I need help with audio interconnects????

[Monstrous Mike]

Maybe my logic is flawed because I still don’t understand why one side has to present support for an argument and the other side does not. It seems that others disagree with your contention, or the anti-cable differences camp would not be conducting DBT studies to support their position. I applaud them for attempting to design scientific studies to support their position. I just wish they would take the next step and improve the external validity by controlling for potentially confounding variables.

-ROJ

We are talking about the hypothesis that cables can sound different. There is only one arguement here and that is either this hypothesis is true or it is not true. For the hypothesis to be proven true, and become a fact, it would have to be tested and demonstrated beyond doubt that it is in fact true.

Thus, people who currently believe the hypothesis to be true, and claim it to be true, need to prove it is true. This is the burden of proof. People who do not believe it to be true cannot possibly prove that belief. There can be scientific analysis, specific examinations of several factors and even DBT testing where the results are negative or null. But none of this is enough to prove the hypothesis false. It only makes it more likely to be false.

All of this would end if it could shown in proper testing that indeed cables can affect sound for reasons we have not yet accepted.

When you suggest both sides of an arguement have an equal obligation to present evidence, you are thinking of arguements like how the universe was created or how man was created. In those cases, there are different hypotheses and each side has an equal burden to show their evidence.

This is not the case for audible cable differences. One side needs to prove it before claiming it to be true, thereby having the burden of proof. The other side only needs to be skeptical and ask for such proof before accepting any claims as to the validity of that hypothesis.

Simply put, a person need not believe anything is true until it is proven true. Should people believe something is true without proof, then they must exhibit some faith.

The problem arises when faith is distorted or disguised and is presented as fact.

[ROJ]

We are talking about the hypothesis that cables can sound different. There is only one arguement here and that is either this hypothesis is true or it is not true. For the hypothesis to be proven true, and become a fact, it would have to be tested and demonstrated beyond doubt that it is in fact true.

Thus, people who currently believe the hypothesis to be true, and claim it to be true, need to prove it is true. This is the burden of proof. People who do not believe it to be true cannot possibly prove that belief. There can be scientific analysis, specific examinations of several factors and even DBT testing where the results are negative or null. But none of this is enough to prove the hypothesis false. It only makes it more likely to be false.

All of this would end if it could shown in proper testing that indeed cables can affect sound for reasons we have not yet accepted.

When you suggest both sides of an arguement have an equal obligation to present evidence, you are thinking of arguements like how the universe was created or how man was created. In those cases, there are different hypotheses and each side has an equal burden to show their evidence.

This is not the case for audible cable differences. One side needs to prove it before claiming it to be true, thereby having the burden of proof. The other side only needs to be skeptical and ask for such proof before accepting any claims as to the validity of that hypothesis.

Simply put, a person need not believe anything is true until it is proven true. Should people believe something is true without proof, then they must exhibit some faith.

The problem arises when faith is distorted or disguised and is presented as fact.

Thank you for your good points. I now have a better understanding of the anti-cable difference group’s contention that the burden of proof is on the pro-cable group.

You wrote:
“Thus, people who currently believe the hypothesis to be true, and claim it to be true, need to prove it is true. This is the burden of proof. People who do not believe it to be true cannot possibly prove that belief. There can be scientific analysis, specific examinations of several factors and even DBT testing where the results are negative or null. But none of this is enough to prove the hypothesis false. It only makes it more likely to be false.”

“Simply put, a person need not believe anything is true until it is proven true. Should people believe something is true without proof, then they must exhibit some faith.”

I completely agree. If I read your post correctly, you seem to suggest the difficulty inherent in hypothesis testing, namely that it is difficult to conclusively prove anything. In fact, some researchers vociferously argue against using hypothesis testing in the psychology literature and advocate using other statistical analysis. In the best case scenario with hypothesis testing, we can say that we have a certain amount of confidence that these results are true. In order to do this, we need to have well designed experiments or other researchers will justifiably pick apart our studies. Poorly designed studies should decrease the confidence in making definitive statements. In the cable debate, however, both sides state recommendations that are given unequivocally even though problems exist with the research. Assuming that all available DBT studies have not found cable differences (which I am not sure is accurate), then the strongest statement that we can say is that our findings suggest that cables did not make a difference in these systems in these rooms with these participants. The next step would to control for the systems, rooms, and participants to be able to extrapolate the findings from the original studies. If after controlling for these issues the results are the same, then we can say that cables do not appear to make a difference in most systems. Only then, I argue, can we make strong recommendations to others.

