I need help with audio interconnects???? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : I need help with audio interconnects????



Darrenmc
03-18-2004, 11:17 AM
I am at the point with my system where I cannot afford to make the next jump in my equipment without spending alot of $$$, so I'm looking at maximizing system performance. Thus I am looking at getting some decent audio interconnects. I've read several threads on this site and others and alot of articles on the internet on this topic. It seems opinions are widely varied. I'm not a seasoned audiophile like alot of people on these forums so I need some help. I've been to a couple of local dealers and they insist that good audio interconnects do make a difference. One dealer sells Audio Analysis Plus cables but they are very expensive and only come in pre-packaged lengths. The other dealer sells Audioquest and Tara Labs cables. He buys his cable in bulk so he can cut it any length. I was looking at the Audioquest Copperhead cable which sells at $5/foot or the Audioquest Diamondback cable which sells for $8/foot. The connectors are $20 for 2. So I can get 2 - 2 feet cables for $68.40CDN or $82.08CDN incl. taxes. Expensive to me but not crazy expensive. I also have used Ultralink cables which seem ok and are cheaper $45.59CDN incl. taxes for 1M, although I'm not too sure about the quality. The Audioquest cable is within my budget range but if it's not worth it I won't waste my $$$. Can anyone give me an opinion on these Audioquest cables or offer any other suggestions?

paul_pci
03-18-2004, 11:58 AM
My local dealer also carries Audioquest and TaraLabs, but he favors TaraLabs, which I eventually went with. I got the RSC Axiom model, which is a bit more expensive than the Diamondbacks, for instance. But see if you can get a pair of Audioquest and Tara from your dealer to audition at home.

Good luck,
Paul.

okiemax
03-18-2004, 08:17 PM
I am at the point with my system where I cannot afford to make the next jump in my equipment without spending alot of $$$, so I'm looking at maximizing system performance. Thus I am looking at getting some decent audio interconnects. I've read several threads on this site and others and alot of articles on the internet on this topic. It seems opinions are widely varied. I'm not a seasoned audiophile like alot of people on these forums so I need some help. I've been to a couple of local dealers and they insist that good audio interconnects do make a difference. One dealer sells Audio Analysis Plus cables but they are very expensive and only come in pre-packaged lengths. The other dealer sells Audioquest and Tara Labs cables. He buys his cable in bulk so he can cut it any length. I was looking at the Audioquest Copperhead cable which sells at $5/foot or the Audioquest Diamondback cable which sells for $8/foot. The connectors are $20 for 2. So I can get 2 - 2 feet cables for $68.40CDN or $82.08CDN incl. taxes. Expensive to me but not crazy expensive. I also have used Ultralink cables which seem ok and are cheaper $45.59CDN incl. taxes for 1M, although I'm not too sure about the quality. The Audioquest cable is within my budget range but if it's not worth it I won't waste my $$$. Can anyone give me an opinion on these Audioquest cables or offer any other suggestions?

I have no expeience with the Audioquest Copperhead and Diamonback interconnects, but the prices you were quoted seem reasonable, being comparable to Radio Shack's premium interconnect , the Fusion, which is about $28 US for 3 feet. I would not buy, however, without a money-back guarantee.

mtrycraft
03-18-2004, 10:10 PM
I am at the point with my system where I cannot afford to make the next jump in my equipment without spending alot of $$$, so I'm looking at maximizing system performance. Thus I am looking at getting some decent audio interconnects. I've read several threads on this site and others and alot of articles on the internet on this topic. It seems opinions are widely varied. I'm not a seasoned audiophile like alot of people on these forums so I need some help. I've been to a couple of local dealers and they insist that good audio interconnects do make a difference. One dealer sells Audio Analysis Plus cables but they are very expensive and only come in pre-packaged lengths. The other dealer sells Audioquest and Tara Labs cables. He buys his cable in bulk so he can cut it any length. I was looking at the Audioquest Copperhead cable which sells at $5/foot or the Audioquest Diamondback cable which sells for $8/foot. The connectors are $20 for 2. So I can get 2 - 2 feet cables for $68.40CDN or $82.08CDN incl. taxes. Expensive to me but not crazy expensive. I also have used Ultralink cables which seem ok and are cheaper $45.59CDN incl. taxes for 1M, although I'm not too sure about the quality. The Audioquest cable is within my budget range but if it's not worth it I won't waste my $$$. Can anyone give me an opinion on these Audioquest cables or offer any other suggestions?

Of course those dealers insist that you need better cables. How else will they make more money? It is in their best interest to sell. You think if they badmouthed cables they would sell what they carry?

You may want to ask them about real evidence that they make an audible difference. Evidence derived from Double blind listening comparisons. Sighted listening is very biased, hence it has no value in determining such audible differences in cables. No, you will not get one such piece of evidence as it woul not support audible differences. Many have tried for 20+ years, none have succeeded. You will get excuses only.

So, save your money and use what you already have.

arthur nelson
04-20-2004, 11:59 AM
Radio Shacks fusion Cables deliver strong power throughout the audible range. No interference no delay . dont be embarassed to try them on your best audio gear.

As for Tara labs- The Tara labs OMNI 3 series of Speaker cables will Throw you into the
Orchestra pit , theyre so responsive- Awaken any system & fairly priced. if you cant find a Dealer call direct to their Medford oregon Factory( website also) They will customize
your cables with gold pins & Bananas & ship Overnight -Very Top Notch Company.
Cleaner sound than Audioquest or Kimber.

E-Stat
04-20-2004, 01:44 PM
I am at the point with my system where I cannot afford to make the next jump in my equipment without spending alot of $$$, so I'm looking at maximizing system performance.
Better cables are all about system matching and understanding that there are only incremental improvements to be found. Some of the potential benefits depend upon your equipment (not necessarily assessments of "good" or "bad", but parameters) and the kind of music you favor. For example, since I use passive attenuators with my CDP (significantly more open than my preamp), cable capacitance is far more important. If you need very long runs of cable, that can be a mitigating factor.

Some folks don't hear differences because they don't know what to listen for. In home trials will cost you nothing but your time. You may find benefit and you may not. Many of us enjoy the hunt. Good luck !

rw

skeptic
04-20-2004, 02:58 PM
Not only isn't there event the slightest shred of evidence anywhere to suggest that one interconnect cable is any different than another, it makes no sense at all. The least expensive audio cable interconnect can carry a video signal cable perfectly and that signal has over 300 times the bandwidth of an audio signal. The greatest measured difference by a proponent of these cables could find no measureable differences to suggest that they could possibly be audible. Don't waste your money. Put it to work doing something useful and usable.

woodman
04-20-2004, 03:25 PM
I concur 110% with everything that "skeptic" said in his post here. The worlds of audio and video are overrun with charlatans out to relieve you of some of your hard-earned ... and under very false pretenses.

I would add to the discussion the following:

Although it sounds quite reasonable on the face of it - the advice given by many well-intentioned individuals to try the product yourself and "let your ears decide" is in actuality really terrible advice! For our ears are anything but harbingers of ultimate truth, as much as some would like to think they are. In truth, they are but a small part of the mechanism(s) that ultimately determine what we hear. This is true of all 5 of our senses. They all operate under the direct control and influence of our ABEs (our Attitudes, Beliefs, and Expectations) - very often at a subconscious level, but the control and influence are there nonetheless.

ROJ
04-20-2004, 06:13 PM
I recently researched audio interconnects to see if I should upgrade my cables. As you probably read in your research, this is a contentious topic without any scientifically rigorous proof one way or another, althought inclusion of DBT is an important first step and may indicate that ultimately no differences will be found if the research progresses. I actually don't know what I think about cables differences since no scientifically rigorous research exists (the current studies seem to have poor internal or external validity). Given that definitive proof does not exist and may not be produced for some time, I decided to try a few cheap cables and see if I noticed a difference. I wanted to try cheap cables that had money back guarantees. I bought cables from Blue Jean Cables (bluejeanscable.com) and Heartland Cables (heartlandcables.com). Both of these companies offer cheaper cables than the mainstream cable companies and offer 30 day money back guarantees. In my system and in my admittedly biased testing, the cables seemed to have made a difference. As I said before, I don't know if cables actually do make a differences. The difference I perceived may have been due to bias. At the same time, there actually may be differences in cables since studies that have used DBT have not addressed external validity issues (e.g., did not control for potential confounding variables such as differences between systems and listerners). So as this debate continues seemingly in perpetuity, one option to consider is to try some cheap cables that have money back guarantees (such as Blue Jeans cable or Heartland cables) and see if you feel the cables improve your system.

-ROJ

bturk667
04-20-2004, 06:18 PM
How much money are you looking to spend?

skeptic
04-20-2004, 06:47 PM
"In my system and in my admittedly biased testing, the cables seemed to have made a difference. As I said before, I don't know if cables actually do make a differences. The difference I perceived may have been due to bias."

Then your advice makes no sense at all. How can your reach any conclusion when there is admitted bias. Furthermore, if you use the rationale that cheap cables might provide some improvement, how can you preclude the possibility that more expensive cables wouldn't provide even greater improvement.

If you take the arguement that only "high resolution" sound systems provide the possibility that an audible improvement would result from improved cables, how do you define high resolution. One audiophiles dream component or dream system is another audiophile's "mid fi." And even among the "select" components chosen by rags like Stereophile Magazine, the number of permutations is virtually limitless.

ROJ
04-20-2004, 07:38 PM
"In my system and in my admittedly biased testing, the cables seemed to have made a difference. As I said before, I don't know if cables actually do make a differences. The difference I perceived may have been due to bias."

Then your advice makes no sense at all. How can your reach any conclusion when there is admitted bias. Furthermore, if you use the rationale that cheap cables might provide some improvement, how can you preclude the possibility that more expensive cables wouldn't provide even greater improvement.

If you take the arguement that only "high resolution" sound systems provide the possibility that an audible improvement would result from improved cables, how do you define high resolution. One audiophiles dream component or dream system is another audiophile's "mid fi." And even among the "select" components chosen by rags like Stereophile Magazine, the number of permutations is virtually limitless.

Hi Skeptic,

I am sorry that my advice does not make sense to you. My main point is that both sides of the argument are biased and are not basing recommendations on science. I believe that I am even more of a “skeptic” than you. I feel that the recommendations for or against cables are based on flawed studies. I am skeptical of both sides. I am even skeptical of my own observations, which is why I said that my results may have been biased. I still have not seen any well conducted, peer reviewed research that have addressed the issue. It intrigues me that you included the argument about “high resolution” systems being required to hear differences in your response to my post as I have never claimed that “high resolution” systems are needed to hear differences. Some may argue that this indicates your bias in that I was somehow clumped with the pro cable group, even though I am trying to belong to the “we don’t really know” group.

Regarding the current research, including DBT is a step in the right direction, but the there are other important issues to consider. Some of my main reasons for my skepticism are that the quality of the systems, the room acoustics, and the variability in perceptual abilities among people have not been scientifically examined. Thus, we can not say if these variables affect the ability to perceive cable differences. So, a “high resolution” system may be needed for cable differences, or it may not. I don’t know and no one can scientifically claim that it does or does not. We can make claims, but we should acknowledge that they are not scientifically rigorous and may be biased, again another reason that I admitted my results may have been biased. I am still perplexed why recommendations are made so strongly on both my sides with incomplete research.

Do you believe that the issues about cable differences is resolved? If so, why? I am still skeptical that the issue has been resolved, but would strongly enjoy hearing arguments or research that have addressed the debate.

For those that believe in cable differences, the cables that I recommend are often highly rated and are advertised to be comparable to more expensive cables. Again, there is no current research to verify or refute the claim. Since we are not basing recommendation on research, I recommended that the person try these cheap and supposedly high quality cables. If the person does not like the cables, they get their money back. The person does not have anything to lose. Again, this recommendation does not indicate that I am in the pro cable group. I am still in the "we don't really know" group. Given that I am in this group (if it even exists), I don't think it would hurt to try cables, especially if they are relatively inexpensive and you can get your money back.

-ROJ

okiemax
04-20-2004, 07:49 PM
I recently researched audio interconnects to see if I should upgrade my cables. As you probably read in your research, this is a contentious topic without any scientifically rigorous proof one way or another, althought inclusion of DBT is an important first step and may indicate that ultimately no differences will be found if the research progresses. I actually don't know what I think about cables differences since no scientifically rigorous research exists (the current studies seem to have poor internal or external validity). Given that definitive proof does not exist and may not be produced for some time, I decided to try a few cheap cables and see if I noticed a difference. I wanted to try cheap cables that had money back guarantees. I bought cables from Blue Jean Cables (bluejeanscable.com) and Heartland Cables (heartlandcables.com). Both of these companies offer cheaper cables than the mainstream cable companies and offer 30 day money back guarantees. In my system and in my admittedly biased testing, the cables seemed to have made a difference. As I said before, I don't know if cables actually do make a differences. The difference I perceived may have been due to bias. At the same time, there actually may be differences in cables since studies that have used DBT have not addressed external validity issues (e.g., did not control for potential confounding variables such as differences between systems and listerners). So as this debate continues seemingly in perpetuity, one option to consider is to try some cheap cables that have money back guarantees (such as Blue Jeans cable or Heartland cables) and see if you feel the cables improve your system.

-ROJ

Good for you, ROJ! You decided to make your own cable purchasing decision rather than letting someone else do it for you. While you don't dismiss the possibility your hearing may be biased, you also don't seem to dismiss the possibility naysayers may be wrong. Your message to Darrenmc, who asked for advice, was not to do what you did, but just that he might consider it as an option. You can think for yourself, and apparently you believe others can too.

mtrycraft
04-20-2004, 10:11 PM
I recently researched audio interconnects to see if I should upgrade my cables. As you probably read in your research, this is a contentious topic without any scientifically rigorous proof one way or another, althought inclusion of DBT is an important first step and may indicate that ultimately no differences will be found if the research progresses. I actually don't know what I think about cables differences since no scientifically rigorous research exists (the current studies seem to have poor internal or external validity). Given that definitive proof does not exist and may not be produced for some time, I decided to try a few cheap cables and see if I noticed a difference. I wanted to try cheap cables that had money back guarantees. I bought cables from Blue Jean Cables (bluejeanscable.com) and Heartland Cables (heartlandcables.com). Both of these companies offer cheaper cables than the mainstream cable companies and offer 30 day money back guarantees. In my system and in my admittedly biased testing, the cables seemed to have made a difference. As I said before, I don't know if cables actually do make a differences. The difference I perceived may have been due to bias. At the same time, there actually may be differences in cables since studies that have used DBT have not addressed external validity issues (e.g., did not control for potential confounding variables such as differences between systems and listerners). So as this debate continues seemingly in perpetuity, one option to consider is to try some cheap cables that have money back guarantees (such as Blue Jeans cable or Heartland cables) and see if you feel the cables improve your system.

-ROJ

You may want to read this testing on cables, even though it was not peer jopurnal, the author is not a fly by nighter:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Cable-Distortion.html

And this didn't even do a DBT listening test.

Oh, as to proof, hard to prove a negative, don't you think? The question should be: is there proof for audible differences? If not, Why not???

mtrycraft
04-20-2004, 10:27 PM
My main point is that both sides of the argument are biased and are not basing recommendations on science.

On science, yes, flawless science, you are right. No peer paper is available. But the question should be what is the evidence for differences, not against it. There is none.

I am even skeptical of my own observations, which is why I said that my results may have been biased.

Then what good is it?

I still have not seen any well conducted, peer reviewed research that have addressed the issue.

No one is interested for obvious reasons. Who will spend such money unless they have an interest in proving differences? And the answer is already evident from less rigorous testing over 20+ years. If those testing was so flawed, you'd see positive results all over the place. they just don't exist unless for a very good reason that there was something grossly wrong with the component.


If the person does not like the cables,

But how will they test for it? Through even more flawed protocol, sighted comparison? That just cannot be relyable at all, no maybe this or that about it. Useless.

I am still in the "we don't really know" group. Given that I am in this group (if it even exists), I don't think it would hurt to try cables, especially if they are relatively inexpensive and you can get your money back.

-ROJ


What is there to try, with flawed listeing, especially by one who knows that it is flawed, without any meaning for audible differences? Wasting time.

ROJ
04-21-2004, 12:18 AM
My main point is that both sides of the argument are biased and are not basing recommendations on science.

On science, yes, flawless science, you are right. No peer paper is available. But the question should be what is the evidence for differences, not against it. There is none.

There should be evidence to support both positions. If you are talking about hypothesis testing, there still needs to be evidence that the results from DBT studies that did not find a difference (the null hypothesis was supported) can not be explained by other potentially confounding variables. Data supporting a null hypothesis can indicate that the null hypothesis is in fact true and should have been supported. It could also indicate that the null hypothesis should have been rejected, but that the experimental methodology did not allow for the rejection due to poor methodology.


I am even skeptical of my own observations, which is why I said that my results may have been biased.

Then what good is it?

It is as good as any other position on this board since it all based on flawed methodology. There are two broad steps to scientifically answering the debate. Will changing cables make a difference (internal validity)? DBT is one component to answering this question. The next question is to what extent can the results relate to other systems (external validity). This has not been examined. I think we should always acknowledge the limitation of our opinions and observations. I am stating that I heard differences, but that I can not discount the influence of bias. I also am not assuming that other will hear differences. I wish those that argued against cable differences would acknowledge the problems with external validity and allow that their results may not necessarily extrapolate to other systems. Similarly, I wish that those that argue for cable differences acknowledged that their may be problems with bias.


I still have not seen any well conducted, peer reviewed research that have addressed the issue.

No one is interested for obvious reasons. Who will spend such money unless they have an interest in proving differences? And the answer is already evident from less rigorous testing over 20+ years. If those testing was so flawed, you'd see positive results all over the place. they just don't exist unless for a very good reason that there was something grossly wrong with the component.

A key presupposition of your position is that positive results do not exist that used DBT. As I started researching cables, I also read the antithesis of this board, cable asylum, where I read claims of finding differences using DBT. Without an objective arbitrator (scientific journals) or even an exhaustive review of multiple studies, it is difficult to evaluate your or the claims at the other board. I am not accusing you or the folks at cable asylum with deception, but I wonder if self-selection has occurred. Both forums seem to be dominated by believers of their position. I wonder if new information at both forums tend to be supportive of the positions.

Flawed data can not prove that cables differences do or do not exist. They can be provocative and suggest the ultimate end. It is poor science to assume the end result without accounting for potentially significant confounding variables.


If the person does not like the cables,

But how will they test for it? Through even more flawed protocol, sighted comparison? That just cannot be relyable at all, no maybe this or that about it. Useless.

