Golden Ears Fail Again

[RGA]

Bingo!

I've not seen any proof in EITHER direction on the cable sonics issue. It would be interesting to compare two cables that sound very different from one another... which would likely be two on the far opposite sides of neutral and see if DBT is worth anything. I might try that myself. I wish I would have tried on on a couple of CDP's when I had the chance! There is one that sounded so smooth that it had to have been altered to make it that way. It was made by a famous British turntable/arm manufacturer and it came out late in the CD era. It was a POS, as far as I was concerned. I think they wanted it to sound analog-like and it just came out boring.

I have done exactly one serious audition of speaker cable in my life and that was between dirt cheap cable and a $100.00 set of MITs and that was about 8 years ago. Admittedly it was sighted but the MIT was terrible it rolled off the highs nad flabbed up the bass as if it was trying to be some sort of tube amp - sorta like the dimwits who say you can convert a SS amp with a resistor or some such nonsense which I also heard and it must only mean the worst Tube amps known to man not any of the ones known to me.

It is silly to remotely even consider that cables sound the same based off of DBT's - A=B cannot even be postulized let alone proven in a DBT and that is what is alluded to. What you have is some statistics. And event he statistics are used BADLY by these CONES who conduct the tests. Consider that to achieve the .05 statistical significance to claim that one did not arrive at the results due to chance a score of 9/10 would be required. This low number of trials however has problems with reliability - it has none and neither does 16(this is simply an arbuitrary number some hack dreamt up for zero reason except that he/she was lazy). Why would i say that - well because A) this kind of testing is unreliable 2)becuase we're dealing with the brain and psychology - arguably a softer science so MANY trials are usually required to be SURE of what it is you're attempting to resolve is indeed remotely reliable valid and credible. Statistical significance none of the DBT supporters will EVER tell you also means that you should not chuck out the guy who socres 6/10. Indeed, if you score 6/10 or better ten times in a row with one misfire for a total of 59/100 correct calls on which is a and which is b then you get the same .05 statistical significance (ie; the same as scoring 9/10) - the difference of course with 100 trials is that you have a far greater number of trials and are more credible. Expecially with music - something in which is difficult to assess out of a blind test let alone in one.

But of course they dismiss every issue because it requires more work - lazy science, relying on the DBT to actually PROVE somethig is laughable. But then there is no pont in really telling them - they ignore it - they can't argue it becuase it's in every first year psych text and most basic stats books I've seen. None of them even know what the concept of Validity is - they can show great reliability that people fail these tests - but reliability is no good without validity and they don't have that. Furthermore if you chuck out all the bad DBT's ie run by the likes of the sensible sound and all other hack attempts I don;t think they even have much relibility. DBT's were made for the drug industry. And they certainly have an interest value in audio because the nut job audiophile who claims he can hear the difference between copper cable a and b 100% of the time because he has the best ear in the world will be quickly shown that no he isn't that good after all - but then that is something slightly different than what the DBT supporter will then conclude. That there are no differences? If you're on the ball you'll see the subtle leaps and bounds from what was actually tested and what people conclude.

[RGA]

Your post is really good, and a flashback to some Psych courses in my University days...the only problem I have with this argument is that the brain is also under similar distresses when doing "sighted tests" in the comfort of your own home when undertaking any test of a sensory nature...not to mention the impact mood, fatigue, etc have on your senses and perception. There exists the fact that much of this mental behaviour the brain undertakes is a constant in blind and sighted testings, and therefore can be discarded as irrelevant to the results.

But your arguments of "what is truth" hold. I think it's safe to say that we are not necessarily testing just for truth in DBT's though...and that we can learn more than "truth" from the results. We are also testing the consistency in observations...if we don't even have that consistency (as DBT's immaculately suggest), we can't begin to use logic, science, philosophy, or even testament to speculate what a truth might be about a cable, CD player, or anything else...if nothing else, this raises considerable doubt about claims of sonic differences, and sways the debate in that direction.
This puts the onus on the manufacturers ( a cop out argument too often, but in this case relevant I think) to provide us with some sort of argument to support their claims. What research do they have? Do they have consistent results? If not should we buy something that might work some of time?