I applaud the skepticism of the anti-cable group. In fact, I am constantly encouraging others to be skeptical of everything. I just wished that the skeptism extended to the research methodology beyond DBT in the cable debate. Until the research is strengthen, we are all operating partly on faith of what the ultimate outcome would be.

-ROJ

[pctower]

Skeptic,

Whereas you claim that my logic is “flawed”, I think your logic is incomplete. I don’t have any experience with audio cables (I am not an engineer), but I have some experience with research methodology. To summarize your post, you emphasize the difficulty in conducting home tests and that “The notion that you can incrementally walk into this, try a few cables to see if you like them is also a false notion.” I completely agree. It is difficult to design a legitimate experiment that can test for differences in audio cables. Why do you stop with discussing the issues involved with internal validity (DBT)? What about external validity? Is it not as important as internal validity? Most current research attempts to increase the internal validity and external validity of experiments. I argue that at best the current findings are interesting and provocative, but pseudoscientific. My point is that everyone is acting as an iron clad scientific basis exists for the recommendations when none exists. In the absence of a scientific basis, I think it is reasonable for one to try cables.

I also agree with what you wrote about the problems of advertisers positing unverified claims, but I would extent this to include anyone posting unverified claims. When I read claims of supplement or anything else medical and psychological, I always go to the source for information, the medical and psychological research literatures. I examine the literatures to identify any relevant published studies. I then critically examine the quality of the studies. I then try to form a coherent summary of the quality studies. I tried to do the same for audio cables, but no research literature exists, which surprised me given the vociferous claims on this and other forums. I posit that absent the literature, the pro and against cable differences are also making scientifically unverified claims similar to the advertisers of supplements. As I said before, many people do not care about bringing science to the audio world. They find the speakers and system that they enjoy and don’t care about what scientific studies have examined about which speakers should sound better. When science is brought into the debate (DBT), it seems that we should bring all of the scientific principles involved in designing experiments not just one.

Maybe my logic is flawed because I still don’t understand why one side has to present support for an argument and the other side does not. It seems that others disagree with your contention, or the anti-cable differences camp would not be conducting DBT studies to support their position. I applaud them for attempting to design scientific studies to support their position. I just wish they would take the next step and improve the external validity by controlling for potentially confounding variables.

-ROJ

"Maybe my logic is flawed because I still don’t understand why one side has to present support for an argument and the other side does not. It seems that others disagree with your contention, or the anti-cable differences camp would not be conducting DBT studies to support their position."

Your logic would be flawed if the "skeptics" (lower case) were content to simply point out that audible differences between similar cables of similar gauge and length is "unproven". Unfortunately, many go far beyond that and make claims that are as unfounded as the claims of the "golden ears".

I sense that the knowledge you possess that is actually relevant to the type of DBTs that get tossed around here so frequently is far deeper than the knowledge most on either side of the issue possess.

You can easily see how limited the actual "literature" and "research" really is. You also understand how it is not likely that reliable tests could be conducted in the home.

As I interpret your position, I believe you are saying that in light of the virtual lack of true science in the "testing" and "verification" of cable differences, everyone should do whatever makes him happy and avoid making unsubstantited claims. If that is your position, I agree.

[E-Stat]

...then the strongest statement that we can say is that our findings suggest that cables did not make a difference in these systems in these rooms with these participants.

Indeed. The findings reported on this board are tragically limited in detail and/or with the quality of gear used. Here is a rather amusing post with the board's resident ditchdigger and vanguard of the mediocre:

Two minute amnesia

Not surprisingly, there never was a response as to which of the conflicting assertions he wishes to acknowledge.

rw

[Rockwell]

Unfortunately, many go far beyond that and make claims that are as unfounded as the claims of the "golden ears".

Such as?

[okiemax]

"Then your advice makes no sense at all. How can your reach any conclusion when there is admitted bias."

It's not clear to me what "advice" he gave. Perhaps you mean he is suggesting it's ok to "try" a few cables. As you point out below, that can't be done at home under proper blind conditions.

