Here are some problems when evaluating cables...

[Monstrous Mike]

Sorry Bill L, I don't mean to pick on personally but your words here are representative of most people who believe they are getting better sound from better cables.


I'll go with your second reason. They don't have to. The cables stand or fall on their own. As do other products whose evaluation relies on sensory perception like colognes, food, art, and fabric softener. To some there is no appreciation for the subtle differences. To others it's a world of difference. Audio is no different. This talk of rampant placebo and obligatory proof is obsessive and, frankly, pompous. Why should the cable companies listen to you?

For some reason, cables are compared to other subjective products like food, wine and art. The reason for this really does escape me other than the obvious possibility in that it makes cables a matter of taste and not engineering design.

Personally, I feel that the type of music, the singer, the tempo, the instrument, and all of the compenents that go into making beautiful sounds are what we should really be discussing. Now there is an area where there are everything from subtle to dramatic differences. Some music is inherently pleasing while other music needs to be appreciated over time to be developed as a taste.

Audio cables are the forks and knives, the china, the wine goblet. We taste food and wine not cutlery and glass.

So perhaps all this bickering about audio cabling is akin to fighting over whether 80/20 silver nickel cutlery makes souffle taste better than 79/21 silver nicklel. I mean really, couldn't we then argue that you wouldn't taste the difference if you were eating beans but surely would if you were eating caviar (caviar has a higher taste resolution)? Yikes, maybe some of us have a tin ear, plugged nose and cotton tongue, not to mention color blind.

...OK, switching gears....

As an engineer, the main impressions I take away from these cable debates are as follows:

1. People tend to think there are a number of significant parameters and factors regarding audio cabling and audio cable engineering that either are not properly measured nor even discovered or understood yet. The type of cabling used and required for home audio is a fraction of a percentage of the variety of cabling used over the entire frequency spectrum. There are many more problems and cable design considerations when transmitting higher frequency and much more complex signals. While I cannot argue that there may be something we are overlooking, this type of logic could be used in any situation to support any claim, regardless of its absurdity.

2. There is a general lack of acknowledgement that there are numerous reasons for a person's audio system to sound different at any given moment in time. This could range from background noise, time of day, mood, exact listening position, rearrangement of furniture (even very minor), volume levels, temperature and humidity and the list just goes on. I realize people don't have the capability nor the desire to properly control all of the factors but engineers have a problem with confirming any type of conclusion without these factors being systematically eliminated as possible causes of a particular change in system sound.

Maybe the solution is to simply buy whatever you can afford, whatever sounds good to and just listen to and discuss the music. Don't try to justify your purchases by citing technobabble or pretending you are certain of the engineering reason why your system sounds so good.

Is that possible?

[okiemax]

Sorry Bill L, I don't mean to pick on personally but your words here are representative of most people who believe they are getting better sound from better cables.



For some reason, cables are compared to other subjective products like food, wine and art. The reason for this really does escape me other than the obvious possibility in that it makes cables a matter of taste and not engineering design.

Personally, I feel that the type of music, the singer, the tempo, the instrument, and all of the compenents that go into making beautiful sounds are what we should really be discussing. Now there is an area where there are everything from subtle to dramatic differences. Some music is inherently pleasing while other music needs to be appreciated over time to be developed as a taste.

Audio cables are the forks and knives, the china, the wine goblet. We taste food and wine not cutlery and glass.

So perhaps all this bickering about audio cabling is akin to fighting over whether 80/20 silver nickel cutlery makes souffle taste better than 79/21 silver nicklel. I mean really, couldn't we then argue that you wouldn't taste the difference if you were eating beans but surely would if you were eating caviar (caviar has a higher taste resolution)? Yikes, maybe some of us have a tin ear, plugged nose and cotton tongue, not to mention color blind.

...OK, switching gears....

As an engineer, the main impressions I take away from these cable debates are as follows:

1. People tend to think there are a number of significant parameters and factors regarding audio cabling and audio cable engineering that either are not properly measured nor even discovered or understood yet. The type of cabling used and required for home audio is a fraction of a percentage of the variety of cabling used over the entire frequency spectrum. There are many more problems and cable design considerations when transmitting higher frequency and much more complex signals. While I cannot argue that there may be something we are overlooking, this type of logic could be used in any situation to support any claim, regardless of its absurdity.

