2. cables
  3. 128927-305

Most Important, Unloved Cable...

Ethernet. I used to say the power cord was the most unloved, but important cable. Now, I update that assessment to the Ethernet cable. Review work forthcoming. 

I can't wait to invite my newer friend who is an engineer who was involved with the construction of Fermilab, the National Accelerator Lab, to hear this! Previously he was an overt mocker; no longer. He decided to try comparing cables and had his mind changed. That's not uncommon, as many of you former skeptics know. :)

I had my biggest doubts about the Ethernet cable. But, I was wrong - SO wrong! I'm so happy I made the decision years ago that I would try things rather than simply flip a coin mentally and decide without experience. It has made all the difference in quality of systems and my enjoyment of them. Reminder; I settled the matter of efficacy of cables years before becoming a reviewer and with my own money, so my enthusiasm for them does not spring from reviewing. Reviewing has allowed me to more fully explore their potential.  

I find fascinating the cognitive dissonance that exists between the skeptical mind in regard to cables and the real world results which can be obtained with them. I'm still shaking my head at this result... profoundly unexpected results way beyond expectation. Anyone who would need an ABX for this should exit the hobby and take up gun shooting, because your hearing would be for crap.  
douglas_schroeder
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
There it is! Did I call that one or not? It was just a matter of time. The Appeal to Controlled Blind Testing argument. One of the most oft used logical fallacies of them all.

😀

jinjuku's avatar
jinjuku
226 posts
 
this proposed testing protocol is not valid for several reasons including the simple fact that it is not double-blind
Who said it was going to be double blind?

I say "relatively simple" because of course you would need a proper ABX comparator and you would need to level-match the two signals to within a tight tolerance
Why would you think there are going to be level differences at either the DAC or Amp output via change in Ethernet cabling? You don’t understand how this works.

any proposed alternative testing protocol would itself have to be established as scientifically valid which this proposed protocol would probably not be considered because it is so suspect on so many points
There there are two protocols here depending what is being tested. One is double blind but not strictly AB/X since it is self administered. Another is Single Blind since the person at the network switch would know what cable is in situ. The order would be randomly selected.

the obvious truth of his hypothesis strongly suggest that he suffers extreme bias in this instance and should be disqualified from formulating the test but could perhaps participate in the testing as an observer or contributor.
The obvious truth is hypothesis are meant to be reviewed by others and either reproduced or debunked. Anyone could be shown how to plug and unplug Ethernet cabling. Or I can do it and it can be recorded and monitored. No biggie either way.

I’ve stated under what conditions I would accept being incorrect in my suppositions. Including a cable that is 2600% longer and 9100% cheaper per foot than a 12 foot boutique cable. All on a $250 system that others said produced well recorded DAC => ADC.

My proposed method is also open to pointed and technically sound critique.

You are welcome to bring experts into the discussion if you wish and can.


jinjuku's avatar
jinjuku
226 posts
 
There it is! Did I call that one or not? It was just a matter of time. The Appeal to Controlled Blind Testing argument. One of the most oft used logical fallacies of them all.
You may have missed the evaluation of a $250 computer output and that of high end streamer where the claimant could listen at their leisure fully sighted. On their own equipment, their own room, their own material, their own time frame.

Fully sighted testing and complete control of the tracks.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
In response to the statement,

"proposed testing protocol is not valid for several reasons including the simple fact that it is not double-blind"

jinjuku said,

"Who said it was going to be double blind?"

No one said it was going to be double blind. That's what he's objecting to, apparently.

😀


geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
 
Geoffkait: There it is! Did I call that one or not? It was just a matter of time. The Appeal to Controlled Blind Testing argument. One of the most oft used logical fallacies of them all.

to which jinjuku replied,

"You may have missed the evaluation of a $250 computer output and that of high end streamer where the claimant could listen at their leisure fully sighted. On their own equipment, their own room, their own material, their own time frame.

Fully sighted testing and complete control of the tracks."

I was commenting on the recent post outlining double blind testing protocols.



More to discover