However, it seems to me that you and many others miss a critical point. You say he can't reach any "conclusion when there is admitted bias." You apparently mean a "conclusion" that has academic, scientific validity, and in that context I would agree with you.

However, for most audiophiles, the only "conclusion" that matters is the impact a new component or cable has on their own personal experience and enjoyment of their system. You and others seem hell-bent to discourage people from trying these things for themselves even though the results for them might be quite positive simply because there is no "proof" that such enjoyment is the product of anything other than bias.

You seem to me to place scientific rigidity above personal enjoyment. Most audiophiles approach the hobby differently.

You and others love to talk about the 20-plus years of lack of "proof" from the cable companies. However, you fail to mention the 20-plus years of countless audiophiles who have bought and used cables with a high level of satisfaction. One almost never hears any complaint from these consumers, nor do we ever hear of dissatisfaction rising to the level of complaints filed with governmental agencies. I dare say there are not too many product areas about which the same could be said.

It would be interesting, for example, to know how many, if any, complaints have ever been filed with any Better Business Bureau office concerning dissatisfaction with an audio cable purchase. I'm willing to bet there are very, very few.

This of course proves nothing from a scientific standpoint. However, it does prove in my opinion that from a pure human enjoyment standpoint, money spent on cables may be some of the best money spent. The people who spent the money on the whole seem very satisfied with their purchases. They often are prepared to "upgrade" because their prior "upgrades" were so satifying to them.

Rather than complaining about their purchases, they are enjoying them. And people like you would love nothing better than to possess the power of depriving generations of satisfied customers from having had those enjoyable experiences.

BRAVO! It's too bad this post is so buried in the thread many will never see it.

[skeptic]

"Maybe my logic is flawed because I still don’t understand why one side has to present support for an argument and the other side does not."

The answer is simple. Someone would have you buy a new product. The new product is more expensive, more difficult to find in the market than the product that everyone else seemed perfectly happy with for decades that it would replace. Why would someone rational go out and buy it? Because its superiority has been demonstrated not merely to the satisfaction of a handful of people who sell it or who give testimonials about it but by people who use comparable products professionally who have tested it and confirmed that it really is better. Would you go out and buy a 5 wheel car because someone else told you it drives better? Would you just take it for a test drive and conclude that it is better? But that is exactly what you are doing buying these wires. The onus of proof is on the guy who wants to sell the newer more expensive product especially when there is no clearcut distinction.

You are right about my logic being incomplete. Here is what would be required to convince this skeptic.

1. Verifiable Double Blind Tests indicating an audible difference for the average listener.
2. Correlation between the difference in sound and a measurable performance parameter or characteristic of the different product. Naturally this difference would have to be a "superior" difference.
3. Guidelines to know what characteristics or performance parameters to look for and how and when to apply them to a particular sound system.
4. Demonstration that the improvement gained by particular cables can be achieved in no other way that is cheaper or more reliable, or more predictable.
5. That the improvements are cost effective meaning that it will not cost megabucks to get an insignificant improvement.

That's a tall ladder and the people who would be requried by me to climb to the top have not even made the first rung yet.

[E-Stat]

Would you go out and buy a 5 wheel car because someone else told you it drives better?

No, but it might pique my curiosity and try it out for myself.

Would you just take it for a test drive and conclude that it is better?

If it were better, I would conclude that it was better.

That's a tall ladder and the people who would be requried by me to climb to the top have not even made the first rung yet.

May you enjoy your limited world.

rw

[Rockwell]

If it were better, I would conclude that it was better.

But you might be wrong.

May you enjoy your limited world.

rw

Fantasy is fun, isn't it?

[okiemax]

We are talking about the hypothesis that cables can sound different. There is only one arguement here and that is either this hypothesis is true or it is not true. For the hypothesis to be proven true, and become a fact, it would have to be tested and demonstrated beyond doubt that it is in fact true.

Thus, people who currently believe the hypothesis to be true, and claim it to be true, need to prove it is true. This is the burden of proof. People who do not believe it to be true cannot possibly prove that belief. There can be scientific analysis, specific examinations of several factors and even DBT testing where the results are negative or null. But none of this is enough to prove the hypothesis false. It only makes it more likely to be false.

All of this would end if it could shown in proper testing that indeed cables can affect sound for reasons we have not yet accepted.