I know I am probably going to anger some folks, but to an extent the whole debate is useless since it is all based on flawed protocol. I have no illusions that everything has to be examined through scientific lenses, especially audio components. How can we judge which speaker is the best, for example? I was not going to enter the debate until I kept reading references to DBT. It appeared that the debate was attempting to scientifically examine the issue by including DBT. The emphasis on DBT seemed to suggest that this was the only component important to a scientifically rigorous examination of cable differences. This is not true. It is an important component, but one among many other components. What about external validity? That is never discussed and has not been examined. As you mentioned there is no desire to examine this and it will probably never be examined. This fact, however, does not obviate the importance of external validity.


I am still in the "we don't really know" group. Given that I am in this group (if it even exists), I don't think it would hurt to try cables, especially if they are relatively inexpensive and you can get your money back.

-ROJ


What is there to try, with flawed listeing, especially by one who knows that it is flawed, without any meaning for audible differences? Wasting time.

You are operating under an assumption that the current data tells us anything scientifically relevant about whether cables can or can not make a difference. The whole debate is using flawed data and may be “wasting time”. There appear to be strong bias on both sides, perhaps self-selection, and flawed methodology. And yet, there is an assumption that inclusion of DBT somehow takes care of all of the methodological problems and bias. We are basing recommendation on flawed methodology. Given the current state, a recommendation that cable differences do not exist may unnecessarily deprive someone of improvement in their systems. It could also save someone their hard earned money if the truth is that cable differences do not actually exist. However, strong recommendations either way may be making the decisions for others without a strong scientific basis. In similar situation where there is no definitive proof, I tend to present both sides of the argument and let people make their own decision. If there is scientific evidence for a particular position, then I can base recommendation on the findings, but with the caveat that it reflects the current state of the literature, but that it may change. Researchers’ jobs are to continue changing the literature. It is never static and we have to qualify our statements since the literature may change. This tempering of recommendations is absent in this debate.

-ROJ

skeptic
04-21-2004, 03:47 AM
ROJ, your logic is entirely flawed. When someone introduces a "new and improved" product which of course costs more, it is up to THEM to prove that it really IS better, not up to the rest of the world to prove that it isn't.

You are not equipped to make any judgements about the merits or lack of them of audio cables. This seemingly simple item to install is far more complicated to conduct a fair test on than any audiophile has the capability to do in his own home. For starters, you cannot even make a rapid enough switch between one set and another to remember and directly compare what you heard from the previous trial. There are no readily available switching devices to make that possible and unless you are technically skilled to the degree that you can design and build your own switching devices, you don't have any suitable means. Also, you don't have a way to compare the same passage of music over and over again unless you have a cd player with A-B repeat and then get someone else to help you conduct exhaustive trials with the other person doing the switching so that you don't know which one you are hearing at any given time.

Since there is no technical rationale behind any audible differences, the only method to determine if there are differences is through scientifically run DBTs on the assumption that there is some aspect of electrical conductivity that electrical engineers, scientists, and mathematicians can't explain because it eludes them but somehow makes an audible difference. Then why haven't the people who make these cables conducted them themselves? You would think that if they had at least this kind of proof, they would be only too eager to publish it and make a legitimate claim even if it was only to say that a significant percentage of listeners in a controlled experiment preferred their cables. At least two reasons come to mind. Cost is not one of them. First, in all likelihood they can't because the results prove exactly the opposite or they would have done it already. And second is that they don't have to. There are enough people out there already buying them that there is no reason to jeaopardize their profits by publishing the results of a test that might call the value of their product into question.

The notion that you can incrementally walk into this, try a few cables to see if you like them is also a false notion. Either they work or they don't. Lots of home remedies were marketed for every ailment under the sun often to be pulled from the shelves after the laws governing them were enforced. Some dangerous "food suplements" which make outrageous miracle claims for health can't be removed because they are considered food, not medications and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the law. If you listen to the claims they make or carefully read their advertising, they include legal disclaimers to protect them, not you. The same lawyers review the advertising copy for these cable companies. Read it carefully and you will see that there are no performance improvement claims. They can't legally make them because under FTC rules they must be able to prove it and they simply can't. They prey on the myths and hopes of consumers to fill in the gaps in what at most are inferences. In other words, they prey on your gullability to make a profit.

pctower
04-21-2004, 04:18 AM
"In my system and in my admittedly biased testing, the cables seemed to have made a difference. As I said before, I don't know if cables actually do make a differences. The difference I perceived may have been due to bias."

Then your advice makes no sense at all. How can your reach any conclusion when there is admitted bias. Furthermore, if you use the rationale that cheap cables might provide some improvement, how can you preclude the possibility that more expensive cables wouldn't provide even greater improvement.

If you take the arguement that only "high resolution" sound systems provide the possibility that an audible improvement would result from improved cables, how do you define high resolution. One audiophiles dream component or dream system is another audiophile's "mid fi." And even among the "select" components chosen by rags like Stereophile Magazine, the number of permutations is virtually limitless.

"Then your advice makes no sense at all. How can your reach any conclusion when there is admitted bias."

It's not clear to me what "advice" he gave. Perhaps you mean he is suggesting it's ok to "try" a few cables. As you point out below, that can't be done at home under proper blind conditions.

However, it seems to me that you and many others miss a critical point. You say he can't reach any "conclusion when there is admitted bias." You apparently mean a "conclusion" that has academic, scientific validity, and in that context I would agree with you.

However, for most audiophiles, the only "conclusion" that matters is the impact a new component or cable has on their own personal experience and enjoyment of their system. You and others seem hell-bent to discourage people from trying these things for themselves even though the results for them might be quite positive simply because there is no "proof" that such enjoyment is the product of anything other than bias.

You seem to me to place scientific rigidity above personal enjoyment. Most audiophiles approach the hobby differently.

You and others love to talk about the 20-plus years of lack of "proof" from the cable companies. However, you fail to mention the 20-plus years of countless audiophiles who have bought and used cables with a high level of satisfaction. One almost never hears any complaint from these consumers, nor do we ever hear of dissatisfaction rising to the level of complaints filed with governmental agencies. I dare say there are not too many product areas about which the same could be said.

It would be interesting, for example, to know how many, if any, complaints have ever been filed with any Better Business Bureau office concerning dissatisfaction with an audio cable purchase. I'm willing to bet there are very, very few.

This of course proves nothing from a scientific standpoint. However, it does prove in my opinion that from a pure human enjoyment standpoint, money spent on cables may be some of the best money spent. The people who spent the money on the whole seem very satisfied with their purchases. They often are prepared to "upgrade" because their prior "upgrades" were so satifying to them.

Rather than complaining about their purchases, they are enjoying them. And people like you would love nothing better than to possess the power of depriving generations of satisfied customers from having had those enjoyable experiences.

E-Stat
04-21-2004, 05:02 AM
You may want to read this testing on cables, even though it was not peer jopurnal, the author is not a fly by nighter:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Cable-Distortion.html

Right on, Mtry. Let's all read the summation together:

"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves."

rw

E-Stat
04-21-2004, 05:09 AM
And people like you would love nothing better than to possess the power of depriving generations of satisfied customers from having had those enjoyable experiences.
I find it amazing and singular with this hobby (and source of enjoyment) that there are many folks who passionately race for the bottom.

rw

markw
04-21-2004, 05:27 AM
Right on, Mtry. Let's all read the summation together:

"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves."

rw

"We are greatly appreciative of Bruno's efforts in this article. However, I felt it important to mention that much of the focus of this article pertaining to microphonics and triboelectric effects is relative to how interconnects may interact when interfacing high gain low impedance drive to high impedance circuit terminations, such as the case with microphones and phono preamps. In reality the triboelectic effect rarely becomes a real world problem in consumer audio. Microphone applications must be considerate of these effects, especially since the cables attaching the microphones are often in motion caused by the singer and/or local mechanical vibrations which can induce noise into the system. In such instances there are specifically designed cables with dampening materials (usually cotton) to nullify this problem by acting like shock absorbers to reduce contact area as well as employing a different shield construction which is less prone to triboelectric noise."

I'll be sure to keep this in mind when running microphone cables. Oh wait, I already do!

bturk667
04-21-2004, 07:21 AM
Never say your sorry! You have nothing to be sorry about. There are those who will never believe that interconnect or speaker cables can make a difference in the sound of a system. Big deal who cares. Let them spend on their systems as they seem fit, and you spend your as you seem fit. I love the difference that my Nordost Blue Heavens MADE TO MY SYSTEM!

bturk667
04-21-2004, 07:40 AM
Prey tell? Who is equiped to make judgements about the merits or lack of them of audio cables? Since it is my systen, I know I am. Afterall, my ears are the only ones that matter. Not the ears or eyes of some meter reader. If a person is knowingly and willing participant of a DBT; could that fact not in fact make them biased? I mean the know they are part of a test, maybe they will think that they are expected to hear or not hear a difference. Seems to me that the best test subject is in fact the one who does not realize that he or she is a test subject! Also, one who is not into music as a hobby in any way.
Rapid enough swithing? Use multiple and identical soure components hooked up to your linestage or preamp. Use indentical CD's; either burn them, or as I do, get them for a family member who works in a recording studio. Now use multiple interconnects form different manufacturers. Amazingly, one remote can work multiple Cd players simultaneously. Simple, very simple, and not that time consuming. Now since you seem to now what is valid scientifically, I guess, set up the test in any way you seem fit. What do you have to loose?

okiemax
04-21-2004, 08:02 AM
"We are greatly appreciative of Bruno's efforts in this article. However, I felt it important to mention that much of the focus of this article pertaining to microphonics and triboelectric effects is relative to how interconnects may interact when interfacing high gain low impedance drive to high impedance circuit terminations, such as the case with microphones and phono preamps. In reality the triboelectic effect rarely becomes a real world problem in consumer audio. Microphone applications must be considerate of these effects, especially since the cables attaching the microphones are often in motion caused by the singer and/or local mechanical vibrations which can induce noise into the system. In such instances there are specifically designed cables with dampening materials (usually cotton) to nullify this problem by acting like shock absorbers to reduce contact area as well as employing a different shield construction which is less prone to triboelectric noise."

I'll be sure to keep this in mind when running microphone cables. Oh wait, I already do!

What you have quoted is Gene DellaSala's comments on the article by Bruno Putzeys. How do you know Putzeys agrees with DellaSala's comments on his article?

ROJ
04-21-2004, 10:23 AM
ROJ, your logic is entirely flawed. When someone introduces a "new and improved" product which of course costs more, it is up to THEM to prove that it really IS better, not up to the rest of the world to prove that it isn't.

You are not equipped to make any judgements about the merits or lack of them of audio cables. This seemingly simple item to install is far more complicated to conduct a fair test on than any audiophile has the capability to do in his own home. For starters, you cannot even make a rapid enough switch between one set and another to remember and directly compare what you heard from the previous trial. There are no readily available switching devices to make that possible and unless you are technically skilled to the degree that you can design and build your own switching devices, you don't have any suitable means. Also, you don't have a way to compare the same passage of music over and over again unless you have a cd player with A-B repeat and then get someone else to help you conduct exhaustive trials with the other person doing the switching so that you don't know which one you are hearing at any given time.

Since there is no technical rationale behind any audible differences, the only method to determine if there are differences is through scientifically run DBTs on the assumption that there is some aspect of electrical conductivity that electrical engineers, scientists, and mathematicians can't explain because it eludes them but somehow makes an audible difference. Then why haven't the people who make these cables conducted them themselves? You would think that if they had at least this kind of proof, they would be only too eager to publish it and make a legitimate claim even if it was only to say that a significant percentage of listeners in a controlled experiment preferred their cables. At least two reasons come to mind. Cost is not one of them. First, in all likelihood they can't because the results prove exactly the opposite or they would have done it already. And second is that they don't have to. There are enough people out there already buying them that there is no reason to jeaopardize their profits by publishing the results of a test that might call the value of their product into question.

The notion that you can incrementally walk into this, try a few cables to see if you like them is also a false notion. Either they work or they don't. Lots of home remedies were marketed for every ailment under the sun often to be pulled from the shelves after the laws governing them were enforced. Some dangerous "food suplements" which make outrageous miracle claims for health can't be removed because they are considered food, not medications and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the law. If you listen to the claims they make or carefully read their advertising, they include legal disclaimers to protect them, not you. The same lawyers review the advertising copy for these cable companies. Read it carefully and you will see that there are no performance improvement claims. They can't legally make them because under FTC rules they must be able to prove it and they simply can't. They prey on the myths and hopes of consumers to fill in the gaps in what at most are inferences. In other words, they prey on your gullability to make a profit.

Skeptic,

Whereas you claim that my logic is “flawed”, I think your logic is incomplete. I don’t have any experience with audio cables (I am not an engineer), but I have some experience with research methodology. To summarize your post, you emphasize the difficulty in conducting home tests and that “The notion that you can incrementally walk into this, try a few cables to see if you like them is also a false notion.” I completely agree. It is difficult to design a legitimate experiment that can test for differences in audio cables. Why do you stop with discussing the issues involved with internal validity (DBT)? What about external validity? Is it not as important as internal validity? Most current research attempts to increase the internal validity and external validity of experiments. I argue that at best the current findings are interesting and provocative, but pseudoscientific. My point is that everyone is acting as an iron clad scientific basis exists for the recommendations when none exists. In the absence of a scientific basis, I think it is reasonable for one to try cables.

I also agree with what you wrote about the problems of advertisers positing unverified claims, but I would extent this to include anyone posting unverified claims. When I read claims of supplement or anything else medical and psychological, I always go to the source for information, the medical and psychological research literatures. I examine the literatures to identify any relevant published studies. I then critically examine the quality of the studies. I then try to form a coherent summary of the quality studies. I tried to do the same for audio cables, but no research literature exists, which surprised me given the vociferous claims on this and other forums. I posit that absent the literature, the pro and against cable differences are also making scientifically unverified claims similar to the advertisers of supplements. As I said before, many people do not care about bringing science to the audio world. They find the speakers and system that they enjoy and don’t care about what scientific studies have examined about which speakers should sound better. When science is brought into the debate (DBT), it seems that we should bring all of the scientific principles involved in designing experiments not just one.

Maybe my logic is flawed because I still don’t understand why one side has to present support for an argument and the other side does not. It seems that others disagree with your contention, or the anti-cable differences camp would not be conducting DBT studies to support their position. I applaud them for attempting to design scientific studies to support their position. I just wish they would take the next step and improve the external validity by controlling for potentially confounding variables.

-ROJ

Monstrous Mike
04-21-2004, 12:09 PM
Maybe my logic is flawed because I still don’t understand why one side has to present support for an argument and the other side does not. It seems that others disagree with your contention, or the anti-cable differences camp would not be conducting DBT studies to support their position. I applaud them for attempting to design scientific studies to support their position. I just wish they would take the next step and improve the external validity by controlling for potentially confounding variables.

-ROJ
We are talking about the hypothesis that cables can sound different. There is only one arguement here and that is either this hypothesis is true or it is not true. For the hypothesis to be proven true, and become a fact, it would have to be tested and demonstrated beyond doubt that it is in fact true.

Thus, people who currently believe the hypothesis to be true, and claim it to be true, need to prove it is true. This is the burden of proof. People who do not believe it to be true cannot possibly prove that belief. There can be scientific analysis, specific examinations of several factors and even DBT testing where the results are negative or null. But none of this is enough to prove the hypothesis false. It only makes it more likely to be false.

All of this would end if it could shown in proper testing that indeed cables can affect sound for reasons we have not yet accepted.

When you suggest both sides of an arguement have an equal obligation to present evidence, you are thinking of arguements like how the universe was created or how man was created. In those cases, there are different hypotheses and each side has an equal burden to show their evidence.

This is not the case for audible cable differences. One side needs to prove it before claiming it to be true, thereby having the burden of proof. The other side only needs to be skeptical and ask for such proof before accepting any claims as to the validity of that hypothesis.

Simply put, a person need not believe anything is true until it is proven true. Should people believe something is true without proof, then they must exhibit some faith.

The problem arises when faith is distorted or disguised and is presented as fact.

ROJ
04-21-2004, 01:06 PM
We are talking about the hypothesis that cables can sound different. There is only one arguement here and that is either this hypothesis is true or it is not true. For the hypothesis to be proven true, and become a fact, it would have to be tested and demonstrated beyond doubt that it is in fact true.

Thus, people who currently believe the hypothesis to be true, and claim it to be true, need to prove it is true. This is the burden of proof. People who do not believe it to be true cannot possibly prove that belief. There can be scientific analysis, specific examinations of several factors and even DBT testing where the results are negative or null. But none of this is enough to prove the hypothesis false. It only makes it more likely to be false.

All of this would end if it could shown in proper testing that indeed cables can affect sound for reasons we have not yet accepted.

When you suggest both sides of an arguement have an equal obligation to present evidence, you are thinking of arguements like how the universe was created or how man was created. In those cases, there are different hypotheses and each side has an equal burden to show their evidence.

This is not the case for audible cable differences. One side needs to prove it before claiming it to be true, thereby having the burden of proof. The other side only needs to be skeptical and ask for such proof before accepting any claims as to the validity of that hypothesis.

Simply put, a person need not believe anything is true until it is proven true. Should people believe something is true without proof, then they must exhibit some faith.

The problem arises when faith is distorted or disguised and is presented as fact.

Thank you for your good points. I now have a better understanding of the anti-cable difference group’s contention that the burden of proof is on the pro-cable group.

You wrote:
“Thus, people who currently believe the hypothesis to be true, and claim it to be true, need to prove it is true. This is the burden of proof. People who do not believe it to be true cannot possibly prove that belief. There can be scientific analysis, specific examinations of several factors and even DBT testing where the results are negative or null. But none of this is enough to prove the hypothesis false. It only makes it more likely to be false.”

“Simply put, a person need not believe anything is true until it is proven true. Should people believe something is true without proof, then they must exhibit some faith.”

I completely agree. If I read your post correctly, you seem to suggest the difficulty inherent in hypothesis testing, namely that it is difficult to conclusively prove anything. In fact, some researchers vociferously argue against using hypothesis testing in the psychology literature and advocate using other statistical analysis. In the best case scenario with hypothesis testing, we can say that we have a certain amount of confidence that these results are true. In order to do this, we need to have well designed experiments or other researchers will justifiably pick apart our studies. Poorly designed studies should decrease the confidence in making definitive statements. In the cable debate, however, both sides state recommendations that are given unequivocally even though problems exist with the research. Assuming that all available DBT studies have not found cable differences (which I am not sure is accurate), then the strongest statement that we can say is that our findings suggest that cables did not make a difference in these systems in these rooms with these participants. The next step would to control for the systems, rooms, and participants to be able to extrapolate the findings from the original studies. If after controlling for these issues the results are the same, then we can say that cables do not appear to make a difference in most systems. Only then, I argue, can we make strong recommendations to others.

