Chu Gai

Those High-End People, They're so Sneaky!

Steven Rochelin, who I believe runs/owns the site EnjoyTheMusic, once claimed that he rather successfully was able to differentiate between digital interconnects as can be seen here. Now this is rather remarkable and I'm sure he has recounted the story to numerous people. Proof positive that a discerning audiophile with skills that only a few possess can reliably use his ears to discern the nuances that pass for informative 'help' and 'guidance' to the consumer looking for that last little bit of resolution, detail, rythm, pace, blackness, eh?

Unfortunately for the golden eared Rochelin, the person whom he referred to had the following comments.

Cornelius

Pretty interesting!

CJ

Jeff Gatie

Chu, if you took his advice that one should "quit while they're ahead", you would have quit a long time ago. Thanks for not doing so, your posts are some of the most entertaining and educating debunking sessions I have seen/heard/read since Penn & Teller. Keep up the good work and please continue to frustrate the hell out of the "golden ear" types.

Adil M

Spell out the controversy to me, Chu.
He claims he heard a difference. His results were in the top 5.5%. He may not be able to identify the cables, but he appears to have heard a difference. I agree it would have been nice to have had more samples.
What a sneaky fellow.

Jeff Gatie

The controversy is that he "heard" a difference well within the possibility of random guessing. It is the equivalent of claiming you are intelligent by getting 25% of the questions right on a test that gives multiple choice of answers of a,b,c or d.

Adil M

No, it's not.
The chances of him guessing and getting the results he had would be 7*((1/2)^7) which is about ~5.5%.
The 5% interval is generally considered significant, especially w/ a sample of 10 or more (it might actually be 5 or more, but I have not looked at my stats book since high school. He had 7 samples which is pretty damn close.
Getting 6/7 is equivalent in odds to 1/7 as long as the odds are 50/50 (which they would be if it's random).
The only ground the objectivists have here is that it would be nice if he had more samples.
If the guy wants to make that claim, let him.

Chu Gai

Yes, a sample size of 7 is fairly small and with one trial one can't make much hay out of it. One makes even less hay by carefully listening to cable A then listening to cable B. But!

1) Rochelin falsified his results.
2) Rochelin falsified the nature of the test.
3) Rochelin was graciously granted the premise that he misunderstood things (IOW I'll give you the 6 out of 7) and then an additional 3 or 4 trials were proposed now that Rochelin 'knew' what was expected. This would have increased the sample size and led to increased signficance. He declined.
4) Rochelin declined any further participation. Quit while he's ahead.

Not sneaky?
Surely somewhere in the kingdom of Audiophiia there must be one who will do battle on a level playing field? Someone who will lay claim to the Ear of Gold and raise it high for all to see.

Adil M

Chu,
Generally, I agree w/ the majority of your "points."
I do find your title to this thread judgemental. Who are "'Those' High-end People?"
You are saying he falsified his info. How do you know he just never understood the test?
He needed more samples, but did this guy realize that or did he think he had enough to prove it.

I guess you are right. Maybe he is false.. let's make it simpler, he's a liar. He lied in a sneaky manner, b/c it may help him in his business endeavors. This means he's somewhat informed as well. He is putting up a false image of himself as better than others.

The "Ear of Gold" is so dramatic. Chu, maybe I'm holding you to a higher standard, but your posts are usually of higher quality than this.

Cornelius

Adil, did you read the link that Chu provided? In it, the person who conducted the tests stated, "I proposed that as a
working hypothesis for further experiments but do not allow it as a valid interpretation of what took place... When we tallied the results he pronounced himself satisfied that he
now knew the differences in the cable sounds. Good, I said, then lets do three or four more trials and prove it. 'Oh, no,' he said, 'I'm going to quit while I'm ahead.'"

CJ

Chu Gai

It certainly was judgemental on my part Adil and maybe its a bit unfair to lump all high-end people under one banner. Just a bit though. I make no apologies though for painting with a broad brush because to my eyes, there are just so many people who contribute to the dumbing down of the audio buying public. As to who they are? I'll give a partial list of them. Harley, Pearson, Lumley, Tiffenbaum from Linn, virtually every cable company, EnjoyTheMusic, The Absolute Sound, 6Moons, certain speaker companies (I'll have something to say about them eventually), Positive-Feedback, TNT, a whole bunch of secondary websites, StereoPhile (but there's good stuff there too), etc.

I know it calls for a bit of conclusion on my part but I'm not the criminal judicial system so I'm going to go with my gut on this one and not give him the benefit of the doubt. Far as I can see, the person who administered the test graciously did that.

I do my best Adil but I appreciate the criticism. Truly. One thing I know, I'm not about to be writing the Great American Novel, that's for sure!