When you suggest both sides of an arguement have an equal obligation to present evidence, you are thinking of arguements like how the universe was created or how man was created. In those cases, there are different hypotheses and each side has an equal burden to show their evidence.

This is not the case for audible cable differences. One side needs to prove it before claiming it to be true, thereby having the burden of proof. The other side only needs to be skeptical and ask for such proof before accepting any claims as to the validity of that hypothesis.

Simply put, a person need not believe anything is true until it is proven true. Should people believe something is true without proof, then they must exhibit some faith.

The problem arises when faith is distorted or disguised and is presented as fact.

You are right in that a listener who claims to hear a difference in two cables is in a position to verify his claim in an objective test, whereas anyone disputing this claim can not disprove it. I do not agree with you, however, if you are implying that anyone thinking about making a subjective claim should not do so before objective verification, or as you say "needs to prove it before claiming it to be true, thereby having the burden of proof."

Perhaps I am not clear on what you mean by "burden of proof." The Cambridge on-line dictionary defines this term as the "responsibility for proving something" and Miriam-Webster on-line says "moral or legal obligations." I think we would agree that I have no legal obligation to verify subjective claims with objective listening tests. I don't feel a moral responsibility to test, but if you believe I should, please tell me why?

[mtrycraft]

b] It is as good as any other position on this board since it all based on flawed methodology. [/b]

You may assume this only because it was not peer reviewed? Or rigorous enough to have been peer reviewed?

The next question is to what extent can the results relate to other systems (external validity).

That can be addressed by the number of other DBT tests conducted on other systems and participants, no?




I have no illusions that everything has to be examined through scientific lenses, especially audio components.

I agree, but then one needs to be careful what and how one recommends and what claims are made without evidence.

How can we judge which speaker is the best, for example?


Several ways. One can attempt some sort of bias controlled listeing to at least control the visual impact on decision processes. Or, just pick one that thjey prefer for whatever reason. Or, one that is visually pleasing and not worry.






You are operating under an assumption that the current data tells us anything scientifically relevant about whether cables can or can not make a difference.

A confidence over the 20 + years of amature attempts at finding out. Obviously the cable industry is not interested. It must be more than $$.

We are basing recommendation on flawed methodology.

Then best to not make any recommendation.

Given the current state, a recommendation that cable differences do not exist may unnecessarily deprive someone of improvement in their systems.

I don't think so based on lack of evidence for it alone, and the science of cables, how and what amount it affects the signal, combined with peer papers on what can be detected is a very good indicator of the state where we are.

"Amplifier-Loudspeaker Interfacing", Greiner, R.A., JAES vol. 28, no. 5 May 80,

"Effects of cable, Loudspeaker and Amplifier Interactions", Davis, Fred E., JAES, vol. 39, no. 6 Jun 91,

"High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Clark, David, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol30, no 5, May82, pg 330-338.

"Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16khz", Florentine, Mary, et al, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.

[mtrycraft]

Indeed. The findings reported on this board are tragically limited in detail and/or with the quality of gear used. Here is a rather amusing post with the board's resident ditchdigger and vanguard of the mediocre:

Two minute amnesia

Not surprisingly, there never was a response as to which of the conflicting assertions he wishes to acknowledge.

rw

Oh, estat, you keep making unsupported claims for differences, the need for high quality gear, etc, yet you have nothing to support your postion with except sheer speculations on your part. But, you are allowed to speculate. Enjoy your daydreams.

[ROJ]

"Maybe my logic is flawed because I still don’t understand why one side has to present support for an argument and the other side does not."

The answer is simple. Someone would have you buy a new product. The new product is more expensive, more difficult to find in the market than the product that everyone else seemed perfectly happy with for decades that it would replace. Why would someone rational go out and buy it? Because its superiority has been demonstrated not merely to the satisfaction of a handful of people who sell it or who give testimonials about it but by people who use comparable products professionally who have tested it and confirmed that it really is better. Would you go out and buy a 5 wheel car because someone else told you it drives better? Would you just take it for a test drive and conclude that it is better? But that is exactly what you are doing buying these wires. The onus of proof is on the guy who wants to sell the newer more expensive product especially when there is no clearcut distinction.

You are right about my logic being incomplete. Here is what would be required to convince this skeptic.