I applaud the skepticism of the anti-cable group. In fact, I am constantly encouraging others to be skeptical of everything. I just wished that the skeptism extended to the research methodology beyond DBT in the cable debate. Until the research is strengthen, we are all operating partly on faith of what the ultimate outcome would be.

-ROJ

pctower
04-21-2004, 02:22 PM
Skeptic,

Whereas you claim that my logic is “flawed”, I think your logic is incomplete. I don’t have any experience with audio cables (I am not an engineer), but I have some experience with research methodology. To summarize your post, you emphasize the difficulty in conducting home tests and that “The notion that you can incrementally walk into this, try a few cables to see if you like them is also a false notion.” I completely agree. It is difficult to design a legitimate experiment that can test for differences in audio cables. Why do you stop with discussing the issues involved with internal validity (DBT)? What about external validity? Is it not as important as internal validity? Most current research attempts to increase the internal validity and external validity of experiments. I argue that at best the current findings are interesting and provocative, but pseudoscientific. My point is that everyone is acting as an iron clad scientific basis exists for the recommendations when none exists. In the absence of a scientific basis, I think it is reasonable for one to try cables.

I also agree with what you wrote about the problems of advertisers positing unverified claims, but I would extent this to include anyone posting unverified claims. When I read claims of supplement or anything else medical and psychological, I always go to the source for information, the medical and psychological research literatures. I examine the literatures to identify any relevant published studies. I then critically examine the quality of the studies. I then try to form a coherent summary of the quality studies. I tried to do the same for audio cables, but no research literature exists, which surprised me given the vociferous claims on this and other forums. I posit that absent the literature, the pro and against cable differences are also making scientifically unverified claims similar to the advertisers of supplements. As I said before, many people do not care about bringing science to the audio world. They find the speakers and system that they enjoy and don’t care about what scientific studies have examined about which speakers should sound better. When science is brought into the debate (DBT), it seems that we should bring all of the scientific principles involved in designing experiments not just one.

Maybe my logic is flawed because I still don’t understand why one side has to present support for an argument and the other side does not. It seems that others disagree with your contention, or the anti-cable differences camp would not be conducting DBT studies to support their position. I applaud them for attempting to design scientific studies to support their position. I just wish they would take the next step and improve the external validity by controlling for potentially confounding variables.

-ROJ

"Maybe my logic is flawed because I still don’t understand why one side has to present support for an argument and the other side does not. It seems that others disagree with your contention, or the anti-cable differences camp would not be conducting DBT studies to support their position."

Your logic would be flawed if the "skeptics" (lower case) were content to simply point out that audible differences between similar cables of similar gauge and length is "unproven". Unfortunately, many go far beyond that and make claims that are as unfounded as the claims of the "golden ears".

I sense that the knowledge you possess that is actually relevant to the type of DBTs that get tossed around here so frequently is far deeper than the knowledge most on either side of the issue possess.

You can easily see how limited the actual "literature" and "research" really is. You also understand how it is not likely that reliable tests could be conducted in the home.

As I interpret your position, I believe you are saying that in light of the virtual lack of true science in the "testing" and "verification" of cable differences, everyone should do whatever makes him happy and avoid making unsubstantited claims. If that is your position, I agree.

E-Stat
04-21-2004, 04:04 PM
...then the strongest statement that we can say is that our findings suggest that cables did not make a difference in these systems in these rooms with these participants.
Indeed. The findings reported on this board are tragically limited in detail and/or with the quality of gear used. Here is a rather amusing post with the board's resident ditchdigger and vanguard of the mediocre:

<a href="http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=19153&postcount=67">Two minute amnesia </a href>

Not surprisingly, there never was a response as to which of the conflicting assertions he wishes to acknowledge.

rw

Rockwell
04-21-2004, 04:09 PM
Unfortunately, many go far beyond that and make claims that are as unfounded as the claims of the "golden ears".



Such as?

okiemax
04-21-2004, 05:46 PM
"Then your advice makes no sense at all. How can your reach any conclusion when there is admitted bias."

It's not clear to me what "advice" he gave. Perhaps you mean he is suggesting it's ok to "try" a few cables. As you point out below, that can't be done at home under proper blind conditions.

However, it seems to me that you and many others miss a critical point. You say he can't reach any "conclusion when there is admitted bias." You apparently mean a "conclusion" that has academic, scientific validity, and in that context I would agree with you.

However, for most audiophiles, the only "conclusion" that matters is the impact a new component or cable has on their own personal experience and enjoyment of their system. You and others seem hell-bent to discourage people from trying these things for themselves even though the results for them might be quite positive simply because there is no "proof" that such enjoyment is the product of anything other than bias.

You seem to me to place scientific rigidity above personal enjoyment. Most audiophiles approach the hobby differently.

You and others love to talk about the 20-plus years of lack of "proof" from the cable companies. However, you fail to mention the 20-plus years of countless audiophiles who have bought and used cables with a high level of satisfaction. One almost never hears any complaint from these consumers, nor do we ever hear of dissatisfaction rising to the level of complaints filed with governmental agencies. I dare say there are not too many product areas about which the same could be said.

It would be interesting, for example, to know how many, if any, complaints have ever been filed with any Better Business Bureau office concerning dissatisfaction with an audio cable purchase. I'm willing to bet there are very, very few.

This of course proves nothing from a scientific standpoint. However, it does prove in my opinion that from a pure human enjoyment standpoint, money spent on cables may be some of the best money spent. The people who spent the money on the whole seem very satisfied with their purchases. They often are prepared to "upgrade" because their prior "upgrades" were so satifying to them.

Rather than complaining about their purchases, they are enjoying them. And people like you would love nothing better than to possess the power of depriving generations of satisfied customers from having had those enjoyable experiences.

BRAVO! It's too bad this post is so buried in the thread many will never see it.

skeptic
04-21-2004, 06:04 PM
"Maybe my logic is flawed because I still don’t understand why one side has to present support for an argument and the other side does not."

The answer is simple. Someone would have you buy a new product. The new product is more expensive, more difficult to find in the market than the product that everyone else seemed perfectly happy with for decades that it would replace. Why would someone rational go out and buy it? Because its superiority has been demonstrated not merely to the satisfaction of a handful of people who sell it or who give testimonials about it but by people who use comparable products professionally who have tested it and confirmed that it really is better. Would you go out and buy a 5 wheel car because someone else told you it drives better? Would you just take it for a test drive and conclude that it is better? But that is exactly what you are doing buying these wires. The onus of proof is on the guy who wants to sell the newer more expensive product especially when there is no clearcut distinction.

You are right about my logic being incomplete. Here is what would be required to convince this skeptic.

1. Verifiable Double Blind Tests indicating an audible difference for the average listener.
2. Correlation between the difference in sound and a measurable performance parameter or characteristic of the different product. Naturally this difference would have to be a "superior" difference.
3. Guidelines to know what characteristics or performance parameters to look for and how and when to apply them to a particular sound system.
4. Demonstration that the improvement gained by particular cables can be achieved in no other way that is cheaper or more reliable, or more predictable.
5. That the improvements are cost effective meaning that it will not cost megabucks to get an insignificant improvement.

That's a tall ladder and the people who would be requried by me to climb to the top have not even made the first rung yet.

E-Stat
04-21-2004, 06:38 PM
Would you go out and buy a 5 wheel car because someone else told you it drives better?
No, but it might pique my curiosity and try it out for myself.



Would you just take it for a test drive and conclude that it is better?
If it were better, I would conclude that it was better.



That's a tall ladder and the people who would be requried by me to climb to the top have not even made the first rung yet.
May you enjoy your limited world.

rw

Rockwell
04-21-2004, 06:51 PM
If it were better, I would conclude that it was better.



But you might be wrong.




May you enjoy your limited world.

rw

Fantasy is fun, isn't it?

okiemax
04-21-2004, 07:59 PM
We are talking about the hypothesis that cables can sound different. There is only one arguement here and that is either this hypothesis is true or it is not true. For the hypothesis to be proven true, and become a fact, it would have to be tested and demonstrated beyond doubt that it is in fact true.

Thus, people who currently believe the hypothesis to be true, and claim it to be true, need to prove it is true. This is the burden of proof. People who do not believe it to be true cannot possibly prove that belief. There can be scientific analysis, specific examinations of several factors and even DBT testing where the results are negative or null. But none of this is enough to prove the hypothesis false. It only makes it more likely to be false.

All of this would end if it could shown in proper testing that indeed cables can affect sound for reasons we have not yet accepted.

When you suggest both sides of an arguement have an equal obligation to present evidence, you are thinking of arguements like how the universe was created or how man was created. In those cases, there are different hypotheses and each side has an equal burden to show their evidence.

This is not the case for audible cable differences. One side needs to prove it before claiming it to be true, thereby having the burden of proof. The other side only needs to be skeptical and ask for such proof before accepting any claims as to the validity of that hypothesis.

Simply put, a person need not believe anything is true until it is proven true. Should people believe something is true without proof, then they must exhibit some faith.

The problem arises when faith is distorted or disguised and is presented as fact.


You are right in that a listener who claims to hear a difference in two cables is in a position to verify his claim in an objective test, whereas anyone disputing this claim can not disprove it. I do not agree with you, however, if you are implying that anyone thinking about making a subjective claim should not do so before objective verification, or as you say "needs to prove it before claiming it to be true, thereby having the burden of proof."

Perhaps I am not clear on what you mean by "burden of proof." The Cambridge on-line dictionary defines this term as the "responsibility for proving something" and Miriam-Webster on-line says "moral or legal obligations." I think we would agree that I have no legal obligation to verify subjective claims with objective listening tests. I don't feel a moral responsibility to test, but if you believe I should, please tell me why?

mtrycraft
04-21-2004, 09:52 PM
b] It is as good as any other position on this board since it all based on flawed methodology. [/b]

You may assume this only because it was not peer reviewed? Or rigorous enough to have been peer reviewed?

The next question is to what extent can the results relate to other systems (external validity).

That can be addressed by the number of other DBT tests conducted on other systems and participants, no?




I have no illusions that everything has to be examined through scientific lenses, especially audio components.

I agree, but then one needs to be careful what and how one recommends and what claims are made without evidence.

How can we judge which speaker is the best, for example?


Several ways. One can attempt some sort of bias controlled listeing to at least control the visual impact on decision processes. Or, just pick one that thjey prefer for whatever reason. Or, one that is visually pleasing and not worry.






You are operating under an assumption that the current data tells us anything scientifically relevant about whether cables can or can not make a difference.

A confidence over the 20 + years of amature attempts at finding out. Obviously the cable industry is not interested. It must be more than $$.

We are basing recommendation on flawed methodology.

Then best to not make any recommendation.

Given the current state, a recommendation that cable differences do not exist may unnecessarily deprive someone of improvement in their systems.

I don't think so based on lack of evidence for it alone, and the science of cables, how and what amount it affects the signal, combined with peer papers on what can be detected is a very good indicator of the state where we are.

"Amplifier-Loudspeaker Interfacing", Greiner, R.A., JAES vol. 28, no. 5 May 80,

"Effects of cable, Loudspeaker and Amplifier Interactions", Davis, Fred E., JAES, vol. 39, no. 6 Jun 91,

"High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Clark, David, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol30, no 5, May82, pg 330-338.

"Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16khz", Florentine, Mary, et al, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.

mtrycraft
04-21-2004, 10:02 PM
Indeed. The findings reported on this board are tragically limited in detail and/or with the quality of gear used. Here is a rather amusing post with the board's resident ditchdigger and vanguard of the mediocre:

<a href="http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=19153&postcount=67">Two minute amnesia </a href>

Not surprisingly, there never was a response as to which of the conflicting assertions he wishes to acknowledge.

rw


Oh, estat, you keep making unsupported claims for differences, the need for high quality gear, etc, yet you have nothing to support your postion with except sheer speculations on your part. But, you are allowed to speculate. Enjoy your daydreams.

ROJ
04-21-2004, 11:38 PM
"Maybe my logic is flawed because I still don’t understand why one side has to present support for an argument and the other side does not."

The answer is simple. Someone would have you buy a new product. The new product is more expensive, more difficult to find in the market than the product that everyone else seemed perfectly happy with for decades that it would replace. Why would someone rational go out and buy it? Because its superiority has been demonstrated not merely to the satisfaction of a handful of people who sell it or who give testimonials about it but by people who use comparable products professionally who have tested it and confirmed that it really is better. Would you go out and buy a 5 wheel car because someone else told you it drives better? Would you just take it for a test drive and conclude that it is better? But that is exactly what you are doing buying these wires. The onus of proof is on the guy who wants to sell the newer more expensive product especially when there is no clearcut distinction.

You are right about my logic being incomplete. Here is what would be required to convince this skeptic.

1. Verifiable Double Blind Tests indicating an audible difference for the average listener.
2. Correlation between the difference in sound and a measurable performance parameter or characteristic of the different product. Naturally this difference would have to be a "superior" difference.
3. Guidelines to know what characteristics or performance parameters to look for and how and when to apply them to a particular sound system.
4. Demonstration that the improvement gained by particular cables can be achieved in no other way that is cheaper or more reliable, or more predictable.
5. That the improvements are cost effective meaning that it will not cost megabucks to get an insignificant improvement.

That's a tall ladder and the people who would be requried by me to climb to the top have not even made the first rung yet.

A five wheel car actually sounds interesting. Would I buy it because others told me that it is better? No. Would I try it myself out of curiosity? Definitely. The longer that I participant in this debate it is becoming increasingly clear that this debate is not based on science the way that I have been trained to conduct science, the inclusion of DBT notwithstanding. As I previously stated, I don’t think science has to be applied to all aspects of our lives, but when I read DBT I was curious to read how science was applied to the cable debate. It seems that this debate seems to be based more on the passionate pursuit most on this board have for audio, than on science. Portions of science have been included to support our positions, which is different than scientifically examining the issue. It reminds me of debates I have with friends about baseball. We can passionately argue for our team and cite statistics (ERA, OPS, fielding %), but in the end we are not arguing scientifically, but from our passion. We use everything at our disposal to support our arguments. We talk in absolute terms and denigrate the other persons’ opinions. This differs strongly from scientific debates in which the ultimate arbitrator of the truth is science. I expected to find this level of discourse in the cable debate when I read DBT. In order to support my positions in scientific debates, I’ll cite studies in respected journals. I’ll point out the flaws in the others’ positions and cite how their studies missed important issues that the studies I referenced addressed. These debates can be as passionate and fruitless as arguing about baseball, but there is a different reference point.
From a scientific perspective, I still can not logically understand how anyone can make absolute statements. As a general rule, I hate absolute statements and I enjoy challenging people to prove their positions, which is probably why I gravitated to research. So, the cable debate does not make sense to me if I look at it scientifically, but it makes perfect sense if I examine it as a passionate pursuit.

Back to your example, from a critical scientific perspective, I would not buy a car or anything else based on someone’s word. I don’t trust people’s evaluations since I know how biased we all can be. I would consider buying something if there were scientific evidence in support of a product, but I would still try it myself. Similarly, I would not avoid a product based on someone’s word without scientific evidence. In the absence of scientific proof, I would rather rely on my own bias than other people’s bias since I know what I like and other’s interest may be different from my interests.

You wrote:
”You are right about my logic being incomplete. Here is what would be required to convince this skeptic.

1. Verifiable Double Blind Tests indicating an audible difference for the average listener.
2. Correlation between the difference in sound and a measurable performance parameter or characteristic of the different product. Naturally this difference would have to be a "superior" difference.
3. Guidelines to know what characteristics or performance parameters to look for and how and when to apply them to a particular sound system.
4. Demonstration that the improvement gained by particular cables can be achieved in no other way that is cheaper or more reliable, or more predictable.
5. That the improvements are cost effective meaning that it will not cost megabucks to get an insignificant improvement.

That's a tall ladder and the people who would be requried by me to climb to the top have not even made the first rung yet.”

I would suggest a few additions to your steps.
1. It would be important to clearly define what is an “average” listener and how you plan to recruit your participants (e.g., random sampling, case matching).
2. It would be important to define your metric and how you plan to evaluate for the metric. What is “superior”? How would you operationalized superior? I would also avoid any correlational analysis given the inherent problems with correlational analysis. With a well designed study, you should be able to avoid using correlational analysis.
3. This would be a great step and would start to address my concerns about external validity.
4. This would most likely bias your results of your study to not find differences or at least bias your conclusions. I don’t think that the procable group would argue that improvements in sound can be achieved by no other means or that cables are the most important factor. To legitimately test for cable differences, it would be important to control all factors that can improve sound (for example, system characteristics, room acoustics, and cd quality) and then see if cables makes an incremental improvement.
5. I completely agree with this step. There is an ongoing issue about some research projects that have found significant differences in my field, but at prohibitive costs. The issue is how to make these expensive programs affordable and still effective to dissementiate to the real world.

It is a tall ladder. I also am in the first few steps. Since we are not at the top yet, don’t you think we should moderate our recommendations to use or not use different cables?

-ROJ

ROJ
04-22-2004, 12:16 AM
The next question is to what extent can the results relate to other systems (external validity).

That can be addressed by the number of other DBT tests conducted on other systems and participants, no?

Assuming that all DBT test have not found a difference, this could be a step in the direction of examining external validity, but it would still be considered anecdotal evidence. A lot of research has started in this manner. People notice similar phenomenon in different situations. They would then conduct studies to examine if the observations are scientifically supported. It is important to take the next step and design studies that specifically improve external validity.


I have no illusions that everything has to be examined through scientific lenses, especially audio components.

I agree, but then one needs to be careful what and how one recommends and what claims are made without evidence.

Exactly. We all have to be careful. If you remember, I have recommended that people try cables for themselves since there is no iron clad scientific proof. The only specific recommendation I made was for cheap and supposedly high quality cables from a couple of online retailers. I suggested these companies because it may be an inexpensive way to try cables without spending much money. We don’t have to spend that much money to try cables. For example, I am currently using cables that are 11 gauge and cost 85 cents a foot from an online retailer for my main speakers and are only a little more expensive than the 39 cents a foot 12 gauge Lowe’s wire that I also use. It seems that telling someone to buy Home Depot wire is also not based on scientific evidence. All I am asking for in this debate it that we moderate our recommendations and not assume that we have a scientific basis for our recommendations.

