Cable Delusions

[RobotCzar]

This is one of my infrequent messages to this forum. I just like to drop in and let any newcommers who are reading this stuff know that threre are some inconvenient facts that get in the way of the audiophile love fest. Let's look at a few statements from a post in this forum:

"There is lots of methadology concerning double blind testing."
Well, there is lots of methadology concerning any...method. Is this at all sensible?

"There are those who have problems with the concept of double blind testing."
There are those who "have problems" with the Earth being round. Those people do not include scientists and judges, as double blind testing is REQUIRED in many scientific testing protocols and is often required to resolve product claims in a court of law.

"Most of the time double blind testing is used to reinforce the objectivists contention that there is no difference between cables electronics or any thing else."
This statement has it backwards. DBT is used in testing ANY differences in perception and clearly shows that humans can make many subtle audio distinctions (such as in volume level). Objectivists (or rationalists if you prefer) point out that those claiming to hear differences in everything have not demonstrated that they can in a scientific listening test. For example, audible differences in typical home cables have never been demonstrated in a scientifically controlled test. Given how big a difference many posters in this forum claim for cables, you think one of them could actually show that they can hear a difference without know in advance which cable is which. Show us, don't tell us what you hear.

"If anyone hears a difference in wires or cables the onus is not on them to prove it. It is up to those who disbelieve to disprove it."

This is not correct scientifically. The onus is on the person making the claim. I can say "I can jump to the moon" and the onus is not on you to disprove it. Note that one probably can prove scientifically and rationally that I can't jumpt to the moon, just as one can prove, by analysis and measurment, that one cannot possibly hear differences in typical home audio cables.

"If I am wishfully thinking so be it. It is my money and my ears that I have to satisfy. If it sounds better to me then it is. If it is my imagination I don't care."
This is, at last, the crux of the argument. People believe they will hear differences and they will (in their mind). But, when they do not have the cues to help their mind, they cannot. This is a well-established psychological principle which allows high-end sellers to make a lot of money. Another well-established principle is that people will not give up their false beliefs when faced with evidence they are wrong. So, I don't expect the people who regularly post here will change their minds, but some new people may be misled by the major deceptions present in the world of home audio.

Note that many people who post are eager to tell you what component are in their system. THAT is what high end is about--ego and one upsmanship. It is like owning jewelery. Such people are scientifically naive, but they can't help telling other what they should hear.

So, are you a person who wants to pay big money for illustions you make up in your mind, go right ahead-- become a high-end audiophool. If you want accurate home audio at a reasonable price, avoid places like this or any popular audio magazines.

[Bernd]

Are you the saviour of the newbie or after an arguement?
I do agree with some of your post, but it isn't right to generalise. And lets not forget that this is a hobby. If I have the money and want to buy an expensive cable, I will. I don't feel the need to have to prove anything. And here comes my qualifier- it has to justify it's cost to "my" ears. No-one elses. Am I interested in measurements. No. Will I try before I buy-absolutly always.
The best we can do is share our findings and experiences with fellow audio friends and let them decide for themselves.

Peace

Bernd

[JohnMichael]

Well you tell people to avoid AR and magazines but then you fail to advise them where to go to learn. So you are not helping.

As far as cables and other audio components what might have sounded best to us on initial purchase does not bring long term musical pleasure. We might choose the best sounding cable from a blind test only to find out that after several weeks the sound is grating.

I hear differences in cables but I am not concerned in proving that to you. It is a part of music reproduction with which I seem to be sensitive. I can not listen to most stranded cables for very long at a time. Other distortions I may not notice might drive someone else up the wall. Bright speakers and components can send me out of a room quickly.

I hope everyone can learn to trust their ears and buy what brings them musical pleasure. Just like the czar this is just an opinion and your own experiences matter more.

[JoeE SP9]

What I find interesting is the two buddies who I have infected with audiophilia both came to me asking about wires sounding different. This was after they had changed a cable and their wives had complained about the difference in the sound.
I gave them them both sides of the argument. My side being that everything can make things sound different and the objectivists side that any competently designed and constructed device or wire is indistinguishable from another. I even told them about double blind testing and the null results usually acheived. Their wives subsequently convinced them both to upgrade their interconnects and speaker cables.

