James Randi on audio equipment

Say what? Wow. I never said that. It's largely about having enough trials to eliminate dumb luck. Do you think they should have exactly one A/B trial...50% odds. Heck, if two people show up to try, there's a darned good chance that one gets to take home a million. It's not changing the rules of statistical analysis.

It also allows different regional groups to get involved and take the burden off the JREF, who can't possibly test every silly claimant. It's a screening process, and it makes perfect sense. Hey, if you can beat odds of a few thousand to one, maybe you really do have the gift, come here and we'll run the same test and be sure, under our personal control.

I had to win the city spelling bee before I could go on to state. Nobody changed the rules, it's just a progression.

The real test is the second round, the first is just to weed out those who can't even pretend to be able to compete. Having a preliminary screening process doesn't do anything to invalidate the test.

It also reduces the travel burden, a popular excuse to not compete. It makes it much easier for somebody to get started in the process.

Not really, but there's little point to it all. Not in a million years could I convince anyone of your mindset anything about my point of view. That's one of the reasons that these types of discussions are discouraged here; they just go round and round.

Apparently all of these manufacturers who make these products have better things to do with their lives, as they don't want free publicity that money could never, ever buy.

Please use the quote function, it makes posts more readable.

As Black Elk said, tests like this are done and they are accepted.

 

I gotta say, it amazes me that people would waste Steve's time by sending him bitchy (and no doubt whiny) e-mails about this thread. If the discussion of DBT and James Randi is too sensitive a subject for some of you guys, might i suggest skipping over this thread and reading about something else. Some of us find this stuff interesting...

 

Do you have critical listening skills, Lee?

"Night and day" is a common phrase among audiophiles. How can something be both "night and day" and so subtle you might not even notice? How much time is sufficient?

The issue at hand isn't liking something more or less, it's being able to distinguish a difference.

 

I really see the debate of whether DBT is valid for audio testing as a different issue than whether or not the JREF is fair and honest about how the challenge is conducted. Regarding the latter, I hear some members' suspicions but I just don't see any real evidence that they are dishonest.

 

There's more magic, pseudoscience and fraud in the audio industry than there is in a homeopathic chiropractor's office....

He has a point here, and we're all guilty of it... at least those of us who have spent more money than necessary trying to obtain "perfect" sound quality.

Sure, there is a noticeable difference between a 1979 Pioneer SX-1980 receiver and a 1992 Sony bookshelf system. But is there "really" that much difference between a roll of $5.25 16ga. speaker wire and $2.99 standard RCA interconnects vs. $5,000.00 worth of cabling?

Perhaps in a professional studio, but very doubtful in a 1600S.F. house.

Just my opinion (and I am guilty as charged with spending too much on audio equipment).

 

This point always seems to get lost in the subjectivity vs. objectivity debate with discussions of DBT.

It's like the example of the vodka taster earlier in the thread. The ability of someone to discern a difference, regardless of alleged "quality," would be a starting point.

 

Exactly. After it's determined there *is* a difference, *then* everyone can start fighting like rabid dogs over which is better!

 

So you are saying that Randi won't pay the money even if someone "passes" the blind test? How do you know this? Because the money's not in an escrow account? That's preposterous.

Lee, please contact Randi and take the test, and stop discrediting the man with foolish non-sequitors.

 

Again, it's not even Randi's money. It's not his million.

 

In this case there's nothing to "measure". Science simply asks "can you hear a difference?" If your "audio experience" is actually different, then there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to distinguish the difference.

Science isn't asking "which one sounds better?"

 

As above in other posts, there is plenty of audio-related blind testing done.

 

Such negativity in this thread from people questioning my listening skills to making personal attacks.

First, Randi is not an objective third party. He is on record as having a view on this. Find someone impartial and the test would have some validity.

Second, DBTs of audio are different as there are real issues in people have different levels of listening skills as well as the impact of the amount of time one has to do ABX testing.

I believe there are real differences in cable quality although one not need spend $5K to get a good cable. Good cables measure well in inductance, capacitance and resistance and on any decent system the impact can be material, not marginal.

 

As mentioned several times before, this isn't about picking somebody off the street and asking them if they can differentiate. It's selecting someone who claims they can actually hear a difference. It's assumed their listening skills would be quite good.

 

Outside of an insane asylum where would you find an impartial third party to evaluate the products of "P.W.B. Electronics? (a "company" Randi's list)

"Does it rely on autosuggestion for P.W.B. devices and techniques to work ?

No - The devices are actually superimposing a 'friendly' energy pattern on any object which they are attached to.

Have the P.W.B. devices had some special treatment ?

Yes - The devices have been specially treated to provide 'friendly', 'relaxing' energy patterns.

Now I have successfully used the Rainbow Foil, what is my next step - what do you suggest I try next ? Should I try the Cream-Electret next ?

Yes. The Cream-Electret is the next product to try. This is an extremely versatile product because so many things can be beneficially treated with it. And I mean so many things - things in the listening environment which are not, in any way, associated with the audio equipment.

Now I have tried the Rainbow Foil and Cream-Electret, what do you suggest I try next ?

Are the other Foils mentioned in your product list any different to the standard Rainbow Foil.? The other Foils in your product list are more expensive than the Rainbow Foil, are they more effective ?