You are operating under an assumption that the current data tells us anything scientifically relevant about whether cables can or can not make a difference.

A confidence over the 20 + years of amature attempts at finding out. Obviously the cable industry is not interested. It must be more than $$.

I respect your experiences in the audio world. You obviously have much more experience than my 1.5 years. I respectively continue to maintain that amateur experience is not the same as having scientific proof. Without scientific proof, we can not eliminate the possibility that our personal experience may not apply to everyone else.

We are basing recommendation on flawed methodology.

Then best to not make any recommendation.

I agree completely. I also think that telling people to buy Home Depot wire is a recommendation.

Given the current state, a recommendation that cable differences do not exist may unnecessarily deprive someone of improvement in their systems.

I don't think so based on lack of evidence for it alone, and the science of cables, how and what amount it affects the signal, combined with peer papers on what can be detected is a very good indicator of the state where we are.

"Amplifier-Loudspeaker Interfacing", Greiner, R.A., JAES vol. 28, no. 5 May 80,

"Effects of cable, Loudspeaker and Amplifier Interactions", Davis, Fred E., JAES, vol. 39, no. 6 Jun 91,

"High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Clark, David, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol30, no 5, May82, pg 330-338.

"Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16khz", Florentine, Mary, et al, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.

Just from reading these titles, these articles may beyond my experience in the science of cables. You very well may eventually be proved right that cables do not make a difference. Until that is proved, I just ask that we allow the possibility that the converse position may be proven true and we should at least qualify our recommendations if we must make recommendations.

-ROJ

E-Stat
04-22-2004, 04:47 AM
Oh, estat, you keep making unsupported claims for differences, the need for high quality gear, etc, yet you have nothing to support your postion with except sheer speculations on your part. But, you are allowed to speculate. Enjoy your daydreams.
There is a difference between speculation as you practice and experience. I'll take experience any day. I find it far more rewarding. :)

rw

skeptic
04-22-2004, 05:07 AM
"The longer that I participant in this debate it is becoming increasingly clear that this debate is not based on science the way that I have been trained to conduct science, the inclusion of DBT notwithstanding."

That is precisely the problem. There is no AVAILABLE scientific evidence. This type of evidence is generated from basic research which can come about through at least two different channels. One is through research grants to universities or other organizations from private sources or the government. Since in the scheme of life, this is an indisputibly unimportant area of inquiry, it won't come from that source. The other is from companies who have a commercial interest in developing a new and better product. If this has been done at all, the results have not been published and for obvious reasons.

So we are left with little or no actual basic research. When people have a losing arguement, one tactic they use is to try to create in the minds of those they are trying to persuade a notion that the two sides of the arguement are somehow equivalent except for a disagreement. We see it in the most emotional disputes all of the time. Communism versus democracy, creation versus evolution, any religion versus science. The losing side is ALWAYS opposed to scientific facts because it inevitably destroys their case. In the case of Gallileo, not only were his opponents opposed to him publishing his research, his facts, his conclusion, they were opposed to the very idea of science itself because they knew in the end it would dethrone their monopoly on knowledge.

Scientists do not make absolute statements and neither have I. What I have said or tried to say is that so far there is no reliable evidence to support the notion that you can improve the sound of an audio system or even change it by selecting one cable over another. And there is a lot of scientific and mathematical evidence to suggest the contrary.

"1. It would be important to clearly define what is an “average” listener and how you plan to recruit your participants (e.g., random sampling, case matching)."

In any real meaningful test, it would be valuable to segregate the test populations into groups based on auditory accuity, ability to discern small differences in sounds, and their ability to remember sounds from moment to moment by prequalifying them through screening tests. It would be useless to buy a product if you fall into a group whose hearing accuity makes it impossible to hear differences that other people might hear if that is the determinant of the value of that product. IMO, many audiophiles have far poorer auditory accuity than they think they have often due to exposure to very loud music for prolonged periods such as at live rock concerts and at "discotheques."

"It would be important to define your metric and how you plan to evaluate for the metric. What is “superior”? How would you operationalized superior? I would also avoid any correlational analysis given the inherent problems with correlational analysis. With a well designed study, you should be able to avoid using correlational analysis."

Well designed tests should include determining whether two sounds are similar or different based on cable performance. Preferences for a particular kind of music or sound should be eliminated from the test. The ability to duplicate a standard more closely or more frequently would define superior. For example, a circuit which alternately inserts and shunts a test cable could be used. I have described a method for doing this with interconnects using the tape source/monitor facility of most preamplifiers but cable advocates have denounced this test method for reasons which to me are obvious.

" I don’t think that the procable group would argue that improvements in sound can be achieved by no other means or that cables are the most important factor. "

The "pro cable group" has rejected every method of electrical measurement known to electrical engineering science arguing instead that the differences they hear are caused by factors which go beyond what is known. Some of their theories are so arcane and "off the wall" as to be laughable. However, objectively there are at least two kinds of distortion we know about. Linear and non-linear. Linear distortion can be compensated for in several ways, changing the capacitance, inductance, and resistance of a wire being only one of them. Non linear distortion usually can't be compensated for. If the cable advocates can demonstrate that one cable has less non linear distortion than another, the MAY have a valid point depending on how strong and significant the evidence is. The only one I've seen so far was John Curl's report of his measurement that the difference between the best and worst case he could find for interconnects was that the 7th harmonic of 5 khz in $1 Radio Shack cable was down to minus 120 db while for the best cable he measured it was minus 135. Even though he is a cable advocate, this was convincing enough to me to conclude that interconnect cables would not produce any non linear distortion that could ever be audible.

"To legitimately test for cable differences, it would be important to control all factors that can improve sound (for example, system characteristics, room acoustics, and cd quality) and then see if cables makes an incremental improvement."

The most serious cable advocates argue that only high resolution sound systems can reveal the difference in sound between one cable and another. Of course there is no agreement among them what "high resolution" sound systems are. On audiophile's high resolution system is another's mid fi. This is why it is important to analyze and thoroughly understand not only whether differences occur but why they occur and to be able to measure them and predict where they will and won't have an effect and when they do, what the nature and degree of effect will be. Otherwise, this is an absurd game of hit or miss that can be played by any fool forever.

In my experience, this is how real knowledge is gained and how people who know how to get at the truth go about it if they have the skill and the means. So far, the companies which manufacture and market audiophile cables haven't even gotten to the first rung. And it is also obvious to me that there are two reasons for this. They can't and they don't have to. The market already gives them exactly what they want. Profits, profits, profits.

Resident Loser
04-22-2004, 05:19 AM
...Why not post the ENTIRE summation and the paragraph that follows it...

BTW, I've never seen any of the regulars say that cables cannot sound different...only that cables of similar length and gauge have not been shown to have any appreciable sonic difference in valid, repeatable test procedures...

jimHJJ(...it's still the same old place I see...)

kexodusc
04-22-2004, 06:00 AM
mtrycraft, skeptic: Now, I don't buy the expensive cable argument myself, but the idea of having to scientifically prove a difference in cables in order to support ones claims that they hear a difference is absurd!!!
Just because we haven't developed the means to accurately test cable differences does not mean they don't exist!!!
The world was not flat before it was proven to be round!!!
According to "Science" it is impossible for a Bee to fly, yet we all clearly see that bees do in fact fly!!!
Is anyone going to tell me that a bee flying is voodoo or my imagination?

What we should be asking everyone to do is documenting what differences they perceive, and deciding how much value there is in them. In this, I very much doubt that cable differences become significant.

skeptic
04-22-2004, 06:15 AM
"May you enjoy your limited world."

In audio, my world is limited to things that actually work.

Resident Loser
04-22-2004, 07:03 AM
...Flat earth and the bee thing...proper testing yet to be developed...what's next, the premium tires on a Yugo deal? Same ol' same ol'!

Nobody is required to do DBTs to convince themselves...we convince ourselves of all manner of things all the time, whether they be true or not, and that's the point. There are far too many variables, in far too many parameters, to take simple anecdotal postings or unsolicited testimonials seriously.

Point is, people read this cr@p and believe it simply because it's printed here by the "experts"...we who don't buy into it(figuratively and literally) present our position based on solid principles and by far and away have the most compelling argument IMHO.

Buy what you wanna', DIY it if that's your bag. Make your own decision, believe neither side...just be aware, there are two sides...

jimHJJ(...and the wheel goes 'round and 'round...)

pctower
04-22-2004, 07:03 AM
Such as?

mytrcrafts - his claims are all over the board. Many have realized that the form of his advice and accompanying comments constitute "claims".

Only the dogmatic self-proclaimed "scientists" choose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore that.

Fortunately, someone with a "real" scientific mind like ROJ has come along and is bring true science to this discussion.

jneutron here and at Prophead disavows any dogma and trudges ahead with real experiements. In my book, it is guys like ROJ and jneutron (and I'll even toss in skeptic who is saying all kinds of intelligent things lately about DBTs) who are the real "scientists". The rest of you - mere wanna-bees

Resident Loser
04-22-2004, 07:39 AM
...nothing against this poster but...

"...Fortunately, someone with a "real" scientific mind like ROJ has come along and is bring true science to this discussion..."

There is something that may be at odds with your characterization of sir or ms. re: burden of proof.

As I see it, we already have the wheel...

If there is a claim to have a better one, show it to us...prove it...

jimHJJ(...but then again, I'm a little rusty...)

rb122
04-22-2004, 09:11 AM
[QUOTE=Resident Loser
As I see it, we already have the wheel...

If there is a claim to have a better one, show it to us...prove it...

jimHJJ(...but then again, I'm a little rusty...)[/QUOTE]

Or we could tell you about it and if you require proof, you could test it for yourself. The real issue as I see it with this "proof" is that the ones that require it are the ones that won't participate and the ones that participate are the ones that don't require it. If DBT is your proof, you'll never get it until a "yeasayer" (and I SO hate those labels) or more preferably a group of them performs a series of DBT's on a series of cables. But they don't feel the need to do so.

The more I visit this cables forum, the more I'm beginning to believe it's value is to afford those with dissenting opinions an outlet to argue. However, ROJ makes what I believe to be a valid point: Until there is proof one way or the other, the recommendation of anything, be it cheap or expensive, is a claim. If claims must be proven before they can be posted, the naysayers have the same obligation as the yeasayers.

WmAx
04-22-2004, 09:14 AM
. The only one I've seen so far was John Curl's report of his measurement that the difference between the best and worst case he could find for interconnects was that the 7th harmonic of 5 khz in $1 Radio Shack cable was down to minus 120 db while for the best cable he measured it was minus 135. Even though he is a cable advocate, this was convincing enough to me to conclude that interconnect cables would not produce any non linear distortion that could ever be audible.Even this is doubtful. John Curls measurements are suspect of being flawed. Steve Eddy helped organize an attempt at repeating these results by another party. An engineer of Phillips Digital, Bruno Putzeys(if memory serves me correct) tried to repeat the experiment, and could not get such high levels of distortion frmo the wire(-120db distortion is very high for wire, even if non-audible) even when using modern, highly regarded equipment. John Curl's tests were done one several decades old equipment, by the way. Of course, this was a couple of months ago, I don't know what may or may not have concluded after these discussions.

-Chris

Monstrous Mike
04-22-2004, 09:18 AM
The rest of you - mere wanna-bees
Instead of calling me a "wanna-bee", please address my errors or inconsistancies, perhaps starting with my latest post here.

E-Stat
04-22-2004, 09:22 AM
But you might be wrong.
I would compare my observations to that of the informed automotive press such as Car and Driver, Road and Track, Automobile, etc. Unlike the engineers here, those engineers / professional driver / journalists have all experienced the highest performance examples of their trade. Unlike here, those engineers understand that metrics alone are woefully inadequate to fully characterize the abilities of an automobile. They are used as a starting point only. If the extent of their experience were limited to Hyundais, we would have a similar situation.



Fantasy is fun, isn't it?
Perhaps, but I find that direct experience such as piloting an airplane or skydiving to be more satisfying than just daydreaming about it. Similarly, I find experiencing the finest music systems far more enjoyable than theorizing about them.

rw

Monstrous Mike
04-22-2004, 09:31 AM
Until there is proof one way or the other, the recommendation of anything, be it cheap or expensive, is a claim.
No, this is not true. From a purely objective viewpoint, it is logical to recommend basic cabling since there is no evidence of cable sonics. This is not a claim and nothing needs to be proven to make this recommendation. The only way to counter this recommendation is to provide evidence of cable sonics. Then, and only then, this recommendation will no longer be valid.

Conversely, it is illogical to recommend any cable as better than another based on an in-home test. In this case, a claim is being implicitly made that a certain cable sounds better than another. And this claim is unfounded until it is proven.


If claims must be proven before they can be posted, the naysayers have the same obligation as the yeasayers.
My statements above show this to be a logical fallacy regarding the "burden of proof".

E-Stat
04-22-2004, 09:33 AM
...Why not post the ENTIRE summation and the paragraph that follows it...
Here's the complete summation of the article's author, the point of Mtry's post. After all, he is not a "fly by nighter".

"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves. On the other hand, those that say that cables should not make a difference, are dead right. "

He acknowledges that theory and results differ. As for Gene's CYA analysis of the analysis, I'll let you comment on the backpeddling. For example, I find phono stages to be very much a part of consumer audio.




...BTW, I've never seen any of the regulars say that cables cannot sound different...only that cables of similar length and gauge have not been shown to have any appreciable sonic difference in valid, repeatable test procedures..
Here's one from this thread:

<a href="http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=28810&postcount=7">isn't skeptic a regular? </a href>

rw

Resident Loser
04-22-2004, 09:55 AM
...There has been no conclusive evidence that wiring of similar length and gauge performs any better sonically than run-of-the-mill generic wiring.

...Aftermarket wiring provides warmth to systems that are excessively bright, deep bass for those that lack it, better imaging and depth or is revealing of inner details...

It's wire...it transfers electrons...it doesn't perform miracles...contrary to any wishful thinking...there is not one reason to assume otherwise...

We claim nothing...the point(one of the many) that is always missed, is that it requires no proof to post subjective opinion when it is represented as such...it is required when these claims are offered as fact(as it is in many cases). In some instances, a kinder, gentler response by some may be in order, but...

Anecdotal opinions and/or claims are usually countered with well deserved scepticism and the poster is reminded that a great many outside influences can and do affect perception...the poster usually gets all in a huff because...well, because...no one likes to admit they are anything but masters of their own senses. They thrash about with things about science not knowing everything or bee flight and tire analogies or outright insults about the resolution deficiencies of the objectors' system...The whole scenario is at once laughable and predictable...with each new crop of visitors, it is repeated ad naseum...

jimHJJ(...Lord, it's like I nebba left!...)

Resident Loser
04-22-2004, 10:16 AM
"... As for Gene's CYA analysis of the analysis, I'll let you comment on the backpeddling. For example, I find phono stages to be very much a part of consumer audio..."

As do I. However, I can't recall the last time I was swinging my TT at the end of a cable as though it were a Shure 55SW...or the last time it did some inane gyration during a solo...

Insofar as Skeptic...I think you are comparing apples with oranges...his statement does not seem at odds with mine, as they are mutually exclusive IMO...

jimHJJ(...I think a serious re-read on your part may reveal that...)

rb122
04-22-2004, 10:23 AM
No, this is not true. From a purely objective viewpoint, it is logical to recommend basic cabling since there is no evidence of cable sonics. This is not a claim and nothing needs to be proven to make this recommendation. The only way to counter this recommendation is to provide evidence of cable sonics. Then, and only then, this recommendation will no longer be valid.

Conversely, it is illogical to recommend any cable as better than another based on an in-home test. In this case, a claim is being implicitly made that a certain cable sounds better than another. And this claim is unfounded until it is proven.


My statements above show this to be a logical fallacy regarding the "burden of proof".

I don't agree. There is plenty of evidence of cable sonics. It's simply a matter of whether or not you accept that evidence which in this case is provided by reasonable, intelligent people lending their experience. There is no proof that all cables sound alike in all applications. To suggest they do is a claim. I'm not saying it isn't valid ( it may be absolutely correct) but it's no more valid to the average audiophile than anecdotes. It's all a question of which evidence you support. If you post that Home Depot cable sounds and performs as well as Tara Labs Whatzis mk II, you'll need to provide DBT results to lend credence to your claim.

As I read ROJ, he's merely saying that we need to be careful of what we recommend in light of the fact that there is no PROOF either way. If I take the opposite approach of the Tara Labs/Home Depot issue above, I too must provide proof. But it's not a one way street. I prefer to read "...there is no evidence to support cable sonics" rather than "...all cables (with the usual disclaimers) sound alike so don't waste your money."

"Conversely, it is illogical to recommend any cable as better than another based on an in-home test. In this case, a claim is being implicitly made that a certain cable sounds better than another. "

Not illogical at all! Biased and due to incomplete analysis perhaps, but not illogical. There is no way in the world that anyone will convince me that cable believers are not hearing... er...perceiving what they claim. Therefore, it is perfectly logical for them to recommend that cable to others.

ROJ
04-22-2004, 11:17 AM
"The longer that I participant in this debate it is becoming increasingly clear that this debate is not based on science the way that I have been trained to conduct science, the inclusion of DBT notwithstanding."

That is precisely the problem. There is no AVAILABLE scientific evidence. This type of evidence is generated from basic research which can come about through at least two different channels. One is through research grants to universities or other organizations from private sources or the government. Since in the scheme of life, this is an indisputibly unimportant area of inquiry, it won't come from that source. The other is from companies who have a commercial interest in developing a new and better product. If this has been done at all, the results have not been published and for obvious reasons.

So we are left with little or no actual basic research. When people have a losing arguement, one tactic they use is to try to create in the minds of those they are trying to persuade a notion that the two sides of the arguement are somehow equivalent except for a disagreement. We see it in the most emotional disputes all of the time. Communism versus democracy, creation versus evolution, any religion versus science. The losing side is ALWAYS opposed to scientific facts because it inevitably destroys their case. In the case of Gallileo, not only were his opponents opposed to him publishing his research, his facts, his conclusion, they were opposed to the very idea of science itself because they knew in the end it would dethrone their monopoly on knowledge.

You start off this posting by stating that there is “…no AVAILABLE scientific evidence.” Then you start discussing the motives of people that have losing arguments. How can we know they are making losing argument since there is “no available scientific evidence?” As I have read your posting and others, it seems that a focus of the debate is on the motives of the cable makers. I have no doubt that cable makers may not want to have legitimate testing given the chance that cables may not make a difference. The motives of the cable companies, however, should not be considered proof. I think the issue with Galileo is that the establishment may have been opposed to research because it could potentially disrupt the status quo, which worked for their benefit. When they opposed his research, no one knew which side was the losing side because the research had not yet been conducted. At that time, how did we know they were on the losing side. I do agree that some people with a losing position discount evidence to the contrary. I just don’t think we can assume that there is a losing side in the cable debate yet since the research has not been done.


