Finally made my cable decision!

[Rycher]

I like to tweak my system as much as the next guy, sometimes that involves changing cables, toeing in speakers, etc. I guess that's the fun part about this hobby: you get a manufactured piece of gear and you try to improve on it. It's a fun game with varying results. I do believe in blind tests and such, but only to a point. I won't go to extremes to try to disprove or prove something. If it sounds good to me, then my test is done, so to say.

[Pat D]

Yeah, go to my last thread in the Audio Lab. Sighted testing is for the birds.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showth...8332#post68332

PatD: why argue with some of these people? You may as well start hitting yourself in the head with a brick. That way you can descend to their intelligence level.

There's no particular reason to suppose they are deficient in intelligence. It can be hard to accept human bias applies to oneself.

I just try to present the facts and reasoning.

[musicoverall]

But in the end I realised that I don't need to prove anything to anyone, much less have anyone prove anything to me. I trust my ears and eyes, even if what I see conflicts with what you see. At the end of the day it's my money spent on my system. There are a lot of people that will try their hardest, as if their very existence depended on it, to prove to you that they are right and you are wrong. The reality is that there are too many shades of grey to call it black and white. What one person tests as positive, another can test as negative. It's all opinion. And while I'm happy and interested in hearing your opinion on certain subjects, please understand that I too have an opinion.

This cannot be conveyed any better. In fact, I may link this post as some of my responses. Well done! Thanks!

[Rycher]

There's no particular reason to suppose they are deficient in intelligence. It can be hard to accept human bias applies to oneself.

I just try to present the facts and reasoning.

Good for you, Pat, to not lower yourself to a lesser intelligence as so many others do on this board. No one's intelligence should be attacked simply because they believe in something that you don't.

[magictooth]

There's no particular reason to suppose they are deficient in intelligence. It can be hard to accept human bias applies to oneself.

I just try to present the facts and reasoning.

You, musicoverall, and others are correct in that I was wrong to infer a deficiency in intelligence in the sighted testing crowd. I apologize for that.

However, it's hard to believe that there isn't something wrong with a certain group of people when that group clings to the belief that sighted testing is valid, but that the weight of the entire scientific community with regards to testing methodology is firmly against you. Do you believe everything that you see? I can see the land is flat. I should believe that the Earth is flat as well. Look!! The sun rises and sets every day. I believe that it must be the sun revolving around the flat Earth. This is the state of science today if we had kept believing in anecdotal evidence instead of empirical. The litany of sensory observations that have been proven incorrect over the years is beyond enormous.

Did you read my last thread in the Lab? I had two points. Maybe the yeasayers can slough off the my own small scale experiment, but how do you slough off what real researchers do? For the control group of 100 people, they're subjecting them to general anesthesia, they're cutting their legs open, and they're gaining access to the femoral artery - all in an attempt to rule out any psychosomatic effect that may occur.

(Rhetorical question) How can you possibly do less for yourself? It's like you're shortchanging yourself. You're cheating yourself. I find that disturbing to say the least. I find it even more disturbing that they have the gall to promote their own ignorance as fact to others. There's a hard headedness there that I find truly difficult to understand.

[musicoverall]

You, musicoverall, and others are correct in that I was wrong to infer a deficiency in intelligence in the sighted testing crowd. I apologize for that.

However, it's hard to believe that there isn't something wrong with a certain group of people when that group clings to the belief that sighted testing is valid, but that the weight of the entire scientific community with regards to testing methodology is firmly against you. Do you believe everything that you see? I can see the land is flat. I should believe that the Earth is flat as well. Look!! The sun rises and sets every day. I believe that it must be the sun revolving around the flat Earth. This is the state of science today if we had kept believing in anecdotal evidence instead of empirical. The litany of sensory observations that have been proven incorrect over the years is beyond enormous.

Did you read my last thread in the Lab? I had two points. Maybe the yeasayers can slough off the my own small scale experiment, but how do you slough off what real researchers do? For the control group of 100 people, they're subjecting them to general anesthesia, they're cutting their legs open, and they're gaining access to the femoral artery - all in an attempt to rule out any psychosomatic effect that may occur.

