hermanv - regarding: "Speaker cable blind listening tests"

[StevenSurprenant]

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.

[hydroman]

'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.

[musicoverall]

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.

[mlsstl]

> 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?

[Dusty Chalk]

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...

[mlsstl]

> 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.

[musicoverall]

>

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.

[Dusty Chalk]

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).

[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.

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.

[FLZapped]

> 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.

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.

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

[musicoverall]

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.

[FLZapped]

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

Why?

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

Why?

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

[musicoverall]

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".

[FLZapped]

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

[Feanor]

...
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???

[Mash]

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

[musicoverall]

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.

[hermanv]

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.

[FLZapped]

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???

Your reasoning is flawed. I can use pink noise as a test signal - how do you familiarize yourself with that?

Familiarization has nothing to do with finding differences, especially under switched conditions. The difference will be obvious at the switch, or it won't.

Further, DBTs don't give "negative results" - you either get a null - no difference could be detected, or that there was a difference detected, period.

If you want a different result, you'd have to switch to something along the lines of a Mean Objective Score type test.

-Bruce

[hermanv]

If it was easy, anyone could do it and these discussions wouldn't exist.

I too do both short and long term listening. The way I've been fooled is with interconnects where one brand seems to have more detail, but it turns out that the high end is hyped and in the long term it's uncomfortable to listen to them.

[Mash]

Gee, hermanv, you do seem to look for personal attacks in my posts where none exist. Why?

I never posted anything close to "You are a fool to fall for this stuff”
" Nope, never happened. Read through my post again. Slowly, after you take a deep breath. I did post that a fool & his money are soon parted. I did post that you will never get you money back if you are fooled. But this is not calling you a fool.

“….don't bother because I've made up your mind for you.” Nope… I never posted anything close to an attempt to “make up anybody’s mind”, either for you or for anybody else. Read again.

But you do seem incensed that I would dare to disagree with your viewpoint about wires and provide my discussion as to why. It would therefore seem that YOU wish to “make up MY mind for me” by “shouting me down”. Or do you merely wish to “make up”, or at least “significantly influence”, the mind of anyone else who “happens by here”?

Why is it so important to you that others should join you in your quest to pursue the holy grail of wire? Why are you not happy to quietly enjoy your private revelations about wires and let it go at that? Why do you need others to join you?

The profit margin in exotic wires is tremendous and similar to the profit margins in perfumes. This is how both industries can pay for fancy packaging that conveys the “substantial nature, importance, and desirability” of their product.

Some companies do survive a long time while others do not. But the survival of one company does not prove the superiority of that company’s product just as another company’s failure does not prove the inferiority of that company’s product. There are many other factors in the continuing success of a company, such as cost control, successful management transitions, and marketing.

You post that you are an EE, i.e. an Electrical Engineer. In what company, capacity and/or industry?

40 years experience in industry has allowed me to know MANY engineers of different disciplines. Some engineers were mechanical, some electrical, some manufacturing, and so on. Some were peers and others worked at my direction. Without a single exception, whenever I mentioned audiophiles spending big bucks on exotic wires and listening for the audible effects of those wires on their sound systems, every single engineer rolled his or her eyes.

Until you, an EE no less, came along. You are the very first engineer I have ever encountered who seems to advocate the “audible importance” of wire selection. Does this observation incense or offend you?

..... and I don't do measurements, folks. If I can hear Segovia in concert and I can then remember how Segovia "should" sound, after the passing of twenty years during which I did not hear him play even once, I do not need any stinking measurements.

[StevenSurprenant]

Until you, an EE no less, came along. You are the very first engineer I have ever encountered who seems to advocate the “audible importance” of wire selection.

No, he's not the first.

In my Internet travels, I have run across a few other EE's who felt the same.

Well anyway, this isn't going anywhere except down, so I'm bowing out.

Have a great day and a better tomorrow!