Scientists do not make absolute statements and neither have I. What I have said or tried to say is that so far there is no reliable evidence to support the notion that you can improve the sound of an audio system or even change it by selecting one cable over another. And there is a lot of scientific and mathematical evidence to suggest the contrary.

Scientists also do not treat their hypothesis of what a study will show as fact before the study has been conducted. They do not prejudge the ultimate outcome. In your posting to me, I have read several strong statements (such as “losing side”) that seem to indicate that you may have already concluded that cable will not make a difference even though you acknowledge there is no scientific proof.

You mention that there is a lot of scientific evidence to suggest the contrary. Is this different than the nonexistant basic research you previously mentioned? Is this research in another field that is relevant to the debate?


"1. It would be important to clearly define what is an “average” listener and how you plan to recruit your participants (e.g., random sampling, case matching)."

In any real meaningful test, it would be valuable to segregate the test populations into groups based on auditory accuity, ability to discern small differences in sounds, and their ability to remember sounds from moment to moment by prequalifying them through screening tests. It would be useless to buy a product if you fall into a group whose hearing accuity makes it impossible to hear differences that other people might hear if that is the determinant of the value of that product. IMO, many audiophiles have far poorer auditory accuity than they think they have often due to exposure to very loud music for prolonged periods such as at live rock concerts and at "discotheques."

This would definitely be helpful, but it would limit the applicability of the findings to the target populations. If the studies found that cable difference were not evident with middle age audio enthusiasts with poor hearing. Then the results would only be applicable to middle age audio enthusiasts with poor hearing. However, if we could test multiple target populations then maybe we could narrow done which populations hear cable differences if cable differences exist, such as gullible, audio novice, graduate students. Then we could say if you belong to this target population try cable, if not do not try cables. Right now, both sides are making recommendations without consider people as a potentially moderating variable.

" I don’t think that the procable group would argue that improvements in sound can be achieved by no other means or that cables are the most important factor. "

The "pro cable group" has rejected every method of electrical measurement known to electrical engineering science arguing instead that the differences they hear are caused by factors which go beyond what is known. Some of their theories are so arcane and "off the wall" as to be laughable. However, objectively there are at least two kinds of distortion we know about. Linear and non-linear. Linear distortion can be compensated for in several ways, changing the capacitance, inductance, and resistance of a wire being only one of them. Non linear distortion usually can't be compensated for. If the cable advocates can demonstrate that one cable has less non linear distortion than another, the MAY have a valid point depending on how strong and significant the evidence is. The only one I've seen so far was John Curl's report of his measurement that the difference between the best and worst case he could find for interconnects was that the 7th harmonic of 5 khz in $1 Radio Shack cable was down to minus 120 db while for the best cable he measured it was minus 135. Even though he is a cable advocate, this was convincing enough to me to conclude that interconnect cables would not produce any non linear distortion that could ever be audible.

I don’t know what the pro cable groups have been claming as I only recently started reading both sides of the debate. However, have their “off the wall” and “arcane” theories been empirically refuted? Remember, the scientific community may have thought that Galileo’s theory was “off the wall”. I am not supporting these arguments especially since I have not read them. However, I don’t think we can immediately dismiss a theory without evaluation. Fortunately, sufficient evidence often exists to dispute most “off the wall” theories in general. The whole process of science, however, is to expand our way of thinking even if it originally does not make intuitive sense. Some “off the wall” theories may lead to significant discoveries (e.g., Galileo).

"To legitimately test for cable differences, it would be important to control all factors that can improve sound (for example, system characteristics, room acoustics, and cd quality) and then see if cables makes an incremental improvement."

The most serious cable advocates argue that only high resolution sound systems can reveal the difference in sound between one cable and another. Of course there is no agreement among them what "high resolution" sound systems are. On audiophile's high resolution system is another's mid fi. This is why it is important to analyze and thoroughly understand not only whether differences occur but why they occur and to be able to measure them and predict where they will and won't have an effect and when they do, what the nature and degree of effect will be. Otherwise, this is an absurd game of hit or miss that can be played by any fool forever.

I agree completely. It appears that neither side has controlled for system quality. I have never read a claim on either side that tried to control for system quality by comparing cables with multiple systems.

In my experience, this is how real knowledge is gained and how people who know how to get at the truth go about it if they have the skill and the means. So far, the companies which manufacture and market audiophile cables haven't even gotten to the first rung. And it is also obvious to me that there are two reasons for this. They can't and they don't have to. The market already gives them exactly what they want. Profits, profits, profits.

You are probably right that the cable companies do not have a financial incentive to conducts tests. Greedy motives, however, do not constitute proof. When you wrote the manufacturers “can’t” are you stating that they can’t find differences? If so, do you think that you have prejudged the ultimate outcome?

mtrycraft
04-22-2004, 11:22 AM
Since you have experimented at home, must have swapped and listened to different cables or components to compare, it appears that you have not included any bias controls to these comparisons. Not difficult, certainly no more so than swapping in a sighted comparison. All you need to do is have someone else do it randomly, they record it, cover the cables unless they are already not visible from the listening place, they leave, you listen and guess:) A bit of statistics, say 20 trials and 15 correct guess is a good indication:) Or, at least it would show how difficult it is to guess correctly.

mtrycraft
04-22-2004, 11:26 AM
There is a difference between speculation as you practice and experience. I'll take experience any day. I find it far more rewarding. :)

rw

Ah, the experinece of speculation. What a new concept.

Rockwell
04-22-2004, 11:28 AM
I would compare my observations to that of the informed automotive press such as Car and Driver, Road and Track, Automobile, etc. Unlike the engineers here, those engineers / professional driver / journalists have all experienced the highest performance examples of their trade. Unlike here, those engineers understand that metrics alone are woefully inadequate to fully characterize the abilities of an automobile. They are used as a starting point only. If the extent of their experience were limited to Hyundais, we would have a similar situation.



Perhaps, but I find that direct experience such as piloting an airplane or skydiving to be more satisfying than just daydreaming about it. Similarly, I find experiencing the finest music systems far more enjoyable than theorizing about them.

rw

You can compare yourself as much as you want, but until you can identify the 5 wheeled car from a four wheeled car in a test where you don't know which you are driving, then you are just talking. Some things can be measured and tested, but others are just subjective opinions. Once you establish that a five wheeled car produces a human detectable difference in the feel of a vehicle's driving characteristics, then talking about subjective opinions is valid. If a driver cannot detect when the 5th wheel is present, then what are you really talking about when you give your subjective opinion of it?

As far as experiencing things, I agree with you, but not everything falls into the category of "needs to be experienced."

Monstrous Mike
04-22-2004, 12:01 PM
I don't agree. There is plenty of evidence of cable sonics. It's simply a matter of whether or not you accept that evidence which in this case is provided by reasonable, intelligent people lending their experience. There is no proof that all cables sound alike in all applications. To suggest they do is a claim. I'm not saying it isn't valid ( it may be absolutely correct) but it's no more valid to the average audiophile than anecdotes. It's all a question of which evidence you support. If you post that Home Depot cable sounds and performs as well as Tara Labs Whatzis mk II, you'll need to provide DBT results to lend credence to your claim.

As I read ROJ, he's merely saying that we need to be careful of what we recommend in light of the fact that there is no PROOF either way. If I take the opposite approach of the Tara Labs/Home Depot issue above, I too must provide proof. But it's not a one way street. I prefer to read "...there is no evidence to support cable sonics" rather than "...all cables (with the usual disclaimers) sound alike so don't waste your money."

"Conversely, it is illogical to recommend any cable as better than another based on an in-home test. In this case, a claim is being implicitly made that a certain cable sounds better than another. "

Not illogical at all! Biased and due to incomplete analysis perhaps, but not illogical. There is no way in the world that anyone will convince me that cable believers are not hearing... er...perceiving what they claim. Therefore, it is perfectly logical for them to recommend that cable to others.
I fully believe that you cannot have an objective discussion on this topic. You may accuse the same of me but I really have no interest in the final outcome of this debate one way or the other. If it turns out that the exotic cable compnaies have been right all along with their unique cable designs then I may or may not explore getting new cables for my system.

On the other hand, if it turns out that a basic cable is all you really need and no amount of handwaving will actually improve system sound, then a lot of people like you will be left scratching their heads wondering that the hell they were hearing in the first place.

Perhaps the spectre of that possibility keeps you steadfastly anchored in your belief about cable sonics, no matter what is discussed.

I remain fully open to the possiblity of cable sonics and if and when somebody shows that they actually make a difference, I will be first in line to find a scientific explanation. And ironically, this sort of investigation should lead to even better cables.

Are open to cable sonics being myth? It sure doesn't sound like it.

skeptic
04-22-2004, 04:33 PM
"How can we know they are making losing argument since there is “no available scientific evidence?” "

Simple if you agree that it is up to them to prove the superiority of their product to justify its added expense and the effort to seek it out. By not presenting any after more than twenty years, they have lost by default. Now of course if they did present some evidence they might turn it around but.....

"it seems that a focus of the debate is on the motives of the cable makers."

The motive of business is to make money, moolah, profits. That's all. What separates the legitimate businesses from thieves is that fair businesses make claims for their products, can back it up with facts, and comply with the advertising requirements of the FTC. Cable companies don't do that. They make inferences, lead non technical people to draw unjustified conclusions, and then leave the rest to fast talking sales people who get paid far more handsomely in terms of profit sharing for this product than other electronics products.

"I have no doubt that cable makers may not want to have legitimate testing given the chance that cables may not make a difference"

Somewhere somebody must have been curious enough to find out whether or not their product actually did something even if it was not scientifically rigorous. What motive could there be for not pursuing it further if there was any indication that there was an improvement. Not only would they be able to shout it from the rooftops about how their cable is better than generic but better than the competition's. What other explanation could there be except that they haven't found any?

"I think the issue with Galileo is that the establishment may have been opposed to research because it could potentially disrupt the status quo, which worked for their benefit"

I think that's what I said. At the time, the status quo in Europe was that the Catholic church had a monopoly on truth and knowledge. If they said the sun goes around the earth, it went around the earth and if you disagreed publicly with them, there was the inquisition and the rack. Gallileo faced the inquisition, was placed under house arrest and was shown the instruments of torture. Fortunately for all of us, cable companies don't have quite that power but at Cable Asylum, if you commit heresy by denying the validity of the pro cable arguement, you will be severely reprimanded, then exiled and banished for your blasphemy. Why? You can never know for sure but my guess is based on the fact that there is considerable sponsorship from people who stand to make money through the sale of audiophile cables including at least one manufacturer.

"I just don’t think we can assume that there is a losing side in the cable debate yet since the research has not been done."

"I have read several strong statements (such as “losing side”) that seem to indicate that you may have already concluded that cable will not make a difference even though you acknowledge there is no scientific proof.

You mention that there is a lot of scientific evidence to suggest the contrary. Is this different than the nonexistant basic research you previously mentioned? Is this research in another field that is relevant to the debate?"

Actually considerable research has been done in the electrical performance of all types of cables for nearly 100 years. There are standards for the manufacture and performance of every type of cable known. Not only by trade organizations but by the manufacturers themselves. There is also a vast body of knowledge of mathematical analysis of complex waveforms that can describe every possible deviation caused by an electrical circuit. The application of these principles allows electrical engineers to precisely match the characteristics of cables with the requirements of various users and to design and manufacture new types when the existing generic types are inadequate for a new application. The audiophile cable companies have dismissed all of this saying that there are aspects to cables which influence the audible performance of sound systems beyond this knowledge. Objectively, this is pure idiocy. However, humoring these people, one would say, well if you cannot demonstrate an electrical performance difference but you claim an audible performance difference, prove it in fair double blind listening tests. They have been unable to do this either and at another site, Cable Asylum which I mentioned earlier, discussion of this topic is off limits ostensibly because it would cause endless flame wars. That anti DBT rule not withstanding, on the rare occasion I have visited that site, it seems that there is no lack of flame wars anti DBT rule or no anti DBT rule. In fact there are far fewer here where there is no such rule IMO than there is there.

"I only recently started reading both sides of the debate. However, have their “off the wall” and “arcane” theories been empirically refuted? Remember, the scientific community may have thought that Galileo’s theory was “off the wall”."

Strand jumping, Fermi velocity, and all manner of quantum physics arguements they use not withstanding, these so called experts actually know little or nothing about the theories they advance to explain their arguement. Every one of them has one from creating single crystal wire (new crystal boundaries are created every time you bend it) to oxygen free copper to silver wire to anything you can dream up. To anyone even slightly grounded in advanced physics, their explanations seem rediculous. All that aside, ultimately there must be differences in electrical performance which they cannot demonstrate.

As for Gallileo, there was no scientific community in his day. I think what really got them crazy in the Vatican was that anyone who could build a small telescope could look at Jupiter, see the 4 largest moons revolving around it for themselves and come to the conclusion that not everything revolves around the earth the way they said it did. By creating one chink in the armor of certainty that the church had a monopoly on all worldly truth, the entire ediface was put in jeopardy. If they made one mistake, why not another and another. Why not all of it. Remember, these were arrogant men who not only had a monopoly on knowledge but on power as well because God spoke to them and they delivered HIS message to the rest of the world.

"The whole process of science, however, is to expand our way of thinking even if it originally does not make intuitive sense. Some “off the wall” theories may lead to significant discoveries (e.g., Galileo)."

This does not mean that every idea that comes along is given equal value or weight. Some ideas simply die and are regarded as worthless because they make no logical sense in light of facts determined by experimentation. Speaking of experimentation BTW, the method of science is to generate a hypothesis, create an experiment to test it, examine the results, and see if the hypothesis holds up. The process is repeated endlessly. Where are the cable companys' scientific experiments? Why don't they publish any? This is not science they expound. It is anti science using the language of science to trick the scientifically uneducated or inexperienced. And judging from the success of this cottage industry, it works. Yes it works very well.

pctower
04-22-2004, 05:10 PM
No, this is not true. From a purely objective viewpoint, it is logical to recommend basic cabling since there is no evidence of cable sonics. This is not a claim and nothing needs to be proven to make this recommendation. The only way to counter this recommendation is to provide evidence of cable sonics. Then, and only then, this recommendation will no longer be valid.

Conversely, it is illogical to recommend any cable as better than another based on an in-home test. In this case, a claim is being implicitly made that a certain cable sounds better than another. And this claim is unfounded until it is proven.


My statements above show this to be a logical fallacy regarding the "burden of proof".

"No, this is not true. From a purely objective viewpoint, it is logical to recommend basic cabling since there is no evidence of cable sonics. This is not a claim and nothing needs to be proven to make this recommendation. The only way to counter this recommendation is to provide evidence of cable sonics. Then, and only then, this recommendation will no longer be valid."

What's really scary is that you actually believe that. the problem really is one of arrogance. You don't believe the average boob is smart enought simply to be told there is no proof and let them decide what they are going to do with that. Too bad, because you get the following right:

"Conversely, it is illogical to recommend any cable as better than another based on an in-home test. In this case, a claim is being implicitly made that a certain cable sounds better than another. And this claim is unfounded until it is proven."

Oh well. Very few of us can be perfect.

Rockwell
04-22-2004, 07:15 PM
What's really scary is that you actually believe that. the problem really is one of arrogance. You don't believe the average boob is smart enought simply to be told there is no proof and let them decide what they are going to do with that. Too bad, because you get the following right:

"Average boob," huh? Pot, the kettle is calling!

Actually, I've worked in technical support and customer service before, and I can tell you that many people need to be led to water. Hopefully they will drink.

mtrycraft
04-22-2004, 09:38 PM
Or we could tell you about it and if you require proof, you could test it for yourself.

Oh, your telling about it has been tested, that is why you need to offer evidence beyond just a statement.


[b] However, ROJ makes what I believe to be a valid point: Until there is proof one way or the other, the recommendation of anything, be it cheap or expensive, is a claim..[/QUOTE]

He is not saying this. You are misinterpreting him, I believe. If he is sayiong this, it is not a claim. What is there to test? To use or not to use Home depot cable? Really?
Any testable claims made?

mtrycraft
04-22-2004, 09:43 PM
I don't agree.

Obvious:)

There is plenty of evidence of cable sonics.

Where? Cite one such evidence that can be investigated? Claiming that there is one, is not evidence. Please cite it. Just because Jon claimes it is not evidence.Please.

It's simply a matter of whether or not you accept that evidence which in this case is provided by reasonable, intelligent people lending their experience.

Sorry, that is not evidence, especially when it is based on sighted listeing in the first place.

There is no proof that all cables sound alike in all applications.

Now you are distorting what has been stated before. No one is claiming this as there is published evidence for differences between 24 ga and 16 ga and 12 ga wire. You should know this by now so stop repeating this silly all inclusive claim.


As I read ROJ, he's merely saying that we need to be careful of what we recommend in light of the fact that there is no PROOF either way.

No, he says how we recommend.

mtrycraft
04-22-2004, 09:54 PM
jneutron here and at Prophead disavows any dogma and trudges ahead with real experiements.


Yes, he is digging into the depth of the electronic world. And then what?
It doesn't, it won't show audible differences in cables untill it is put to the listening test, DBT. I am not sure he will do that aspect, or why he didn't start with that first, to establish a need to dig beyond what is already known, the basics.Even if there is no audible differences he certainly could dig deeper for a better understanding of the science beyond what is needed in audio applications.

He did a great job of exposing Hawksfords mistakes. That should be published in an audio mag at least.; that is where Hawksford published his, a big mistake.

mtrycraft
04-22-2004, 10:06 PM
Of course, this was a couple of months ago, I don't know what may or may not have concluded after these discussions.

-Chris


I think this is a completion of his work thus far:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Cable-Distortion.html

Nothing there to his equipment limits. Not sure if there is one better than his but it is already beyond ...:)

mtrycraft
04-22-2004, 10:16 PM
Right on, Mtry. Let's all read the summation together:

"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves."

rw


Here we go, your ability to follow a publication is pee poor, as usual. I think you have been accusing me when you should have been looking in the mirror.
You have no clue, an idea what he is saying, do you?
He did a lot of measurements, science, and zero listening testing, unless you can show the latter and his data for audible differences, I will retract. He is talking about technical differneces, measurments, applications in certain cases, like mic cables.
He is has no basis for audible differences; he has not conducted any such trials, did he?

