-
I need help with audio interconnects????
I am at the point with my system where I cannot afford to make the next jump in my equipment without spending alot of $$$, so I'm looking at maximizing system performance. Thus I am looking at getting some decent audio interconnects. I've read several threads on this site and others and alot of articles on the internet on this topic. It seems opinions are widely varied. I'm not a seasoned audiophile like alot of people on these forums so I need some help. I've been to a couple of local dealers and they insist that good audio interconnects do make a difference. One dealer sells Audio Analysis Plus cables but they are very expensive and only come in pre-packaged lengths. The other dealer sells Audioquest and Tara Labs cables. He buys his cable in bulk so he can cut it any length. I was looking at the Audioquest Copperhead cable which sells at $5/foot or the Audioquest Diamondback cable which sells for $8/foot. The connectors are $20 for 2. So I can get 2 - 2 feet cables for $68.40CDN or $82.08CDN incl. taxes. Expensive to me but not crazy expensive. I also have used Ultralink cables which seem ok and are cheaper $45.59CDN incl. taxes for 1M, although I'm not too sure about the quality. The Audioquest cable is within my budget range but if it's not worth it I won't waste my $$$. Can anyone give me an opinion on these Audioquest cables or offer any other suggestions?
-
auditioning should work
My local dealer also carries Audioquest and TaraLabs, but he favors TaraLabs, which I eventually went with. I got the RSC Axiom model, which is a bit more expensive than the Diamondbacks, for instance. But see if you can get a pair of Audioquest and Tara from your dealer to audition at home.
Good luck,
Paul.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrenmc
I am at the point with my system where I cannot afford to make the next jump in my equipment without spending alot of $$$, so I'm looking at maximizing system performance. Thus I am looking at getting some decent audio interconnects. I've read several threads on this site and others and alot of articles on the internet on this topic. It seems opinions are widely varied. I'm not a seasoned audiophile like alot of people on these forums so I need some help. I've been to a couple of local dealers and they insist that good audio interconnects do make a difference. One dealer sells Audio Analysis Plus cables but they are very expensive and only come in pre-packaged lengths. The other dealer sells Audioquest and Tara Labs cables. He buys his cable in bulk so he can cut it any length. I was looking at the Audioquest Copperhead cable which sells at $5/foot or the Audioquest Diamondback cable which sells for $8/foot. The connectors are $20 for 2. So I can get 2 - 2 feet cables for $68.40CDN or $82.08CDN incl. taxes. Expensive to me but not crazy expensive. I also have used Ultralink cables which seem ok and are cheaper $45.59CDN incl. taxes for 1M, although I'm not too sure about the quality. The Audioquest cable is within my budget range but if it's not worth it I won't waste my $$$. Can anyone give me an opinion on these Audioquest cables or offer any other suggestions?
I have no expeience with the Audioquest Copperhead and Diamonback interconnects, but the prices you were quoted seem reasonable, being comparable to Radio Shack's premium interconnect , the Fusion, which is about $28 US for 3 feet. I would not buy, however, without a money-back guarantee.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrenmc
I am at the point with my system where I cannot afford to make the next jump in my equipment without spending alot of $$$, so I'm looking at maximizing system performance. Thus I am looking at getting some decent audio interconnects. I've read several threads on this site and others and alot of articles on the internet on this topic. It seems opinions are widely varied. I'm not a seasoned audiophile like alot of people on these forums so I need some help. I've been to a couple of local dealers and they insist that good audio interconnects do make a difference. One dealer sells Audio Analysis Plus cables but they are very expensive and only come in pre-packaged lengths. The other dealer sells Audioquest and Tara Labs cables. He buys his cable in bulk so he can cut it any length. I was looking at the Audioquest Copperhead cable which sells at $5/foot or the Audioquest Diamondback cable which sells for $8/foot. The connectors are $20 for 2. So I can get 2 - 2 feet cables for $68.40CDN or $82.08CDN incl. taxes. Expensive to me but not crazy expensive. I also have used Ultralink cables which seem ok and are cheaper $45.59CDN incl. taxes for 1M, although I'm not too sure about the quality. The Audioquest cable is within my budget range but if it's not worth it I won't waste my $$$. Can anyone give me an opinion on these Audioquest cables or offer any other suggestions?