[hermanv]

I will stand by my posts on your discourse, I didn't cut and paste each item, but I do believe the essence of what you said was maintained.

SteveSupranant is correct we don't seem to be going anywhere, there is little reason to involve all the forum members in our disagreement. If you wish to continue the discussion feel free to email me directly.

I don't know where you are located, perhaps if we happen to live close by, we could arrange a listening session to each others systems? You are hardly the first to feel as you do (nor am I) it would benefit everyone to find some basis for agreement.

[Mash]

While I was reading a Fanfare Tuner instruction pamphlet in 1987, I found the admonition that an unbalanced RCA interconnect should not be any longer than twenty-five feet [25 ft]. I was curious about the consequences of such a long unbalanced interconnecting wire, so I assembled enough R/S Gold RCA interconnects plus some R/S Gold female-female couplers to assemble two twenty-six feet [26 ft] long interconnects. Now note that these 26 ft long daisy-chained interconnects had a LOT of pieces plugged into each other.

Then I used those 26 ft long interconnects to connect a Musical Fidelity CD player to the DeCoursey crossover that fed the Futterman amps (treble/midrange) and Gas Amp (bass) that drove the Tympanis and the Velodyne Servo-15 amp. The CD player provided a controlled signal source. I powered up everything and listened for the results.

Did the audiophile world, as we would like to know it, suddenly end? Heck, no.

Was there a “lot of grunge” from those 26 ft long interconnects? Heck, no.

What WAS the result of using those 26 ft daisy-chained interconnects?

The result of using those 26 ft long interconnects was a modest dulling of the treble, nothing more. I did not have to develop audiophile-ear hernias to hear that modest dulling of the treble. It was audible but still modest.

Conclusion: R/S Gold three foot [3 ft] interconnects would cause no audible problems.

Now I have read web posts by people who waxed eloquently about the joys of using expensive interconnects, and some did claim that they were EE’s. I had problems with their dissertations when I learned they were all employed in the expensive-interconnects industry. So I considered their viewpoints to be a classic conflict of interest.

As a contrast, the chief engineer at Macintosh Labs wrote a data-filled piece explaining the reasons for not spending on expensive wire. But maybe he wanted us to spend our money on Mac gear, rather that on wire?

Simply put:
You do not ask a fox to count your chickens.

I prefer the full-kimono approach: I want to know how everyone’s personal or financial interests relate to a decision before I even consider their opinions. Only the opinions of a truly disinterested third-party, who has NO hidden agendas, should ever be considered.

Since I have never been connected to the audio industry, I am truly a “disinterested third-party”.

I visit this site infrequently so I notice the continual changes in poster ID’s. There is a steady stream of “newbies” who are interested in audiophilia. But whenever these “newbies” discover they have been burned by buying overpriced wires and gear by snake oil salesmen and Carney hustlers, they switch to HDTV where they can SEE what they are getting for their money. They can also learn about HDTV in Consumer Reports. Our eyes dominate our ears, so HDTV renders the audio contribution of the HDTV experience to a very secondary position.

The audio hobby magazines have been disappearing because the people interested in audio have been disappearing.

This place was a lot better when people like Skeptic were around to challenge the BS posts and hidden agendas. I had some great catfights with Skeptic but they were in good fun. Skeptic’s intentions were at least honest.

[Mash]

And I am also curious as to why it seems so important that I should agree with you. Your posts suggest that you seem pleased with your "wire revelations", so why is it important that I should agree with you?

I really find this odd:

You fuss with expensive wires, but you avoid tube gear. To me, this is like swallowing elephants while choking on gnats.

For everyone:

I am curious how people can read my posts and then launch into their arguments with my posts by bringing in their “questions” about “how to do the measurements” in reference to my posts.

This is really very odd.

I “don’t do measurements”, folks, simply because I don’t HAVE to “do measurements”.

I find it a lot more pleasant to rely on live recitals and concerts.