hermanv - regarding: "Speaker cable blind listening tests"

[Feanor]

Not usually the case for me. When someone swaps a cable in my presence, they all immediately applaud the change while I'm sitting there in a fog until I have a chance to focus better.

Ahhh... I think we've found the culprit! It's not the test, it's my attention/focus!

I did notice that the differences I found sighted were the same ones I found blind but during the blind tests, the differences were much closer to negligible.

Many supposed changes are inaudible to me; also, some I can just barely hear are irrelevant. This just isn't in the true, audiophile spirit. To the true audiophile all system changes make a difference, and all differences are significant. (These differences may be real or imagined, but that doesn't matter.)

But I can't be too judgemental. My hearing doesn't go beyond 10-11 kHz so others might hear what I do not.

[musicoverall]

Many supposed changes are inaudible to me; also, some I can just barely hear are irrelevant. This just isn't in the true, audiophile spirit. To the true audiophile all system changes make a difference, and all differences are significant. (These differences may be real or imagined, but that doesn't matter.)

But I can't be too judgemental. My hearing doesn't go beyond 10-11 kHz so others might hear what I do not.

No problem there. No one can possibly say what is or isn't audible for someone else, try as they might.

I've found even the significant differences need to be judged as to value. Some people have no problem spending $2000 for a very minor improvement (a significant change might also be minor in the overall context). That's ok with me but I prefer to spend the bulk of my disposable income on music.

[PeruvianSkies]

Great arguments indeed, but I think there is one thing that is being overlooked from both sides...tolerance.

1. Why do people who don't believe that there is a difference in cables care what other people do with their money and with their cables?

2. Why do people who know that they hear a difference in cables care what those who don't hear a difference think?

I have come to my own conclusions on cables and the bottom line for me is that they do make a difference, however, I have to point out a few things first...

Cables do not 'sound' a certain way, rather they 'allow' for either more, less, or neutral influence on the signal. What I mean is that a really good cable should only do 1 thing: accurately carry the signal successfully and with precision timing to the speaker or between components. If a cable is 'doing' anything to the signal other than that, as in ...manipulation, than it's not a good cable.

So good cables are more revealing of the original source...question is...how do we know? Well, that is where it takes a good ear and one that is knowledgeable on what a recording should sound like. This is an artform, a craft, a skill, something that takes time to train, just like tuning an instrument by ear. People with perfect-pitch (like myself) can hear a certain note and know what that note is and can tune an instrument or pick out a passage and identify the notes being played, this is through training and long-term listening.

[musicoverall]

I'd have to speculate on question #1 and, although I have ideas, I probably shouldn't post them.

As for question #2, I absolutely do not care what those who can't hear differences think. My concern is that a newbie might read them and decide not to try cables for themselves, thereby denying themselves a real improvement in the sound of recorded music in the home. Certainly people should have a healthy skepticism but the emphasis is on "healthy". The fact is that until you try some different cables - and pay attention! - you don't know if you can or can't hear the differences. If you can't, no problem.

Totally agree with your assessment on cables. They are not tone controls. The best ones I've heard simply allow the music to pass with the least amount of additives or deletions. I've heard very expensive cables that I thought were garbage, and not even as good as common zipcord. But those same cables inserted into a very expensive but "multi-colored" system improved the sound. Best to work with as neutral a system as you can get. When that is achieved, lousy cable makes its presence felt (heard) pretty clearly over long term listening in particular.

[hermanv]

I'm kind of impressed. I had not visited this forum for a while, too many entrenched positions, little real discussion. But in this thread there are some thoughtful responses and a noticable lack of name calling. Wow!

I continue to improve my system and listening room slowly; 1. because it's hard and 2. because I have limited financial resources. As my system improves the whole cable and wire thing seems to become more and more important. Before I was a dedicated WireWorld fan, but now I hear limitations in their product. I woud truly love to audition the insanely priced cables but I'm terrified that they might be better and common sense leads me to suspect that spending more for a cable than for a piece of equipment is sort of crazy.