Stick to what you know best, not much.

mtrycraft
04-22-2004, 10:20 PM
What you have quoted is Gene DellaSala's comments on the article by Bruno Putzeys. How do you know Putzeys agrees with DellaSala's comments on his article?


What did Bruno do, exactely? He did a lot of great measurements.
Where is his DBT listening tests for interconnects? Oh, nowhere to be found? And he makes statements for audibility? I don't think so. Oh, perhaps he is making claims for measured differences in certain applications and what should be avoided. Anything about interconnects? Really? Or just Mic cable applications and impedance mismatches. Oh, that would apply to the passive preamp junks that are passed off as something good.

WmAx
04-22-2004, 10:37 PM
Thank you for the link. This must have concluded when I last read it a couple of months ago. Same conclusion as I remembered reading.

-Chris



I think this is a completion of his work thus far:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Cable-Distortion.html

Nothing there to his equipment limits. Not sure if there is one better than his but it is already beyond ...:)

pctower
04-23-2004, 06:35 AM
"Average boob," huh? Pot, the kettle is calling!

Actually, I've worked in technical support and customer service before, and I can tell you that many people need to be led to water. Hopefully they will drink.

"and I can tell you that many people need to be led to water. Hopefully they will drink"

Hey, no fair introducing reality into this discussion.

jneutron
04-23-2004, 07:54 AM
Yes, he is digging into the depth of the electronic world. And then what?
It doesn't, it won't show audible differences in cables untill it is put to the listening test, DBT. I am not sure he will do that aspect, or why he didn't start with that first, to establish a need to dig beyond what is already known, the basics.Even if there is no audible differences he certainly could dig deeper for a better understanding of the science beyond what is needed in audio applications..

I started there because there are no tests I am aware of that clearly shows that cables make a difference. If there were, the cable guys would be trouncing everybody with proof positive.

Which leaves several possibilities...

1. There is absolutely no difference, and everybody who thinks so is deluding themselves.

2. There is a difference, and everybody falls flat on their butt under the pressure of discerning obvious differences during a rigorous dbt session.

3. There is a difference, but it is subtle enough in it's nature, that when you hear it, you really can't put your finger on it....reliably.

So, to attack this problem from the DBT end, one would have to know what it is being sought..Amplitude and phase from dc to 20 Khz is so easy to measure, using simple equipment off the shelf, to accuracies and sensitivities many orders of magnitude beyound human hearing...if there really is a difference, then why does this major equipment not see it???

I don't think it's gonna be answered by using the old tried and true tests. That is why I am not using them. Do you think that a novice dbt'er like me could actually, <b><i>poof</i></b>, make a dbt test that works where the experts failed??

Look at the Nordmark paper..He used bipolar jitter, and by doing so, enhanced human perception (actually, it allowed some subjects to accurately discern when a waveform was time shifted R-L to within 1.5 uSec), so it is still a question of what was going on.

Why in gods name did he use jitter? did he take a cue from a/d conversion dithering? Who knows..

But, he made it very easy for humans to lateralize by modification of the stimulus.

My take? What stimulus can be used to help humans discern cable differences in a more rigorous way? What to look at, what to focus on..

If I jitter the input signal as he did, with say, a .6 uSec bipolar one , will right-left delays (on the order of 2 to 20 uSec)caused by an amp/wire combination suddenly become very audible? (obviously, I can't burn a test CD for that one..) Perhaps a delay box, one which can introduce delays in the 600 nanosecond realm to each channel independently in a coherent fashion...perhaps an analog bucket chain, with two independent clocks, the clocks being dithered...Hmmmm, I like that one...That would provide jitter without relying on high amplitude to force a pressure jitter in the ear canal....nice...I'll continue thinking about that one...

I note that no matter how powerful an FFT system is, it cannot see a cos component of a sine fundamental, so is rather useless to see small soundstage divergence. And how many are capable of accuracy of testing on an audio system with 1.5 uSec tolerances?

I have had initial discussions with several prof's, broaching the possibility of a student or students taking and running with it as part of a masters or PhD thesis, should my playings define something to be tested for.

I have also discussed with others the possibility of trying several wire constructs on good systems, evaluating wildly varying L-C numbers with identical construction and materials, both as a starting point for determining if those parameters are discernable, as well as for my own edification...the owner of the system will be coerced (by me) to demonstrate for me the different sounding wires they have experienced..not a DBT thing, just a simple listen..I would focus on image lateralization, as I make the assumption that phase/amplitude won't be changing much..just as a loose correlation of LC and hearing.. And all that without actually knowing how good my hearing is..been a while since I had a hearing test..


He did a great job of exposing Hawksfords mistakes. That should be published in an audio mag at least.; that is where Hawksford published his, a big mistake.

Thanks...unfortunately, from what I have heard recently, that was done in a mag called the audio critic a coupla years ago. Apparently the author got some PhD types together, and rigorously pounced Hawksford's analysis..I was unaware of it prior..And it seems, so was Curl....:-)

Cheers, John

FLZapped
04-23-2004, 08:40 AM
jneutron here and at Prophead disavows any dogma and trudges ahead with real experiements. In my book, it is guys like ROJ and jneutron (and I'll even toss in skeptic who is saying all kinds of intelligent things lately about DBTs) who are the real "scientists". The rest of you - mere wanna-bees

Really, how would you know? You're a lawyer and the last I checked, a law degree is not accredited under the school of science in any university.

-Bruce

FLZapped
04-23-2004, 08:52 AM
I started there because there are no tests I am aware of that clearly shows that cables make a difference. If there were, the cable guys would be trouncing everybody with proof positive.

Which leaves several possibilities...

1. There is absolutely no difference, and everybody who thinks so is deluding themselves.

2. There is a difference, and everybody falls flat on their butt under the pressure of discerning obvious differences during a rigorous dbt session.

3. There is a difference, but it is subtle enough in it's nature, that when you hear it, you really can't put your finger on it....reliably.

Ahhh, grasshopper, you omitted one: 4. There are differences, but they fail to rise to the level of audibility :~). ( I believe most would agree this is the overriding scenerio.)



Look at the Nordmark paper..He used bipolar jitter, and by doing so, enhanced human perception (actually, it allowed some subjects to accurately discern when a waveform was time shifted R-L to within 1.5 uSec), so it is still a question of what was going on.

Why in gods name did he use jitter? did he take a cue from a/d conversion dithering? Who knows..

But, he made it very easy for humans to lateralize by modification of the stimulus.

My take? What stimulus can be used to help humans discern cable differences in a more rigorous way? What to look at, what to focus on..

If I jitter the input signal as he did, with say, a .6 uSec bipolar one , will right-left delays (on the order of 2 to 20 uSec)caused by an amp/wire combination suddenly become very audible? (obviously, I can't burn a test CD for that one..) Perhaps a delay box, one which can introduce delays in the 600 nanosecond realm to each channel independently in a coherent fashion...perhaps an analog bucket chain, with two independent clocks, the clocks being dithered...Hmmmm, I like that one...That would provide jitter without relying on high amplitude to force a pressure jitter in the ear canal....nice...I'll continue thinking about that one...

Cheers, John

Uhm, there is the possibility that he introduced some artifact that sent a cue as well. Odd that the detection threshold is nearly 2x the jitter rate......if that is within the measurement error window, an audible articfact is a likely scenerio.

Good to see you're still around, John. Have any head-on crashes with mosquitos lately??

-Bruce

jneutron
04-23-2004, 09:14 AM
Ahhh, grasshopper, you omitted one: 4. There are differences, but they fail to rise to the level of audibility :~). ( I believe most would agree this is the overriding scenerio.)


Agreed on number 4 as an option. I don't agree or disagree that it is the overriding scenario.



Uhm, there is the possibility that he introduced some artifact that sent a cue as well. Odd that the detection threshold is nearly 2x the jitter rate......if that is within the measurement error window, an audible articfact is a likely scenerio.

He discusses that at the end of his paper, when he is discussing error analysis.. He also worried about the possibility that modulation noise was reaching jnd levels.

Actually, he plotted lateralization sensitivity increase at the .2 uSec level, but calls .6 as the actual point.


Good to see you're still around, John. Have any head-on crashes with mosquitos lately??-Bruce

LOL..Actually, it's been nicely calm..

Cheers, John

mtrycraft
04-23-2004, 04:32 PM
Thanks...unfortunately, from what I have heard recently, that was done in a mag called the audio critic a coupla years ago. Apparently the author got some PhD types together, and rigorously pounced Hawksford's analysis..I was unaware of it prior..And it seems, so was Curl....:-)

Cheers, John

My post to your total post didn't make it, too long to redo :(

I forgot about Dr. David Rich, Bell Labs then. I have it if you want it. He didn't do it the way you did though and it was not in an audiophile approved magazine, so it didn't get the exposure. He did say that Hawksford should have published in a Journal and go through the peer process :D Yours was much more technical oriented.

okiemax
04-23-2004, 06:16 PM
What did Bruno do, exactely? He did a lot of great measurements.
Where is his DBT listening tests for interconnects? Oh, nowhere to be found? And he makes statements for audibility? I don't think so. Oh, perhaps he is making claims for measured differences in certain applications and what should be avoided. Anything about interconnects? Really? Or just Mic cable applications and impedance mismatches. Oh, that would apply to the passive preamp junks that are passed off as something good.

Your comments should be addressed to Putzeys. I don't speak for him. However, I didn't get the impression Putzeys' article was limited to mic cables. If you are saying that was the case, please explain why.

mtrycraft
04-23-2004, 10:06 PM
Your comments should be addressed to Putzeys. I don't speak for him. However, I didn't get the impression Putzeys' article was limited to mic cables. If you are saying that was the case, please explain why.

No, my comments don't need to be addressed to him, yet. He explained under what condition a cable may be affected to a degree that may be audible.
They are the ones that are affected by the conditions he described, moving cables, driven by a cap type mic. But, if you replicate these whipping around with your cable to the amp, it may, or not, depending on impedances, have a bearing on the case. Mic cables are the ones that are abused, not interconnects.

Did you read the article carefully?
Does your interconnects move about as a mic cable would walking around on the stage being whipped about?

Is your preamp/amp imedances falls into his category to avoid? Not hardly.
Where is the evidence for audible difference based on listening?

okiemax
04-24-2004, 12:31 AM
No, my comments don't need to be addressed to him, yet. He explained under what condition a cable may be affected to a degree that may be audible.
They are the ones that are affected by the conditions he described, moving cables, driven by a cap type mic. But, if you replicate these whipping around with your cable to the amp, it may, or not, depending on impedances, have a bearing on the case. Mic cables are the ones that are abused, not interconnects.

Did you read the article carefully?
Does your interconnects move about as a mic cable would walking around on the stage being whipped about?

Is your preamp/amp imedances falls into his category to avoid? Not hardly.
Where is the evidence for audible difference based on listening?

Gimme a break, mtrycraft! I got the part about mic cables being moved around. Next time I have a mic in my hand I will try to remain motionless. Should I also give up playing jump rope to the music with my speaker cables?

I didn't know silver was used in some mic cables before reading the article. Putzeys refers to the "brightness often attributed to teflon silver cables." I wonder if they are bright only when they are being moved or have recently been moved. I tried some silver interconnects between my CD player and my integrated amp, and I thought they were too bright, so I returned them. Now I'm thinking maybe I moved those cables around too much before installing them, or it could have been that 500 miles bouncing up and down in the back of the UPS truck before arrival.

Putzeys may or may not agree with everything DellaSala said in that epilogue to Putzeys' article. I don't know. I do wonder why DellaSala thought the epilogue was necessary.

E-Stat
04-24-2004, 06:18 AM
He did a lot of measurements, science, and zero listening testing, unless you can show the latter...
Next time read the first sentence. The listening preceeded these tests. When you do, you will understand why he tried to measure that which he and others hear. Amen.

"Recently I've done a collection of measurements and tests on interconnect cables to see what I could find that would explain the sonic differences that many people, including myself, have grown accustomed to hearing."



He is talking about technical differneces, measurments, applications in certain cases, like mic cables.
I read no such qualification in either his opening comments that framed the research nor in his conclusion:

"To recap: to make cables disappear from the sonic equation, all that is needed is balanced transmission combined with sub-1ohm output impedance line drivers. I would like to propose this as a standard for audiophile equipment makers.



He is has no basis for audible differences; he has not conducted any such trials, did he?
You may debate that with him. Since you cited this source, I presented his observations without commentary.

rw

mtrycraft
04-24-2004, 11:08 AM
Next time read the first sentence. The listening preceeded these tests.


Ah, yes, he did listen as you and may audiophiles have. Unreliable at best, worhtless for sure as it had zero bias controls, at least he has not reported that he used any. We know you have not. So, Those lisneing has no real meaning. End of story.


When you do, you will understand why he tried to measure that which he and others hear. Amen.

Oh, I know why he measured. He wanted to confirm what he thought he heard. As to real listeing, bias controlled, there were none. So, he is chasing ghosts, nothing more.

"Recently I've done a collection of measurements and tests on interconnect cables to see what I could find that would explain [b]the sonic differences that many people, including myself, have grown accustomed to hearing."

Yes, perceptional differences that have no real basis in facts. Ghost chasing.



I read no such qualification in either his opening comments that framed the research nor in his conclusion:

"To recap: to make cables disappear from the sonic equation, all that is needed is balanced transmission combined with sub-1ohm output impedance line drivers. I would like to propose this as a standard for [b]audiophile equipment makers.

You may debate that with him. Since you cited this source, I presented his observations without commentary.

rw

Oh, you presented a sentenca and tried to draw an underlying concusion that is not there.

And precisely what he concludes, to make cables dissappear, he has not listened to see if there needs to be anything further done in the first place.

mtrycraft
04-24-2004, 11:22 AM
Gimme a break, mtrycraft! I got the part about mic cables being moved around. Next time I have a mic in my hand I will try to remain motionless. Should I also give up playing jump rope to the music with my speaker cables?

I didn't know silver was used in some mic cables before reading the article. Putzeys refers to the "brightness often attributed to teflon silver cables." I wonder if they are bright only when they are being moved or have recently been moved. I tried some silver interconnects between my CD player and my integrated amp, and I thought they were too bright, so I returned them. Now I'm thinking maybe I moved those cables around too much before installing them, or it could have been that 500 miles bouncing up and down in the back of the UPS truck before arrival.

Putzeys may or may not agree with everything DellaSala said in that epilogue to Putzeys' article. I don't know. I do wonder why DellaSala thought the epilogue was necessary.


You give me a break. Are all the interconnect recommendations being asked for are for mic cable? Any? One such request? No. So it is irrelevant what he has measured in such cables when in such abused conditions when it comes to interconnects between CD and amp, isn't it? And, he found nothing in those interconnects, nothing. End of chapter.

Putzeys didn't include teflon and silver beacuse they are in mic cables but because audiophiles use them in their regular interconnects and report those perceptions. He just extended the range of operations beyond what is encountered in a system and tried to explain away the perceived differences. Does not apply unless in a mic type setup. Does not apply in these discussions as that is not what is being discussed here, no mic cable discussed. So, he really has not explained away perceived differences as he has yet to demonstrate those audible differeences in standard interconnect usages just accepted reports as being factual. Yet, it appears, people extrapolate that mic cable measurements to ordinary interconnects. Does not apply.
But what do I know?

DMK
04-24-2004, 12:42 PM
I fully believe that you cannot have an objective discussion on this topic. You may accuse the same of me but I really have no interest in the final outcome of this debate one way or the other. If it turns out that the exotic cable compnaies have been right all along with their unique cable designs then I may or may not explore getting new cables for my system.

On the other hand, if it turns out that a basic cable is all you really need and no amount of handwaving will actually improve system sound, then a lot of people like you will be left scratching their heads wondering that the hell they were hearing in the first place.

Perhaps the spectre of that possibility keeps you steadfastly anchored in your belief about cable sonics, no matter what is discussed.

I remain fully open to the possiblity of cable sonics and if and when somebody shows that they actually make a difference, I will be first in line to find a scientific explanation. And ironically, this sort of investigation should lead to even better cables.

Are open to cable sonics being myth? It sure doesn't sound like it.

I'd say that rb can and has been objective, particularly in light of your post where you believe that rb is a believer in cable sonics. He's posted the opposite many times on this board. As I recall, he's a disbeliever but is open to the possibility that some cables might sound different but doesn't particularly care. He's sorta like YOU! :)

okiemax
04-24-2004, 01:35 PM
You give me a break. Are all the interconnect recommendations being asked for are for mic cable? Any? One such request? No. So it is irrelevant what he has measured in such cables when in such abused conditions when it comes to interconnects between CD and amp, isn't it? And, he found nothing in those interconnects, nothing. End of chapter.

Putzeys didn't include teflon and silver beacuse they are in mic cables but because audiophiles use them in their regular interconnects and report those perceptions. He just extended the range of operations beyond what is encountered in a system and tried to explain away the perceived differences. Does not apply unless in a mic type setup. Does not apply in these discussions as that is not what is being discussed here, no mic cable discussed. So, he really has not explained away perceived differences as he has yet to demonstrate those audible differeences in standard interconnect usages just accepted reports as being factual. Yet, it appears, people extrapolate that mic cable measurements to ordinary interconnects. Does not apply.
But what do I know?

Mtrycraft, there is no need for you to get hysterical about what I have said about Putzeys' article and DellaSala's epilogue. Is it outrageous for me to say I didn't get the impression the article was limited to mic cables and question whether Putzeys agrees with the epilogue? What else did I do?

pctower
04-24-2004, 02:03 PM
Mtrycraft, there is no need for you to get hysterical about what I have said about Putzeys' article and DellaSala's epilogue. Is it outrageous for me to say I didn't get the impression the article was limited to mic cables and question whether Putzeys agrees with the epilogue? What else did I do?

"But what do I know?"

How come you never throw me a good straight line?

E-Stat
04-24-2004, 02:12 PM
Oh, you presented a sentenca and tried to draw an underlying concusion that is not there.
Classic. The "sentenca" was a direct quote from your source. The "concusion" was likewise also a direct quote of his. Is English your first language?

rw

mtrycraft
04-24-2004, 04:28 PM
Classic. The "sentenca" was a direct quote from your source. The "concusion" was likewise also a direct quote of his. Is English your first language?

rw


No matter how you try, you are trying to draw a conclusion from one sentence, period. Good try, doesn't work.

