"The Truth in Audio" -- according to www.commonsenseaudio.com

[musicoverall]

The reason why people argue about points like these is that some people hate the promotion and promulgation of false information. Take, for example, the promotion of some beliefs by a certain population: the belief is that by legalizing same sex marriage that society is encouraging and enticing the youth of today into a homosexual lifestyle. Repeated enough times in print and by talking heads, you'd almost think that belief to be true. I realize that a short audio post isn't enough to even remotely convey all that there is about this subject, but I think that you get the idea.

Cable yeasayers have been saying for the longest time that they can hear differences in quality of cables but have yet to demonstrate this ability with a blind test. I will hold one truth to be paramount in the world of audio. When comparing two separate pieces of gear whether they be cables, amps, or whatnot, without a blind test the results are merely useless and trite anecdotes. I know FOR FACT that the human mind can be tricked easily by the mere mention or sight of label. There is no mystique about the audio industry that can mitigate this TRUTH. I've posted several times before to E-Stat how without blind testing, unbiased determinations of whether one piece of gear is better than another ARE IMPOSSIBLE.

There is an easy suggestion once made by markw to test cables or wire or power cords. He had a friend come over every day. This friend would either change the cables or would leave them alone. markw then tried to be able to discern whether any difference could be heard. He couldn't. I tried a similar blind test with my wife where she switched inputs for me. I listened and couldn't tell any difference. Before the test I would have sworn to you that I could hear significant difference between the cables, but afterwards I was extremely surprised at the results.

Why don't you try the above suggestion and come back and let us know what the results are?

Sorry, but I don't know the trick of putting quotes in those cool brackets in order to make each of my points coincide with each of yours. So I apologize if my reply is tougher to follow than I'd like.

The promotion and promulgation of false information is indeed disconcerting. How do you know the varying sounds of cables is false information? Because you and a few others tried it once and failed? Sorry, there are too many variables in your tests that aren't necessarily replicated with every other person in the world.

The human mind most likely can be tricked. So you're suggesting that it's tricked each and every time on every single individual??? That is too outrageous. What you're asking me to believe is that no one can ever trust their own senses.

I do not and cannot suggest that cable sonics are true for every individual. I can only report what I hear, personally. If others do not hear the same thing, I have no problem with that. I'm not sure why the opposite should be a problem for you.

As for blind testing, let me just ask you a few questions. Do you perform blind tests on peanut butters? Colas? Fabric softeners? Dog barks? Flower smells? Anything regarding your sensory perceptions? Why or why not? When do you trust your senses and when do you not? That's not to say that I won't try your experiment. But I'm curious as to what you will say if I pass with flying colors! You will likely blame something about the test, will you not? And yet, you'd like me to trust it completely!

[theaudiohobby]

folks,

I re-installed my manufacturer upgraded speakers back into my system this afternoon, fullrange floorstanders, I feel it is necessary to reiterate what woodman said earlier, we are within a few whiskers of perfection . The SS vs Tubes debate, digital vs. analog are red herrings , the technology to recreate accurate sound (wrt to live) is alive and well and available to buy to those interested.

[woodman]

[/i]The promotion and promulgation of false information is indeed disconcerting. How do you know the varying sounds of cables is false information?

Simply because no one has ever been able to demonstrate when "blind" that the premise has any validity to it at all - that's how one can know. This is not to say that there is positively, absolutely no sonic difference whatsoever between different cables ... only that whatever differences that might exist are likely to be so minimal - so subtle - so inconsequential - that being able to detect them in a "blind test" is all but impossible.

The human mind most likely can be tricked. So you're suggesting that it's tricked each and every time on every single individual??? That is too outrageous. What you're asking me to believe is that no one can ever trust their own senses.

Yes, I not only "suggest" it, I will go so far as to state it as an incontrovertible FACT that what our 5 senses provide us are under the direct influence and control of the Attitudes and Beliefs that an individual holds. Of course you can "trust" your senses ... to provide you with a sensory perception - but, you cannot trust any of your senses to also tell you what is true and "real" and what is only an illusion. An illusion that you yourself are responsible for the creation of.