2. There is a general lack of acknowledgement that there are numerous reasons for a person's audio system to sound different at any given moment in time. This could range from background noise, time of day, mood, exact listening position, rearrangement of furniture (even very minor), volume levels, temperature and humidity and the list just goes on. I realize people don't have the capability nor the desire to properly control all of the factors but engineers have a problem with confirming any type of conclusion without these factors being systematically eliminated as possible causes of a particular change in system sound.

Maybe the solution is to simply buy whatever you can afford, whatever sounds good to and just listen to and discuss the music. Don't try to justify your purchases by citing technobabble or pretending you are certain of the engineering reason why your system sounds so good.

Is that possible?

You seem to be saying there may be things not know about hifi cables, but you don't think so. The implication is that further research on cables alone probably will be useless, and will never reconcile the argument between objectiviists and subjectivists. Might you reconsider it as a challenge instead of a dead end?

Regarding your second impression, I don't think audiophiles are unaware of what can affect their listening. Those I have known are aware of the influence of personal factors, such as mood and time of day, and physical factors such as room treatments and the"sweet spot." This is why audiophiles prefer to live with a new component for a while before judging it.

I agree that the most important thing is enjoying the music. But I recognize that some people also like the equipment.

[mtrycraft]

The implication is that further research on cables alone probably will be useless, and will never reconcile the argument between objectiviists and subjectivists. Might you reconsider it as a challenge instead of a dead end?


Just as soon as there are consistently demonstrable audible differences between comparable cables. What is the reason otherwise?

[okiemax]

Just as soon as there are consistently demonstrable audible differences between comparable cables. What is the reason otherwise?

Well, maybe you are too invested in the idea of blinded testing to consider other possibilities. A recent post at AA gave two possible but opposite reasons why there have been no positive double-blind tests of cables: (1) there are no audible differences in cables, or (2) the tests don't work. It would be easier for me to believe the tests work if there were a few positive results for cables.

[skeptic]

I'll go with your first reason.

[Pat D]

Well, maybe you are too invested in the idea of blinded testing to consider other possibilities. A recent post at AA gave two possible but opposite reasons why there have been no positive double-blind tests of cables: (1) there are no audible differences in cables, or (2) the tests don't work. It would be easier for me to believe the tests work if there were a few positive results for cables.
Well, a lot of people have tried to maintain that DBTs don't work for some mysterious reason. Why you single out cables as something special is a question, but in fact there have been some positive results with small and large gauge cables and relatively long lengths. We have mentioned some of them in the past. I am not home so I can't look them, but I think there is an article by David Clark. Anyway, your stated criterion is met: is it in fact easier for you to accept DBT results?

[okiemax]

Well, a lot of people have tried to maintain that DBTs don't work for some mysterious reason. Why you single out cables as something special is a question, but in fact there have been some positive results with small and large gauge cables and relatively long lengths. We have mentioned some of them in the past. I am not home so I can't look them, but I think there is an article by David Clark. Anyway, your stated criterion is met: is it in fact easier for you to accept DBT results?

Yes, I know about tests that have shown audible differences as results of gauge and length of cables. I have experienced this first hand comparing 8' lengths of speaker wire with 30' lenghts on a pair of nominally 4 ohm speakers. The difference was NOT SUBTLE, and certainly not something I felt a need to confirm with blinded testing. However, my understanding is that the discussion here is about audiophile cables of comparable length and gauge. If you refer to mtrycraft's post, you will see he says "comparable cables."

[E-Stat]

We taste food and wine not cutlery and glass. So perhaps all this bickering about audio cabling is akin to fighting over whether 80/20 silver nickel cutlery makes souffle taste better than 79/21 silver nicklel. I mean really, couldn't we then argue that you wouldn't taste the difference if you were eating beans but surely would if you were eating caviar (caviar has a higher taste resolution)?

I find it interesting that you should use this analogy. While we don't taste knives and glasses, we do taste the residual effect of cookware that is heated. Years ago, I participated in a Saladmaster demonstration using my own cookware for comparison. Saladmaster cookware is made of TP304 surgical stainless steel. The test consisted of tasting heated water with baking soda in various types of cookware: aluminum, stainless, teflon coated aluminum, corning ware, pyrex glass, and their surgical stainless. The aluminum variations tasted downright metallic. The corning, pyrex, and my stainless were somewhat better to varying degress, but still tasted different than plain baking soda. The Saladmaster sample, however, tasted just like baking soda. I bought a set.

rw

[E-Stat]

...between comparable cables.
Is Nordost Valhalla comparable to 12 gauge zip?

rw

[Bill L]

"Audio cables are the forks and knives, the china, the wine goblet. We taste food and wine not cutlery and glass.

