hermanv - regarding: "Speaker cable blind listening tests"

hermanv - I was snooping around and found the thread started by musicoverall posted on 03-22-2005 and was impressed with your responses on that thread since it directly reflects my attitude toward this subject.

I have to say that the knowledge from some members on both sides of this debate were impressive, however I too am of the camp that wire does sound different, but can't explain it.

My experience is that wire changes the transparency of the soundstage and the focus of the imagery (the images have better form in space). I also agree that that a tone control cannot duplicate what the wire does.

While I was reading the thread, it occured to me that I got the same effect from room treatment. There was reduced smearing of the image which I percieved as greater transparency. In addition, I could hear some things that were previously masked. This made me wonder if that is what the wires were doing electrically. Since room treatment reduces reflection, perhaps there are reflections in the wires we use that produce this effect. Of course, if these reflections are occuring are they measurable?

This is just a thought, perhaps not a good one, but the way I see it, wire does sound different and the tests that we now perform on wire doesn't support my position. Maybe we aren't doing the correct tests?

One other thing...

Double blind tests are not valid for several reasons. First, everyone that claims to hear differences in wire do so on their home system at their leisure. They are familiar with the sound of their system, are not under pressure to perform, and there are no time limits. DBT's are normally done on someone elses system, with someone elses wire, and there is pressure to get it right.

So, how could we improve on the DBT? Simple! Take two wires that someone already has experiance with and claims that they do sound different and disguise them to look identical, except for color. Give them to that person and let them decide which is which in their home system at their own leisure. This would eliminate all the variables that a normal DBT imparts on the test.

'Justification' is powerful. If i spent that $$ on it - it must be good! (Or i am admitting i am a fool)
People who agree with me are smart. (Those who disagree are obviously idiots and should be ignored)
I once spent an hour listening to high end vs low end CD players to find a difference (to help sell them). By the time i was done - there WAS a difference - the high end unit really 'rang' a bell on a certain piece. It resonated - it had depth ! It was exquisite! No one else could hear it - nor was willing to pay the higher price. I kinda' place esoteric cables in this box. There probably is a difference if you listen hard enough - but is it worth it? Versus buying more CDs?

My $.02 worth.

> So, how could we improve on the DBT? Simple! Take two wires that someone already has experiance with
> and claims that they do sound different and disguise them to look identical, except for color.

I'd bet that if the results didn't prove what the person wished proved, you'd have him declaring the test invalid. He would simply claim that the disguising process affected the sound quality of the underlying cable in some manner. If you have people elevating speaker cables off the floor with special lifts, do you really think you can apply an exterior coating or sheath to a cable and not have them claim the electrons disturbed?

Basically what he's suggesting is a long-term DBT. I'd be all for that, except I have a hard time envisioning a scenario in which the circumstances don't disturb the test. How about a mostly-acoustically-transparent screen? It'd have to be right behind the speakers...

> How about a mostly-acoustically-transparent screen? It'd have to be right behind the speakers...

See, we're already getting into "buts" and "excepts". First people complain about neutral listening sites because they are not familiar with the equipment and set-up. Has to be in their home. Covered cables break all kind of "rules." So we're now talking about screens. They'd have to be acoustically transparent but not visually. (Do screens have a break-in period? Are they really, I mean really, transparent to sound?)

Of course, we'd also have to live with them in our residence for an extended period. Many of the cable-difference advocates talk about picking up subtle differences over a period of months. A short term evaluation would be another "out."

We would also have to believe that someone could have cables in their home behind a screen for an extended period and resist all temptation to take a peek. Of course, they'd tell themselves that would have no influence on what they were hearing.

My observation is that certain audiophiles would never accept any type of truly blind test situation. There will always a variety of special demands that will defeat the test, or "defects" in the test setup that will allow them to ignore the results to the extent needed to satisfy their ego. Regardless of the theoretical validity and advantages of DBT, I simply cannot envision ANY setup that would satisfy a certain segment of the audiophile community.

