experience I had with a 150 watt VTL tube amp.

Several years ago, I owned a Classe CA 150 SS amp and decided to audition the VTL. Had it in my system for two weeks and listened to it extensively over that period of time with a broad range of material (rock, jazz, classical, female / male vocalists, etc.).

My enthusiasm for the piece was so varied, depending on material that I played, that I ended up returning and eventually auditioned / purchased my current amp.

When I was playing classical, jazz, or female vocals, I was totally ready to commit to the purchase. When I was playing rock or other material that had a substantial amount of mid / low bass frequency, I felt there was a lack of "punch and definition". The overall presentation sounded "slow and uninvolving". Needless to say, my enthusiasm was far more ambivalent with this type of musical material.

There was, in my mind and to my ears, a clear and identifiable "pattern" during the audition process. Not saying I would or would not have identified under DBT conditions. But I think it's reasonable to assume (at least in my case) that the material being played had a significant influence over my "like / dislike" preference.

GG

PS: Also had a similar experience with my Pass Labs amp and my Furman PLC. I have dedicated 20 amp outlets for my system. Had the amp plugged into the PLC for awhile and decided to plug the amp directly into the wall socket. I much preferred the later. Better speed, transient reproduction, bass response, etc. This "test" was easily repeatable. I can only assume that the PLC was limiting current draw and therefore impacting the amps performance. I speculate but perhaps that's a variable in the amp DBT procedure that was not addressed and could have influenced final results.

 

[snyderkv]

I didn't google "one person's rebuttal." I did more research (as you instructed me to) and read a lot. Clark's challenge does not allow for someone to hear a difference more often than random chance would account for and still win. In other words, you can only win if you are correct virtually every single time

False, you obviously did not read his comments or research. He said that 65% correct would be statistically significant, but nobody has even got 65% correct.

You're just reiterating myths of of the challenge that have long been corrected

most everyone that has experience with Sunfire amps knows that you get a different sound between the voltage and current outputs, because one rolls off the highs a little bit.

Oh you mean rolling off due to lack of power? So that would be into clipping? The test is suppose to prove that BELOW clipping, you will not hear a difference in SQ. Ofcourse if you're listening level requires something with more power than a Sunfire, then fine, it will sound better than a Sunfire that is overworked

But under Clark's challenge, you would never be able to hear that real difference between the outputs, because one would have to be eq'd to match the other. Pretty ridiculous.

Again, EQ has no bearing on SQ. It's just nullified so you can compare sonic qualities in its unaltered state and eliminate tonal preferences etc. Same with filters that can roll off frequences or signal processing etc.

Thanks for the link. Great discussion on both sides. I remain unconvinced. And btw, what does this have to do with the validity of Richard Clark's results? You said his results were scientific proof of your case, yet his results are published nowhere.

Hence why I gave you one that was published

 

[snyderkv]

Hi Snyder,

Just thought I'd pass on a couple of comments.

First, I find it very interesting that the DBT results resemble a "coin toss".

Secondly, and this is one anecdotal observation based on a "non controlled / long term audition" experience I had with a 150 watt VTL tube amp.

Several years ago, I owned a Classe CA 150 SS amp and decided to audition the VTL. Had it in my system for two weeks and listened to it extensively over that period of time with a broad range of material (rock, jazz, classical, female / male vocalists, etc.).

My enthusiasm for the piece was so varied, depending on material that I played, that I ended up returning and eventually auditioned / purchased my current amp.

When I was playing classical, jazz, or female vocals, I was totally ready to commit to the purchase. When I was playing rock or other material that had a substantial amount of mid / low bass frequency, I felt there was a lack of "punch and definition". The overall presentation sounded "slow and uninvolving". Needless to say, my enthusiasm was far more ambivalent with this type of musical material.

There was, in my mind and to my ears, a clear and identifiable "pattern" during the audition process. Not saying I would or would not have identified under DBT conditions. But I think it's reasonable to assume (at least in my case) that the material being played had a significant influence over my "like / dislike" preference.

GG

PS: Also had a similar experience with my Pass Labs amp and my Furman PLC. I have dedicated 20 amp outlets for my system. Had the amp plugged into the PLC for awhile and decided to plug the amp directly into the wall socket. I much preferred the later. Better speed, transient reproduction, bass response, etc. This "test" was easily repeatable. I can only assume that the PLC was limiting current draw and therefore impacting the amps performance. I speculate but perhaps that's a variable in the amp DBT procedure that was not addressed and could have influenced final results.

Great observation on the power. Hopefully this is better documented in future BT. Currently I have everything running off my PLC that's connected to one outlet including DVD/speakers/pre-pro etc. Should I split everything between two plugs? What if each plug is on the same breaker?

On another note, since you're more familiar with your system, would it be possible to change/alter the sound of the amps by adjusting gain, filters, or whatever else was added to alter the signal from the source to match the other amps bass response, speed etc? I have to ask simply because I heard that argument before on the RC thread that factory presets will make noticable differences out of the box

 

[Gordon Gray]

Snyder,

To PLC or not to PLC?. All I can tell you is to try different combinations. It's easily repeatable and should give you a defensible basis for your final choice.

Your second paragraph. I do have that option on my Cary CDP. Has several upsampling settings in the analogue and digital domain. After listening to numerous combinations, I settled on the 96 / 96 settings. Seems to sound best with most CD's and I'm not the type to determine what combo sounds best and adjust for every CD I play. And yes, I find a setting change in either domain to be quite audible. Nice to have some "tone controls" without moving speakers. Changing default settings in the amp if that is what you are asking. No idea. I'm not technically inclined.

I will say I keep track of volume levels and record and repeat with each individual CD. From my perspective, each recording has its ideal level. Probably due to the fact that my living room is a bit on the "live" side and its pretty easy to hear "room overload / ringing" when the volume is set too high. Especially with piano.

GG

 

[amey01]

helpfull.

Not having a good day at all, are we?

 

[Bernard]

I didn't ask you what it weighed. I asked what amp you were running?

It would be helpful to know the weight if you were planning to use it as a boat anchor!

Sorry! This thread does need some levity from time to time.

We seem to go through this scenario over and over again. Some newbie joins the club and tells us all that everything sounds the same, then leaves in disgust after a heated discussion.

 

[amey01]

We seem to go through this scenario over and over again. Some newbie joins the club and tells us all that everything sounds the same, then leaves in disgust after a heated discussion.

I guess the word you are looking for is "troll". Yes, why do we get sucked in?

The most absurd thing is, why are they on a high-end audio forum if they think all high-end equipment sounds the same ("unless it is flawed", of course).