1. Verifiable Double Blind Tests indicating an audible difference for the average listener.
2. Correlation between the difference in sound and a measurable performance parameter or characteristic of the different product. Naturally this difference would have to be a "superior" difference.
3. Guidelines to know what characteristics or performance parameters to look for and how and when to apply them to a particular sound system.
4. Demonstration that the improvement gained by particular cables can be achieved in no other way that is cheaper or more reliable, or more predictable.
5. That the improvements are cost effective meaning that it will not cost megabucks to get an insignificant improvement.

That's a tall ladder and the people who would be requried by me to climb to the top have not even made the first rung yet.

A five wheel car actually sounds interesting. Would I buy it because others told me that it is better? No. Would I try it myself out of curiosity? Definitely. The longer that I participant in this debate it is becoming increasingly clear that this debate is not based on science the way that I have been trained to conduct science, the inclusion of DBT notwithstanding. As I previously stated, I don’t think science has to be applied to all aspects of our lives, but when I read DBT I was curious to read how science was applied to the cable debate. It seems that this debate seems to be based more on the passionate pursuit most on this board have for audio, than on science. Portions of science have been included to support our positions, which is different than scientifically examining the issue. It reminds me of debates I have with friends about baseball. We can passionately argue for our team and cite statistics (ERA, OPS, fielding %), but in the end we are not arguing scientifically, but from our passion. We use everything at our disposal to support our arguments. We talk in absolute terms and denigrate the other persons’ opinions. This differs strongly from scientific debates in which the ultimate arbitrator of the truth is science. I expected to find this level of discourse in the cable debate when I read DBT. In order to support my positions in scientific debates, I’ll cite studies in respected journals. I’ll point out the flaws in the others’ positions and cite how their studies missed important issues that the studies I referenced addressed. These debates can be as passionate and fruitless as arguing about baseball, but there is a different reference point.
From a scientific perspective, I still can not logically understand how anyone can make absolute statements. As a general rule, I hate absolute statements and I enjoy challenging people to prove their positions, which is probably why I gravitated to research. So, the cable debate does not make sense to me if I look at it scientifically, but it makes perfect sense if I examine it as a passionate pursuit.

Back to your example, from a critical scientific perspective, I would not buy a car or anything else based on someone’s word. I don’t trust people’s evaluations since I know how biased we all can be. I would consider buying something if there were scientific evidence in support of a product, but I would still try it myself. Similarly, I would not avoid a product based on someone’s word without scientific evidence. In the absence of scientific proof, I would rather rely on my own bias than other people’s bias since I know what I like and other’s interest may be different from my interests.

You wrote:
”You are right about my logic being incomplete. Here is what would be required to convince this skeptic.

1. Verifiable Double Blind Tests indicating an audible difference for the average listener.
2. Correlation between the difference in sound and a measurable performance parameter or characteristic of the different product. Naturally this difference would have to be a "superior" difference.
3. Guidelines to know what characteristics or performance parameters to look for and how and when to apply them to a particular sound system.
4. Demonstration that the improvement gained by particular cables can be achieved in no other way that is cheaper or more reliable, or more predictable.
5. That the improvements are cost effective meaning that it will not cost megabucks to get an insignificant improvement.

That's a tall ladder and the people who would be requried by me to climb to the top have not even made the first rung yet.”

I would suggest a few additions to your steps.
1. It would be important to clearly define what is an “average” listener and how you plan to recruit your participants (e.g., random sampling, case matching).
2. It would be important to define your metric and how you plan to evaluate for the metric. What is “superior”? How would you operationalized superior? I would also avoid any correlational analysis given the inherent problems with correlational analysis. With a well designed study, you should be able to avoid using correlational analysis.
3. This would be a great step and would start to address my concerns about external validity.
4. This would most likely bias your results of your study to not find differences or at least bias your conclusions. I don’t think that the procable group would argue that improvements in sound can be achieved by no other means or that cables are the most important factor. To legitimately test for cable differences, it would be important to control all factors that can improve sound (for example, system characteristics, room acoustics, and cd quality) and then see if cables makes an incremental improvement.
5. I completely agree with this step. There is an ongoing issue about some research projects that have found significant differences in my field, but at prohibitive costs. The issue is how to make these expensive programs affordable and still effective to dissementiate to the real world.