So perhaps all this bickering about audio cabling is akin to fighting over whether 80/20 silver nickel cutlery makes souffle taste better than 79/21 silver nicklel."

Your description is analogous to your opinion and makes no sense. It says we listen to the music and not the system . . . and concludes that the system is of no consequence.

As for my comparing the perception of audio to the perception of the other senses, your refusal to acknowlege the point that some will hear the difference to a different degree than others (or not at all) demonstrates that you're not immune to subjective influence yourself - especially when the resultant logic suits your argument.

[Rockwell]

Your description is analogous to your opinion and makes no sense. It says we listen to the music and not the system . . . and concludes that the system is of no consequence.

He is talking about wires, not the whole system. It simply has not been established that anyone can distinguish two proper wires under blind conditions.

[Bill L]

The logic of his analogy makes no sense even if you have previously concluded that cables have no sonic signature. It only serves to illustrate his stated opinion, nothing more.

[Rockwell]

The logic of his analogy makes no sense even if you have previously concluded that cables have no sonic signature. It only serves to illustrate his stated opinion, nothing more.

Isn't illustrating a point the goal of an analogy?

[Bill L]

Yes, but the logic must be valid to make a point. It only restated his opinion.

[Rockwell]

Yes, but the logic must be valid to make a point. It only restated his opinion.

Can you be more specific as to what is illogical?

[Bill L]

"It says we listen to the music and not the system . . . and concludes that the system is of no consequence."

The conclusion is not supported by the analogy.

[mtrycraft]

Is Nordost Valhalla comparable to 12 gauge zip?

rw

What is its gauge?

[mtrycraft]

However, my understanding is that the discussion here is about audiophile cables of comparable length and gauge. If you refer to mtrycraft's post, you will see he says "comparable cables."

Now why would a dbt not work?
After all, DBT is used by audio science to ste threshold levels of detection?
All these excuses, speculations to explain away null data, yet, not a single golden ear can demonstrate audible differences. Why? Sighted listening is not an option to determine differences in cables. That is a non starter. DBTs work. PERIOD.

[mtrycraft]

I find it interesting that you should use this analogy. While we don't taste knives and glasses, we do taste the residual effect of cookware that is heated. Years ago, I participated in a Saladmaster demonstration using my own cookware for comparison. Saladmaster cookware is made of TP304 surgical stainless steel. The test consisted of tasting heated water with baking soda in various types of cookware: aluminum, stainless, teflon coated aluminum, corning ware, pyrex glass, and their surgical stainless. The aluminum variations tasted downright metallic. The corning, pyrex, and my stainless were somewhat better to varying degress, but still tasted different than plain baking soda. The Saladmaster sample, however, tasted just like baking soda. I bought a set.

rw


And all this under DBT, right?

[okiemax]

Now why would a dbt not work?
After all, DBT is used by audio science to ste threshold levels of detection?
All these excuses, speculations to explain away null data, yet, not a single golden ear can demonstrate audible differences. Why? Sighted listening is not an option to determine differences in cables. That is a non starter. DBTs work. PERIOD.

Have there been studies that show DBT's are a reliable way of verifying audiophile claims of hearing differences in cables while listening to music? If not, perhaps research in this area could help move the cable debate beyond what appears to be a stalemate or dead end.

[skeptic]

Have there been studies that show DBT's are a reliable way of verifying audiophile claims of hearing differences in cables while listening to music? If not, perhaps research in this area could help move the cable debate beyond what appears to be a stalemate or dead end.

If you read Cable Asylum's position on DBTs, they state clearly and emphatically that DBTs are the only reliable way to distinguish subtle differences in the sound of different audio components. Discussion of DBTs is not permitted at that site. The reason given is that it causes too many flame wars. (Given the sharp arguements that sometimes occur there, discussion of DBTs is not the only source of flame wars.)

[E-Stat]

What is its gauge?
Good question. From a reference in one of their white papers, I gather the equivalent gauge is 12. It may be 8.

http://nordost.com/products/valhalla.html

rw

[E-Stat]

Discussion of DBTs is not permitted at that site. The reason given is that it causes too many flame wars.
Not exactly correct. Not allowed on cable forum. Discussion of DBTs is encouraged at Prop Head and allowed elsewhere on the website.

rw

[E-Stat]

And all this under DBT, right?
If memory serves (it was about fifteen years ago), it was a SBT as the tester knew the results. The baking soda water solution from each sample was then poured into glasses to be tested by the six people present.