(Rhetorical question) How can you possibly do less for yourself? It's like you're shortchanging yourself. You're cheating yourself. I find that disturbing to say the least. I find it even more disturbing that they have the gall to promote their own ignorance as fact to others. There's a hard headedness there that I find truly difficult to understand.

I don't look at cable sonics as a scientific study. Correctly or incorrectly, I don't. Frankly, I don't care about that much. What I do care about is music. Anything that conveys the music to me in the manner in which I deem best is the direction I go. It's a personal truth. Cables sounding different isn't something I deem as an absolute fact. I'm not a researcher, a scientist, an engineer or anything like that. Big shock, huh? I'm a music lover and musician. As for understanding the physics behind cables, I don't need to know. Suggesting I do would be like suggesting you can't appreciate a violin or guitar because you can't read music - example only for perhaps you can read music but many music lovers can't and wouldn't know an ostinato from a scherzo except perhaps as a nebulous term.

Still, I appreciate and respect those who go out and try to prove things scientifically. That's their "muse" if you'll allow me to use an artistic word to describe a scientist. Do I believe everything I see? Not if there's absolute proof that what I see is wrong. If I'm a witness to a crime and I recount what I saw, should I later say that I didn't see what I thought if it turns out I'm wrong? No, I would maintain that what I saw is what I saw and if it's proven that what I saw wasn't accurate, fine. It doesn't change what I perceived. I know the earth revolves around the sun because it's been proven. That all cables sound identical has not been proven and it's unlikely that it ever will, either because it's NOT true or because no one cares enough to try and prove it. And it's a given that yeasayers won't try to prove it! If it ever is proven that all cables sound alike, I will recant my position. As it stands, empirical evidence shows me that many sound different and some of them VERY different - in the context of subtleties, of course. It isn't hardheadedness; it's respect and trust in one's senses and enjoying the things that those senses give to us. The cables I bought allow me to more fully enjoy the music. If my view isn't shared by others, my view doesn't change as a result. I'm still comfortable enough with it that I don't feel the need to test it double blind. Where does such testing end? My list of preferences is limited only by my experiences and I certainly don't have the time or inclination to test them all. I can't even comprehend the motivation of anyone that would.

Going forward, I will do my best to convey to other posters that my perceptions are indeed my own and are not necessarily factual. However, I will continue to advise those asking that they should audition cables and draw their own conclusions.

[magictooth]

I know the earth revolves around the sun because it's been proven. That all cables sound identical has not been proven and it's unlikely that it ever will, either because it's NOT true or because no one cares enough to try and prove it...

As it stands, empirical evidence shows me that many sound different and some of them VERY different - in the context of subtleties, of course.

How can you know that the sun revolves around the Earth if you've never seen with your own two eyes that it does? That all cables sound identical has not been proven is certainly true, but the fact that sighted testing has been found to produce bogus results has been proven. Try to get your paper vetted by any reputable journal using sighted testing as your methodology and you'll never get another paper accepted anywhere by anyone.

Your evidence is anecdotal not empirical. That's why it is unacceptable to use. That's like saying my kid is the greatest player on Earth. I've seen it with my own two eyes.

[musicoverall]

How can you know that the sun revolves around the Earth if you've never seen with your own two eyes that it does? That all cables sound identical has not been proven is certainly true, but the fact that sighted testing has been found to produce bogus results has been proven. Try to get your paper vetted by any reputable journal using sighted testing as your methodology and you'll never get another paper accepted anywhere by anyone.

Your evidence is anecdotal not empirical. That's why it is unacceptable to use. That's like saying my kid is the greatest player on Earth. I've seen it with my own two eyes.

I can't "know" that the sun revolves around the earth - I have to believe those who have proven it does. As you said, no such proof exists that all cables sound identical.

I'm not writing papers - I'm listening to music. And my evidence can be either empirical or anecdotal or both depending upon our choice of semantics. And it isn't like saying your kid is the greatest anything because you've seen it unless you've seen him matched up against every other player. All I've claimed is that the cables I chose for my system are the best ones for that system amongst the ones I auditioned. Taken

[musicoverall]

I can't "know" that the sun revolves around the earth - I have to believe those who have proven it does. As you said, no such proof exists that all cables sound identical.