Of course those dealers insist that you need better cables. How else will they make more money? It is in their best interest to sell. You think if they badmouthed cables they would sell what they carry?
You may want to ask them about real evidence that they make an audible difference. Evidence derived from Double blind listening comparisons. Sighted listening is very biased, hence it has no value in determining such audible differences in cables. No, you will not get one such piece of evidence as it woul not support audible differences. Many have tried for 20+ years, none have succeeded. You will get excuses only.
So, save your money and use what you already have.
-
speaker cables and interconnects
Radio Shacks fusion Cables deliver strong power throughout the audible range. No interference no delay . dont be embarassed to try them on your best audio gear.
As for Tara labs- The Tara labs OMNI 3 series of Speaker cables will Throw you into the
Orchestra pit , theyre so responsive- Awaken any system & fairly priced. if you cant find a Dealer call direct to their Medford oregon Factory( website also) They will customize
your cables with gold pins & Bananas & ship Overnight -Very Top Notch Company.
Cleaner sound than Audioquest or Kimber.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrenmc
I am at the point with my system where I cannot afford to make the next jump in my equipment without spending alot of $$$, so I'm looking at maximizing system performance.
Better cables are all about system matching and understanding that there are only incremental improvements to be found. Some of the potential benefits depend upon your equipment (not necessarily assessments of "good" or "bad", but parameters) and the kind of music you favor. For example, since I use passive attenuators with my CDP (significantly more open than my preamp), cable capacitance is far more important. If you need very long runs of cable, that can be a mitigating factor.
Some folks don't hear differences because they don't know what to listen for. In home trials will cost you nothing but your time. You may find benefit and you may not. Many of us enjoy the hunt. Good luck !
rw
-
Not only isn't there event the slightest shred of evidence anywhere to suggest that one interconnect cable is any different than another, it makes no sense at all. The least expensive audio cable interconnect can carry a video signal cable perfectly and that signal has over 300 times the bandwidth of an audio signal. The greatest measured difference by a proponent of these cables could find no measureable differences to suggest that they could possibly be audible. Don't waste your money. Put it to work doing something useful and usable.
-
I concur 110% with everything that "skeptic" said in his post here. The worlds of audio and video are overrun with charlatans out to relieve you of some of your hard-earned ... and under very false pretenses.
I would add to the discussion the following:
Although it sounds quite reasonable on the face of it - the advice given by many well-intentioned individuals to try the product yourself and "let your ears decide" is in actuality really terrible advice! For our ears are anything but harbingers of ultimate truth, as much as some would like to think they are. In truth, they are but a small part of the mechanism(s) that ultimately determine what we hear. This is true of all 5 of our senses. They all operate under the direct control and influence of our ABEs (our Attitudes, Beliefs, and Expectations) - very often at a subconscious level, but the control and influence are there nonetheless.
-
Inexpensive options
I recently researched audio interconnects to see if I should upgrade my cables. As you probably read in your research, this is a contentious topic without any scientifically rigorous proof one way or another, althought inclusion of DBT is an important first step and may indicate that ultimately no differences will be found if the research progresses. I actually don't know what I think about cables differences since no scientifically rigorous research exists (the current studies seem to have poor internal or external validity). Given that definitive proof does not exist and may not be produced for some time, I decided to try a few cheap cables and see if I noticed a difference. I wanted to try cheap cables that had money back guarantees. I bought cables from Blue Jean Cables (bluejeanscable.com) and Heartland Cables (heartlandcables.com). Both of these companies offer cheaper cables than the mainstream cable companies and offer 30 day money back guarantees. In my system and in my admittedly biased testing, the cables seemed to have made a difference. As I said before, I don't know if cables actually do make a differences. The difference I perceived may have been due to bias. At the same time, there actually may be differences in cables since studies that have used DBT have not addressed external validity issues (e.g., did not control for potential confounding variables such as differences between systems and listerners). So as this debate continues seemingly in perpetuity, one option to consider is to try some cheap cables that have money back guarantees (such as Blue Jeans cable or Heartland cables) and see if you feel the cables improve your system.