It is a tall ladder. I also am in the first few steps. Since we are not at the top yet, don’t you think we should moderate our recommendations to use or not use different cables?

-ROJ

[ROJ]

The next question is to what extent can the results relate to other systems (external validity).

That can be addressed by the number of other DBT tests conducted on other systems and participants, no?

Assuming that all DBT test have not found a difference, this could be a step in the direction of examining external validity, but it would still be considered anecdotal evidence. A lot of research has started in this manner. People notice similar phenomenon in different situations. They would then conduct studies to examine if the observations are scientifically supported. It is important to take the next step and design studies that specifically improve external validity.


I have no illusions that everything has to be examined through scientific lenses, especially audio components.

I agree, but then one needs to be careful what and how one recommends and what claims are made without evidence.

Exactly. We all have to be careful. If you remember, I have recommended that people try cables for themselves since there is no iron clad scientific proof. The only specific recommendation I made was for cheap and supposedly high quality cables from a couple of online retailers. I suggested these companies because it may be an inexpensive way to try cables without spending much money. We don’t have to spend that much money to try cables. For example, I am currently using cables that are 11 gauge and cost 85 cents a foot from an online retailer for my main speakers and are only a little more expensive than the 39 cents a foot 12 gauge Lowe’s wire that I also use. It seems that telling someone to buy Home Depot wire is also not based on scientific evidence. All I am asking for in this debate it that we moderate our recommendations and not assume that we have a scientific basis for our recommendations.

You are operating under an assumption that the current data tells us anything scientifically relevant about whether cables can or can not make a difference.

A confidence over the 20 + years of amature attempts at finding out. Obviously the cable industry is not interested. It must be more than $$.

I respect your experiences in the audio world. You obviously have much more experience than my 1.5 years. I respectively continue to maintain that amateur experience is not the same as having scientific proof. Without scientific proof, we can not eliminate the possibility that our personal experience may not apply to everyone else.

We are basing recommendation on flawed methodology.

Then best to not make any recommendation.

I agree completely. I also think that telling people to buy Home Depot wire is a recommendation.

Given the current state, a recommendation that cable differences do not exist may unnecessarily deprive someone of improvement in their systems.

I don't think so based on lack of evidence for it alone, and the science of cables, how and what amount it affects the signal, combined with peer papers on what can be detected is a very good indicator of the state where we are.

"Amplifier-Loudspeaker Interfacing", Greiner, R.A., JAES vol. 28, no. 5 May 80,

"Effects of cable, Loudspeaker and Amplifier Interactions", Davis, Fred E., JAES, vol. 39, no. 6 Jun 91,

"High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Clark, David, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol30, no 5, May82, pg 330-338.

"Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16khz", Florentine, Mary, et al, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.

Just from reading these titles, these articles may beyond my experience in the science of cables. You very well may eventually be proved right that cables do not make a difference. Until that is proved, I just ask that we allow the possibility that the converse position may be proven true and we should at least qualify our recommendations if we must make recommendations.

-ROJ

[E-Stat]

Oh, estat, you keep making unsupported claims for differences, the need for high quality gear, etc, yet you have nothing to support your postion with except sheer speculations on your part. But, you are allowed to speculate. Enjoy your daydreams.

There is a difference between speculation as you practice and experience. I'll take experience any day. I find it far more rewarding.

rw

[skeptic]

"The longer that I participant in this debate it is becoming increasingly clear that this debate is not based on science the way that I have been trained to conduct science, the inclusion of DBT notwithstanding."

That is precisely the problem. There is no AVAILABLE scientific evidence. This type of evidence is generated from basic research which can come about through at least two different channels. One is through research grants to universities or other organizations from private sources or the government. Since in the scheme of life, this is an indisputibly unimportant area of inquiry, it won't come from that source. The other is from companies who have a commercial interest in developing a new and better product. If this has been done at all, the results have not been published and for obvious reasons.

So we are left with little or no actual basic research. When people have a losing arguement, one tactic they use is to try to create in the minds of those they are trying to persuade a notion that the two sides of the arguement are somehow equivalent except for a disagreement. We see it in the most emotional disputes all of the time. Communism versus democracy, creation versus evolution, any religion versus science. The losing side is ALWAYS opposed to scientific facts because it inevitably destroys their case. In the case of Gallileo, not only were his opponents opposed to him publishing his research, his facts, his conclusion, they were opposed to the very idea of science itself because they knew in the end it would dethrone their monopoly on knowledge.