I do not and cannot suggest that cable sonics are true for every individual. I can only report what I hear, personally.

Why not? If the phenomenon of "cable sonics" were indeed "real", how does it stand to reason that only a small minority of humans are able to detect them? And when those that report "hearing" such things can only do so when "sighted" listening is involved, and when listening "blind" they fail to be able to "hear" quite as clearly, doesn't that raise a warning flag of suspicion up the ol' flagpole?

As for blind testing, let me just ask you a few questions. Do you perform blind tests on peanut butters?

No, not unless someone was trying to sell me a jar of peanut butter for $200 with the promise that it would enrich my life in countless ways and make me cherish the day that I discovered such a wonderful product ... then, I might. Then again, on second thought, I'd probably just grab a shotgun and chase his unscrupulous BS ass out of my house!

[musicoverall]

Simply because no one has ever been able to demonstrate when "blind" that the premise has any validity to it at all - that's how one can know. This is not to say that there is positively, absolutely no sonic difference whatsoever between different cables ... only that whatever differences that might exist are likely to be so minimal - so subtle - so inconsequential - that being able to detect them in a "blind test" is all but impossible.



Yes, I not only "suggest" it, I will go so far as to state it as an incontrovertible FACT that what our 5 senses provide us are under the direct influence and control of the Attitudes and Beliefs that an individual holds. Of course you can "trust" your senses ... to provide you with a sensory perception - but, you cannot trust any of your senses to also tell you what is true and "real" and what is only an illusion. An illusion that you yourself are responsible for the creation of.



Why not? If the phenomenon of "cable sonics" were indeed "real", how does it stand to reason that only a small minority of humans are able to detect them? And when those that report "hearing" such things can only do so when "sighted" listening is involved, and when listening "blind" they fail to be able to "hear" quite as clearly, doesn't that raise a warning flag of suspicion up the ol' flagpole?



No, not unless someone was trying to sell me a jar of peanut butter for $200 with the promise that it would enrich my life in countless ways and make me cherish the day that I discovered such a wonderful product ... then, I might. Then again, on second thought, I'd probably just grab a shotgun and chase his unscrupulous BS ass out of my house!

As usual, your post makes a lot of sense - a LOT of sense. However, if I might...

I pulled out one of my CD's without looking at it, one of the new CD's I just bought. I'm quite certain it's David Shea, a "new music" (classical, I guess) composer. My hearing tells me it is indeed Mr Shea. In fact, I'm so comfortable with that fact that I don't even need to look at the jewel case. But I will anyway... lo and behold, it IS David Shea!!!!! My senses score again! No blind tests needed.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that cables will enrich your life and fill you with joy. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything!!!! All I can say is that different cables sound different to me... not all of them, but some of them. To my ears - mine alone. If that makes it an illusion... well... it's an "illusion" that makes me just as happy as Skippy peanut butter, Diet Pepsi and the smell of leaves in the fall, all perhaps illusions as well.

So now that leaves me with just one question... how good of a shot are you with that shotgun???

[magictooth]

whao...from one extreme to another.. , where shall the twain meet ?

I know what you're getting at, but I will stand by my position that sighted = bias = not accurate. From my personal experiences dealing with patients every working day, I will hold this to be a 100% incontrovertible truth. The twain shall meet if ever there is somebody who can demonstrate in a blind test the ability to determine which cable is playing with any sort of statistical significance. Like I said in a different post, I was a believer in cables and other whatnots until I did my own surprising blind test. It's amazing how your own mind can play such tricks on you.

[magictooth]

As usual, your post makes a lot of sense - a LOT of sense. However, if I might...