Currently I'm running Cardas Golden Presence for interconnects and home made speaker cables: Cardas 9.5 AWG copper Litz for woofer and Cardas 5 nines silver (8 conductors 23 AWG each with Teflon sleeving) for mid/tweet with Cardas Rhodium lugs. I've gone to the Rhodium lugs because I found that contact cleaner really helped the sound and that the cheaper lugs needed a refresher treatment about every 60 days whereas the Rhodium stays clean closer to 6 months.

[fresh954]

Do you think you would pass a DBT when comparing regular DVD video to Blu ray quality video? It would only take me seconds to determine which one was the higher quality source.....Someone mentioned having "setup time to familiarize yourself with the sounds" hmmm....i dont buy it

[hermanv]

Do you think you would pass a DBT when comparing regular DVD video to Blu ray quality video? It would only take me seconds to determine which one was the higher quality source.....Someone mentioned having "setup time to familiarize yourself with the sounds" hmmm....i dont buy it

I don't think the analogy is valid. With a TV image there are many things visible at once on different parts of the screen. Dark to light transistions both vertical and horizontal. Perhaps you might notice noise, but only in the black areas. In short thousands of information points are all visible all at once. While certain parts of an image may move, others are stable for seconds at a time, providing ample opportunity for close examination.

With audio there is level and time. You have to wait for a transient, you have to wait for a wood bodied instrument to hear harmonic overtones or the decay of notes. Wait for silent intervals or peak levels. These things take time and are of musical necessity short lived, maybe you don't notice the issue the first time. For me the more subtle differences often take several recordings to reveal themselves.

Like you I can spot the superior picture on a TV set almost instantly, with other than gross effects, I can't do this for audio.

[Mash]

because, unless you are blind, you are seeing objects 'similar to' what you will see on a TV every day, i.e. you have real-life visual experiences that develop your reference for judging what you see on a TV.

An HD Plasma is 'richer' in its colors than is an HD LCD. An OPPO upscaling DVD player with the Faroudja DCDi chip can give a Blu-Ray player a real run for the money. Still, all will clearly (ahem) be visually better than a standard definition TV. Your real-life visual experiences make this an easy distinction for you to perceive.

Audio is different because many, perhaps most, audiophiles are too busy 'upgrading' and playing with their equipment changes to attend live recitals and concerts. Most audiophiles probably cannot hear when a group is recorded playing in a room with a too-low ceiling. But audiophiles are great at listening to price tags. More expensive is better, right?

Audio memory, like visual memory, is very long when it has been developed by listening to live acoustic music. Electric instruments, like stereo equipment and loudspeakers, do not seem to offer much long-term audio memory development.

I attended a Segovia concert in Cincinnati, Ohio c1965 where I sat in the front row center on the first balcony. I was out in free space, if you will. Segovia was magnficent. The next time I heard Segovia was in Hartford, CT c1985 where I again sat in the front row center on the first balcony. Two-thirds through the first half, between selections, I commented to my wife that "something did not sound right". After intermission, Segovia resumed play and after that first selection I commented to my wife that "This is what I remember from Cincinnati". What could have been amiss? The next day, the critic's review appeared in our newspaper wherein it was revealed that Segovia had been playing his brand new $80,000 Spanish guitar for the first half of the concert. That new guitar was reacting to the different humidity in Hartford. Segovia reverted to his 'old' guitar, which was his backup guitar, for the second half of the concert. So a REAL audio memory based upon listening to live acoustic instruments can last for 20 years!

And if you have developed your own REAL audio memory, you can easily compare a piece of audio gear to your REAL audio memory. Comparing one piece of audio gear to another corresponding piece of audio gear is a waste of time.

I even bought a guitar made by one of Segovia's students. It is lovely to both look at and to listen to.... a far better use of money than buying expensive wires!