Yes, all our different Foils (Frosted Rainbow Foil, the group of Morphic Message Foils and Quantum Rainbow Foil with Quantum Cream) 'deal with' different adverse energy patterns which we have identified over the past 15 years. They are all in addition to the Rainbow Foil and Cream-Electret. The more of our devices that are applied to objects, the greater will be the beneficial effect. Most of our regular customers use the standard Rainbow Foil for treating CD's, vinyl records, audio and video tapes (which in some cases amount to many hundreds) and use the more expensive Foils to treat audio, video, computer and other electronic equipment and other passive objects in their listening room.

http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/faq/faq82000.html

 

Clearly Peter Belt is in a league of his own and perhaps a universe as well, but is it wrong to believe that an Audio Research or Conrad-Johnson amp sounds better (more accurate, betetr soundstage) than a $1,000 receiver?

Of course not.

Some people here like lukpac argue in some detail about very fine differences in recordings but then believe that high end audio does not offer value or certainly imply it in this thread. Those views frankly seem inconsistent to me.

 

FYI: A list of PWB products:

http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/product.html

WVK

 

It isn't wrong if they actually do. What makes it a *given* that they do?

Well, I haven't exactly said that - don't put words in my mouth. But even if I had, why is it necessarily inconsistent? Differences in recordings are not always due to equipment differences. Of course, some *are* due to equipment differences. But simply because such differences *can* exist doesn't mean such differences *must* exist. Your CD player might sound vastly different from mine (better or worse is another question), or it might sound exactly the same. If they *are* different - *vastly* different - shouldn't it be pretty simple to tell? I'm not talking better or worse. I'm talking being able to distinguish between the two.

 

The JREF has published protocols for various tests, and has executed said tests. To say they are not valid, one should have to either be able to show one of the protocol controls as unfair, or to show how the execution and interpretation of those protocols in their many tests have been unfair. Can you give an example?

There is a real opportunity here since the JREF does indeed execute tests. Your summary dismissal of their ability to fairly execute a test would be akin to a murder conviction based on motive alone instead of requring actual evidence. This is patently unfair and ridiculous. Not everybody in the world who has an opinion is a cheat.

Let's take the example of dousing. You either find the water or you don't. Anybody in the world can judge if you found the water (enough times out of a selected number of trials to prove real ability) or did not! Blind testing is the same way! Did you hear the difference, or did you not! By nature these tests are transparent and there's really no opportunity for bias judgement. Can you give an example of how biased testing could cheat such a simple trial with a published protocol?

Secondly, would you say that you are objective and impartial on this matter?

That notwithstanding, can you give an example as to how you would cheat such a test if you were Randi?

One could say that about any kind of blind testing. Look at the vodka test I mentioned before. I couldn't tell one vodka from another from grain alcohol. Yet the guy who took the test can. This obviously doesn't invalidate blind-testing of spirits. In fact, the participants performance pretty well validates such blind testing. I don't see anything in your statement that makes audio blind-testing specifically invalid when compared to other types.

 

Let me say this, the Amazing Randi is more attractive than the Amazing Johnathon

 

So put someone with good ears (yourself, perhaps) in a blind test and say one of these is a Conrad-Johnson and one of these is a $1000 receiver. Someone with good ears should be able to identify which is which, right?

We're not talking subjectively valuing something, we're simply talking about identifying it. Like the vodka.

Of course, you could argue then that what we're testing is critical listening skills, not the products themselves. But if nobody can tell a difference or mis-identifies the components, then obviously there's something to what Randi is trying to prove.

The point is that we, as listeners, are biased by the name on the piece of equipment we listen to. There's no way around that.

So remove the names via DBT and see what happens. It's really pretty simple.

 

Not quite true. I have a friend that's totally blind and has been from birth. As a result of his blindness his hearing is also much better than average. This guy is an audiophle and can hear differences between amplifiers that both have almost zero THD. He's the only guy I know that isn't biased by how something looks and I've seen him throw out a $15000 amp in favour of a $2000 amp simply based on how it sounded.

 

Isn't it dangerous for a blind man to be throwing out a 15,000 dollar amp? Some one could get killed!

 

Excellent!

Now that's a guy that you want for your blind (sorry) testing.

And my point was that if people know what brand component they are listening to, it introduces bias. If your friend is free from this effect, good for him.

So what $2000 amps does he like?

 

I think this is the one particular point where the audio industry is beset with a fair amount of charlatanism and foolishness. Up to a certain point there is value in low impedance, as well as good insulation, dielectric construction, and shielding. But this can be had at a reasonable cost, IMO. I think I have pretty good listening skills, but I have never been able to tell more than a marginal difference between cables, except the one time that I tried some crappy electrical appliance wiring to hook up speakers instead of something made for audio. Now, I do know there are differences between amplifiers. The beefy ones with hefty power supplies and short signal paths will sound better, especially with inefficient speakers and at higher volumes. And there are probably certain circuit topologies and power output devices that serve better than others. But past a certain basic quality level, including the ability to drive the complex impedances of some speaker systems, the speakers themselves and the room acoustics, as well as other mechanical-to-electrical transducers like phono cartridges and associated tonearm, etc. will have a far greater effect (anything subject to resonances).

I once visited a high-end store in Maryland where a salesman tried to convince me that interconnects and speaker cables would have a greater effect on the sound than any components themselves. I thought he was a nutcase, so I didn't spend much time there. Cables is one area of audio where I don't think there is a whole lot of mystery or special art to making a good-sounding design. Basic electrical theory is adequate to describe the behavior of conductors and insulation, and should be generally well understood. But there is a faction of the audiophile community that seems to think that wires are like tone controls or are somehow absolutely critical to system matching. I don't buy it. I'm skeptical enough to doubt that line of thinking, and as I say I've never experienced a notable or striking difference between interconnects or cables. I believe in keeping them short enough so that they can't create a sonic signature anyway.