No, I was just suggesting screens because there's no way you're going to get away with disguising one cable as another -- anyone with any experience in this will be able to recognize a cable by its terminations.

And yes, the dielectrics do make a difference. There's at least one company that believes the best dielectric is no dielectric (Anti-Cables).

> there's no way you're going to get away with disguising one cable as another...

You help make my case, that regardless of any what a DBT could theoretically prove, the practical reality is that there is probably no implementation possible that would 1) either be truly double-blind, or 2) not give an excuse or "out" to discount the results.

Of course, many people also are confused about what a DBT is. They think it must have some type of rapid switching mechanism to pop back and forth between two components. What double-blind really means is that the test subject does not know which product is currently under test and that the immediate test administrator also does not know. The latter is necessary to prevent subtle hints (whether intentional or subconscious) to the test subject. A screen in a listening room - especially for a long period - fails to provide any real confidence that blindness would be maintained at the needed level.

As such, I simply don't think it is possible to design a DBT for a certain segment of the audiophile community. Far too much terminal uniqueness in our psyches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mlsstl

> there's no way you're going to get away with disguising one cable as another...

You help make my case, that regardless of any what a DBT could theoretically prove, the practical reality is that there is probably no implementation possible that would 1) either be truly double-blind, or 2) not give an excuse or "out" to discount the results.

---

These tests aren't designed necessarily used to "prove" anything, other than two samples are either different, or not different.

Quote:

---

Of course, many people also are confused about what a DBT is. They think it must have some type of rapid switching mechanism to pop back and forth between two components. What double-blind really means is that the test subject does not know which product is currently under test and that the immediate test administrator also does not know. The latter is necessary to prevent subtle hints (whether intentional or subconscious) to the test subject. A screen in a listening room - especially for a long period - fails to provide any real confidence that blindness would be maintained at the needed level.

---

Correct, rapid switching is an implemtation method based on the observations that our arual memory is less than one second.

Quote:

---

As such, I simply don't think it is possible to design a DBT for a certain segment of the audiophile community. Far too much terminal uniqueness in our psyches.

---

That is exactly what these tests are for, to deprive as many sense as possible in order to force us to judge only with our ears.


-Bruce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLZapped

Correct, rapid switching is an implemtation method based on the observations that our arual memory is less than one second.
Bruce

---

That's the part that dooms audio DBT's, IMHO. I seriously doubt I would have passed mine using rapid switching. Most people need to listen long term - despite any comments of the "the new cable blew me away immediately" variety. At least that's what I have found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hydroman

but is it worth it? Versus buying more CDs?

My $.02 worth.

---

Good point. I ultimately found myself having to make a choice between keeping the subtle differences of the Cardas cables in my system or having new music software. The cables were NOT worth it in that context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mlsstl

>

We would also have to believe that someone could have cables in their home behind a screen for an extended period and resist all temptation to take a peek. .

---

If someone peeks, what would be the point of the test? I had no problem NOT peeking -was not even remotely tempted. If I had, the whole thing would have been a waste of time. If someone is truly interested in answering the question (for themselves, if no one else) of cable sonics, they'd have to be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

...
One other thing...

Double blind tests are not valid for several reasons. First, everyone that claims to hear differences in wire do so on their home system at their leisure. They are familiar with the sound of their system, are not under pressure to perform, and there are no time limits. DBT's are normally done on someone elses system, with someone elses wire, and there is pressure to get it right.

So, how could we improve on the DBT? Simple! Take two wires that someone already has experiance with and claims that they do sound different and disguise them to look identical, except for color. Give them to that person and let them decide which is which in their home system at their own leisure. This would eliminate all the variables that a normal DBT imparts on the test.