I'm not writing papers - I'm listening to music. And my evidence can be either empirical or anecdotal or both depending upon our choice of semantics. And it isn't like saying your kid is the greatest anything because you've seen it unless you've seen him matched up against every other player. All I've claimed is that the cables I chose for my system are the best ones for that system amongst the ones I auditioned. Taken

Sorry, the last word "taken" was the beginning of a new thought that I discarded.

[ruadmaa]

Well, my statements are usually all anecdotal, at least as they pertain to how something sounds. I couldn't possibly comment on everyone else's ears or how their system interacts. If the cable itself were all that was involved, it might be different but I haven't tried all cables with all ancillary equipment. So it's anecdotal, the same as if I were to say that Clifford Brown is a great trumpet player. You may disagree.

If you've done blind tests on CDP's, do you have access to a Rega Planet, perchance? Not the 2000 model - the original. I'm going to try to find one and do a blind test. There's no way that thing wasn't altered in manufacture to sound different. If so, it's quite possible that cables can be made to sound different, no?

What's the scoop on the $20K guy? Is the test in my home on my system? Do I need 100% correct answers or is statistical significance enough? What's the timeframe? Is the test "honest"? I think it depends on these and other answers if it's truly worth my time or if he's just set up a test to get the answers he wants and to save his money.

Who wants $10,000.00?
Do you think you can hear the difference between two amps?
Seriously, any two amps?
I am not joking. If you can hear the difference between two amps, you can make $10,000.00

Here is how it works:

Richard Clark, of Autsound 2000 and other assorted professions will pay you $10,000 if you can hear the differences between two amps, set up identically 24 out of 24 times.

Now, originally this was for car-audio amplifiers, however Richard claims that you cannot hear the difference between the best home amp and the worst car amp.

To read more check out:
Car-sound forum

Here the rules of the challange:
quote:
________________________________________
THE $10,000 AMPLIFIER CHALLENGE RULES {April 21, 2000}
By Richard Clark
There is no question that all amps are not the same. It is very easy to measure large differences in the performance of amplifiers. This is true in nearly every known specification, including power, noise, distortion, etc. My experience has led me to believe that even though these differences can be easily measured, hearing those differences may not be so easy. Given the relatively small magnitude of performance differences, there is a giant step between amplifier performance and our ability to hear performance differences.
It is claimed by designers, manufacturers and especially salespersons that differences in amplifiers are clearly audible. Reasons include "obvious" advantages of one type of circuit topology over another. For example, it is claimed that certain designs have a smoother midrange response whereas other amplifiers exhibit tighter bass. Tube fanatics claim that tube amplifiers have that "warm" sound we all need in our systems.
Such descriptive terms are certainly subject to personal interpretation. It is not my intention to determine if one particular amplifier is better than another amplifier. Differences in the quality of the discrete components and constructions are more appropriate for settling the issue of "good - better - best." The sole purpose of my amplifier challenge is to determine if the differences in amplifiers are audible.

What differences are Audible?

I believe the perceived differences in amplifiers are all due to various factors that can be explained with basic physics and elementary psyco-acoustics. For instance, if two amplifiers are not carefully matched in volume, and one amp is slightly louder than the other, then it would be a simple matter to detect such a difference. In such an example it is important to understand that it is not the circuit topology, quality of the component, design excellence, or superb marketing and packaging that caused the noticeable difference - it was an error in the test setup! It is my present belief that as long as a modern amplifier is operated within its linear range (below overload), the differences between amps are inaudible to the human ear.

Comparing Amps

The idea here is for a test subject to scientifically demonstrate his/her ability to hear differences in amplifiers. It is our job to carefully match the amps so that we are comparing "apples to apples" instead of "oranges to frogs." This means that we sure wouldn't want to compare one amplifier that had + 12 dB of high frequency boost against another amplifier that was adjusted for + 12 dB of bass boost. Such a test would be easy to pass - even on identical amplifiers with consecutive serial numbers.
For our comparison test, we aren't concerned with which amplifier sounds best to the test subject. We only require that the listener be able to identify each amplifier when it is powering the speakers. Since many folks seem to believe that amplifiers have some kind of distinctive sonic character, this test should be easy to pass. Right? After all, we're talking about comparing those harsh sounding, high distortion, squeaky "widget As" to those warm sounding, smooth, bass hog "widget Bs."
Now pay particular attention to the following sections. Since we're looking for differences in amplifiers, and we already know that those differences are probably going to be very, very small, it is important that the parameters under our control be carefully adjusted so as to be equal as possible. This means that we must be cognizant of differences we might unknowingly introduce between amp A and amp B. They must be adjusted as identical as possible. We already mentioned the importance of volume. The same goes for the L and R balance. It sure would be easy to choose an amplifier that exhibited left side bias over a balanced amp. Right?
Well, in order to keep this amplifier comparison test fair, there are a few other parameters that must be considered. I'll list them all in the following section.