I suspect (but can't prove) that cables do in fact contribute at least something to the sound quality...it may not be detectable by the human ear, or possible to prove, but it would be premature to write-off a possibility simply because the testing methods to date haven't confirmed this. But until something comes along to end the debate definitively I'll continue to invest money into more tangible and cost-effective methods of improving my system.

OT: How do legally blind people fair in these DBT's??

Kex you forget though that when sighted you are not in a test environment - there is a fundamental shift when we put the testing hat on as to when we are simply listening to two sets of amps and or speakers etc. BTW I'm not supporting the existance of differences either - this is a common attack I get from DBT supporters. I am not saying DBT's are useless or that they should not be used or thatI'm going to buy every sighted audition because it is obvious that there exists a sight bias - but to think DBT's are the sole answer is a HUGE error - and in some ways has it's own ADDED problems that sighted listening does no have which is a testing environment. (In several fields tests can get people to do things they NEER would normally do which 1st year psych courses also show when situational variables are brought in. There are expectations biases in blind tests - "You will be given two sets of cd players to listen to chose either A or B to select which is best" if you play the EXACT same cd player and selection of song the person WILL make a selection - we are creatures of solving problems - even when they do not exist - just as one forms an image when stairing at clouds or attempting to solve optical illusions. Hearing is no different. Amazingly this kind of "trick" is used by some to support DBTs that we can't tell the difference.

The simple truth is that anything can be deliberately made to sound different - it is A) in the best interest of the manufacturer to do this B) not difficult.
There was a tst several years back where a cheapie Pioneer receiver was indistinguishable from very expensive separates. Pioneer, if DBT's were worth anything in this industry, could have come out with HUGE ad campaigns on the back ogf that test and said:

"Here at Pioneer we have a rvolutionary amplifier that for a mere $199.00 sounds in scientific testing no different than the best separates in the world - yes that is right we have a revolutionary amplifier and managed to do what Bryston and Krell err Tanberg do but at 5 figure prices. Plus you get a tuner and surround sound in our unit PLUS remote control. All you need is a speaker that doesn;t dip under 3 ohms and is 87db or better and there is no difference."

Of course Pioneer would not do this - not because they hoped to sell their expensive stuff - they had none - and this kind of advertising would have been bigger gold - the reason is that the so called tests would never stand up to real scrutiny because a DBT cannot EVER prove that componant A sounds the same as componant B. What people can do well that is something else - and too many variables to get at real truth - just some statistical evidence of low trial numbers in a testing environment and nothing at all like a normal listening sessions. It don't take a degree in psych or anyhting else to see the problems here.

Now if one wants to make the case that a DBT is BETTER than a sighted test - well now that is something else and I don't have any problem in the world if someone wants to make that case - becuase there is good reason to make the case - just don't blindly(as it were) ignore the problems with that which you support.

[theaudiohobby]

some very respected reviewers and engineers hear diffs, so even if only a diff is what is heard reliably, then there are real diffs. i havent participated in listening tests of these cords either sighted OR blind but my mind is open to the possibility.

hifitommy, now that is a very reasonable and respectable position, I liken the current situation to the turn of the century, when most ridiculed the idea of assisted flight. Many laughed, some charlattans were also on the scene, but the day the Wright brothers took off in their aircraft and landed safely ( a few had taken off in the past but not landed successfully ),the rest was history. The issue of power cables is different, but all that is necessary is a credible repeatable test that can demonstrate differences, once we reach that point, then we can start looking for the why. i.e.

Does it and then why does it?

Of course, this does not stop anybody who has reasonably convinced themselves that there are quantifiable differences to use such products and enjoy their benefits, whilst the sceptics sit back and wait for common knowledge to catch up.

[theaudiohobby]

I guess neither he nor I has a scientific proof fetish. I buy audio components to enjoy music, not impress people. That's it.

rw

E-Stat,

there is problem with this position, the placebo effect, Many of those who make these controversial claims in the high-end industry shy away from any tests that attempt to address the placebo effect without providing any reasonable alternatives. Medical research has proven time and time again that many folks quite happily go through life ascribing imagined benefits to various placebos. For many audio claims to have reasonable credibility, more must be done to address the placebo effect issue. If Nordost, Kimber or whoever could provide a credible test that effectively accounted for the placebo effect and yet demonstrate the advertised benefits of their products, we will have solid progress.