---

I personally believe that DBTs, as designed and conducted, are often flawed. For example, in my opinion, a short coming of many DBTs is that participants are not permitted the chance to familiarize themselves to their own satisfaction with the different sources in sighted listening before the test is beguns; another flaw would be that they cannot control how long they get to listen to each sound, and/or when the switch to the other (or possibly the same) sound is made. Regardless however, the only valid outcome for even the most rigorous test is, "The test revealed that the test subjects, under the test conditions, could/could not reliably distinguish between the sounds". Of course, remember that not all DBTs ever conducted have turned up negative results.

But to generalize regarding negative results, I ask, if you cannot distinguish different sounds under reasonable DBT conditions, how important can those differences really be???

Anytime someone advocates an action involving you spending your money, your first question should be: Are they in a position to gain financially, directly or indirectly, from my purchase decision?

It is exceedingly funny to me when people will more readily believe someone with either a direct financial stake in a purchase decision (a dealer) or an indirect stake in the purchase decision (a moderator here who wishes to protect the advertisers) than they will believe someone who has NO financial stake in their decision.

Do you spend $1300 on wires, or do you spend $1300 on a Jolida 302B plus a pair of Magnepan MMG? This is a simple question for me to answer.

If you try some exotic wires and you cannot hear any difference, why your system is simply not resolving enough! It CANNOT be that those wires made no difference, no sir! So the dealer can help you build a 'more resolving' system.... for $$$, of course!

You STILL cannot hear any difference with those new wires? Obviously, your system is STILL simply not resolving enough! The dealer can help you build an 'even more resolving' system.... for $$$$, of course!

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our wires, But in our systems, that we are poor.

Now if you (think you) DO hear a difference using those exotic wires, OH, JOY! You are then an anointed and holy audiophile with a wonderful sound-system, and you are a leader of audiophiles and men, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. By the way, we just happen to have some OTHER exotic wires for you to try that are even better than the ones you just bought but of course they cost a little more. Trade in your old wires? Well, the used-wire market is a little soft right now, and True Audiophiles would be concerned that you might not have broken your wires in correctly, and.... yadda yadda yadda.....

I posted an open letter to Skeptic on "SPEAKERS" suggesting he consider the Mackie HR824's connected with XLR cables. And what did I see at the bottom of that thread? Hotlinks to dealers selling XLR cables and Mackie HR824 speakers, but not at the best prices....

Deep Throat was right: Follow the Money

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mash

Do you spend $1300 on wires, or do you spend $1300 on a Jolida 302B plus a pair of Magnepan MMG? This is a simple question for me to answer.

If you try some exotic wires and you cannot hear any difference, why your system is simply not resolving enough! It CANNOT be that those wires made no difference, no sir! So the dealer can help you build a 'more resolving' system.... for $$$, of course!

---

Simple question, but it depends on if one already owns a good amp and speakers or not. Purchasing a Jolida 302B and Maggie MMG's would be a step backward for many people while spending $1300 to upgrade their cables might be a step forward.

A system that isn't resolving enough *might* be the problem if one cannot hear differences in wire. It could also be that their listening skills are lacking. And in many cases, the wires simply do not sound different in that application (system). I've found that to be the case many times.

Your advice about being careful around those with a financial stake in your purchase decision is good advice. But it's not enough. One must be careful when listening to someone with ANY kind of agenda. If it's to sell cables, or promote a website or to protect one's scientific credentials, it only goes to show that people should try for themselves those products about which they are curious.

So on the issue of cables, a prospective experimenter should ask himself some questions. Does the person recommending them (or vehemently NOT recommending them) have an agenda. Is he going to gain financially? Or is he perhaps afraid that someone might discover that the truth is different from what they believe? How badly does the recommender want or not want cables to affect the sound? Are they posting about their own experiences or lack of same?

An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Hi StevenSurprenant, I hadn't checked this catagory for a long time, thanks for the kind words. I'm afraid the whole cable war thing will drag on nearly forever. As an EE I have every reason to doubt the technical aspects of cable differences, as an audiophile I can not ignore what my ears tell me.