Amplifier Comparison Test Conditions

1. Amplifier gain controls - of both channels - are matched to within +- .05 dB.

2. Speaker wires on both amps are properly wired with respect to polarity. (+ and -)

3. That neither amp has signal phase inversion. If so correction will be made in #2 above.

4. That neither amp is loaded beyond its rated impedance.

5. That all amplifiers with signal processors have those circuits bypassed. This includes bass boost circuits, filters, etc. If frequency tailoring circuits cannot be completely bypassed an equalizer will be inserted in the signal path of one (only one and the listener can decide which) of the amps to compensate for the difference. Compensation will also be made for input and output loading that affects frequency response. Since we are only listening for differences in the sonic signature of circuit topology, the addition of an EQ in one signal path only should make the test even easier.

6. That neither amp exhibits excessive noise (including RFI).

7. That each amp can be properly driven by the test setup. Not normally a problem but it is theoretically a problem.

8. That the L and R channels are not reversed in one amp.

9. That neither amp has excessive physical noise or other indicators that can be observed by the listener.

10. That neither amp has DC OFFSET that causes audible pops when its output is switched.

11. That the channel separation of all amps in the test is at least 30 dB from 20Hz to 20kHz.

Page 1 of 2


In addition to these requirements the test will be conducted according to the following rules.

Amplifier Test Comparison Rules

1. To make things easy we would prefer to use high quality home type loudspeakers for the test. If our speakers are not acceptable, the listener can provide any commercially available speaker system as long as it uses dynamic drivers. The actual measured impedance cannot exceed the rated load impedance of the amplifiers tested. If, however, the tester would like to perform the test in a car, we will use a car, however, it will have to be provided by the test subject. For practicality we will have to limit the number of amplifier channels to four or less.

2. Amplifiers will be powered from the same power supply at a nominal 14 volts DC. (any voltage is OK as long as it is the same for both amps)

3. The test can be conducted at any volume desired; however, the amps will not be allowed to clip. In other words, listening volume can not exceed the power capacity of the smallest amp of the pair being tested. (power capacity will be defined as clipping or 2%THD 20Hz to 10kHz, whichever is less)

4. No test signals can be used - only commercially available music.

5. The listener can compare two amps at a time for as long as desired. For practical reasons we would like to keep this at least no more than a few hours. A test session will consist of 12 A/B sequences. Passing the test will require a positive identification of each amp for all 12 sequences. Remember, guessing will get you about 6 out of 12. If the differences are so great, and a subject can really hear the difference, then he/she should be able to do so for all 12 sequences.

6. To win the $10,000.00, the listener must pass two complete sessions of 12 comparisons. Passing the test means 24 correct responses.* The amp of choice can be compared to the same or a different amp in each session - challengers choice. We have many amplifiers in our demo inventory such as, but not limited to, Alpine, Rockford, Kicker, Phoenix Gold, Precision Power, MTX, Adcom, Kenwood, Pioneer, Sony, etc. You can pick any of them or bring your own.

7. All amps must be brand name, standard production, linear voltage amplifiers. This does not exclude high current amps. Amps can not be modified and must meet factory specs. They must be "car audio amplifiers designed to be powered from a car's electrical system."

8. Failure of an amp (this includes thermal shutdown) during the test will require that the test be repeated after repair or replacement or cooling of the amp. This means that the entire test session will have to be repeated.

9. The amps will not be overloaded during the session from either a voltage or current requirement.

10. To save time the listener will have to pass a quick 8 trial session to qualify for the extended 2 session test for the money prize. Any 2 amps can be used for this test. Passing this qualifying test will require at least 6 out of 8 correct answers.