It is a very easy test to duplicate. If you really enjoy foods such as steamed vegetables, try it sometime to see which of your cookware leaves the least amount of residual taste. Aluminum is great for a lot of things, but not cooking.

rw

[Monstrous Mike]

As for my comparing the perception of audio to the perception of the other senses, your refusal to acknowlege the point that some will hear the difference to a different degree than others (or not at all) demonstrates that you're not immune to subjective influence yourself - especially when the resultant logic suits your argument.

Bill, you are making a fundamental conclusion about what we generally argue about. And that is that sonic differences in cables are a reality. You say it happens to some people to varying degrees on differents systems, etc. That specific conclusion you come to has yet to be proven. Whether you or I have a conclusion or opinion is really irrelevent to the truth about cabling. Either it is or it isn't; it doesn't matter what we think.

I am not arguing that people do or do not perceive improvements, I am arguing whether those perceptions are accurate and, most importantly, the direct result of superior cabling.

You can feed somebody a plain hotdog on a plate and ask them how it tastes. They would probably say it tastes OK. If you gave them the same hotdog but told them it was cooked in a wood fired oven designed by Julia Childs, sprinkle some saffron around the plate, seat them at luxurious French colonial dining room set and have it served by a naked Pamela Anderson and then ask them again how it tasted and it would probably be better than OK. But it's the same hotdog.

Do you see my analogy now?

[markw]

My stepson, who works in fine dining, tells me that one of their tricks to induce customers to order something additional, such as wine or dessert, is to subtly nod your head up and down while making the suggestion. Naturally, there is no way to DBT this, but on the average, many more people then not do go with the suggestion.

[Bill L]

Yes, but it's a different analogy now. It no longer requires the assumption that cabling has no effect to conclude that cabling has no effect. No-one here, as far as I know, denies the existence of placebo effect in any sensory perception. It's the suggestion that it applies to audio cabling/audiophiles in totality that is obviously unsupported. As such, it is hardly worth mentioning as a defense for your argument.

[okiemax]

If you read Cable Asylum's position on DBTs, they state clearly and emphatically that DBTs are the only reliable way to distinguish subtle differences in the sound of different audio components. Discussion of DBTs is not permitted at that site. The reason given is that it causes too many flame wars. (Given the sharp arguements that sometimes occur there, discussion of DBTs is not the only source of flame wars.)

I didn't know Cable Asylum had an official position regarding the reliability of double-blind testing. Where would I find this position presented?

I agree that in theory blinded testing would appear to be the only way to test without bias. But "only way" doesn't necessarily mean "reliable way." How do we know it is reliable?

[mtrycraft]

How do we know it is reliable?

One only has to check what is used in industry, research and to publish. DBT listening.
Sighted listening for small differences has nothing going for it.

Oh, the official AA stand on DBT is somewhere in ther FAQ about wire or something. So, even they accept the de facto testing methodology. Interesting, isn't it?

[mtrycraft]

Is Nordost Valhalla comparable to 12 gauge zip?

rw


I checked their web site. Its resistance is equivalent to 14 ga, so yes, it is comparable to 12 ga zip.
Bring on the DBT listening data, please.

[mtrycraft]

Thanks. But I don't remember tasting any utensil taste when eating food. Maybe you can with that test. Maybe it needs to be tested with food next. I bet the food will mask it. Similar to perceptual coding in audio.

[RobotCzar]

Well, maybe you are too invested in the idea of blinded testing to consider other possibilities. A recent post at AA gave two possible but opposite reasons why there have been no positive double-blind tests of cables: (1) there are no audible differences in cables, or (2) the tests don't work. It would be easier for me to believe the tests work if there were a few positive results for cables.

This approach is due, in my opinion, to a really bad understanding of scientific method. There are no tests that "don't work", there ARE tests that are faulty for one reason or another. The key point, however, is that the failure or faultiness of any test is in no way some kind of supporting "evidence" for the item being tested. The burden to find a valid test is still on the backs of those making an assertion (such as "I hear differences in cables). There is no supporting evdience to date.

You could (and I do) assume that these people are really trying to say there is NO way to test for cable audibility. They would like to believe that because they can't find any valid tests that supports their claim. Such a claim is simply illogical and irrational. Mysticism.