Take a cheap boom box, place it in different locations within a room, the sound quality changes. Now step up to a better system, to get the most out of that system, speaker placement becomes far more critical.

As the listener climbs up the sound quality curve, he soon learns that room treatments matter. It can be as simple as closing the drapes or as exotic as buying specialty products (corner traps, bass traps, absorbers, diffusers etc.). Many of these products can be home made or purchased at often exotic prices.

IMHO the whole price thing has little to do with ego or status, it's that the better audio products on the whole are more expensive.

As the determined listener continues to improve his system, two things tend to happen; 1. He gets better at hearing small changes and 2. as the system quality improves, ever smaller effects become discernable.

What I'm saying is that the differences between cables will not be heard with a boom box in a cement bunker, but as other components including the room improve, at some point cables will begin to make an audible difference.

It is unfortunate that the magazines on the whole resort to hyperbole when describing cable differences, "Wow, I never heard such a gigantic change". This isn't really true, but when all other attempts to improve the sound quality have reached a practical limit, it may seem like the cable change is huge. This is mainly due to the fact that all the other changes have stopped offering any useful additional improvement.

Some cables offer immediate and obvious differences, smear or muddling as opposed to hard or harsh seem common. Other cables have far more subtle effects, some take days of listening to many sources and kinds of music to reveal themselves. All this is made worse by another controversial subject called break in.

Double blind testing can be made valid. The problem is that in spite of wha the magazines say, most cable differences take some time to identify. This makes a usefull DBT so lengthy that many can't or won't bother. It is also my opinion that DBT tests can not be done by commitee, more than two listeners would make it nearly impossible to agree on what to listen to and for how long.

For me, hearing the difference between a good Kimber interconnect and a good Cardas interconnect is pretty tough, but hearing the differnece between either of these and a cheap Radio Shack interconnect is fairly easy.

The CD became popular because it sounded better than that old $99 record changer with ceramic cartridge we all used to have. Yet todays $25,000 vinyl playback systems sound better than a CD, all this proves is that good sound reproduction is a collection of subtleties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

That's the part that dooms audio DBT's, IMHO.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

I seriously doubt I would have passed mine using rapid switching.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Most people need to listen long term - despite any comments of the "the new cable blew me away immediately" variety. At least that's what I have found.

---

We're not talking a musical review, we're talking about discovering differences between two samples.

-Bruce

Because hearing doesn't work like vision (for me, anyway). Although I still think it would be interesting to show someone a picture of a large blue dot and then replace it with a picture of another, slightly different blue dot to determine how accurately they could tell the difference. I read once where there are 32 different shades of color in cigar tobacco wrappers. The ones who can determine them all are the cigar makers themselves and few others. Experience would seem to reign supreme. Subtlety does not mean non-existent.

Cable differences are subtle and my ears need time to get used to their sonic signature. Even so, I didn't score perfectly but I would have done less well with rapid switching. Unfortunately, the rapid switching so common in the area of testing audio components (not that I can find much evidence of testing!) will usually give the null result, thereby adding fuel to the objectivists fire that "it all sounds the same". Too bad. The question of whether cables can sound different has been answered. The two remaining questions are "why do they sound different" and "are the differences noticeable enough to matter to the listener".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

(snip all that was totally irrelavent.)

Cable differences are subtle and my ears need time to get used to their sonic signature. Even so, I didn't score perfectly but I would have done less well with rapid switching.

---

How do you know?

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, the rapid switching so common in the area of testing audio components (not that I can find much evidence of testing!) will usually give the null result, thereby adding fuel to the objectivists fire that "it all sounds the same".

---

Sorry, but this is just not true, which is why there is so much testing using such a method. To make sure we are on the same page, when I say rapid switch, I mean two devices switched by a mechanical method - as opposed to someone plugging and unplugging cables.

