Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdcsu!bmaraldo
From: bmaraldo@watdcsu.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.audio,sci.physics,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Mercury Filled Speaker Wire
Message-ID: <3837@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
Date: Mon, 14-Sep-87 12:23:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.3837
Posted: Mon Sep 14 12:23:54 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Sep-87 04:27:44 EDT
References: <3827@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> <551@unisoft.UUCP>
Reply-To: bmaraldo@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Commander Brett Maraldo)
Organization: Unit 36 Research
Lines: 53
Xref: utgpu rec.audio:2749 sci.physics:2076 sci.electronics:1164

In article <551@unisoft.UUCP> jef@unisoft.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) writes:
> In the referenced article, I wrote:
> >I can hear differences between audio cables.  I can not report any
> >differences under controlled double-blind tests because I have never
> >taken part in one.
> 
> Whenever I come across one of these "Emperor's New Ears" types I always
> ask him about double-blind tests.  It's refreshing for once to find one
> who freely admits his lack of interest in the scientific method.

    I agree that double-blind testing is a method of discovering
    differences, or lack there-of, in two or more different audio
    systems.  This can also be said for any method of system evaluation,
    the question is which method provides the most accurate results.
    Double-blind testing seems to be the most accepted method 
    by those who understand the importance of accurate test results.  But
    is double-blind testing the definitive test method?  This is certainly
    and arguable point, as it is as objective as the golden-ear phenomenon.

    I do not feel that a simple double-blind test can report more accurate
    data than an extended listening test.  For me, a double-blind test must
    be rigorous, extended, and thorough; that is, there must be a large
    number of people involved in the evaluation, and the test procedure
    must be overseen by at least one member of a group of potentially biased
    individules (one audio engineer, physicist, golden ear, and stereo
    salesman).  As each procedure is concluded, the overseeres must
    unanimously agree that the procedure was unbiased before enumerating
    the results.  The listening environment must differ between anechoic and
    very 'alive', with each group listening in the different situations;
    one listening environment does not suffice.  

    Unfortunately, this test senario is rarely implemented, let alone
    documented as it would be very expensive and time consuming.  I have
    yet to read about a double-blind test with and description of test
    procedure and environment.  Most audio magazines report that they have
    conducted a double-blind test but do not embellish on the procedure;
    I can not take these reviews seriously.  What I do take seriously are
    what my ears hear.  If I hear a difference between signal cable, you
    can not argue that I do not hear that difference.  You can, how ever,
    argue that my perception is not accurate due to some bias or other
    influence.  This same argument can be overlayed on a poorly conducted
    double-blind test and most do not meet the requirements of an unbiased
    controlled environment procedure.


				Brett L Maraldo


-- 
               --------     Unit 36 Research     ---------
	                "Alien Technology Today"
               -------------------------------------------
	                    bmaraldo@watdcsu