-
Hey Phil...
...how's things in the land of the dry heat? Geez, it's like old home week...I was thinkin' about you in reference to another thread re: older(not age-wise), no-longer-active participants. Howdy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCT
Most true high end audiophiles don't believe Monster is worth a damn.
Do you think part of it may be because it's not expensive or exclusive enough?
Funny thing, there's a small retail chain in my neck of the woods, sells Krell and Sonus Faber to the more well-heeled...the only wiring they carry(after ditching Tara, etc.) is Monster. Now either their patrons aren't "true high end audiophiles" or the retailer is simply looking at the bottom line or there really is no difference or...aw, who really gives a rat's @$$...???
jimHJJ(...I think you know MY answer...)
-
Caltech Study
Anyone have a copy or link to the CalTech study done a few years back?
The tested everything from Ace Hardware Zip cord to MIT and Audiquest speaker wires. Finally they compared the same cables in blind A-B tests to determine if there were sonically perceivable differences.
-
Nice debate, but .....
I find this whole debate very interesting. As mentioned before, it is entirely possible that differences perceived by a listener are perceived because we expect to hear them. In any kind of research if a theory is not testable it can provide no valid data. That is fact. Seeing as people are discussing sound as it is influenced by cabling it would be very important to define what elements in sound can in theory be improved by cabling technology. If these elements can't be isolated no actual testing is possible. If you can agree that it is the audible portion of sound that humans can detect that is in question we can start in my view.
First, there is of course a great deal of science about the dynamic range and sound spectrum humans can detect from the least sensitive to the most sensitive among us. This data can be used to design an experiment. You would never use the human ear itself as this is to variable, you would use measuring equipment with known limitations and sensitivities suitable to the task and of course this implies limitations like the human ear is limited by the nervous system it is connected to the brain with. Next you would need an environment that could not fluctuate in characteristics that could influence sound waves in the range being tested. With these controls in place you at least have the possibility of valid experiment design.
The next step would be to generate music in this highly controlled music that is received by the measuring devices both with special cabling and ordinary cabling. The signal itself must not vary in any quality so the signal being measured must be identical. If the measuring equipment detects statistically significant differences that audiologists would interpret as audible components of sound to the human ear then you have proof. If there is no significant difference the measuring equipment in a stable environment detects then it stands to logic there is no chance any person can reliably hear any difference. Have any such test been performed? If so we can examine the experimental controls, the process and the resulting data to form conclusions. Anything else is far to subjective to be represented as anything more than an opinion.
Please understand, I myself have no opinion one way or the other, I have no data to inspect. If I went and purchased expensive cabling I would form a very powerful expectation in my mind and that in the realm of science would be considered a confounding element in an experiment rendering the information derived invalid and unreliable. If people are going to discuss such issues with any hope of bringing forth anything more than opinions, a scientifically valid experiment needs to be designed, implemented, data analyzed and then interpreted based on the goals of the experiment.
:)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Grudge
it is entirely possible that differences perceived by a listener are perceived because we expect to hear them. .
:)
In the beginning, I expected to hear differences between pretty much ALL cables. The fact is that during my last set of auditions between several different makes/models, I heard differences between less than half of them. Many of them were indistinguishable from my reference. The Cardas I bought, along with the Nordost Valhalla that I couldn't hope to afford, were notable exceptions. So my expectations were thwarted by the evidence.
Other than that, not much to disagree with in your post. Certainly there should be measurements to support what we hear. As it stands now, current measurements only serve to tell us what ISN'T causing the differences.
-
Exactly the point
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
In the beginning, I expected to hear differences between pretty much ALL cables. The fact is that during my last set of auditions between several different makes/models, I heard differences between less than half of them. Many of them were indistinguishable from my reference. The Cardas I bought, along with the Nordost Valhalla that I couldn't hope to afford, were notable exceptions. So my expectations were thwarted by the evidence.
Other than that, not much to disagree with in your post. Certainly there should be measurements to support what we hear. As it stands now, current measurements only serve to tell us what ISN'T causing the differences.
The Caltech Study (There are lots of audiophiles on that campus) was revealing. The first phase used objective measurements to identify absolute differences in each cable set. Then the results were compared with A-B tests and finally blind A-B tests. The results were compared afterwards and the Blind phases were of interest because the subjects were unaware of which cables they were auditioning, their expectations were removed.
I can no longer find the file with the actual report.
-
Hmmm....
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeegy200
The Caltech Study (There are lots of audiophiles on that campus) was revealing. The first phase used objective measurements to identify absolute differences in each cable set. Then the results were compared with A-B tests and finally blind A-B tests. The results were compared afterwards and the Blind phases were of interest because the subjects were unaware of which cables they were auditioning, their expectations were removed.
I can no longer find the file with the actual report.
Well, we won't get into whether or not blind testing is valid or sensitive enough because the debates will rage on this board (and probably get deleted or moved to The Audio Lab), just as they do in the general audio community. But I have no doubt that in this test these listeners could not distinguish these cables in these systems in these rooms on these particular days. That's about all any such test shows.
-
A belated response
Hi Jim:
This is the first time I have been back since the post to which you responded.
I see that the eternal debate continues unabated and I feel reassured that all is therefore well with the Universe.
Hope all is well with you. Happy Thanksgiving to you and the rest of the gang. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
...how's things in the land of the dry heat? Geez, it's like old home week...I was thinkin' about you in reference to another thread re: older(not age-wise), no-longer-active participants. Howdy.
Do you think part of it may be because it's not expensive or exclusive enough?
Funny thing, there's a small retail chain in my neck of the woods, sells Krell and Sonus Faber to the more well-heeled...the only wiring they carry(after ditching Tara, etc.) is Monster. Now either their patrons aren't "true high end audiophiles" or the retailer is simply looking at the bottom line or there really is no difference or...aw, who really gives a rat's @$$...???
jimHJJ(...I think you know MY answer...)
|