I pulled out one of my CD's without looking at it, one of the new CD's I just bought. I'm quite certain it's David Shea, a "new music" (classical, I guess) composer. My hearing tells me it is indeed Mr Shea. In fact, I'm so comfortable with that fact that I don't even need to look at the jewel case. But I will anyway... lo and behold, it IS David Shea!!!!! My senses score again! No blind tests needed.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that cables will enrich your life and fill you with joy. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything!!!! All I can say is that different cables sound different to me... not all of them, but some of them. To my ears - mine alone. If that makes it an illusion... well... it's an "illusion" that makes me just as happy as Skippy peanut butter, Diet Pepsi and the smell of leaves in the fall, all perhaps illusions as well.

So now that leaves me with just one question... how good of a shot are you with that shotgun???

Your example is not even remotely representative of what cable yeasayers have to say. Your example is somewhat akin to saying yeah, the trumpet sure sounded different than the violin that time. I don't think that you're getting the point that the naysayers are trying to make. It is NOT the cables that are making the difference, but only YOUR OWN sighted bias that is making you think there is a difference.

If you are happy with your illusions, then you should present in your posts caveats to the reader. The way most yeasayers post presents their findings as fact instead of as anecdotal evidence. There is a huge difference between the two. If you were to put in huge bold letters such as

The following is a conceited, trite, and all but useless anecdote from my own personal experiences

or

I'm too lazy to take a couple minutes out of my life to do proper blind testing because I'm so perfect that I don't need to follow minimal scientific method, but here I present to you as FACT my findings....

, then I will for sure be happy leaving you with your illusions. If you don't do that, then you will find naysayer who get angered at the spread of misinformation and lies. As woodman so eloquently put it, if somebody were trying to pawn off to me peanut butter that cost $200 a jar instead of $2.99, then for damn sure I'd want to do some blind testing to determine whether there's a difference.

[magictooth]

The human mind most likely can be tricked. So you're suggesting that it's tricked each and every time on every single individual??? That is too outrageous.

But I'm curious as to what you will say if I pass with flying colors! You will likely blame something about the test, will you not? And yet, you'd like me to trust it completely!

The human mind can be tricked almost every time. Whenever you add bias via sight, there is reason enough right there. There is not a single scientific journal that would accept sighted testing as a valid methodology.

Should you pass, then you will be amongst the first (if not the first human ever) to pass a blind cable test. People no doubt will ask about your methodology should you pass, and I would personally be interested in finding out your methodology. I think in fact that there is an outstanding award in the $20K range if you can repeat your success for somebody. Maybe there's another member who could point you in that direction.

[musicoverall]

Your example is not even remotely representative of what cable yeasayers have to say. Your example is somewhat akin to saying yeah, the trumpet sure sounded different than the violin that time. I don't think that you're getting the point that the naysayers are trying to make. It is NOT the cables that are making the difference, but only YOUR OWN sighted bias that is making you think there is a difference.

If you are happy with your illusions, then you should present in your posts caveats to the reader. The way most yeasayers post presents their findings as fact instead of as anecdotal evidence. There is a huge difference between the two. If you were to put in huge bold letters such as

The following is a conceited, trite, and all but useless anecdote from my own personal experiences

or

I'm too lazy to take a couple minutes out of my life to do proper blind testing because I'm so perfect that I don't need to follow minimal scientific method, but here I present to you as FACT my findings....

, then I will for sure be happy leaving you with your illusions. If you don't do that, then you will find naysayer who get angered at the spread of misinformation and lies. As woodman so eloquently put it, if somebody were trying to pawn off to me peanut butter that cost $200 a jar instead of $2.99, then for damn sure I'd want to do some blind testing to determine whether there's a difference.

Well, I'm sorry if I've angered the naysayers! So I will adopt something to add to my posts that I read from E-Stat - YMMV, which I'm told stands for Your Mileage May Vary, which further means that in my system, those particular cables made me believe I heard this and that but you may not. And since my experiences are indeed anecdotal, I shall now remand them to the Cable forum, where they belong. Thanks to all for the interesting information; it's certainly something to ponder. Now I'm off to shovel snow! Or... am I??? I hate shoveling snow so I do hope it isn't another of my blasted illusions!