-ROJ
-
How much money are you looking to spend?
-
"In my system and in my admittedly biased testing, the cables seemed to have made a difference. As I said before, I don't know if cables actually do make a differences. The difference I perceived may have been due to bias."
Then your advice makes no sense at all. How can your reach any conclusion when there is admitted bias. Furthermore, if you use the rationale that cheap cables might provide some improvement, how can you preclude the possibility that more expensive cables wouldn't provide even greater improvement.
If you take the arguement that only "high resolution" sound systems provide the possibility that an audible improvement would result from improved cables, how do you define high resolution. One audiophiles dream component or dream system is another audiophile's "mid fi." And even among the "select" components chosen by rags like Stereophile Magazine, the number of permutations is virtually limitless.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic
"In my system and in my admittedly biased testing, the cables seemed to have made a difference. As I said before, I don't know if cables actually do make a differences. The difference I perceived may have been due to bias."
Then your advice makes no sense at all. How can your reach any conclusion when there is admitted bias. Furthermore, if you use the rationale that cheap cables might provide some improvement, how can you preclude the possibility that more expensive cables wouldn't provide even greater improvement.
If you take the arguement that only "high resolution" sound systems provide the possibility that an audible improvement would result from improved cables, how do you define high resolution. One audiophiles dream component or dream system is another audiophile's "mid fi." And even among the "select" components chosen by rags like Stereophile Magazine, the number of permutations is virtually limitless.
Hi Skeptic,
I am sorry that my advice does not make sense to you. My main point is that both sides of the argument are biased and are not basing recommendations on science. I believe that I am even more of a “skeptic” than you. I feel that the recommendations for or against cables are based on flawed studies. I am skeptical of both sides. I am even skeptical of my own observations, which is why I said that my results may have been biased. I still have not seen any well conducted, peer reviewed research that have addressed the issue. It intrigues me that you included the argument about “high resolution” systems being required to hear differences in your response to my post as I have never claimed that “high resolution” systems are needed to hear differences. Some may argue that this indicates your bias in that I was somehow clumped with the pro cable group, even though I am trying to belong to the “we don’t really know” group.
Regarding the current research, including DBT is a step in the right direction, but the there are other important issues to consider. Some of my main reasons for my skepticism are that the quality of the systems, the room acoustics, and the variability in perceptual abilities among people have not been scientifically examined. Thus, we can not say if these variables affect the ability to perceive cable differences. So, a “high resolution” system may be needed for cable differences, or it may not. I don’t know and no one can scientifically claim that it does or does not. We can make claims, but we should acknowledge that they are not scientifically rigorous and may be biased, again another reason that I admitted my results may have been biased. I am still perplexed why recommendations are made so strongly on both my sides with incomplete research.
Do you believe that the issues about cable differences is resolved? If so, why? I am still skeptical that the issue has been resolved, but would strongly enjoy hearing arguments or research that have addressed the debate.
For those that believe in cable differences, the cables that I recommend are often highly rated and are advertised to be comparable to more expensive cables. Again, there is no current research to verify or refute the claim. Since we are not basing recommendation on research, I recommended that the person try these cheap and supposedly high quality cables. If the person does not like the cables, they get their money back. The person does not have anything to lose. Again, this recommendation does not indicate that I am in the pro cable group. I am still in the "we don't really know" group. Given that I am in this group (if it even exists), I don't think it would hurt to try cables, especially if they are relatively inexpensive and you can get your money back.
-ROJ
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROJ
I recently researched audio interconnects to see if I should upgrade my cables. As you probably read in your research, this is a contentious topic without any scientifically rigorous proof one way or another, althought inclusion of DBT is an important first step and may indicate that ultimately no differences will be found if the research progresses. I actually don't know what I think about cables differences since no scientifically rigorous research exists (the current studies seem to have poor internal or external validity). Given that definitive proof does not exist and may not be produced for some time, I decided to try a few cheap cables and see if I noticed a difference. I wanted to try cheap cables that had money back guarantees. I bought cables from Blue Jean Cables (bluejeanscable.com) and Heartland Cables (heartlandcables.com). Both of these companies offer cheaper cables than the mainstream cable companies and offer 30 day money back guarantees. In my system and in my admittedly biased testing, the cables seemed to have made a difference. As I said before, I don't know if cables actually do make a differences. The difference I perceived may have been due to bias. At the same time, there actually may be differences in cables since studies that have used DBT have not addressed external validity issues (e.g., did not control for potential confounding variables such as differences between systems and listerners). So as this debate continues seemingly in perpetuity, one option to consider is to try some cheap cables that have money back guarantees (such as Blue Jeans cable or Heartland cables) and see if you feel the cables improve your system.