[Bernd]

John Michael makes a very valid point and not for the first time.
An instant A-B comparison of cables is usualy useless as it does indeed take some time for the cable to integrate into ones system. I am certain that everytime you move your cables about, it takes again some time to have them settled in.Not day and night but certainly different. I have no measurements or scientific proof for this, just my ears. And that's good enough for me. I believe that whatever you do to your system has an effect on the re-produced sound. Some big some small. This makes it very vulnerable to Charlatans and Snake oil vendors.
"Trust your ears" is the best advice one can follow.

Enjoy the music

Bernd

[Fergymunster]

Thanks for your thoughts Robotczar.I thought I was the only one who has their sanity intact.My thinking is it is sheer madness that's going on in the power cord and power conditioner buisness.Most "audiophiles" claim it's a hooby.It's far worse,it's a full blown addiction.

[bacchanal]

I am certain that everytime you move your cables about, it takes again some time to have them settled in.Not day and night but certainly different. I have no measurements or scientific proof for this, just my ears.

So if I go and jostle your cables when you're in the other room, you'll notice? Your ears must be golden!

[superpanavision70mm]

It's all in your head if you are hearing differences just by moving the cables around a bit.

[Resident Loser]

...may be in order for the benefit of some of the site noobs...RobotCzar is a longtime (if infrequent) poster who has carried the same message...to wit: that there is a rational, objective POV to this hobby to which the hobby-noobs should be made aware of as an alternative to a steady diet of the questionable subjective and anecdotal a...er, audiopilia that has become prevalent...One whose sole support is based an a rather tenuous premise of allowing the ears to be the pre-eminent arbiter while completely disregarding the existence of outside influences impinging on the results achieved using this methodology...further supported by the constant use of psuedo-scientific, jargon-based "factoids" which have little or nothing to do with audio reproduction...or much else for that matter.

jimHJJ(...but golly gee, they sure sound convincing...)

[Bernd]

Hello Jim,
How are you doing? Spring has bloody disappeared again. I am waiting for snow.
Even so I agree with most of your post but what gets me is the" I know and you don't" attitude from "Both" sides of the argument.
You are right we are swamped with idiotic terminology and I felt that George Cardas' note stayed mostly clear of that, and made some very good points.
And newbies should be made aware of both sides and if you spent say $1000 on a first time system it makes no sense whatsoever to spent that amount again on cables. You will not hear it. But add a nought and then spent 10% of that on your cables and you will hear a change in presentation, or you should.
And as I mentioned I don't care what somebody else hears. For me the best benefit one can recieve or give is by sharing ones experiences on sites like this.

Peace

Bernd

[jneutron]

Hello Jim,
How are you doing? Spring has bloody disappeared again. I am waiting for snow.
Even so I agree with most of your post but what gets me is the" I know and you don't" attitude from "Both" sides of the argument.
You are right we are swamped with idiotic terminology and I felt that George Cardas' note stayed mostly clear of that, and made some very good points.
And newbies should be made aware of both sides and if you spent say $1000 on a first time system it makes no sense whatsoever to spent that amount again on cables. You will not hear it. But add a nought and then spent 10% of that on your cables and you will hear a change in presentation, or you should.
And as I mentioned I don't care what somebody else hears. For me the best benefit one can recieve or give is by sharing ones experiences on sites like this.

Peace

Bernd

OOOOHHHH, that explains it..

I saw the signat of cardas at the bottom...was thinkin you were he..and that you accidentally signed it..

Ya gotta attribute text to the author, guy....or mistakes will be made..

Sheesh..

Most of that collection of english words is simply a collection of cowchips..

Cheers, John

[Resident Loser]

...one case in point I didn't have time to address earlier is the mention of "...play a degaussing sweep..."?????????????????