E-Stat
04-24-2004, 06:54 PM
No matter how you try, you are trying to draw a conclusion from one sentence, period. Good try, doesn't work.
Amazing. I am not "trying" to draw any conclusions. There is no need to. The author of the article already has - based upon the body of his work. In this regard, I am taking your "experience free" tact. I merely quoted his summation. Evidently, you lack understanding of some language fundamentals.

sum-mar-y: - A presentation of the substance of a body of material in a condensed form or by reducing it to its main points; an abstract.

Is there any part of that you don't understand?

rw

mtrycraft
04-24-2004, 09:57 PM
Amazing. I am not "trying" to draw any conclusions. There is no need to. The author of the article already has - based upon the body of his work. In this regard, I am taking your "experience free" tact. I merely quoted his summation. Evidently, you lack understanding of some language fundamentals.

sum-mar-y: - A presentation of the substance of a body of material in a condensed form or by reducing it to its main points; an abstract.

Is there any part of that you don't understand?

rw
Obviously you didn't understand the article and what the conclusion means. Good try.

E-Stat
04-25-2004, 11:17 AM
Obviously you didn't understand the article and what the conclusion means. Good try.
Your keen observations have even transcended the capabilities of the author of the article itself. I stand amazed at your analytical abilities. :)

rw

Pat D
04-25-2004, 06:41 PM
Right on, Mtry. Let's all read the summation together:

"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves."

rw
Why don'tcha include the rest of the summary?

"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves. On the other hand, those that say that cables should not make a difference, are dead right."

mtrycraft
04-25-2004, 09:32 PM
Why don'tcha include the rest of the summary?

"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves. On the other hand, those that say that cables should not make a difference, are dead right."


Don't forget, the author is talking about measured performance and mic cables in swinging mode, not anything that is related to audibility as he didn't check for that, just relied on unreliable reports from audiophiles and his own perception of dubious reliability. And, no one can disagree with his measurement findings.

E-Stat
04-26-2004, 05:01 AM
Why don'tcha include the rest of the summary?
See post # 53. In the second sentence, the author acknowledges there are instances in audio where theory and practice differ.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=29245&postcount=53

rw

rb122
04-26-2004, 05:24 AM
I don't agree.

Obvious:)

There is plenty of evidence of cable sonics.

Where? Cite one such evidence that can be investigated? Claiming that there is one, is not evidence. Please cite it. Just because Jon claimes it is not evidence.Please.

It's simply a matter of whether or not you accept that evidence which in this case is provided by reasonable, intelligent people lending their experience.

Sorry, that is not evidence, especially when it is based on sighted listeing in the first place.

There is no proof that all cables sound alike in all applications.

Now you are distorting what has been stated before. No one is claiming this as there is published evidence for differences between 24 ga and 16 ga and 12 ga wire. You should know this by now so stop repeating this silly all inclusive claim.


As I read ROJ, he's merely saying that we need to be careful of what we recommend in light of the fact that there is no PROOF either way.

No, he says how we recommend.

"Where? Cite one such evidence that can be investigated? Claiming that there is one, is not evidence. Please cite it. Just because Jon claimes it is not evidence.Please."

Yes, it is indeed evidence, at least according to several of the literal definitions by Webster's. You "choose" to refer to it as not being evidence - it isn't good enough for you. I agree that it isn't sufficient evidence and needs to be explored. But it is evidence aplenty for those that perceive these differences. What it isn't is PROOF.

" There is no proof that all cables sound alike in all applications.

Now you are distorting what has been stated before. No one is claiming this as there is published evidence for differences between 24 ga and 16 ga and 12 ga wire. You should know this by now so stop repeating this silly all inclusive claim."

You are, of course, correct. But I don't intend to open each and every sentence using all the disclaimers such as guages, lengths, using music in a non-reverberant room, etc etc. I directed my post at the so-called "naysayers" who make claims of their own and who are fully aware of the issues. Sorry if I was unclear.


"As I read ROJ, he's merely saying that we need to be careful of what we recommend in light of the fact that there is no PROOF either way.

No, he says how we recommend.[/QUOTE"

Correct again. You may not recommend Home Depot wire as being better than something else or proof is required for your claim such as DBT using all known audio gear. You may claim that it is as good based on measurements. You may not claim that there is no audible differences in wire (with all the disclaimers!) without DBT proof using all wire. You may claim that science and what DBT's there have been done don't support cable sonics. The claim that all wire sounds alike unless broken or purposefully tampered with is something you are guilty of and don't be surprised if someone requests you to perform DBT for ALL wire using a "high resolution" system and that you have your results peer reviewed before making such a claim. If you are using the "proof for unsubstantiated claims" defense, be careful that you aren't snagged in your own web.

rb122
04-26-2004, 05:33 AM
I fully believe that you cannot have an objective discussion on this topic. You may accuse the same of me but I really have no interest in the final outcome of this debate one way or the other. If it turns out that the exotic cable compnaies have been right all along with their unique cable designs then I may or may not explore getting new cables for my system.

On the other hand, if it turns out that a basic cable is all you really need and no amount of handwaving will actually improve system sound, then a lot of people like you will be left scratching their heads wondering that the hell they were hearing in the first place.

Perhaps the spectre of that possibility keeps you steadfastly anchored in your belief about cable sonics, no matter what is discussed.

I remain fully open to the possiblity of cable sonics and if and when somebody shows that they actually make a difference, I will be first in line to find a scientific explanation. And ironically, this sort of investigation should lead to even better cables.

Are open to cable sonics being myth? It sure doesn't sound like it.

First of all, as the other poster said, I'm not a believer in cable sonics. I'm not a disbeliever, either. But I lean towards "extremely skeptical". Hell, I haven't even heard differences in sighted listening! I own fairly cheap cables and I may as well just keep them since they're out of favor with the current market and they work fine. All I'm requesting is a level playing field. There is no "proof" either way and I'm not going to play along as though there is. Your second to last paragraph is exactly the way things should read around here from the scientific community, not the posts that say there is no way cables can make a difference. The latter is a claim and I'll need proof of that claim, just as I would be asked to supply proof if I claimed Cable A sounded better than Cable B. That's all I'm saying.

jneutron
04-26-2004, 06:29 AM
[b]I forgot about Dr. David Rich, Bell Labs then. I have it if you want it.

Certainly. Thank you

John

pctower
04-26-2004, 06:40 AM
"Where? Cite one such evidence that can be investigated? Claiming that there is one, is not evidence. Please cite it. Just because Jon claimes it is not evidence.Please."

Yes, it is indeed evidence, at least according to several of the literal definitions by Webster's. You "choose" to refer to it as not being evidence - it isn't good enough for you. I agree that it isn't sufficient evidence and needs to be explored. But it is evidence aplenty for those that perceive these differences. What it isn't is PROOF.

" There is no proof that all cables sound alike in all applications.

Now you are distorting what has been stated before. No one is claiming this as there is published evidence for differences between 24 ga and 16 ga and 12 ga wire. You should know this by now so stop repeating this silly all inclusive claim."

You are, of course, correct. But I don't intend to open each and every sentence using all the disclaimers such as guages, lengths, using music in a non-reverberant room, etc etc. I directed my post at the so-called "naysayers" who make claims of their own and who are fully aware of the issues. Sorry if I was unclear.


"As I read ROJ, he's merely saying that we need to be careful of what we recommend in light of the fact that there is no PROOF either way.

No, he says how we recommend.[/QUOTE"

Correct again. You may not recommend Home Depot wire as being better than something else or proof is required for your claim such as DBT using all known audio gear. You may claim that it is as good based on measurements. You may not claim that there is no audible differences in wire (with all the disclaimers!) without DBT proof using all wire. You may claim that science and what DBT's there have been done don't support cable sonics. The claim that all wire sounds alike unless broken or purposefully tampered with is something you are guilty of and don't be surprised if someone requests you to perform DBT for ALL wire using a "high resolution" system and that you have your results peer reviewed before making such a claim. If you are using the "proof for unsubstantiated claims" defense, be careful that you aren't snagged in your own web.

"But I don't intend to open each and every sentence using all the disclaimers such as guages, lengths, using music in a non-reverberant room, etc etc."

Ah, but they will harpoon you everytime you don't. They use such tactics to divert attention from the fact that their goal is not to inform, but to propagate their own (not so cleverly) thinly disguised "claims". Fortunately people like you are smart enough to see through it.

Resident Loser
04-26-2004, 07:16 AM
..you should be used to all the "weasel words" as some might characterize what I see as legitimate parameters for comparison purposes...roast pork and ham come from the same animal, but they hardly taste the same...

jimHJJ(...how's the new vehicle?...)

pctower
04-26-2004, 08:54 AM
..you should be used to all the "weasel words" as some might characterize what I see as legitimate parameters for comparison purposes...roast pork and ham come from the same animal, but they hardly taste the same...

jimHJJ(...how's the new vehicle?...)

I'm guessing that if "weasel words" were outlawed, at least 99% of communication between and among humans would stop. Lawyers may have elevated the weasel to the defacto national mascot, but we certainly don't find ourselves alone in rodent section of the zoo (Bugsy, please forgive me for casting aspersions on your cousins).

Vehicle's great - it really is amazing to me how good vehicles have become from a comfort and usability standpoint. Now if we could just solve that pesky little environmental problem.

While you didn't ask, Bugsy's great also.

Monstrous Mike
04-26-2004, 08:59 AM
First of all, as the other poster said, I'm not a believer in cable sonics. I'm not a disbeliever, either. But I lean towards "extremely skeptical". Hell, I haven't even heard differences in sighted listening! I own fairly cheap cables and I may as well just keep them since they're out of favor with the current market and they work fine. All I'm requesting is a level playing field. There is no "proof" either way and I'm not going to play along as though there is. Your second to last paragraph is exactly the way things should read around here from the scientific community, not the posts that say there is no way cables can make a difference. The latter is a claim and I'll need proof of that claim, just as I would be asked to supply proof if I claimed Cable A sounded better than Cable B. That's all I'm saying.
You're right. Perhaps I have been reading too many of e-stat's post and it is clouding my view of everything.

There is no concrete evidence either way in this cable debate, however, current laws of physics and electricity point to it being unlikely that cables sonics exist, especially to the extent claimed by some people's anecdotes.

But I still stand behind my assertion that it is not up to people who do not believe in cable sonics to prove it. That would be impossible. On the other hand, it would only take a proper test with two cables, one basic, one exotic and show that they sound different. And as a bonus, a scientist could then investigate and discover the reason for the difference. That would prove the cable believers side of the arguement. This is infinitely easier than me disproving their side.

Thus, I don't believe the burden of proof is equal to both sides since the amount of work needed to disprove cable sonics greatly outweighs what could be used as evidence for cable sonics.

rb122
04-26-2004, 09:26 AM
. Lawyers may have elevated the weasel to the defacto national mascot,

Excellent!

As to your other post, I can understand them requesting the additional clarification if they feel the poster (me, in this case) isn't aware of all the qualifiers. I am. There are several - have to use music instead of pink noise, someone hear differences while sitting a couple inches from their speakers, guage of wire, etc etc etc. So I don't feel the need to mention each and every one each and every time.

I'm not a "wire guy" either but I've always appreciated your take on things audio - if it gives you pleasure and you perceive an improvement, nothing else matters with respect to your listening. I concur. But I bristle at all the demands for proof of claims from one side when claims fly on the opposite side with no proof. A level playing field, please, gentlemen, and then on with the debate.

Rockwell
04-26-2004, 01:33 PM
But I bristle at all the demands for proof of claims from one side when claims fly on the opposite side with no proof. A level playing field, please, gentlemen, and then on with the debate.

Can you be more specific on what claims have been made?

rb122
04-26-2004, 01:45 PM
Can you be more specific on what claims have been made?

Sure, as long as you don't ask me to name them with dates, etc. The biggest and most boisterous claim I've read on this site is that cables all sound alike and before I get into trouble again, add all the usual disclaimers. This claim is that people are wasting their money on cables, they are imagining things, they are foolish for believing, etc. There is no proof of this claim, just as there is no proof of cable sonics.

I'm really not concerned with cables, to be honest. But I've heard the same claim made with respect to electronics and whereas it's been demanded of me that I supply proof of what I've heard, I've seen no proof from the other side.

We can have a board where we all get together and share experiences or we can have a board where only scientific proof will suffice. Which is it going to be? It doesn't seem to work as both.

rb122
04-26-2004, 02:07 PM
You're right. Perhaps I have been reading too many of e-stat's post and it is clouding my view of everything.

There is no concrete evidence either way in this cable debate, however, current laws of physics and electricity point to it being unlikely that cables sonics exist, especially to the extent claimed by some people's anecdotes.

But I still stand behind my assertion that it is not up to people who do not believe in cable sonics to prove it. That would be impossible. On the other hand, it would only take a proper test with two cables, one basic, one exotic and show that they sound different. And as a bonus, a scientist could then investigate and discover the reason for the difference. That would prove the cable believers side of the arguement. This is infinitely easier than me disproving their side.

Thus, I don't believe the burden of proof is equal to both sides since the amount of work needed to disprove cable sonics greatly outweighs what could be used as evidence for cable sonics.

I don't disagree with your assertion. And you make a great point that if this test were performed and differences found, having the scientist then investigate might lead to even better cables. Perhaps that idea might prompt a few "yeasayers" to undergo some testing???? If better cables could be made because scientists understand what makes them better, those NBS cables might cost...oh...$1000/meter instead of $3000. Yikes!

But you have to admit that you "believe" that cable sonics don't exist - you don't "know" it. Granted, your belief is based on solid scientific knowledge but it's still a belief rather than a fact. And I think you grasp that but others apparently do not.

mtrycraft
04-26-2004, 04:13 PM
I don't disagree with your assertion. those NBS cables might cost...oh...$1000/meter instead of $3000. Yikes!

.


Or, they could be made and sold for only $.50ft at Home Depot.Since no evidence exists that HD $.30/ft cable is any different from that $1000/m cable, why would it be so difficult to marginally improve it for that $.20/ft?

Rockwell
04-26-2004, 07:22 PM
Sure, as long as you don't ask me to name them with dates, etc. The biggest and most boisterous claim I've read on this site is that cables all sound alike and before I get into trouble again, add all the usual disclaimers. This claim is that people are wasting their money on cables, they are imagining things, they are foolish for believing, etc. There is no proof of this claim, just as there is no proof of cable sonics.

I'm really not concerned with cables, to be honest. But I've heard the same claim made with respect to electronics and whereas it's been demanded of me that I supply proof of what I've heard, I've seen no proof from the other side.

We can have a board where we all get together and share experiences or we can have a board where only scientific proof will suffice. Which is it going to be? It doesn't seem to work as both.

If you can't supply specifics, then you are just generalizing and misinforming.

rb122
04-27-2004, 04:48 AM
Or, they could be made and sold for only $.50ft at Home Depot.Since no evidence exists that HD $.30/ft cable is any different from that $1000/m cable, why would it be so difficult to marginally improve it for that $.20/ft?

It probably wouldn't. But it wouldn't sell to audiophiles at $.50/ft. :)

rb122
04-27-2004, 04:50 AM
If you can't supply specifics, then you are just generalizing and misinforming.

With all due respect, I find it impossible to believe that someone who has posted 142 times on this board could have missed them! If you feel I am "generalizing and misinforming" then please don't take my word for it. Do some research on this board or simply hang around awhile longer.

Monstrous Mike
04-27-2004, 06:51 AM
If better cables could be made because scientists understand what makes them better.....
This is really one of the roots of my suspicions that cables sonics don't exist. In science and engineering, new research by scientists is applied by engineers to build new, or improve existing products or devices or systems. There is a very well known process of discovery, application, design and testing, Then these results are analysed and improvements are implemented where necessary.

Even in the commercial cable industry, these principles are followed and the best cable for a given application is used. However, none even come close to the pricing of home audio cables, even custom military cables which I am familiar with and have ordered.

In general, the home audio cable industry has not followed these principles as far as I can tell. It may be they found that people simply bought more expensive cables and they didn't need to go the usual route for product improvement. I really don't know.

But you have to understand that as an engineer myself, I can only look at the entire exotic cable industry as a bunch of witch doctors, as do all of the other engineers I know and most other engineers around here too. They may still be on to something but given the lack of information on research, testing, etc., then they are either lucky or ahead of their time.

I have investigated many areas of engineering either for the need of my job, or simply for professional curiousity. The whole audio cable industry sticks out like a sore thumb by having a complete lack of adhering to standard protocols for product or system development.

Rockwell
04-27-2004, 07:08 AM
With all due respect, I find it impossible to believe that someone who has posted 142 times on this board could have missed them! If you feel I am "generalizing and misinforming" then please don't take my word for it. Do some research on this board or simply hang around awhile longer.

I've been here for years, and and I can't deny that some or all those things have been said at one point, but you are accusing a whole group of making those statements.

Rockwell
04-27-2004, 07:19 AM
With all due respect, I find it impossible to believe that someone who has posted 142 times on this board could have missed them! If you feel I am "generalizing and misinforming" then please don't take my word for it. Do some research on this board or simply hang around awhile longer.

Saying that there is no evidence to suggest that cables* are audibly different from one another is different from saying that all cable sound alike. They may sound different, but no one has demonstated that they are.

* usual disclaimers for adequate guage etc

rb122
04-27-2004, 07:57 AM
I've been here for years, and and I can't deny that some or all those things have been said at one point, but you are accusing a whole group of making those statements.

If that's how I've come across, I will publicly apologize to those I have accused and say that it was not my intent to do so. The only group I am targeting is the group that makes claims unsupported by proof. They reside on both sides of the debate and that's my whole point.

rb122
04-27-2004, 08:05 AM
But you have to understand that as an engineer myself, I can only look at the entire exotic cable industry as a bunch of witch doctors, as do all of the other engineers I know and most other engineers around here too. .

I appreciate your stance. My only small reply would be that the designers of these exotic cables are also engineers and scientists and have a different outlook on the industry than you do. But it's probably hard to get them to explain their premises without getting into all the hype, I would imagine.

skeptic
04-27-2004, 01:00 PM
I have tried to keep an open mind about audio cables. The companies that make and sell them don't make it easy. The burden of proof is on them to show that their more expensive product is better and therefore worth the extra cost. They haven't done it. I have no doubt that the infinitely inventive mind of man can eventually design an audio cable which sounds different than other cables. And whatever that difference is, there will be at least some people who will say it is better. But different doesn't always mean better and they have the burden of proof to demonstrate that as well. It is entirely plausible that the ordinary cables we have been accostomed to using for many decades do their job so well that further audible improvement is impossible. In fact, that is what all of the scientific evidence available points to. Far from being developed in a vacuum, these products were developed over a period of a hundred years and their applications, characteristics, and requirements are well understood by both the manufacturers and professionals who have relied on them. The exotic cable industry is on the other hand targeted strictly at a consumer market which lacks the sophistication, knowledge, and often skepticism to make critical judgements as to their worth. That is the principal reason as I see it that this cottage industry has flourished as it has.