[kexodusc]

RGA, I guess I didn't make myself a bit more clear...I agree with just about everything you say with the exception of what you qualify as a test. Quite simply ANY time you compare items you are testing...formally or informally, the brain undertakes similar functions, if not the exact same...there are added stresses, processes, etc, in a DBT to be sure, I'm just holding the position that so much of this becomes a constant between home evaluation (where the original claim of differences is made) and a DBT (where prove is sought)...the rest becomes extremeties. In a small sample, sure they could be significant, but over the huge sample of DBT's over the last 30 years, you have to wonder WHY this small difference in environment absolutely always skews results...this is where consistency becomes important.
I can safely say that even if cables DO make a difference, it is small, subtle, and incredibly inconsistent on WHEN it is heard at best.
That hasn't stopped me from buying better electronics yet...but I tend to look for more "middle-of-the-road" stuff than Cadillac gear.

That being said, DBT's to verify results based on the 2nd sloppiest of human senses, are not the answer by themselves.

[E-Stat]

E-Stat, there is problem with this position, the placebo effect.

If the comparison is between one inexpensive wire and a more expensive wire and the participant is aware of said, then I would agree with you. The problem with the naysayer mantra is that the underlying assumption is that we who hear differences always choose them directly proportional to their cost. We don't.

Why then do countless reviewers and audiophiles note audible differences among similarly priced cables in their systems? They're just different cables with no inherent reason for either one to be superior. Clearly, there is no placebo working here.

rw

[markw]

The problem with the naysayer mantra is that the underlying assumption is that we who hear differences always choose them directly proportional to their cost. We don't.

Nowhere is it implied that cost will affect what is percieved. It's simply the knowledge that you're listening to one item as opposed to another that is enough to skew an opinion.

I learned this with my "simple "single blind test years ago but somehow this was never accepted here.

I will say, though that people will go to great lengths to justify paying a high price for an item and listening w/o knowledge of what's being listened to is a good way to see if the rewards justify the outlay.

[musicoverall]

some very respected reviewers and engineers hear diffs, so even if only a diff is what is heard reliably, then there are real diffs. i havent participated in listening tests of these cords either sighted OR blind but my mind is open to the possibility.

...and some of these engineers, as is the case with E-Stat's example, are designers of the very products that many audiophiles replace the power cords on. Hmmm... terrible grammar on my part!

I actually auditioned 2 aftermarket power cords and did not hear a difference between them and the stock cords that came with my amp and preamp. I may try it again as I've upgraded components since then. I'm keeping an open mind as well... to BOTH possibilities.

[musicoverall]

If the comparison is between one inexpensive wire and a more expensive wire and the participant is aware of said, then I would agree with you. The problem with the naysayer mantra is that the underlying assumption is that we who hear differences always choose them directly proportional to their cost. We don't.

Why then do countless reviewers and audiophiles note audible differences among similarly priced cables in their systems? They're just different cables with no inherent reason for either one to be superior. Clearly, there is no placebo working here.

rw

I think I've run the gamut with wire auditioning and the outcomes. I've heard less expensive cable that sounded better than more expensive, certainly vice versa, I've heard no differences between cables of grossly differing costs, I've heard major differences between cables that cost roughly the same, AND the cables I just purchased are about the least attractive I've ever seen. They, unfortunately for my sense of sight, sounded the best at the price point I was seeking. They sounded better than cables costing 3 times their cost... but, also unfortunately, not as good as the Valhalla... (heavy sigh).

[musicoverall]

I have done exactly one serious audition of speaker cable in my life and that was between dirt cheap cable and a $100.00 set of MITs and that was about 8 years ago. Admittedly it was sighted but the MIT was terrible it rolled off the highs nad flabbed up the bass as if it was trying to be some sort of tube amp - sorta like the dimwits who say you can convert a SS amp with a resistor or some such nonsense which I also heard and it must only mean the worst Tube amps known to man not any of the ones known to me..