Scientists do not make absolute statements and neither have I. What I have said or tried to say is that so far there is no reliable evidence to support the notion that you can improve the sound of an audio system or even change it by selecting one cable over another. And there is a lot of scientific and mathematical evidence to suggest the contrary.

"1. It would be important to clearly define what is an “average” listener and how you plan to recruit your participants (e.g., random sampling, case matching)."

In any real meaningful test, it would be valuable to segregate the test populations into groups based on auditory accuity, ability to discern small differences in sounds, and their ability to remember sounds from moment to moment by prequalifying them through screening tests. It would be useless to buy a product if you fall into a group whose hearing accuity makes it impossible to hear differences that other people might hear if that is the determinant of the value of that product. IMO, many audiophiles have far poorer auditory accuity than they think they have often due to exposure to very loud music for prolonged periods such as at live rock concerts and at "discotheques."

"It would be important to define your metric and how you plan to evaluate for the metric. What is “superior”? How would you operationalized superior? I would also avoid any correlational analysis given the inherent problems with correlational analysis. With a well designed study, you should be able to avoid using correlational analysis."

Well designed tests should include determining whether two sounds are similar or different based on cable performance. Preferences for a particular kind of music or sound should be eliminated from the test. The ability to duplicate a standard more closely or more frequently would define superior. For example, a circuit which alternately inserts and shunts a test cable could be used. I have described a method for doing this with interconnects using the tape source/monitor facility of most preamplifiers but cable advocates have denounced this test method for reasons which to me are obvious.

" I don’t think that the procable group would argue that improvements in sound can be achieved by no other means or that cables are the most important factor. "

The "pro cable group" has rejected every method of electrical measurement known to electrical engineering science arguing instead that the differences they hear are caused by factors which go beyond what is known. Some of their theories are so arcane and "off the wall" as to be laughable. However, objectively there are at least two kinds of distortion we know about. Linear and non-linear. Linear distortion can be compensated for in several ways, changing the capacitance, inductance, and resistance of a wire being only one of them. Non linear distortion usually can't be compensated for. If the cable advocates can demonstrate that one cable has less non linear distortion than another, the MAY have a valid point depending on how strong and significant the evidence is. The only one I've seen so far was John Curl's report of his measurement that the difference between the best and worst case he could find for interconnects was that the 7th harmonic of 5 khz in $1 Radio Shack cable was down to minus 120 db while for the best cable he measured it was minus 135. Even though he is a cable advocate, this was convincing enough to me to conclude that interconnect cables would not produce any non linear distortion that could ever be audible.

"To legitimately test for cable differences, it would be important to control all factors that can improve sound (for example, system characteristics, room acoustics, and cd quality) and then see if cables makes an incremental improvement."

The most serious cable advocates argue that only high resolution sound systems can reveal the difference in sound between one cable and another. Of course there is no agreement among them what "high resolution" sound systems are. On audiophile's high resolution system is another's mid fi. This is why it is important to analyze and thoroughly understand not only whether differences occur but why they occur and to be able to measure them and predict where they will and won't have an effect and when they do, what the nature and degree of effect will be. Otherwise, this is an absurd game of hit or miss that can be played by any fool forever.

In my experience, this is how real knowledge is gained and how people who know how to get at the truth go about it if they have the skill and the means. So far, the companies which manufacture and market audiophile cables haven't even gotten to the first rung. And it is also obvious to me that there are two reasons for this. They can't and they don't have to. The market already gives them exactly what they want. Profits, profits, profits.

[Resident Loser]

...Why not post the ENTIRE summation and the paragraph that follows it...

BTW, I've never seen any of the regulars say that cables cannot sound different...only that cables of similar length and gauge have not been shown to have any appreciable sonic difference in valid, repeatable test procedures...

jimHJJ(...it's still the same old place I see...)