-ROJ
Good for you, ROJ! You decided to make your own cable purchasing decision rather than letting someone else do it for you. While you don't dismiss the possibility your hearing may be biased, you also don't seem to dismiss the possibility naysayers may be wrong. Your message to Darrenmc, who asked for advice, was not to do what you did, but just that he might consider it as an option. You can think for yourself, and apparently you believe others can too.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROJ
I recently researched audio interconnects to see if I should upgrade my cables. As you probably read in your research, this is a contentious topic without any scientifically rigorous proof one way or another, althought inclusion of DBT is an important first step and may indicate that ultimately no differences will be found if the research progresses. I actually don't know what I think about cables differences since no scientifically rigorous research exists (the current studies seem to have poor internal or external validity). Given that definitive proof does not exist and may not be produced for some time, I decided to try a few cheap cables and see if I noticed a difference. I wanted to try cheap cables that had money back guarantees. I bought cables from Blue Jean Cables (bluejeanscable.com) and Heartland Cables (heartlandcables.com). Both of these companies offer cheaper cables than the mainstream cable companies and offer 30 day money back guarantees. In my system and in my admittedly biased testing, the cables seemed to have made a difference. As I said before, I don't know if cables actually do make a differences. The difference I perceived may have been due to bias. At the same time, there actually may be differences in cables since studies that have used DBT have not addressed external validity issues (e.g., did not control for potential confounding variables such as differences between systems and listerners). So as this debate continues seemingly in perpetuity, one option to consider is to try some cheap cables that have money back guarantees (such as Blue Jeans cable or Heartland cables) and see if you feel the cables improve your system.
-ROJ
You may want to read this testing on cables, even though it was not peer jopurnal, the author is not a fly by nighter:
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...istortion.html
And this didn't even do a DBT listening test.
Oh, as to proof, hard to prove a negative, don't you think? The question should be: is there proof for audible differences? If not, Why not???
-
My main point is that both sides of the argument are biased and are not basing recommendations on science.
On science, yes, flawless science, you are right. No peer paper is available. But the question should be what is the evidence for differences, not against it. There is none.
I am even skeptical of my own observations, which is why I said that my results may have been biased.
Then what good is it?
I still have not seen any well conducted, peer reviewed research that have addressed the issue.
No one is interested for obvious reasons. Who will spend such money unless they have an interest in proving differences? And the answer is already evident from less rigorous testing over 20+ years. If those testing was so flawed, you'd see positive results all over the place. they just don't exist unless for a very good reason that there was something grossly wrong with the component.
If the person does not like the cables,
But how will they test for it? Through even more flawed protocol, sighted comparison? That just cannot be relyable at all, no maybe this or that about it. Useless.
I am still in the "we don't really know" group. Given that I am in this group (if it even exists), I don't think it would hurt to try cables, especially if they are relatively inexpensive and you can get your money back.
-ROJ
What is there to try, with flawed listeing, especially by one who knows that it is flawed, without any meaning for audible differences? Wasting time.
-
My main point is that both sides of the argument are biased and are not basing recommendations on science.
On science, yes, flawless science, you are right. No peer paper is available. But the question should be what is the evidence for differences, not against it. There is none.
There should be evidence to support both positions. If you are talking about hypothesis testing, there still needs to be evidence that the results from DBT studies that did not find a difference (the null hypothesis was supported) can not be explained by other potentially confounding variables. Data supporting a null hypothesis can indicate that the null hypothesis is in fact true and should have been supported. It could also indicate that the null hypothesis should have been rejected, but that the experimental methodology did not allow for the rejection due to poor methodology.