Now I purport to be no expert, I'll defer to our magnet-maven jneutron on that, but the only degaussing that I'm familiar with is re: tape recorders which require an electronic device and careful manipulation of said device to counter residual magnetism...also with CRTs which usually have an added bit of hardware to accomplish the same end on each power-up...generally speaking an electro-mechanical process/device...

If I am to believe the quote, there is a disc that somehow completly eliminates this manual process by sending a stream of 1s and 0s which, via a reconstituted signal within the audible spectrum, degauss? And degauss what in particular?

Does magnetism even have a frequency range? If so it ain't 20Hz-20kHz...Electromagnetic force is simply one of the four fundamental forces and the variant/hybrid we use and encounter with regularity is electrodynamics...

Signal traces on PCBs and wiring other is copper...the last time I looked copper, while a conductor, was a non-magnetic metal...yes, it's used in electromagnets, but the operative force is the varying signal that passes through it and it doesn't retain any charge that I'm aware of...after all, your loudspeakers would lock-up if that were the case as soon as a signal was applied...and if the conductor doesn't retain one, what chance does a dielectric material have...and I believe static electricity and rubbing balloons or yer cat's @$$ is a whole 'nother thing...so let's avoid that trip...or touch your cables once in a while, that should discharge 'em.

There was a regular poster here who said the white-coats at IBM were able to take a micro-photo of the sub-atomic thingies in your every-day, garden variety copper wire, they had cajoled and coerced into forming the letters I...B and M...under a strong magnetic field...perhaps under radioactive bombardment...in a vacuum...at zero degrees Kelvin...neat parlor trick, but since the environment is neither particularly practical nor naturally ocurring, it begs the question...

jimHJJ(...so what?...)

[Bernd]

Well Jim,
It is such an emotive subject and I am certainly no technical expert and am certain that there is a lot of sales patter flying about. All I know is that the Cardas Golden Reference works for me better than any other I have tried.
But is no good me arguing a point for all costs about something that only I have experienced, in my room,etc,etc.
And here is something else that is hard to explain I think. I play once week a "Densen -DeMagic" cd. It's a 3 min long mix of tones and here is what it does:

Quote-"The DeMagic cleans the entire signal path of magnetism which has been build up during playback, due to DC leakage and other influences on all the parts used in the audio components.This magnetism results in magnetic introduced distortion (MID), where the magnetic fields distort the audio signal. By removing the MID with the disc a much clearer, more dynamic, detailed and transparent sound emerges."Quote

It works. And believe me that something that costs me £15 (which does not brake the bank) and does not work would end up in the trash. But this disc really works. Can't tell you more than that and I will continue to use it .

Peace

Bernd

[JohnMichael]

Well Jim,
It is such an emotive subject and I am certainly no technical expert and am certain that there is a lot of sales patter flying about. All I know is that the Cardas Golden Reference works for me better than any other I have tried.
But is no good me arguing a point for all costs about something that only I have experienced, in my room,etc,etc.
And here is something else that is hard to explain I think. I play once week a "Densen -DeMagic" cd. It's a 3 min long mix of tones and here is what it does:

Quote-"The DeMagic cleans the entire signal path of magnetism which has been build up during playback, due to DC leakage and other influences on all the parts used in the audio components.This magnetism results in magnetic introduced distortion (MID), where the magnetic fields distort the audio signal. By removing the MID with the disc a much clearer, more dynamic, detailed and transparent sound emerges."Quote

It works. And believe me that something that costs me £15 (which does not brake the bank) and does not work would end up in the trash. But this disc really works. Can't tell you more than that and I will continue to use it .

Peace

Bernd

Bernd I would like to recommend the Cardas disc for your turntable. It helps demag the cartridge and other components down stream. It is inexpensive and beneficial. Of course you may already have a cartridge demagnatizer. If not ry the Cardas.