[hermanv]

But audiophiles are great at listening to price tags. More expensive is better, right?

This one pops up at every discussion about cables or amplifiers. Usually it's the "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist" objectivists who bring it up. OK I'll bite, where is the supporting study that shows that this is true?

[Mash]

It is nice to learn that the Oppo has been 'discovered'. I found it "on my own" in 2005, as it were. Perhaps audio/video gear price rationality may develop. Or maybe not.

You do seem to speculate about how the circuits of "high end" equipment come about and then you seem to view your speculation as a fact:
"At $3,500 it is perfectly possible to build your own chips. Devices called DSP are generic arithmetic machines, they can be programmed to perform any arbitrary complex math function at amazing speeds. It is quite possible that they have done this."

And it is ALSO quite possible that 'they' have NOT done this. Chips go well with beer & lemonade!

But why should we even care? I think you have chosen to ignore my original point:

"Audio memory, like visual memory, is very long when it has been developed by listening to live acoustic music. Electric instruments, like stereo equipment and loudspeakers, do not seem to offer much long-term audio memory development."

And.....
"I attended a Segovia concert in Cincinnati, Ohio c1965 where I sat in the front row center on the first balcony. .... Segovia was magnficent. The next time I heard Segovia was in Hartford, CT c1985 ....... Two-thirds through the first half, between selections, I commented to my wife that "something did not sound right". After intermission, Segovia resumed play and after that first selection I commented to my wife that "This is what I remember from Cincinnati". ....... The next day, the critic's review appeared in our newspaper wherein it was revealed that Segovia had been playing his brand new $80,000 Spanish guitar for the first half of the concert. That new guitar was reacting to the different humidity in Hartford. Segovia reverted to his 'old' guitar, which was his backup guitar, for the second half of the concert."

I Concluded with:
" So a REAL audio memory [of Segovia's playing, here] based upon [my] listening to [Segovia's] live acoustic instrument [Segovia's guitar, in concert in Cincinnati, in 1965] can last for 20 years!"

Finally
"And if you have developed your own REAL audio memory, you can easily compare a piece of audio gear to [i.e. evaluate its agreement with] your REAL audio memory. Comparing one piece of audio gear to another corresponding piece of audio gear is a waste of time."

But YOU drag up the "DBT" argument and then claim that I am reiterating tired old arguments about DBT:
"This one pops up at every discussion about cables or amplifiers. Usually it's the "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist" objectivists who bring it up. "

You must have missed or simply ignored my comment: "Comparing one piece of audio gear to another corresponding piece of audio gear is a waste of time."

I never made ANY comments about "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist". Unless you consider using a well-honed audio memory of live music as the "measurement criteria" is then applying "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist". Which would be a backdoor argument that everything is relative, buy what you "like" and next year buy all new stuff when you decide you "like something different". This gets expensive.

Comparing one piece of audio gear to another corresponding piece of audio gear is like trying to build something by comparing one piece of wood to another and then selecting the piece you prefer. Obviously it is better to use a tape measure and "measure twice and cut once". Here the tape measure is an analogy for having a REAL audio memory.

If YOU have attended enough concerts and recitals to know what REAL LIVE MUSIC sounds like, then all you have to do is make your system SOUND LIKE REAL LIVE MUSIC. There is no need for DBT. And if a system were to sound LIKE REAL LIVE MUSIC using RS Gold then there would be no need for, say, megabuck Cardas ... would there?

[hermanv]

If YOU have attended enough concerts and recitals to know what REAL LIVE MUSIC sounds like, then all you have to do is make your system SOUND LIKE REAL LIVE MUSIC. There is no need for DBT. And if a system were to sound LIKE REAL LIVE MUSIC using RS Gold then there would be no need for, say, megabuck Cardas ... would there?

I singled out this point, because it seems to be the heart of your position.