I have also participated in numerous tests and I can assure you, the results were anything but null.....we weren't testing cables, but where there were differences, they stuck out like a sore thumb using rapid switching. Listening to each device seperately would have certainly yielded more nulls.

-Bruce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLZapped

How do you know?

Sorry, but this is just not true, which is why there is so much testing using such a method. To make sure we are on the same page, when I say rapid switch, I mean two devices switched by a mechanical method - as opposed to someone plugging and unplugging cables.

I have also participated in numerous tests and I can assure you, the results were anything but null.....we weren't testing cables, but where there were differences, they stuck out like a sore thumb using rapid switching. Listening to each device seperately would have certainly yielded more nulls.

-Bruce

---

I'm not contradiction the need for long term listening; this is especially important form establishing which sound is "better" (or a least preferable). However my experience is also that anything I hear in the long term, I can also hear in the short.

But though the switching might be quick, pinpointing the specific differences can take a long time: e.g. once I spent 3 hours listening to segments no longer than 5 minutes and some as short as 20 seconds before I could articulate the differences; (granted, this was using the slower cable swapping method).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLZapped

How do you know?



Sorry, but this is just not true, which is why there is so much testing using such a method. To make sure we are on the same page, when I say rapid switch, I mean two devices switched by a mechanical method - as opposed to someone plugging and unplugging cables.

I have also participated in numerous tests and I can assure you, the results were anything but null.....we weren't testing cables, but where there were differences, they stuck out like a sore thumb using rapid switching. Listening to each device seperately would have certainly yielded more nulls.

-Bruce

---

Are any of these tests published? Not necessarily the ones you've been involved with but any? I searched awhile back and couldn't really find much on the 'net. The few DBT's I found mostly showed null results and the ones that showed differences were the obvious ones (extremely long or thin guage cables, speakers, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

I'm not contradiction the need for long term listening; this is especially important form establishing which sound is "better" (or a least preferable). However my experience is also that anything I hear in the long term, I can also hear in the short.

But though the switching might be quick, pinpointing the specific differences can take a long time: e.g. once I spent 3 hours listening to segments no longer than 5 minutes and some as short as 20 seconds before I could articulate the differences; (granted, this was using the slower cable swapping method).

---

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! :D

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

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! :D

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

That's the part that dooms audio DBT's, IMHO. I seriously doubt I would have passed mine using rapid switching. Most people need to listen long term - despite any comments of the "the new cable blew me away immediately" variety. At least that's what I have found.

---

Probably not, because the differences would have been obvious. Aural memory is extremely short.

-Bruce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

Are any of these tests published? Not necessarily the ones you've been involved with but any? I searched awhile back and couldn't really find much on the 'net. The few DBT's I found mostly showed null results and the ones that showed differences were the obvious ones (extremely long or thin guage cables, speakers, etc).

---

A lot of what is published is through professional societies who charge a fee for copies of the results. You might be able to find someone who is a member and can get them as they have already paid their dues (membership fee :D )......

Null results are still results. Just that a relaible difference could not be found and as you say, the obvious one's show that the process works.

-Bruce

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mash

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

---

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?

"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?"

At the least this seems rather defensive.

One example: I get emails from AudioAdvisor listing their latest bargains. One recent AudioAdvisor bargain was an upscaling DVD player featuring some rather fancy chips, including the Faroudja chip I had referred to, at 1/2 price- a mere $800. But I gave my daughter an OPPO player built with those same chips, including the Faroudja chip, for Christmas 2006 and it cost me $225, including a $40 three-foot HDMI cable. Now if both DVD players were built with the same innards, how can they perform differently? And how do you justify paying $1600 in 2006 for a player that is built the same way as the $225 player I bought in 2006? This is what I call listening to the price tag.

I have even read an exchange here between people sorely impressed with $3500 players.