I had exactly the same experience with MIT. I can't recall which model but I remember thinking that they must have designed them to cope with the glare of digital music. I quickly decided that digital's glare was less offensive than the sound of those cables.

Thanks for the info on blind testing. It certainly seems to lend some credence to the theory that people can conclude whatever they like from testing and that tests can be designed so that the desired outcome is achieved.

[E-Stat]

I will say, though that people will go to great lengths to justify paying a high price for an item and listening w/o knowledge of what's being listened to is a good way to see if the rewards justify the outlay.

How about the converse? Let's see if I can make this story short. A couple of years ago, I bought a new CD player to replace a Pioneer unit I've used for about ten years. I decided to use it as the basis of an office system. I already had my trusty '81 Threshold Stasis amp so I purchased some Polk speakers at CC. Next I contemplated a preamp. I was thinking of finding a Dyna PAS-3 for about $100. It was about that time that I read about DIY passive preamps. Which really aren't preamps at all. They're just passive attenuators in a box. So with a little help from a guy at another audio forum, I went to Radio Shack and bought $15 worth of parts and cobbled together this:



Actually, I'm fibbing a little bit about the total cost as the knobs I used were left over from a black faceplate purchase for my ARC preamp. Each knob costs what the entire project cost ! Anyway, I tried it out in my new office system and found it worked fine. Indeed, the gain of the CD was such that while I couldn't fully drive the amp, it would still play at more than adequate levels in the office. Here is where it gets interesting. Just for grins, I took it downstairs and put it on the main system. Here I was comparing my homely $15 unit to a $2500 Audio Research SP-9 MKIII.



It would really be no contest, right? The ARC preamp should easily outperform my cheapo passive. I confess I was very surprised at the results. The passive was clearer and offered a wider image than the preamp. Because the GamuT has a very low impedance / high gain output (75 ohms/4 volt) , it could fully drive the amps through the attenuators so there were no compromises with level. Later, I built another unit with better parts and use that with the CD player today. I use the preamp solely with my vinyl source.

Summary-the results of my sighted comparison was completely opposite from what I expected. How could an Audio Research preamp be bettered by a homemade POS unit that costs the same as one of it's knobs? Are you kidding? I no longer assume anything.

rw

[markw]

How could an Audio Research preamp be bettered by a homemade POS unit that costs the same as one of it's knobs? Are you kidding?

Well, in audio it's always been assumed (and rightly so) that the less there is in the signal path, the better off you are. Since your source had more than enough output to drive your mains, aattenuation was all you needed. Anything else was superfulous (sp) and merely added it's signature into the chain..

Nice attenuator, btw. I like it. Ever think of trying those $500 wooden knobs everyone in AA is chortling about?

http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Me...roduct_Count=2

[E-Stat]

Nice attenuator, btw. I line it.

Thanks. It has since undergone some changes due to leftover parts from the second model and now feeds my vintage garage system. Inadvertently, I purchased twice as many Cardas RCA jacks as I needed, so I later put them in this unit. Also, I got a meter of JPS Labs wire for free and rewired both units with it. Here's my favorite passive design by Steve Eddy (who helped me with wiring mine - which is why I dubbed them the SE-1 and SE-2).

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...dy&r=&session=

Ever think of trying those $500 wooden knobs everyone in AA is chortling about?

Don't think so.

I did spend some "extra" money on the finish of the second unit with it's nicer anodized aluminum case from Para-Metals and more leftover ARC knobs. More importantly, it uses DACT precision stepped attenuators, silver solder, Cardas connectors, and some of that free JPS Labs alumalloy wire.