[theaudiohobby]

I know what you're getting at, but I will stand by my position that sighted = bias = not accurate. From my personal experiences dealing with patients every working day, I will hold this to be a 100% incontrovertible truth. The twain shall meet if ever there is somebody who can demonstrate in a blind test the ability to determine which cable is playing with any sort of statistical significance.

For cables yes, but when you start discussing loudspeakers, sources and amplifiers, a blind test is not necessary. Though I agree that blind-testing largely eliminates.the imaginary "subtle" differences that many audiophiles proclaim.

[kexodusc]

For cables yes, but when you start discussing loudspeakers, sources and amplifiers, a blind test is not necessary. Though I agree that blind-testing largely eliminates.the imaginary "subtle" differences that many audiophiles proclaim.

I'd even go a step further...on the issues of amplifiers and CD players, there have been hundreds of test proving that decent built home theater receivers and cd players, operating within their design capacities, are audibly indistinguishable from high-end, multi-thousand dollar amplifiers/cd players in blind tests. Audiophiles don't like this, yet despite offered rewards in excess of $10,000 to the first person to be able to discern between a $200 amp and a $10000 amp in DBT conditions, no one has been successful to date. The audiophile world is looking for a hero here to end this debate, maybe you should try out?

As much as I don't like it, this means something.

I find that hard to believe myself, owning more than a few high-end amps, but I still can't deny the possiblility I imagine what I hear! But if I'm happy, then the price I pay is worth it.

It would seem loudspeakers are the only equipment that can be proven to substantially impact sound. Though, this might just mean more work is required in developing test methods...

Until then, I remain on the fence...coward that I am...

[musicoverall]

It would seem loudspeakers are the only equipment that can be proven to substantially impact sound. Though, this might just mean more work is required in developing test methods...

And since I just read from a couple of sources that loudspeakers are indistinguishable (or nearly so) from live music - on this very thread. I can't wait to find out which speakers they are! Soon we will all have the same systems!

Seriously, if loudspeakers have broad sonic differences (and they should! - planars vs box vs horns) and blind testing can pick these up but "no one" has been able to tell the difference between any other component in a blind test, might it be true that blind tests are only useful in discerning gross differences and not subtle ones?

[markw]

Seriously, if loudspeakers have broad sonic differences (and they should! - planars vs box vs horns) and blind testing can pick these up but "no one" has been able to tell the difference between any other component in a blind test, might it be true that blind tests are only useful in discerning gross differences and not subtle ones?

The blind tests DO work and maybe, just maybe, these greatly touted sonic differences are not as great as some would imagine. Heck, if ya gotta see it to identify it then these arguments kinda lose all validity. So much for using your ears, eh?


I know that this sticks in some peoples craw but, there it is.

[kexodusc]

Seriously, if loudspeakers have broad sonic differences (and they should! - planars vs box vs horns) and blind testing can pick these up but "no one" has been able to tell the difference between any other component in a blind test, might it be true that blind tests are only useful in discerning gross differences and not subtle ones?

Could be...I find that hard to believe though. You'd have to explain why seeing which amp you're using helps you hear better. If a difference exists, you should be able to hear regardless of whether you can see the equipment or not. And you should be able to hear it consistently and demonstrate this.

I think that's missing the point though. Even if you can hear the difference, barely, 6 out of 10 times on a piece of gear that costs 20%, 100% or 10 times as much as another, is it really worth it? Probably to some...But if so, I don't think they can use the words "better" or "more musical" or whatever to describe their equipment relative others, instead they should have to say "barely better at 10 times the cost"

[markw]

Now I'm off to shovel snow! Or... am I???

...but from what I've been reading, it ain't snow.

[musicoverall]

I think that's missing the point though. Even if you can hear the difference, barely, 6 out of 10 times on a piece of gear that costs 20%, 100% or 10 times as much as another, is it really worth it? Probably to some...But if so, I don't think they can use the words "better" or "more musical" or whatever to describe their equipment relative others, instead they should have to say "barely better at 10 times the cost"

But to some people, a 2% improvement in sound is worth a huge premium. There's nothing wrong with that, as I see it.