There are only so many chips available for any manufacturer to pick from because chips are very expensive to develop. Developing your own chips to build your Wonderplayer is simply not practical. So you end up selecting from the same chips available to all other manufacturers. And some of those manufacturers are very price competitive, while others gouge for as much money as they can get because the higher-priced the gear, the better it must sound.... right?

The majority of consumers would seem to have little sense of value or real understanding of that which they spend their money on. This is why we now have the "subprime mortgage mess", because so many people accepted complicated varible/mixed loans they did not understand and could never repay, and then those loans were bundled up into security packaces which were sold to investors who did not understand what they were investing in. Now we have a real mess. Warren Buffet said things will get a lot worse than most people think, and I agree with him. Buckle your financial seatbelt.

I always made it my business to understand exactly what I was doing and why. This is why we are in excellent shape these days. I am retired and do what I want to do. We have three sound systems in this house, two full-tubie and one slightly-tubie. I will soon assemble a fourth slightly-tubie sound system. They all are accurate w/r/t live music but I feel only the full-tubie sets offer the proper subtle natural smoothness. And those Russian Winged-C power tubes are great!

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. Actually this can be done at far lower prices, Custom DSP simpler chips can be made for $10.00 (not counting the software development investment). The old style custom IC's you mean are reserved for the high volume houses such as Sony or Mitsubishi.

From time to time there are indeed bargains, especially with any emerging technology where price has little to do with cost. I paid $1,000 for Toshiba's first progressive scan DVD player (there was nothing cheaper at the time), you can now buy better ones for less than $50. The examples you cite are for consumer products made at thousands per day. High end audiophile equipment does not enjoy these benefits of high volume.

You are merely parroting others misconceptions and arguing by analogy. Nothing you quote supports the notion that audiophiles are flocking to buy the more expensive DVD player due only to it's high price.

The Oppo is highly regarded in the audiophile review magazines as a great (and unusual) value for the buck, if the industry believed as you claim the Oppo wouldn't get the high marks. I think one audiophile magazine rated it product of the year.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mash

<snip>
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.

is influenced by the title of this discussion:

"Speaker cable blind listening tests"

If your system is a close match to real live sound, using fancy or plain speaker wires won't make any difference.

If your system is NOT AT ALL a close match to real live sound, using fancy or plain speaker wires won't make any difference.

Wire listening tests are a waste of time. Expensive wires are a waste of money. I have enough EE background to know this. Wires only need to be sized appropriately. I spent some time managing some generator lines and overseeing the work of EE's & electrical designers simply because I was an ME with EE. I have even been able to troubleshoot a Futterman amp. Hint: watch where you put your fingers at all times or you may hear a very realistic version of the sound of angels.

Whether you sit in the orchestra or in the audience is beside the point. Even orchestra members are allowed to attend recitals.

I have been using tube gear since 1974. Retubing is not a big deal at all as long as you pay attention to the details. If you do NOT pay attention to the details, well, ......

And I can distinctly remember [actually if I close my eyes, I can still see it.....]
Mr. Futterman pulling one input tube out of MY powered-up Futterman amp and then inserting another input tube to demonstrate that one tube was faulty and the other tube was fine. One result of this activity was some really loud and ugly sounds from Mr. Futterman's loudspeaker. When I commented about the ill effects suggested by those really loud and foul speaker sounds, Mr. Futterman responded "Oh no, these speakers are very hardy". Well, the amp remained fine. Try a comparable trick with your SS gear.

I did buy a near-new C-J 10B from Gene Rubin on ebay for $600. It is quite nice. I also bought a "demo" ["demo", not demo] Jolida 302B two years back for $800. I replaced the Chinese EL34 tubes with matched Russian Winged-C tubes ($40/pair) and that Jolida smokes now. I think it will compete detail-wise with any SS amp. A Velodyne servo-15 brings up the bottom, so to speak.

I have had audiophiles stand with their mouths hanging open the very first time they listened to my Futterman-Maggie combo, and longer that the law allows.