I am even skeptical of my own observations, which is why I said that my results may have been biased.
Then what good is it?
It is as good as any other position on this board since it all based on flawed methodology. There are two broad steps to scientifically answering the debate. Will changing cables make a difference (internal validity)? DBT is one component to answering this question. The next question is to what extent can the results relate to other systems (external validity). This has not been examined. I think we should always acknowledge the limitation of our opinions and observations. I am stating that I heard differences, but that I can not discount the influence of bias. I also am not assuming that other will hear differences. I wish those that argued against cable differences would acknowledge the problems with external validity and allow that their results may not necessarily extrapolate to other systems. Similarly, I wish that those that argue for cable differences acknowledged that their may be problems with bias.
I still have not seen any well conducted, peer reviewed research that have addressed the issue.
No one is interested for obvious reasons. Who will spend such money unless they have an interest in proving differences? And the answer is already evident from less rigorous testing over 20+ years. If those testing was so flawed, you'd see positive results all over the place. they just don't exist unless for a very good reason that there was something grossly wrong with the component.
A key presupposition of your position is that positive results do not exist that used DBT. As I started researching cables, I also read the antithesis of this board, cable asylum, where I read claims of finding differences using DBT. Without an objective arbitrator (scientific journals) or even an exhaustive review of multiple studies, it is difficult to evaluate your or the claims at the other board. I am not accusing you or the folks at cable asylum with deception, but I wonder if self-selection has occurred. Both forums seem to be dominated by believers of their position. I wonder if new information at both forums tend to be supportive of the positions.
Flawed data can not prove that cables differences do or do not exist. They can be provocative and suggest the ultimate end. It is poor science to assume the end result without accounting for potentially significant confounding variables.
If the person does not like the cables,
But how will they test for it? Through even more flawed protocol, sighted comparison? That just cannot be relyable at all, no maybe this or that about it. Useless.
I know I am probably going to anger some folks, but to an extent the whole debate is useless since it is all based on flawed protocol. I have no illusions that everything has to be examined through scientific lenses, especially audio components. How can we judge which speaker is the best, for example? I was not going to enter the debate until I kept reading references to DBT. It appeared that the debate was attempting to scientifically examine the issue by including DBT. The emphasis on DBT seemed to suggest that this was the only component important to a scientifically rigorous examination of cable differences. This is not true. It is an important component, but one among many other components. What about external validity? That is never discussed and has not been examined. As you mentioned there is no desire to examine this and it will probably never be examined. This fact, however, does not obviate the importance of external validity.
I am still in the "we don't really know" group. Given that I am in this group (if it even exists), I don't think it would hurt to try cables, especially if they are relatively inexpensive and you can get your money back.
-ROJ
What is there to try, with flawed listeing, especially by one who knows that it is flawed, without any meaning for audible differences? Wasting time.
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. The whole debate is using flawed data and may be “wasting time”. There appear to be strong bias on both sides, perhaps self-selection, and flawed methodology. And yet, there is an assumption that inclusion of DBT somehow takes care of all of the methodological problems and bias. We are basing recommendation on flawed methodology. Given the current state, a recommendation that cable differences do not exist may unnecessarily deprive someone of improvement in their systems. It could also save someone their hard earned money if the truth is that cable differences do not actually exist. However, strong recommendations either way may be making the decisions for others without a strong scientific basis. In similar situation where there is no definitive proof, I tend to present both sides of the argument and let people make their own decision. If there is scientific evidence for a particular position, then I can base recommendation on the findings, but with the caveat that it reflects the current state of the literature, but that it may change. Researchers’ jobs are to continue changing the literature. It is never static and we have to qualify our statements since the literature may change. This tempering of recommendations is absent in this debate.
-ROJ
-
ROJ, your logic is entirely flawed. When someone introduces a "new and improved" product which of course costs more, it is up to THEM to prove that it really IS better, not up to the rest of the world to prove that it isn't.