BTW, the sealed baggie of sand is there to ballast the unit as my ultra stiff cables tend to stand it up.

rw

[Geoffcin]

How about the converse? Let's see if I can make this story short. A couple of years ago, I bought a new CD player to replace a Pioneer unit I've used for about ten years. I decided to use it as the basis of an office system. I already had my trusty '81 Threshold Stasis amp so I purchased some Polk speakers at CC. Next I contemplated a preamp. I was thinking of finding a Dyna PAS-3 for about $100. It was about that time that I read about DIY passive preamps. Which really aren't preamps at all. They're just passive attenuators in a box. So with a little help from a guy at another audio forum, I went to Radio Shack and bought $15 worth of parts and cobbled together this:

Actually, I'm fibbing a little bit about the total cost as the knobs I used were left over from a black faceplate purchase for my ARC preamp. Each knob costs what the entire project cost ! Anyway, I tried it out in my new office system and found it worked fine. Indeed, the gain of the CD was such that while I couldn't fully drive the amp, it would still play at more than adequate levels in the office. Here is where it gets interesting. Just for grins, I took it downstairs and put it on the main system. Here I was comparing my homely $15 unit to a $2500 Audio Research SP-9 MKIII.



It would really be no contest, right? The ARC preamp should easily outperform my cheapo passive. I confess I was very surprised at the results. The passive was clearer and offered a wider image than the preamp. Because the GamuT has a very low impedance / high gain output (75 ohms/4 volt) , it could fully drive the amps through the attenuators so there were no compromises with level. Later, I built another unit with better parts and use that with the CD player today. I use the preamp solely with my vinyl source.

Summary-the results of my sighted comparison was completely opposite from what I expected. How could an Audio Research preamp be bettered by a homemade POS unit that costs the same as one of it's knobs? Are you kidding? I no longer assume anything.

rw

I've found a similar story with my preamp. I use a vintage PS Audio IV preamp that was designed to work both driven, and fully passive. I've compared it to some pretty expensive preamps from Classe; DR-6(SS), and Audio Research; LS-25, and I've found that I like the passive pre the best. I've bought, used, and sold a lot of audio gear in my time but I am keeping my passive pre!

[markw]

The term "passive", implies, in this sense, no noise generating powerd circuits but the term "preamp" implies gain, which is impossible to obtain without power.

Now, if the terms used were along the lines of"passive attenuator/switching device" or some such then it would make sense.

[magictooth]

It is silly to remotely even consider that cables sound the same based off of DBT's - A=B cannot even be postulized let alone proven in a DBT and that is what is alluded to. What you have is some statistics. And event he statistics are used BADLY by these CONES who conduct the tests. Consider that to achieve the .05 statistical significance to claim that one did not arrive at the results due to chance a score of 9/10 would be required. This low number of trials however has problems with reliability - it has none and neither does 16(this is simply an arbuitrary number some hack dreamt up for zero reason except that he/she was lazy). Why would i say that - well because A) this kind of testing is unreliable 2)becuase we're dealing with the brain and psychology - arguably a softer science so MANY trials are usually required to be SURE of what it is you're attempting to resolve is indeed remotely reliable valid and credible. Statistical significance none of the DBT supporters will EVER tell you also means that you should not chuck out the guy who socres 6/10. Indeed, if you score 6/10 or better ten times in a row with one misfire for a total of 59/100 correct calls on which is a and which is b then you get the same .05 statistical significance (ie; the same as scoring 9/10) - the difference of course with 100 trials is that you have a far greater number of trials and are more credible. Expecially with music - something in which is difficult to assess out of a blind test let alone in one.

But of course they dismiss every issue because it requires more work - lazy science, relying on the DBT to actually PROVE somethig is laughable. But then there is no pont in really telling them - they ignore it - they can't argue it becuase it's in every first year psych text and most basic stats books I've seen. None of them even know what the concept of Validity is - they can show great reliability that people fail these tests - but reliability is no good without validity and they don't have that. Furthermore if you chuck out all the bad DBT's ie run by the likes of the sensible sound and all other hack attempts I don;t think they even have much relibility. DBT's were made for the drug industry. And they certainly have an interest value in audio because the nut job audiophile who claims he can hear the difference between copper cable a and b 100% of the time because he has the best ear1 in the world will be quickly shown that no he isn't that good after all - but then that is something slightly different than what the DBT supporter will then conclude. That there are no differences? If you're on the ball you'll see the subtle leaps and bounds from what was actually tested and what people conclude.