[musicoverall]

...but from what I've been reading, it ain't snow.

Could very well be. When someone places something that needs shoveling on my doorstep, I usually shovel it to make it go away!

[musicoverall]

[QUOTE=markw]The blind tests DO work and maybe, just maybe, these greatly touted sonic differences are not as great as some would imagine. Heck, if ya gotta see it to identify it then these arguments kinda lose all validity. So much for using your ears, eh?
/QUOTE]

Perhaps. But introducing an ABX box introduces more electronics (possibly degrading!) to the signal and quickie back and forth snippets never worked for me, anyway. Isn't that how those tests have been used?

Hey, I'm certainly no expert in this stuff and it isn't as though I'm unwilling to learn new things or too set in my ways. But I remain unconvinced that blind tests are necessary, just as I remain unconvinced that cables are strictly slaves of their LCR parameters. Call me crazy. Ok, I know you will!

[markw]

But introducing an ABX box introduces more electronics (possibly degrading!) to the signal and quickie back and forth snippets never worked for me, anyway. Isn't that how those tests have been used?

All it takes is a good friend you trust and the willingness to try be honest with yourself. Years ago I got hold of some hi zoot speaker cables and swore up and down to my friend (who lived in the same apartment complex) about it. He doubted it. I was aghast that he could not hear what I so obviously heard!

So, since we worked different shifts, he would come into my apartment when I was not home and (randomly) hook up either my new favorites or my old junky cables. Every day, I was to write down what cables I was listening to. My home, my system, my music, no time constraint or pressure. Just use my ears and let them decide. Of course, I could have peeked but that would not have been Kosher, would it?

After two weeks, I was right about 50% correct or, IOW, I had no idea what I was hearing.

Deflated my audiophile ego, it did...

[kexodusc]

But to some people, a 2% improvement in sound is worth a huge premium. There's nothing wrong with that, as I see it.

Nope, not at all...Lord knows I've spent a bit of money on amps and the likes over the years, and in all likelihood will continue to do so. I think to be an audio enthusiast/audiophile, you pretty much have to accept diminishing returns.

But I'm careful not to make boastful claims of vast superiority of the equipment I chose over others, particularly when it can be very small, and negligible to most (though I slip up often enough). Let's flip that 2% improvement around, that could mean 98% of the time you can't tell it's better...

I'm not adverse to high quality (and expensive) electronics, but rather I'm of the opinion that for most people, you'll get more improvement by upgrading your speakers (or waiting until you have saved more money and can afford to ) than upgrading amplification (unless more power is needed). If you can't wait by all means improve your components.

[musicoverall]

All it takes is a good friend you trust and the willingness to try be honest with yourself. Years ago I got hold of some hi zoot speaker cables and swore up and down to my friend (who lived in the same apartment complex) about it. He doubted it. I was aghast that he could not hear what I so obviously heard!

So, since we worked different shifts, he would come into my apartment when I was not home and (randomly) hook up either my new favorites or my old junky cables. Every day, I was to write down what cables I was listening to. My home, my system, my music, no time constraint or pressure. Just use my ears and let them decide. Of course, I could have peeked but that would not have been Kosher, would it?

After two weeks, I was right about 50% correct or, IOW, I had no idea what I was hearing.

Deflated my audiophile ego, it did...

Interesting. What percentage of correct answers would constitute a positive outcome?

Thank goodness you trusted this friend! Right now I'd be afraid that I'd come home and find CD's missing and a pregnant dog!

[risabet]

Simply because no one has ever been able to demonstrate when "blind" that the premise has any validity to it at all - that's how one can know. This is not to say that there is positively, absolutely no sonic difference whatsoever between different cables ... only that whatever differences that might exist are likely to be so minimal - so subtle - so inconsequential - that being able to detect them in a "blind test" is all but impossible.