[Resident Loser]

Well Jim,
It is such an emotive subject and I am certainly no technical expert and am certain that there is a lot of sales patter flying about. All I know is that the Cardas Golden Reference works for me better than any other I have tried.
But is no good me arguing a point for all costs about something that only I have experienced, in my room,etc,etc.
And here is something else that is hard to explain I think. I play once week a "Densen -DeMagic" cd. It's a 3 min long mix of tones and here is what it does:

Quote-"The DeMagic cleans the entire signal path of magnetism which has been build up during playback, due to DC leakage and other influences on all the parts used in the audio components.This magnetism results in magnetic introduced distortion (MID), where the magnetic fields distort the audio signal. By removing the MID with the disc a much clearer, more dynamic, detailed and transparent sound emerges."Quote

It works. And believe me that something that costs me £15 (which does not brake the bank) and does not work would end up in the trash. But this disc really works. Can't tell you more than that and I will continue to use it .

Peace

Bernd

...can't breathe....BWWAAAHH-HAA-HAa-ha-ha-ha...chuckle, chortle...cough, cough...there...that's better, nearly peed meself...not your post Bernd...I visited the Densen website and read the reviews of De-magic...thanks, I need a good laugh now and again...First, there is a vast difference between a "...powerful test signal..." as they put it and an "...algorithm of signals..." whatever that is...Most sounds from modern synthesizers are mathematical models, i.e. algorithm-based, but just what is an "...algorithm of signals..." and algorithm of alogrithms? and then of course there are the omnipresent, scientifically-vague tests conducted the the University of South Korea that "...definitely proved the theory behind the De-Magic signal..." Can you say psuedo-science factoid?

Proving any theory isn't quite the same as establishing the efficacy of a product or process based on that theory...but golly, it sure sounds like it does don't it? I have a theory that water will put out a fire and I can prove it...in reality however, water can't be used on all fires...depends on the circumstance...sorta' like my IBM story.

And if breaking-in entails getting all of your sonic ducks in a row, by lining up electrons or polarizing micro-diodes, why would you then want to disrupt the order that has been created in that process by blasting your handiwork with the random noise produced by the aforementioned algorithm? Isn't it sorta' like using a cable cooker on cryogenically treated wires?

Again Bernd, nothing personal and I'm happy that you're happy...

jimHJJ(...I have to go now and participate in a distinctly non-DC leakage...)

[musicoverall]

This is one of my infrequent messages to this forum. I just like to drop in and let any newcommers who are reading this stuff know that threre are some inconvenient facts that get in the way of the audiophile love fest. Let's look at a few statements from a post in this forum:

"There is lots of methadology concerning double blind testing."
Well, there is lots of methadology concerning any...method. Is this at all sensible?

"There are those who have problems with the concept of double blind testing."
There are those who "have problems" with the Earth being round. Those people do not include scientists and judges, as double blind testing is REQUIRED in many scientific testing protocols and is often required to resolve product claims in a court of law.

"Most of the time double blind testing is used to reinforce the objectivists contention that there is no difference between cables electronics or any thing else."
This statement has it backwards. DBT is used in testing ANY differences in perception and clearly shows that humans can make many subtle audio distinctions (such as in volume level). Objectivists (or rationalists if you prefer) point out that those claiming to hear differences in everything have not demonstrated that they can in a scientific listening test. For example, audible differences in typical home cables have never been demonstrated in a scientifically controlled test. Given how big a difference many posters in this forum claim for cables, you think one of them could actually show that they can hear a difference without know in advance which cable is which. Show us, don't tell us what you hear.

"If anyone hears a difference in wires or cables the onus is not on them to prove it. It is up to those who disbelieve to disprove it."

This is not correct scientifically. The onus is on the person making the claim. I can say "I can jump to the moon" and the onus is not on you to disprove it. Note that one probably can prove scientifically and rationally that I can't jumpt to the moon, just as one can prove, by analysis and measurment, that one cannot possibly hear differences in typical home audio cables.

"If I am wishfully thinking so be it. It is my money and my ears that I have to satisfy. If it sounds better to me then it is. If it is my imagination I don't care."
This is, at last, the crux of the argument. People believe they will hear differences and they will (in their mind). But, when they do not have the cues to help their mind, they cannot. This is a well-established psychological principle which allows high-end sellers to make a lot of money. Another well-established principle is that people will not give up their false beliefs when faced with evidence they are wrong. So, I don't expect the people who regularly post here will change their minds, but some new people may be misled by the major deceptions present in the world of home audio.

