"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.

You start off this posting by stating that there is “…no AVAILABLE scientific evidence.” Then you start discussing the motives of people that have losing arguments. How can we know they are making losing argument since there is “no available scientific evidence?” As I have read your posting and others, it seems that a focus of the debate is on the motives of the cable makers. I have no doubt that cable makers may not want to have legitimate testing given the chance that cables may not make a difference. The motives of the cable companies, however, should not be considered proof. I think the issue with Galileo is that the establishment may have been opposed to research because it could potentially disrupt the status quo, which worked for their benefit. When they opposed his research, no one knew which side was the losing side because the research had not yet been conducted. At that time, how did we know they were on the losing side. I do agree that some people with a losing position discount evidence to the contrary. I just don’t think we can assume that there is a losing side in the cable debate yet since the research has not been done.


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.

Scientists also do not treat their hypothesis of what a study will show as fact before the study has been conducted. They do not prejudge the ultimate outcome. In your posting to me, I have read several strong statements (such as “losing side”) that seem to indicate that you may have already concluded that cable will not make a difference even though you acknowledge there is no scientific proof.

You mention that there is a lot of scientific evidence to suggest the contrary. Is this different than the nonexistant basic research you previously mentioned? Is this research in another field that is relevant to the debate?


"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."

This would definitely be helpful, but it would limit the applicability of the findings to the target populations. If the studies found that cable difference were not evident with middle age audio enthusiasts with poor hearing. Then the results would only be applicable to middle age audio enthusiasts with poor hearing. However, if we could test multiple target populations then maybe we could narrow done which populations hear cable differences if cable differences exist, such as gullible, audio novice, graduate students. Then we could say if you belong to this target population try cable, if not do not try cables. Right now, both sides are making recommendations without consider people as a potentially moderating variable.

" 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.

I don’t know what the pro cable groups have been claming as I only recently started reading both sides of the debate. However, have their “off the wall” and “arcane” theories been empirically refuted? Remember, the scientific community may have thought that Galileo’s theory was “off the wall”. I am not supporting these arguments especially since I have not read them. However, I don’t think we can immediately dismiss a theory without evaluation. Fortunately, sufficient evidence often exists to dispute most “off the wall” theories in general. The whole process of science, however, is to expand our way of thinking even if it originally does not make intuitive sense. Some “off the wall” theories may lead to significant discoveries (e.g., Galileo).

"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.

I agree completely. It appears that neither side has controlled for system quality. I have never read a claim on either side that tried to control for system quality by comparing cables with multiple systems.

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.

You are probably right that the cable companies do not have a financial incentive to conducts tests. Greedy motives, however, do not constitute proof. When you wrote the manufacturers “can’t” are you stating that they can’t find differences? If so, do you think that you have prejudged the ultimate outcome?