There are some huge holes in your argument here. First you say that people haven't been able to score very well on blind testing of cables. Later you say that the sample size is too small for reliability. However, if you do the math, if NOBODY has ever done well on a blind test, that says something. If you sum up all the blind tests that were performed in the past, then you get a more accurate picture of the situation.

I wrote before, that for human studies, it is the large scale studies (say 50,000+ people/trials) that will give you the most meaningful interpretations. Sure if you look at isolated cases of 25 trials here, or 16 there, there isn't much reliability. You add up all those cases done over time, and you'll get a more accurate picture. How many have been done over time? 1,000,000 individual trials? More? I wouldn't be surprised if it were more. What are the results then? We have a convergence to 50% over time. This is the point of blind testing. This is why sighted testing is not meaningful.

[magictooth]

If the comparison is between one inexpensive wire and a more expensive wire and the participant is aware of said, then I would agree with you. The problem with the naysayer mantra is that the underlying assumption is that we who hear differences always choose them directly proportional to their cost. We don't.

Why then do countless reviewers and audiophiles note audible differences among similarly priced cables in their systems? They're just different cables with no inherent reason for either one to be superior. Clearly, there is no placebo working here.

rw

This is incorrect. The naysayer mantra is not an assumption based on cost, but rather the fact that you KNOW what you are listening to in advance. It just happens that the most common determining factor is cost.

[Monstrous Mike]

Let's start with a quote from Charles Barkley which he made in response to Jemaine O'Neil who claimed himself the top forward in the NBA: "I can claim that I am thin but that doesn't mean that I am".

The fundamental point of the original link was that we have to be careful drawing conclusions from our observations. The reference to Copernicus was pertinent because it involved the basic observation of how the earth moves in our solar system. It was obvious to everyone who looked at the sky that everything revolved around the earth. But Copernicus dug a lot further and found inconsistencies which indicated other things were happening.

However, the concept of a centric earth was so ingrained in society that Copernicus was not taken seriously and even imprisoned for blasphemy. The same thing happens today in audio and in life in general. However, audio is a good, benign laboratory experience to learn about how we form opinion and beliefs about other aspects of our lives.

So like the people of the Copernicus era who trusted their eyes, trusting your ears in audio is not enough to make something true. And like a centric earth, audio cabling differences are not supported by science, they are not supported by testing, and now another test (regardless of how your assess its validity or accuracy) has pointed to no differences.

It seems that more this is discussed, the stronger some people cling to their trust of their senses and observations and those of others who have like beliefs. It's amazing to see how any contrary arguement, test, fact, or opinion is marginalized or outright dismissed.

I really mainly stick around places like this because that type of behaviour intrigues me.

[Woochifer]

I have done exactly one serious audition of speaker cable in my life and that was between dirt cheap cable and a $100.00 set of MITs and that was about 8 years ago. Admittedly it was sighted but the MIT was terrible it rolled off the highs nad flabbed up the bass as if it was trying to be some sort of tube amp - sorta like the dimwits who say you can convert a SS amp with a resistor or some such nonsense which I also heard and it must only mean the worst Tube amps known to man not any of the ones known to me.

Amazing, all this verbiage that you devote to attacking the concept of blind testing and you've yet to participate in such a test yourself! So, I guess that your ONE sighted listening is more valid than any other test out there that has come up with inconclusive results. Rolled off highs and flabbed up bass just from a cable? If it's that obvious, it should be easy enough to measure the effect ... well, unless you don't believe in those either.

I would really suggest that you try a blind test sometime. It might actually lend some much needed perspective to these exaggerations and nonsensical off-topic speculation about tubes and "dimwits" who convert SS amps. Or does the prospect of shaking your ironclad belief that your ears alone are enough to prove everything related to audio scare you enough to avoid blind tests altogether?

[Woochifer]

Let's start with a quote from Charles Barkley which he made in response to Jemaine O'Neil who claimed himself the top forward in the NBA: "I can claim that I am thin but that doesn't mean that I am".

Oh Chuckster, what a great modern day philosopher!

It seems that more this is discussed, the stronger some people cling to their trust of their senses and observations and those of others who have like beliefs. It's amazing to see how any contrary arguement, test, fact, or opinion is marginalized or outright dismissed.