A final point I'll make is that you can NEVER assume you "know" that answer to a test and then "show" that the tests doesn't work because it doesn't give you the answer you expected. This is non-scientific, it is not a valid scientific procedure--if your test is not telling you what it is designed to test then that is a flaw in the testing procedure not in the test results. Test results are never wrong by definition.


I AM convinced that it is easier for you to deny the test results than it is for you to give up your beliefs. That denial is pretty common and has been tested scientifically.

[okiemax]

One only has to check what is used in industry, research and to publish. DBT listening.
Sighted listening for small differences has nothing going for it.

Oh, the official AA stand on DBT is somewhere in ther FAQ about wire or something. So, even they accept the de facto testing methodology. Interesting, isn't it?

I know double-blind testing has been used in a variety of settings. I wanted to know if there been any studies that took a critical look at the use of this testing for audible differences in hifi components?

Skeptic's comment and my question regarding official position were specifically about CableAsylum, not AudioAsylum. I can't find an official postion on double-blind testing in CableAslum.

[mtrycraft]

But have there been any studies that took a critical look at double-blind testing for audible differences in hifi components. What's wrong with asking whether the test do what they are supposed to do?

Skeptic's comment and my question were specifically about CableAsylum, not AudioAsylum. I can't find an official postion or stand on double-blind testing in CableAslum.

It is obvious to anyone who checks out what is happening in the real audio industry, audio research, acoustic research, is that DBT is a must to account for human bias. Why would audio be given a free pass from science on this? Sighted listeing for these differences is just plain unreliable and has no meaning.

What is the difference between CA or AA? There is one stand on DBT, period. You don't like that stand?

[mtrycraft]

Is Nordost Valhalla comparable to 12 gauge zip?

rw


Fred Davis in his AES paper had 4 cables with less inductance than this Valhalla, that he modeled.

[okiemax]

This approach is due, in my opinion, to a really bad understanding of scientific method. There are no tests that "don't work", there ARE tests that are faulty for one reason or another. The key point, however, is that the failure or faultiness of any test is in no way some kind of supporting "evidence" for the item being tested. The burden to find a valid test is still on the backs of those making an assertion (such as "I hear differences in cables). There is no supporting evdience to date.

You could (and I do) assume that these people are really trying to say there is NO way to test for cable audibility. They would like to believe that because they can't find any valid tests that supports their claim. Such a claim is simply illogical and irrational. Mysticism.

A final point I'll make is that you can NEVER assume you "know" that answer to a test and then "show" that the tests doesn't work because it doesn't give you the answer you expected. This is non-scientific, it is not a valid scientific procedure--if your test is not telling you what it is designed to test then that is a flaw in the testing procedure not in the test results. Test results are never wrong by definition.


I AM convinced that it is easier for you to deny the test results than it is for you to give up your beliefs. That denial is pretty common and has been tested scientifically.

I don't believe it's unscientific to question whether a test can do what it's supposed to do. Why would you object to research on that question? Doesn't science encourage inquiry? But perhaps I'm missing your point.

I'm not sure what you mean by " test results are never wrong by definition." I can think of some instances were results could be wrong, such as when bias has been introduced, or there are errors in recording and tabulating data. Again, maybe I'm missing your point.

Where I see a disregard for scientific method on this forum is the belief by some members that a null result in a DBT is conclusive evidence of no audible difference in two components. Perhaps that issue would be better addressed in a base post.

[pctower]

I don't believe it's unscientific to question whether a test can do what it's supposed to do. Why would you object to research on that question? Doesn't science encourage inquiry? But perhaps I'm missing your point.

You haven't missed his point at all. You've just trampled all over the holy graile of this board, and you will be treated far worse than Mel Gibson's Christ for daring to question the all-holy-of-holy DBT, which no matter how sloppy, and contrary to good scientific protocol a test may be, is beyond all question here just as long as the DBT produces a null result.

Few here, and particularly some of the High Priests you are taking on right now, want to face the fact that there have been few if any scientifically valid cable DBTs ever reported.

This is not a board of science; it is a board of religion.

[mtrycraft]

is beyond all question here just as long as the DBT produces a null result.
.


Oh, please, you have been shown published positive DBT of cables.

[E-Stat]

Fred Davis in his AES paper had 4 cables with less inductance than this Valhalla, that he modeled.
Sorry, I'd much rather see Pamela Anderson model the cables.

rw

[soundhd]

hear, hear