Yes, I not only "suggest" it, I will go so far as to state it as an incontrovertible FACT that what our 5 senses provide us are under the direct influence and control of the Attitudes and Beliefs that an individual holds. Of course you can "trust" your senses ... to provide you with a sensory perception - but, you cannot trust any of your senses to also tell you what is true and "real" and what is only an illusion. An illusion that you yourself are responsible for the creation of.



Why not? If the phenomenon of "cable sonics" were indeed "real", how does it stand to reason that only a small minority of humans are able to detect them? And when those that report "hearing" such things can only do so when "sighted" listening is involved, and when listening "blind" they fail to be able to "hear" quite as clearly, doesn't that raise a warning flag of suspicion up the ol' flagpole?



No, not unless someone was trying to sell me a jar of peanut butter for $200 with the promise that it would enrich my life in countless ways and make me cherish the day that I discovered such a wonderful product ... then, I might. Then again, on second thought, I'd probably just grab a shotgun and chase his unscrupulous BS ass out of my house!

Point 1. No one! Unless you have read all of the related literature on this topic you don't know that no one has been able to demonstrate the premise. The subtlety of cable differences may be trivial to you but many of us find just those subtleties to be at the heart of music reproduction.

Point 2. True enough, as far as this goes, we have all seen example of optical illusions, but how many of us have had taste illusions etc.

Point 3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Only a handful of people have a deep understanding of Einstein's Relativity equations but they describe the world pretty well. Because only a small minority understand them would you indict the equations?

The problem with absolute statements is that our experience is limited in both time and space, thus we can not justify making comments that are opinions sound like facts. Ours is a subjective hobby.

[markw]

Interesting. What percentage of correct answers would constitute a positive outcome?

Thank goodness you trusted this friend! Right now I'd be afraid that I'd come home and find CD's missing and a pregnant dog!

We agreed that a hit rate of 80% would satisfy that an audiable difference existed. I didn't worry about a pregnant dog because we fed each other's cats and took in the mail when we were away and my female was fixed. CD's (at least in the audio sense) didn't exist in those days and we regularly shared records anyway.

Hmmmm. ...now that you mention it, Goldenberry always did like him...

[musicoverall]

Let's flip that 2% improvement around, that could mean 98% of the time you can't tell it's better....

Not at all. It means that it's always 2% better sounding. Small improvement but one that's always in evidence. I pulled the number off the wall but it was only for the sake of making a point.

Otherwise, I totally agree with your post.

[musicoverall]

We agreed that a hit rate of 80% would satisfy that an audiable difference existed. I didn't worry about a pregnant dog because we fed each other's cats and took in the mail when we were away and my female was fixed. CD's (at least in the audio sense) didn't exist in those days and we regularly shared records anyway.

Hmmmm. ...now that you mention it, Goldenberry always did like him...

Fixing them doesn't mean they ain't interested no more! My parents female dog humps just about anything, including the air - in a kind of grotesque burlesque. The vet says it's an involuntary action. It's definitely a room clearing escapade in the best Three Stooges routine... "Whooooooooaaaaaaaa!!!!!"

80%, eh? And I doubt 5 trials would satisfy anyone so it looks like 10, minimum. Well, no time like the present....

[kexodusc]

Not at all. It means that it's always 2% better sounding. Small improvement but one that's always in evidence. I pulled the number off the wall but it was only for the sake of making a point.

Otherwise, I totally agree with your post.

This I find impossible to believe...sometimes 2% (or whatever number) better sounding. Simple passages aren't necessarily all that demanding. Some times even low-end gear can reproduce these to perfection, or at least AS GOOD as a better piece of gear.
And I think we can both admit, sometimes a better amp is better at most attributes yet worse at others.
It would be more accurate to say, we sometimes think we hear it being 2% better at some things, though we are unable to consistently demonstrate that we hear it is better .


Yikes, I'm sounding like naysayer...gonna have to sell my Rotel and by a Sony receiver...