1. I don' disagree, making it sound like live music is a valuable goal.
2. Live music sounds quite (and measurably) different to a member of the band than the guy in the back row (both may well have systems at home)
3. I've heard many systems, I've never walked into a house and been fooled into believing there was a live band playing in the other room.

So we disagree little on the goal, but we do disagree on how to get there. All systems are colored, listening to other systems helps identify which colors are important to you.

My main objection to a part your earlier post was this notion that audiophiles are fools who don't understand how to spend their money. Certainly some people are "glitz" conscious these same people may own a Ferrari and drive it like a Corrola. But they aren't representative of the whole.

A specialty industry exists that makes hideously expensive equipment and wires. It has existed for many years. I can't buy the notion that all or even many audiophiles are financial fools. Much of this equipment is expensive enough that well educated people will be the main customers. If most audiophiles aren't fools and they support this industry, the implication is that something valuable is going on.

That's what my ears tell me and that's why I was caught up in an upward equipment cost spiral. I tried reasonably priced name brands (NAD, Denon) they didn't sound as good as the audiophile systems I'd heard. I moved to Conrad Johnson - much better but their best stuff is vacuum tube based. I'm not that big a fan of wear out and tube "rolling", so now I have Levinson and Pass Labs. I use an Olive Musica as a CD server, but the sound is Levinson because that's how I decode the uncompressd digital files. It's not the best system I've heard, but it is fatigue free, musical and enjoyable with enough detail to hear the room where the music was recorded and little background noises that probably weren't supposed to be in the recording. When non audiophile friends stop to visit, some listen others just don't care. The ones that listen usually comment "wow, it's so clear".

Clarity without fatigue is a long way along the "sounds like live" path.

I don't tell people what to get, I tell them options abound. To go and listen and then decide.

[FLZapped]

So good cables are more revealing of the original source...question is...how do we know? Well, that is where it takes a good ear and one that is knowledgeable on what a recording should sound like. This is an artform, a craft, a skill, something that takes time to train, just like tuning an instrument by ear.

Sorry, but this has been shown not to hold up. There are any number of testing methodologies that are far and away superior to human hearing when it comes to finding differences between cables. And you CAN find them, but compared to test equipment sensitivity, they are almost always inaudible.

People with perfect-pitch (like myself) can hear a certain note and know what that note is and can tune an instrument or pick out a passage and identify the notes being played, this is through training and long-term listening.

Perfect pitch is different from hearing a broadband complex waveform and being able to tell it is different unless done under rigorous labaratory conditions. There are so many vaiables when listening to an acoustic source in an acoustic environment, that control is nearly non-existant in a casual setting, such as a home.

Long term listening won't work as a valid scientific method. Aural memory has been shown to be in the quarter-second range.


-Bruce

[hermanv]

Aural memory has been shown to be in the quarter-second range.
-Bruce

Statements like this, don't help. Without further explanation it simply can't be true. If it were true one would for example, forget how a violin sounds different from a trumpet, I have no trouble identifying one over the other even with long periods of not hearing either one. A much more complex definition is required for this statement to stand.

The cable argument is complex, one reason the debate rages on for years. Trying to reduce it to a series of sound bytes (ugh, bad pun) won't bring the parties closer together. I'm reasonably sure that both parties to the argument want to understand what is happening. Thousands of audiophiles have spent small fortunes on cables, mass delusion seems like an unlikely explanation.

While it is true that the desire to hear an improvement after spending a lot of money will color subjective judgment, it is equally true that the desire not to hear a change colors the skeptics hearing in an identical if opposite way.

[musicoverall]

I'm reasonably sure that both parties to the argument want to understand what is happening.

As I've said before, the debate as to whether cables can sound different from another no longer interests me, as it's been resolved. The debate as to WHY cables can sound different IS of interest to me. On the one hand, psychology and mass delusion are invalid, and on the other hand "because measurements don't tell all there is to know about cable sonics" is incomplete. I'd like to know the reasons different cables cause the sound of an audio system to change.