As for engineers, they are people just like everyone else and they don't always make or sell products that they belive in. They are in business to make money whether as employees or as owners of companies and not everyone has the scruples to reject involovement with products which may be fakes but at the very least harm nobody except for their bank accounts. This is not like patent medicine which might cause customers to forgo true medical treatment or cause injury. Nobody ever got hurt or died from buying exotic audio cables as far as I know.

rb122
04-27-2004, 01:31 PM
Insightful post. Thanks.

"Nobody ever got hurt or died from buying exotic audio cables as far as I know."

Well, I threatened the salesman that sold the Audioquest to me but I didn't follow through!

Monstrous Mike
04-27-2004, 03:58 PM
I appreciate your stance. My only small reply would be that the designers of these exotic cables are also engineers and scientists and have a different outlook on the industry than you do. But it's probably hard to get them to explain their premises without getting into all the hype, I would imagine.
Here's something else to chew on. Some audio cable companies have no scientists or engineers at all on staff. Entrepreneurs simply order custom cable from a cable manufacturering company like Belden, perhaps getting them to add this twist or that braid, and then cover it with a thick, colorful plastic jacket. All that is needed after that is a business man and a marketer. No need for testing.

Further, engineering has a code of ethics, much like the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take. I have a stamp that I put on any work I do as an engineer signifying I stand behind my design. I really like to see some stamps on those cable designs. But then again, if no testing documentation or research and design process dcoumentation is presented, and people still pay through the teeth, then there's nothing that can be done. We don't know if these cables were designed and tested by engineers or made up by business people who know the limits of advertising and what they can get away with.

mtrycraft
04-27-2004, 04:31 PM
But it wouldn't sell to audiophiles at $.50/ft. :)


That's the problem. Many think it must cost a lot to be considered worthy in their homes or approval by like minded folks :D

skeptic
04-27-2004, 04:39 PM
"Further, engineering has a code of ethics, much like the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take. I have a stamp that I put on any work I do as an engineer signifying I stand behind my design. "

I wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea about engineers. They run the gamut from genius to incompetent, from those with the highest ethics to pure skunks. There are many incompetent engineers with PE licenses that I've met in my life who will not only stamp anything for money, they will illegally stamp the work of other people who did not work under them. In some states, that is a crime called "planstamping" an in my state, it is punishible by a $2800 fine per offense. Each drawing stamped is another offense. It can also lead to suspension or revokation of the PE's license. It doesn't stop some people though. If you do stamp drawings I hope you have malpractice insurance for errors and omissions. In some cases, the stamping engineer is liable "in perpetuity" meaning for life, even if the company he worked for went out of business.

I don't think there is much risk or even any need to stamp drawings or specifications of audio cable. You just bid out what you want to half a dozen or a dozen manufacturers and they supply as much as you want OEM with your name and Logo on it. If it comes from someplace where quality control is poor such as many factories in the far east, you may get an inferior product. So that expensive audio cable with whats his name's brand on it may be low quality mass produced goods dressed up to look like something of value but not up to the standards of Belden or its competitors. Buyer beware.

rb122
04-28-2004, 05:05 AM
Monstrous Mike & Skeptic (and all others!)

You should check out the General Asylum for the post regarding JPS Labs. They have allegedly repackaged standard Eupen wire (complete with the model #) in a new jacket and resold it for a very handsome increase in price. Sorry I don't know how to post the link. I'm not saying it's true but it's an interesting topic in light of your recent posts on this board.

rb122
04-28-2004, 05:11 AM
That's the problem. Many think it must cost a lot to be considered worthy in their homes or approval by like minded folks :D

I had a visit from a musician friend who is also a staunch dyed-in-the-wool audiophile. He gave my cables a mild "pooh-pooh" and said I needed to upgrade them to bring them in line with the rest of my equipment. I told him the Audioquest was already overkill in terms of price and certainly no better than the equal of the cheap stuff (yeah, that's a claim. Shame on ME! :D ). He was practically beside himself with frustration and told me I'd never get the full measure of my equipment without at least $500 worth of speaker wire and $300 for interconnects.

I know you've been working on this type of problem for a long while but you have a great distance yet to travel, my brother! :)

E-Stat
04-28-2004, 05:14 AM
Sorry I don't know how to post the link. I'm not saying it's true but it's an interesting topic in light of your recent posts on this board.
Use the "a href" html command. What text follows becomes the title:

<a href="http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/92089.html">JPS Response </a href">


rw

Resident Loser
04-28-2004, 07:24 AM
...ask him if he's ever seen what wiring is used at his friendly neighborhood recording studio...typically, it's plain ol' Belden or it's equivalent...there are exceptions, but that's a whole 'nother thing!

You must spend $800 on wire? Poppycock!!! Sounds like he's parroting the party line...

jimHJJ(...one can be a musician, one can be an audiophile, one can be both...one can also be misled by their own self-importance...)

Monstrous Mike
04-28-2004, 09:32 AM
You should check out the General Asylum for the post regarding JPS Labs. They have allegedly repackaged standard Eupen wire (complete with the model #) in a new jacket and resold it for a very handsome increase in price. Sorry I don't know how to post the link. I'm not saying it's true but it's an interesting topic in light of your recent posts on this board.
Thanks for the link. I used to read that forum but some of those guys are really out there.

My personal thought on this cable debate and many other aspects of home audio is that a lot of it is related to our social self-vision. Out of the threads relating to JPS cables, the most interesting tidbit I uncovered was some work by turn-of-the-century sociologist Thornstein Veblen and his theory about "conspicuous consumption". It seems that this theory proposes that people will consume products to elevate their social status (in a very rough nutshell). As well, it also appears that among people who subscribe to this social climbing, that an increase in price triggers and increase in demand.

Here is a good link: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/VEBLEN/chap04.html

I certainly don't mean to call exotic cable lovers snobs. But, as a cable non-believer, my time at the Cable Asylum sure made me out to be a social misfit amongst the locals. I think that may even be the goal of that forum.

I think there is a perception vs. truth struggle going on. And the people with the perceptions are not embracing the search for the truth.

The cable debate would be a good graduate thesis for an electrial engineer to delve into while the atmoshpere at these forums the formuation of audio beliefs would be a good graduate thesis for a psychology student.

rb122
04-28-2004, 09:56 AM
Thanks for the link. I used to read that forum but some of those guys are really out there..

Yes, they're very much into it. I can respect that but, my gosh, I can't believe anyone would argue against cables being the absolute smallest determinant of audio sound and the depths and heights to which these folks converse and audition is both a thing of wonder and... a thing of REAL wonder!

" think there is a perception vs. truth struggle going on."

Yes with the perception side taking the perception AS truth tact. In a way, they're correct. Their perception provides them with a singular truth. Unfortunately, they're truth is someone else's BS. Isn't real truth an absolute?

Thanks for the link. As always, I appreciate the intelligent and civil manner with which you present your premises.

masstar
05-06-2004, 04:07 PM
I didn’t read this post entirely, but most of it...its real long, but I thought Id jump in just the same. I was dubious of cables for a long time. So i just bought the basics rather than use the standard wires that come in the box...just in case...but i never really 'tested" anything.

I was running tara labs prism 22s and Monster II interconnects (not particularly high end by any means) before I recently 'upgraded' and built some Canare wires based on the following DIY: Cost about $100 to replace all 11 wires in my system.

http://www.bus.ucf.edu/cwhite/theater/diycable.htm

The difference in sound is unmistakable. No chance it is "psychological". I could tell the difference between these wires and my old ones all day long, every time. Blindfold me, spin me around, get me drunk...whatever you want and ill call it within about 30 seconds. Change songs even...thats how BIG the difference was. Im not thnking, "hmmm, there seems to be a bit more detail there". Im hearing things I never heard - on albums Ive been listening to for years. My system was being held back by mediocre wires, no doubt about it...and has awoken to a new day. If you want proof just listen, its there.

Take that for whatever its worth. I have no ties to Canare or the audio industry.

mtrycraft
05-06-2004, 10:26 PM
The difference in sound is unmistakable. No chance it is "psychological". I could tell the difference between these wires and my old ones all day long, every time.

Take that for whatever its worth. I have no ties to Canare or the audio industry.

Well, you may think it unmistakeable but you have no idea until properly compared which you didn't, it appears. So, the real chance of it being psycholagical is very real and great.

Not having ties to Canare is not a guarantee of anything, especially that your brains will not trick you to imagine things.

masstar
05-07-2004, 01:23 PM
Theres simply no chance this is imagination. My evidence is having listened to countless albums on my system which has remained constant for several years...and then changing the wires and listening to those albums again. Absolutely better, not just slightly but in a major way.

Have you ever tried different wires on your system? Why are you so skeptical? Forget the scientific "proof" and give it a try...you might be supriseed...as i was. And very happy. And if not your out about $50 bucks. (bluejeanscable.com has the same wires I built for pretty cheap - Canare L-5CFB).

Im advocating functional wires, for a reasonable price...which is why i built my own. I didn't really expect to hear much if anything. What I got was a BIG suprise, there was no mistaking it.

Im not going to convince you, obviously, you'll have to try it yourself and see. But I wish you could feel as excited about your system as I am, thats why im posting, to give you that chance.

Thomas_A
05-07-2004, 03:46 PM
Theres simply no chance this is imagination. My evidence is having listened to countless albums on my system which has remained constant for several years...and then changing the wires and listening to those albums again. Absolutely better, not just slightly but in a major way.

Have you ever tried different wires on your system? Why are you so skeptical? Forget the scientific "proof" and give it a try...you might be supriseed...as i was. And very happy. And if not your out about $50 bucks. (bluejeanscable.com has the same wires I built for pretty cheap - Canare L-5CFB).

Im advocating functional wires, for a reasonable price...which is why i built my own. I didn't really expect to hear much if anything. What I got was a BIG suprise, there was no mistaking it.

Im not going to convince you, obviously, you'll have to try it yourself and see. But I wish you could feel as excited about your system as I am, thats why im posting, to give you that chance.


Why should anyone "forget scientific proofs"? Similar statement like yours, i.e. that there is "no chance of imagination" have been claimed by others, but then shown to be imagination.

T

masstar
05-07-2004, 04:19 PM
I think the reason to forget them in this case is because they seem to be holding you back from improving your system. Im actually surprised that tests have not shown these benefits to date, because they are so obvious to me.

The trouble with the "scientific" test whenever it involves a human variable is that the test can always be criticized as being flawed by the nay saying diehards. If a test shows neutral results the critics will use it as proof of their point, and if it shows positive results, they will find a flaw in the mechanics of the test. I suspect this is the continuing case where wire is concerned. What the individual is left with at the end of all of this is a choice based on his or her own experience. Something this subjective is not easily summarized by ‘science’.

Anyway, why not try it? You might be surprised...like me. Do you rely on "scientific" tests for speaker selection? Have any been performed? How do you ever decide on a pair? - You probably listen to them in the store, or maybe even your home, and make a decision....

Edit: I took out some of the text here, i was trying to be funny but I think it came off a little harsh.

Ok thats it :)

skeptic
05-07-2004, 05:02 PM
Of all the different types of audio cables there are, interconnects are the one type which YOU can easily test at home and you can even perform a double blind test within the limits of your knowledge of how to perform it and the help you will get from other people in fairly administering it. I have suggested this test many times before and every time, some cable advocate chimes in about why this test is unfair. In their view, there are no fair tests. But the diatribes of nonsense they will post notwithstanding, here it is again for the umpteenth time for those who don't know it.

Connect the cables you want to test as jumpers between the tape output and the tape monitor input of your preamplifier or the preamplifier stage of your integrated amplifier or receiver. That's the setup. Now when you switch between source and monitor, you will be switching between the cable under test and a short length (a few inches) of wire in your preamplifier. If you hear NO DIFFERENCE, the cable is doing its job perfectly. Any difference whatsoever means that the cable is not perfectly transmitting what is being fed into it. The degree of difference and the nature of the difference is the error the cable is introducing. It dosn't matter whether you like the sound through the cable any better or worse. Different is wrong.

If there is a difference in sound level, the cable will always be the softer signal because it is a passive device and it can ONLY introduce losses. If this is the case, reject it immediately out of hand. It was designed to be an audio filter to deliberately alter the sound. If you have a cd player with what some manufacturers call A-B repeat and others call 4 way repeat, you can play the same arbitrary musical passage over and over again endlessly to help you decide.

I have tried this experiment on countless occasions and have never heard any difference for any properly functioning non audiophile cable. That will satisfy ANY person who is rational that the cable is performing its function perfectly. Anybody ever get any different result? I've never heard of one. No wonder the cable proponents hate this test. It blows their entire arguement out of the water.

BTW, if you are handy with tools, you can easily build inexpensive devices to test speaker wires and power cords in exactly the same way. This is not an "AB" test. It's a test of "A" against nothing.

I will add one note. The fairness of this test depends on there not being any additional buffer amplifier stages on the tape output circuit of your preamplifier. In my experience, most don't have any. To test for this if you are not sure, try the following. Turn off your receiver. Remove the input signal of your source from one channel only. Connect one of the test cables between the left and right tape output jacks. Now turn it back on and place the monitor switch in the source mode. If there are no buffer amplifiers, the sound will be heard through both channels when the mode switch is turned to Stereo. If you hear output through only one channel in this test there IS a tape output buffer amplifier and it can theoreticaly introduce a change in the test signal going through the test cable that would invalidate the test. Of course you can still try the test and if you still get no difference, the cable proves its merit anyway. It is likely that the buffer amplifier if there is one does not degrade the signal either.

masstar
05-07-2004, 05:25 PM
I like your idea to test the cable between the tape monitors...i agree the best cables in this test will be the ones which have the least amount of change to the sound. I think the poor cables will be the ones where you "loose" the most...ill try it out.

PS, i edited my above post to say a little more about scientific tests where individuals try to hear the difference between different wires. (rather than one vs. none).

masstar
05-07-2004, 07:13 PM
I tried your test on my new wires, and my old ones...I couldn't tell the difference. Not on any of them. Wire in / wire out...immediately with the push of a button - no difference. You got me. HA! Now i feel stupid, but its important to say im wrong.

Im satisfied with my ultimte decision to go the economic route and build my own cables...in the end they probably cost me about $20 for each pair. And i still reccomend them...but im a lot less ecstatic about my new found "sound". I guess it could be that re-wiring things fixed an old bad connection...but more likely your right and I just imagined things. After reading some of my previous posts I think Ill go crawl under a rock for a while. :)

After i put a few disclaimers on my other posts :(

DMK
05-07-2004, 07:46 PM
I tried your test on my new wires, and my old ones...I couldn't tell the difference. Not on any of them. Wire in / wire out...immediately with the push of a button - no difference. You got me. HA! Now i feel stupid, but its important to say im wrong.

Im satisfied with my ultimte decision to go the economic route and build my own cables...in the end they probably cost me about $20 for each pair. And i still reccomend them...but im a lot less ecstatic about my new found "sound". I guess it could be that re-wiring things fixed an old bad connection...but more likely your right and I just imagined things. After reading some of my previous posts I think Ill go crawl under a rock for a while. :)

After i put a few disclaimers on my other posts :(

You aren't the first to be duped by the claims of cable manufacturers and other audiophiles and you won't be the last. I felt pretty stupid when I did my blind tests years ago. But better to feel foolish and wise up than to be foolish forever. The imagination is a powerful thing, no? Just be aware that not everything the scientific community says doesn't make a difference truly doesn't. Cables don't - unless you imagine them to.

masstar
05-07-2004, 08:00 PM
This post entered out of order so i moved it...

masstar
05-07-2004, 08:01 PM
Aha! I found it...im not quite so stupid after all! (well, maybe a little bit)

I decided to test ALL the previous wires I was using...cause I had a few pairs of monster 300. The first monster I tested was fine...but the other connection to the CD was obviously bad because I did hear the difference with that one. The wire is gettting old I guess and looks pretty corroded inside the end link...it might even be just one channel i cant really tell...but theres my culprit.

Thanks for helping me figure this out...what a ride!

masstar
05-07-2004, 08:06 PM
ya i was so suprised that wire had any difference...i never thought it would. it wasnt really all that bad but I should have realized it was more than just wire for the differences I was hearing. Im glad i did your test because I was on the track to being a real believer! whew.

masstar
05-07-2004, 08:21 PM
You know what, when I was doing the tests and I was 'trying" to hear differences, i could for a minute, and then Id do it again and I woudnt...then id switch back and forth real quick a few times so i wouldnt remember which souce i was on, and i wasnt so sure...i guess thats evidence of imagination at work :)

WmAx
05-07-2004, 09:55 PM
sure...i guess thats evidence of imagination at work :)Human perception is an interesting subject, in itself. Funny how we are fooled into believing some things are true, that indeed are not.

Here is a fun example of a visual perception that is false:

http://www.pbase.com/image/28677782/original.jpg

The complex variables, summed, create this illusion. Take the image into a photo editing application and measure the values of A and B. They are the same. Move a crop of A to B or vice versa, and see hw they seemlessly match when viewed against each other directly.

I introduce this example, because in a way relates to audiatory perception. The brain expects certain results, due to complex set(s) of variables, that of which, we may not be consciously aware. Such things can and have lead to false differences identified in wires, for example(see Dunlavy trickery examples). However, remove the variable(s) that are being processed by the brain, that allow differentation/bias, and the results can be very different. Analogous to the image above, if you take the A and B square into an image editor and move them directly next to each other, it is then apparent they are not different. In audio, I propose that you take two equivalently measured cables, but with different appearance/name/etc. and listen to them in uncontrolled conditinos, and they may sound different. Use the two same units and perform a comparitive test that removes all variables except actual sound, such as an ABX or double-blind test, and I wager that the results will be null(no differiantation possible).

But, that's not the end of the story, unfortunately. Whether the result is 'real' or 'not' does not matter if a reliable end-product can be created using this 'trickery'. The image example should consistely appear as a shadow, even though the A and B are the same actual values. I propose that if the combination of brand name, model name, color, conductor name, etc. has an effect on perception that can not be replicated without these things, then the end effect is the same, perceptually, as if the sound really was different, at least for some people IMO. IN such case, would these factors justify purchase? Of course, the visual illusion is probably far more reliable in it's perceptual effects then wire. But as I stated, "at least for some people", it may be very important for their perceptions.

-Chris