[kexodusc]

mtrycraft, skeptic: Now, I don't buy the expensive cable argument myself, but the idea of having to scientifically prove a difference in cables in order to support ones claims that they hear a difference is absurd!!!
Just because we haven't developed the means to accurately test cable differences does not mean they don't exist!!!
The world was not flat before it was proven to be round!!!
According to "Science" it is impossible for a Bee to fly, yet we all clearly see that bees do in fact fly!!!
Is anyone going to tell me that a bee flying is voodoo or my imagination?

What we should be asking everyone to do is documenting what differences they perceive, and deciding how much value there is in them. In this, I very much doubt that cable differences become significant.

[skeptic]

"May you enjoy your limited world."

In audio, my world is limited to things that actually work.

[Resident Loser]

...Flat earth and the bee thing...proper testing yet to be developed...what's next, the premium tires on a Yugo deal? Same ol' same ol'!

Nobody is required to do DBTs to convince themselves...we convince ourselves of all manner of things all the time, whether they be true or not, and that's the point. There are far too many variables, in far too many parameters, to take simple anecdotal postings or unsolicited testimonials seriously.

Point is, people read this cr@p and believe it simply because it's printed here by the "experts"...we who don't buy into it(figuratively and literally) present our position based on solid principles and by far and away have the most compelling argument IMHO.

Buy what you wanna', DIY it if that's your bag. Make your own decision, believe neither side...just be aware, there are two sides...

jimHJJ(...and the wheel goes 'round and 'round...)

[pctower]

Such as?

mytrcrafts - his claims are all over the board. Many have realized that the form of his advice and accompanying comments constitute "claims".

Only the dogmatic self-proclaimed "scientists" choose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore that.

Fortunately, someone with a "real" scientific mind like ROJ has come along and is bring true science to this discussion.

jneutron here and at Prophead disavows any dogma and trudges ahead with real experiements. In my book, it is guys like ROJ and jneutron (and I'll even toss in skeptic who is saying all kinds of intelligent things lately about DBTs) who are the real "scientists". The rest of you - mere wanna-bees

[Resident Loser]

...nothing against this poster but...

"...Fortunately, someone with a "real" scientific mind like ROJ has come along and is bring true science to this discussion..."

There is something that may be at odds with your characterization of sir or ms. re: burden of proof.

As I see it, we already have the wheel...

If there is a claim to have a better one, show it to us...prove it...

jimHJJ(...but then again, I'm a little rusty...)

[rb122]

[QUOTE=Resident Loser
As I see it, we already have the wheel...

If there is a claim to have a better one, show it to us...prove it...

jimHJJ(...but then again, I'm a little rusty...)[/QUOTE]

Or we could tell you about it and if you require proof, you could test it for yourself. The real issue as I see it with this "proof" is that the ones that require it are the ones that won't participate and the ones that participate are the ones that don't require it. If DBT is your proof, you'll never get it until a "yeasayer" (and I SO hate those labels) or more preferably a group of them performs a series of DBT's on a series of cables. But they don't feel the need to do so.

The more I visit this cables forum, the more I'm beginning to believe it's value is to afford those with dissenting opinions an outlet to argue. However, ROJ makes what I believe to be a valid point: Until there is proof one way or the other, the recommendation of anything, be it cheap or expensive, is a claim. If claims must be proven before they can be posted, the naysayers have the same obligation as the yeasayers.

[WmAx]

. The only one I've seen so far was John Curl's report of his measurement that the difference between the best and worst case he could find for interconnects was that the 7th harmonic of 5 khz in $1 Radio Shack cable was down to minus 120 db while for the best cable he measured it was minus 135. Even though he is a cable advocate, this was convincing enough to me to conclude that interconnect cables would not produce any non linear distortion that could ever be audible.

Even this is doubtful. John Curls measurements are suspect of being flawed. Steve Eddy helped organize an attempt at repeating these results by another party. An engineer of Phillips Digital, Bruno Putzeys(if memory serves me correct) tried to repeat the experiment, and could not get such high levels of distortion frmo the wire(-120db distortion is very high for wire, even if non-audible) even when using modern, highly regarded equipment. John Curl's tests were done one several decades old equipment, by the way. Of course, this was a couple of months ago, I don't know what may or may not have concluded after these discussions.

-Chris

[Monstrous Mike]

The rest of you - mere wanna-bees

Instead of calling me a "wanna-bee", please address my errors or inconsistancies, perhaps starting with my latest post here.