11. The amplifier power up and/or power down sequence will not be acceptable for comparison. (The turn on/off noises of some amplifiers would give it away.)

12. Although anyone is welcome to take the test, only subjects employed in the car audio industry or Car Sound subscribers are eligible for the $10,000.00 prize.

13. Cost to take the test is $100.00. $300.00 for people representing companies. Payable in advance, scheduled appointments only. Done correctly the test takes several hours and I don't have the time if you aren't serious.

* Twelve correct responses in a row is certainly a lot of correct listening but $10,000 is also a lot of money for a few hours of easy listening. The way people describe the differences is that they are like night and day. I would certainly not have any trouble choosing between an apple and an orange 12 times in a row. When compared fairly I believe the differences in amps are much too small to audibly detect and certainly too small to pay large sums of extra money for. If I am wrong someone should be able to carefully take this test and win my money. Even if I am right, if enough people take the test eventually someone will take my money due to random chance. This is the reason for the large sample requirement. If you feel that you can easily pass this test but 12 sequences will give you "listening fatigue" I am willing to modify the requirements. Since the way it is being offered is a challenge and only my money is at risk I am willing to let a confident challenger "put his money where his ears are". If we are willing to make this a bet instead of a challenge, I am willing to drop 1 sequence for every thousand dollars put up by the challenger against my money. This would mean:


____My___________ _ _Your________Trails Required to win__
$10,000 to $0 = 12 Tries
$9,000 to $1,000 = 11 Tries
$8,000 to $2,000 = 10 Tries
$7,000 to $3,000 = 9 Tries
$6,000 to $4,000 = 8 Tries
$5,000 to $5,000 = 7 Tries
$4,000 to $6,000 = 6 Tries

I will not do the test with less than 6 trails. It would be statistically meaningless and reduce the challenge to mere gambling.

Page 2 of 2
________________________________________


Think you can hear a difference? Take the challange, no one has yet to win.

Note: I have edited this to quote the entire amp challange information, and to remove a link to a deleted AVS thread.
JR
__________________

[musicoverall]

But the biggest one appears to be item #12 on page 2. I'm not affiliated with the car audio industry or Car Sound, whatever that is.

[E-Stat]

Now, originally this was for car-audio amplifiers, however Richard claims that you cannot hear the difference between the best home amp and the worst car amp..

Amplifier Test Comparison Rules

1. To make things easy we would prefer to use high quality home type loudspeakers for the test. If our speakers are not acceptable, the listener can provide any commercially available speaker system as long as it uses dynamic drivers.

2. Amplifiers will be powered from the same power supply at a nominal 14 volts DC. (any voltage is OK as long as it is the same for both amps)

Well rules 1 and 2 conveniently rule out my system. The VTL tube amps don't go very far on a 14 volt supply. Also, my electrostats are likewise excluded.

rw

[zapr]

Yeah, go to my last thread in the Audio Lab. Sighted testing is for the birds.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showth...8332#post68332

PatD: why argue with some of these people? You may as well start hitting yourself in the head with a brick. That way you can descend to their intelligence level.

........And you have the nerve to talk about others intelligence levels? This so called test was done at a party? There's concrete results! The power of a bunch of words writen by some one, I don't know who, but I'm suppose to believe because you say it is so!........Zapr.

[musicoverall]

Well rules 1 and 2 conveniently rule out my system. The VTL tube amps don't go very far on a 14 volt supply. Also, my electrostats are likewise excluded.

rw

Same here! And for our $100 cash investment, we get to travel to God knows where, listen in an unfamiliar room and, no matter if we win or lose, we walk away with nothing more than bragging rights. I hope I can be forgiven for not being properly motivated.

[zapr]

Well, this thread might get you to thinking, unless you truly believe that denial simply is a river in Egypt. The authors of the posted link with the test obviously think so.

Golden Ears Fail Again

......Well you're right. It got me thinking. They said they could not hear any difference. Then they said they couldn't say they didn't hear any difference. Why don't they get a blind guy who has no interest in audio and test him? Not because he can't see, but because he relies on his hearing more than the (old) guys or you or me or any one else scientific or otherwise or some one who has the power of concentration without distraction from other elements or how about my dog who used to howl when I turned up the volume on my bright, shrill system but now he doesn't because of wires........Zapr.