As long as the Russians continue to produce their lovely-performing tubes I see no problems. This is all thanks to the Russian/Soviet use of tubed, instead of SS, electronics. The tubed stuff is heavier but it is also impervious to electromagnetic pulses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mash

i
Wire listening tests are a waste of time. Expensive wires are a waste of money. I have enough EE background to know this. Wires only need to be sized appropriately. I spent some time managing some generator lines and overseeing the work of EE's & electrical designers simply because I was an ME with EE.

---

I am an EE, all my training agrees with you 100%, my ears tell me different.

I was very resistant to the notion of cables having "a sound". Clearly this was non-sense. An audiophile friend kept pushing me to try his Kimber 4TC. Mostly to please the friendship I took his pair home. I knew for certain I wasn't going to hear any difference during the test.

Oops, the Kimber cables removed a hash or edge form the sound, it was cleaner less fatiguing. The change was small but noticeable, a neighbor was visiting, he was curious about this notion, he, my wife and I all heard the same change.

I've never looked back, believe what you want, I could care less. Just allow other's to try for themselves.

And the members of each and every religion know, they absolutely know, that they and only they have true enlightenment. All non-members are heretics who will burn in Hell. How can this be?

The Islamists call the Americans in Iraq "Crusaders". Are the Islamists correct?

I point out the silliness of an audiophile viewpoint and someone will always claim "I heard it". Well, people have heard many things over the years, or at least they claimed they did. Son of Sam listened to his dog tell him to kill people. Should we believe, or not believe, Son of Sam?

The follow-on comment is usually, as here, "I've never looked back, believe what you want, I could care less. Just allow other's to try for themselves."

Well, tell me HOW to NOT "allow others to try for themselves"? This continues to remain, for me, a curious request.

It isn't my time or my money that you are spending fiddling with wires.... is it? But I sure as hell am not going to encourage someone else to waste their time or money. Encouraging other people, by whatever pursuasion, to waste their time or money is when the "problem" always occurs for me.

A fool & his money are soon parted. But you usually won't know you have been fooled until after your money is long gone! And you will never get it back.

I think I had it right before:

If your system is a close match to real live sound, using fancy or plain speaker wires won't make any difference.

If your system is NOT AT ALL a close match to real live sound, using fancy or plain speaker wires won't make your system BECOME a close match to real live sound.

Soooooo.......... why bother? You know, this "hobby" USED to be called HiFi or High Fidelity, as in "High Fidelity to the Original". Not "Let's listen to a bunch of wires, or amplifiers, or whatever, and pick what we like best".

We use tape measures when we build something. We use a reliable map or GPS when we want to drive to an unfamiliar location. We don't use ad-hoc comparisons.

If you do not have a firm and reliable reference, then you will never know where you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mash

Are the Islamists correct?

---

And you accuse me of a certain defensive desperation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mash

Well, tell me HOW to NOT "allow others to try for themselves"? This continues to remain, for me, a curious request.

---

You do it by posting exactly how you have.

I say "I hear", I say "other's hear", I say "try it". You say "You are a fool to fall for this stuff", don't bother because I've made up your mind for you. That's how to spread disinformation. Accuse people of an intellectual failure if they don't agree with you. Make them afraid to try, for fear that they would be accused of being a fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mash

"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 let this go earlier, where did you find this gem? Since it was in quotes perhaps you could share the source?

Most audiophiles like music, they do go to live events. The one thing you will rarely find on this forum is equipment prices or costs. If that were the driving force, a game of one upsmanship would soon develop.

Many audio "tweaks" have not survived the market test of time, they were in fact debunked as "snake oil". On the other hand, cable companies are thriving. There are probably a hundred of them, many have survived years of selling their product. Since each needs to sell many cables to pay their bills, thousands or tens of thousands must have been sold by now. All those fools, who would have thought?