I really mainly stick around places like this because that type of behaviour intrigues me.

It amazes me that cables get discussed with almost religious fervor because it's much ado about not a whole lot. I mean, let's go back to the beginning of the thread. This article discussed differences between power cords. Yes, FREAKING POWER CORDS! No discussion about the wiring inside the house, nothing about the power delivery from the generating facility or how it travels across miles of overhead wiring, etc.

I think when discussing cables, the point should be that even if you can hear differences between cables, who the **** cares? The differences are so minute, so subtle, so insignificant that it's absolutely laughable to invest thousands of dollars on things like power cords when you got so many other parts of the system that can make a far bigger step up in sound quality for less investment.

And when we talk about blind testing, the loudest voices complaining about the methodology seem to be the very same people who've never actually done a blind test before. It's almost like they don't want to find out whether their ears are as reliable as they've built them up to be. I've done them before, and the only "night and day" difference that I've seen is how much the magnitude of difference that I thought I detected under sighted conditions narrows when the comparison is done under blind conditions.

[musicoverall]

It amazes me that cables get discussed with almost religious fervor because it's much ado about not a whole lot.

It amazes me, too. I can't imagine people spending so much time discussing a topic that they themselves say is not only insignificant, but that doesn't exist! If cables didn't sound different, I wouldn't waste my time talking about them. I do agree that cables are the absolute last item that should get upgraded and that they have the least amount of effect on the overall sound. The significance of that effect shouldn't be ignored, however, simply because it's small. Some of us like to maximize our systems potential and we've already taken care of the rest of the components.

[hifitommy]

they bark around about things they dont understand and then expect the 'good boy' rewards. they may actually be jealous that they arent making money on this seeming windfall to manufacturers.

word to the watchdogs-DON'T save me from the dangerous wires. i may want to taste them for myself. or not. but when and IF i ever can afford $20k speakers, amps, preamps, TTs, carts, and digital players, i will NOT be goiong to home despot for wires!

and no, i dont believe that wire can magically elevate a mediocre system to nirvanaland.

[magictooth]

they bark around about things they dont understand and then expect the 'good boy' rewards. they may actually be jealous that they arent making money on this seeming windfall to manufacturers.

word to the watchdogs-DON'T save me from the dangerous wires. i may want to taste them for myself. or not. but when and IF i ever can afford $20k speakers, amps, preamps, TTs, carts, and digital players, i will NOT be goiong to home despot for wires!

and no, i dont believe that wire can magically elevate a mediocre system to nirvanaland.

LOL, watchdoggie effect. I have one for believers in sighted testing: lapdoggie effect. The people who believe in sighted testing over blind testing are the happy little dogs in the laps of the audio industry. They happily wag their tails and lick the boots of whatever grand and important audio personage they want to believe in.

I am certainly not jealous of those who are making money hand over foot in the cable industry. It's just like I'm not jealous of the shysters, fraudsters, and thieves who lie, cheat, and steal to make a great living.

A word to the lapdogs - the watchdogs will be out there whenever you are trying to poison some innocent newbie's mind about sighted testing.

[FLZapped]

If the comparison is between one inexpensive wire and a more expensive wire and the participant is aware of said, then I would agree with you. The problem with the naysayer mantra is that the underlying assumption is that we who hear differences always choose them directly proportional to their cost. We don't.


rw

It is the audiophile community who equates expense with performance, not the scientific community. Just following your lead. -Bruce

[FLZapped]

they bark around about things they dont understand and then expect the 'good boy' rewards. they may actually be jealous that they arent making money on this seeming windfall to manufacturers.

Oh Mr. Open Mind. Praytell, what don't we understand?

word to the watchdogs-DON'T save me from the dangerous wires. i may want to taste them for myself. or not. but when and IF i ever can afford $20k speakers, amps, preamps, TTs, carts, and digital players, i will NOT be goiong to home despot for wires!

and no, i dont believe that wire can magically elevate a mediocre system to nirvanaland.

Apparently you do("Home Despot"). Be that as it may, I don't see you complaining when some watchdog group puts the kabosh on a dangerous drug, or product that would harm a child.

hmmmmmm.......double standard?

-Bruce