[markw]

......Well you're right. It got me thinking. They said they could not hear any difference.

I'll give them credit for honesty here. They had the cojones to put in writing what they actually heard.

Then they said they couldn't say they didn't hear any difference.

Why? Don't they trust their own ears enough to stand by what they heard without visual aids? Or does it fly in the face of everything they have said over the past?

Niow, as usually happens with these discussions, someone starts sinking into the quicksand of silliness.

Why don't they get a blind guy who has no interest in audio and test him?

Heck, why not go all the way and get TWO of 'em and do a DOUBLE blind test.

Not because he can't see, but because he relies on his hearing more than the (old) guys or you or me or any one else scientific or otherwise or some one who has the power of concentration without distraction from other elements or how about my dog who used to howl when I turned up the volume on my bright, shrill system but now he doesn't because of wires........Zapr.

It's not the blind guy being tested, it's these golden eared wonders that proclaim to have the talent. FWIW, I have a blind acquaintenance that says my modest system with unpedrigreed wires does the most realistic job of reproducing most music of any system he's heard. And he's heard plenty.

[magictooth]

........And you have the nerve to talk about others intelligence levels? This so called test was done at a party? There's concrete results! The power of a bunch of words writen by some one, I don't know who, but I'm suppose to believe because you say it is so!........Zapr.

I addressed the deficient intelligence a couple posts up so there's no need to say much else here. As for the rest, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that the results presented are fictitious? What's with your last sentence? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If you've any inclination, try the experiment yourself.

[Justlisten2]

After a couple of months of auditioning cables - and discovering that the Nordost Valhalla I liked best was way beyond my price range - I found what seems to be the perfect IC's and speaker cable for my system - the Cardas Neutral Reference. Two sets of IC's and a bi-wired set of speaker cable were found on the used market and I'm astonished at the improvement in performance over my previous wire. At first, I thought the lower mids and the upper bass was thin sounding but I realized that it was the lack of distortion that was causing bloat and grain! I was amazed and pleased.

I'm very happy with my decision and I think my system is now complete!

Congrats and enjoy.

[zapr]

I addressed the deficient intelligence a couple posts up so there's no need to say much else here. As for the rest, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that the results presented are fictitious? What's with your last sentence? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If you've any inclination, try the experiment yourself.

..........Sorry for not being direct in my comments, but generally speaking, what I was trying to say was people are quick to believe what they read. In my experiance, what is written down is not neccessarily true. You can't make me believe what the results of your experiment state. Not one person said the salsa tasted the same? Come on! I wasn't born yesterday! It also doesn't prove anything pertaining to audio. If you can't read between the lines, you are no authority on intelligence!........Zapr.

[zapr]

..........I missed your post above regarding intelligence. I too will not mention it again.......Zapr.

[magictooth]

..........Sorry for not being direct in my comments, but generally speaking, what I was trying to say was people are quick to believe what they read. In my experiance, what is written down is not neccessarily true. You can't make me believe what the results of your experiment state. Not one person said the salsa tasted the same? Come on! I wasn't born yesterday! It also doesn't prove anything pertaining to audio. If you can't read between the lines, you are no authority on intelligence!........Zapr.

Sorry, not one said it tasted the same. Try the experiment yourself. In point of fact, I can't accurately take this sample and generalize it to the human population because of the small sample size. However, it does lend a lot of credence to the thought that a pyschosomatic or placebo effect is a real occurence. That is the link to audio. If you know what cable you are listening to, then it is likely that your interpretation of hearing will be biased in some way.

[Pat D]

Sorry, not one said it tasted the same. Try the experiment yourself. In point of fact, I can't accurately take this sample and generalize it to the human population because of the small sample size. However, it does lend a lot of credence to the thought that a pyschosomatic or placebo effect is a real occurence. That is the link to audio. If you know what cable you are listening to, then it is likely that your interpretation of hearing will be biased in some way.

The same thing has been done in audio. The participants were told two pieces of equipment were being switched but in fact they were not. Most people described a difference in sound between what they were told was each piece of equipment. Ask Richard Greene (though he seldom posts here anymore) or even John Dunlavy.