I feel compelled to also state that I know of absolutely no one... zero, nada zilch, NO ONE... that feels obligated to hear an improvement after spending a lot of money on cables. If there are people that spend money on something without a fairly stringent audition, they probably deserve what they get... or don't get. The people I know and all the tales I've heard or read show that those hearing the differences hear 'em first and then buy.

[Feanor]

As I've said before, the debate as to whether cables can sound different from another no longer interests me, as it's been resolved. The debate as to WHY cables can sound different IS of interest to me. On the one hand, psychology and mass delusion are invalid, and on the other hand "because measurements don't tell all there is to know about cable sonics" is incomplete. I'd like to know the reasons different cables cause the sound of an audio system to change.

I feel compelled to also state that I know of absolutely no one... zero, nada zilch, NO ONE... that feels obligated to hear an improvement after spending a lot of money on cables. If there are people that spend money on something without a fairly stringent audition, they probably deserve what they get... or don't get. The people I know and all the tales I've heard or read show that those hearing the differences hear 'em first and then buy.

A few personal observation from The Elf ...

• Cables do measure differently therefore there is objective reason to believe that they might sound different.
• Almost every cable maker has some kind of theory of why their cables are better. Which of the totally different technologies and explanations are right?
• The placebo effect is scientifically accepted. No doubt it can apply before or after you spend your money.

[E-Stat]

Statements like this, don't help. Without further explanation it simply can't be true. If it were true one would for example, forget how a violin sounds different from a trumpet, I have no trouble identifying one over the other even with long periods of not hearing either one.

Funny, that goes the same for me, too.

I'm reasonably sure that both parties to the argument want to understand what is happening. Thousands of audiophiles have spent small fortunes on cables, mass delusion seems like an unlikely explanation.

And you will never hear anyone say this:

"Today, I spent several hours comparing zip cord to Nordost Valhalla and honestly couldn't tell the difference"

Experience typically yields different results than speculation.

While it is true that the desire to hear an improvement after spending a lot of money will color subjective judgment, it is equally true that the desire not to hear a change colors the skeptics hearing in an identical if opposite way.

Absolutely. I don't buy expensive audio anything until I've heard it extensively (with cables that means in my systems).

rw

[musicoverall]

And you will never hear anyone say this:

"Today, I spent several hours comparing zip cord to Nordost Valhalla and honestly couldn't tell the difference"

Experience typically yields different results than speculation.

rw

Absolutely. The naysayers compare different brands of zipcord and proclaim that all wires sound the same. If ineed these folks are the scientists they proclaim themselves to be, I sincerely hope they don't operate at their vocations in the same slipshod manner. I've always believed that an objective test is one in which the person testing does NOT tailor the test to back up their own beliefs and biases.

[Feanor]

....

The cable argument is complex, one reason the debate rages on for years. Trying to reduce it to a series of sound bytes (ugh, bad pun) won't bring the parties closer together. I'm reasonably sure that both parties to the argument want to understand what is happening. Thousands of audiophiles have spent small fortunes on cables, mass delusion seems like an unlikely explanation.

...

One religion is much like another in that regard.

[hermanv]

One religion is much like another in that regard.

There are a large number of audiophile "tweaks" that have not stood he test of time. Mass delusion would work the same for any of these as it would for cables, yet they're gone from the marketplace.

While the following all do have their adherent's; CD demagnetizers, disk stabilizers, green felt pens and little wooden blocks most audiophiles have rejected them as not worthwhile. Cables continue to be purchased, reviewed and improved for a couple of decades now. This is no guarantee that they work, it is merely anecdotal evidence. It helps the cables count argument, that the electronic engineer designers of premier electronic audiophile equipment are supportive of the notion. Or are we still debating if one piece of electronics sounds the same as all other pieces?