Quote:
Originally Posted by Hirsch
In this test, the question appears to have been "which cable is which"? What basis would they have for making an identification?
|
Depends. I think many of the people went in with at least some expectations, along the lines of "the cheapo Radio Shack cables sound worst" or "silver cables sound bright" as per
Clarke68 back in post #15. This is a pretty sophisticated audience--I'd be unsurprised if some of them have, in fact, heard silver and starquad (or something similar) before. I suspect a majority of Head-Fiers who would participate in such a test don't use stock interconnencts, so they probably have some ideas what "stock, cheap" sounds like relative to something pricier.
Quote:
If I give a subject an unlabelled headphone, and ask, "Is this a Grado HP-1?" and the subject has never heard a Grado HP-1 (nor seen one) I'd expect a fairly random response. |
I've never heard a Grado HP-1. But I've owned a pair of Grados and I've heard other Grados at meets. Thus, I would expect me to be able to pick it out in an A/B vs. something with a markedly different sound signature, such as HD580s--which I've also never heard, but I'm pretty sure I could discriminate those two purely on the basis of what I've read about how they sound and my direct experience with headphones in the same family.
Quote:
In fact, if I gave the subject three completely unfamiliar headphones, and asked them to identify Sennheiser HD-650, Sony SA-5000 or AKG K-701 (and they have never seen or heard any of them) how could you get anything besides random? |
I don't think this is an appropriate analogy, or at the very least, there's an alternative analogy which some might feel is more appropriate. To wit:
Let's say you gave three Head-Fi'ers Sony V600DJ, HD600s, and Stax Omega 2s and told them the different price points of the phones, but they had never seen or heard any of these three before. I bet you'd get responses that were systematically far from random. People have pretty strong expectations that more expensive headphones sound better. I bet if you ran my example here you'd get a significant chi-square statistic, and nobody would be surprised.
Quote:
And yet, I do suspect that the majority of listeners who have heard those three headphones will agree that they do not sound the same. In fact, I don't even think the "can we detect headphone differences?" question even attracts controversy. |
Nope, not even among the most skeptical.
Quote:
If the analogous experiment to the one reported, using items with known audible differences, would be expected to generate random data, why would we try and draw conclusions from this one? |
I don't think that it's necessarily the case that one was guaranteed random results. In fact, I think a lot of people would have been very happy with non-random results if they had come out a particular way. Do you really think that if most of the people had correctly identified all three cables, all the "true believers" wouldn't be in here declaring victory? Of course they would be, and somehow all the methodological issues would be conveniently not discussed.
So I don't think it's necessarily clear-cut that we'd get random data on the back end (though I agree that it isn't very surprising), and similarly, I think it would be meaningful if we didn't.
Quote:
I was not criticizing what you [Ed] did, but rather those who started spouting statistics and trying to read more into it than was there. |
I think I've been clear in saying that I don't think these results are conclusive--I'm not suggesting there aren't issues in the design, depending on what question you think is important. However, I do think I the results are interesting (as someone said, this is a nice pilot study), but by no means definitive.
Obviously, we need a follow-up!