Note that many people who post are eager to tell you what component are in their system. THAT is what high end is about--ego and one upsmanship. It is like owning jewelery. Such people are scientifically naive, but they can't help telling other what they should hear.

So, are you a person who wants to pay big money for illustions you make up in your mind, go right ahead-- become a high-end audiophool. If you want accurate home audio at a reasonable price, avoid places like this or any popular audio magazines.

...newcomers should also note that it's your own ears that matter, not demands for proof from others. Robot Czar's opinion should not enter into the equation anymore than mine should. It's your own listening that should dictate what you believe. You owe proof to no one but yourself. Your ears are different than mine and, God willing, they are different from Robot Czar's as well.

But I have to say that I LOVED this quote of his: " Note that many people who post are eager to tell you what component are in their system. THAT is what high end is about--ego and one upsmanship. It is like owning jewelery. Such people are scientifically naive, but they can't help telling other what they should hear."

Perhaps we share our systems because this is an audio hobbyist website? And I wonder how he would classify people who can't help telling people what they should NOT hear! LOL!

[E-Stat]

So, are you a person who wants to pay big money for illustions you make up in your mind, go right ahead-- become a high-end audiophool.

Count me in as a music lover who enjoys the "illustions" I hear in the concert hall.

rw

[Resident Loser]

Count me in as a music lover who enjoys the "illustions" I hear in the concert hall.

rw

...Everything you hear in a concert hall is real physics, pure and simple, measurable, definable...from a vibrating string or column of air, straight to your tympanic membrane and dem bones, dem bones, dem ear-bones...

jimHJJ(...hot-chaa...)

[E-Stat]

...Everything you hear in a concert hall is real physics, pure and simple, measurable, definable...from a vibrating string or column of air, straight to your tympanic membrane and dem bones, dem bones, dem ear-bones..

It's certainly a shame that we are unable to quantify those aspects in absolute terms.

rw

[Resident Loser]

It's certainly a shame that we are unable to quantify those aspects in absolute terms.

rw

...a string or column of air vibrates at a specific frequency...the instrument has specific overtones that further identify it...it travels through space bouncing hither and tither in the hall...the ear hears the sound, the separate arrival times are translated by the brain which localizes the source reasonably well and voila!...applause. Quite quantifiable and measureable in one manner or another, even if biology enters the equation at the end, it too is understood to some degree...charts, graphs, numbers...nothing really vague about it...

jimHJJ(...it's them wires that confuse the issue...)

[E-Stat]

...a string or column of air vibrates at a specific frequency...the instrument has specific overtones that further identify it...it travels through space bouncing hither and tither in the hall...the ear hears the sound, the separate arrival times are translated by the brain which localizes the source reasonably well and voila!...applause. Quite quantifiable and measureable in one manner or another, even if biology enters the equation at the end, it too is understood to some degree...charts, graphs, numbers...nothing really vague about it...

What is not quantifiable, however, is correlating any of that using conventional audio component metrics. Distortion measurements of all sorts are useless. Frequency response curves are useless in all but extreme cases. And so on and so on.

..it's them wires that confuse the issue...)

Indeed they do because we don't know why it is most don't pass all the musical content there is to be had.

rw

[superpanavision70mm]

I thought it was TARA LABS that was under investigation regarind the manufacturing.

[Resident Loser]

I thought it was TARA LABS that was under investigation regarind the manufacturing.

...further investigation (after the fact) shows it was Tara Labs and not Cardas...Apologies to them are in order and I didn't mean to single them out...My intent is to indict the whole cottage industry of dubious tweak-dom, whether it be CD lens cleaners, degaussing discs, eutectic solders, et al...

Like the proverbial tip-of-the-iceberg or if you see a roach it's probably too late, Tara's the one we know about...

jimHJJ(...mea culpa...)