You are not equipped to make any judgements about the merits or lack of them of audio cables. This seemingly simple item to install is far more complicated to conduct a fair test on than any audiophile has the capability to do in his own home. For starters, you cannot even make a rapid enough switch between one set and another to remember and directly compare what you heard from the previous trial. There are no readily available switching devices to make that possible and unless you are technically skilled to the degree that you can design and build your own switching devices, you don't have any suitable means. Also, you don't have a way to compare the same passage of music over and over again unless you have a cd player with A-B repeat and then get someone else to help you conduct exhaustive trials with the other person doing the switching so that you don't know which one you are hearing at any given time.
Since there is no technical rationale behind any audible differences, the only method to determine if there are differences is through scientifically run DBTs on the assumption that there is some aspect of electrical conductivity that electrical engineers, scientists, and mathematicians can't explain because it eludes them but somehow makes an audible difference. Then why haven't the people who make these cables conducted them themselves? You would think that if they had at least this kind of proof, they would be only too eager to publish it and make a legitimate claim even if it was only to say that a significant percentage of listeners in a controlled experiment preferred their cables. At least two reasons come to mind. Cost is not one of them. First, in all likelihood they can't because the results prove exactly the opposite or they would have done it already. And second is that they don't have to. There are enough people out there already buying them that there is no reason to jeaopardize their profits by publishing the results of a test that might call the value of their product into question.
The notion that you can incrementally walk into this, try a few cables to see if you like them is also a false notion. Either they work or they don't. Lots of home remedies were marketed for every ailment under the sun often to be pulled from the shelves after the laws governing them were enforced. Some dangerous "food suplements" which make outrageous miracle claims for health can't be removed because they are considered food, not medications and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the law. If you listen to the claims they make or carefully read their advertising, they include legal disclaimers to protect them, not you. The same lawyers review the advertising copy for these cable companies. Read it carefully and you will see that there are no performance improvement claims. They can't legally make them because under FTC rules they must be able to prove it and they simply can't. They prey on the myths and hopes of consumers to fill in the gaps in what at most are inferences. In other words, they prey on your gullability to make a profit.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic
"In my system and in my admittedly biased testing, the cables seemed to have made a difference. As I said before, I don't know if cables actually do make a differences. The difference I perceived may have been due to bias."
Then your advice makes no sense at all. How can your reach any conclusion when there is admitted bias. Furthermore, if you use the rationale that cheap cables might provide some improvement, how can you preclude the possibility that more expensive cables wouldn't provide even greater improvement.
If you take the arguement that only "high resolution" sound systems provide the possibility that an audible improvement would result from improved cables, how do you define high resolution. One audiophiles dream component or dream system is another audiophile's "mid fi." And even among the "select" components chosen by rags like Stereophile Magazine, the number of permutations is virtually limitless.
"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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
Right on, Mtry. Let's all read the summation together:
"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves."
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pctower
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.
I find it amazing and singular with this hobby (and source of enjoyment) that there are many folks who passionately race for the bottom.
rw
-
And, in the very next paragraph it says this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Right on, Mtry. Let's all read the summation together:
"It shows that people who claim that cables do not make a difference are plainly deluding themselves."
rw
"We are greatly appreciative of Bruno's efforts in this article. However, I felt it important to mention that much of the focus of this article pertaining to microphonics and triboelectric effects is relative to how interconnects may interact when interfacing high gain low impedance drive to high impedance circuit terminations, such as the case with microphones and phono preamps. In reality the triboelectic effect rarely becomes a real world problem in consumer audio. Microphone applications must be considerate of these effects, especially since the cables attaching the microphones are often in motion caused by the singer and/or local mechanical vibrations which can induce noise into the system. In such instances there are specifically designed cables with dampening materials (usually cotton) to nullify this problem by acting like shock absorbers to reduce contact area as well as employing a different shield construction which is less prone to triboelectric noise."
I'll be sure to keep this in mind when running microphone cables. Oh wait, I already do!
-
Never say your sorry! You have nothing to be sorry about. There are those who will never believe that interconnect or speaker cables can make a difference in the sound of a system. Big deal who cares. Let them spend on their systems as they seem fit, and you spend your as you seem fit. I love the difference that my Nordost Blue Heavens MADE TO MY SYSTEM!
-
Prey tell? Who is equiped to make judgements about the merits or lack of them of audio cables? Since it is my systen, I know I am. Afterall, my ears are the only ones that matter. Not the ears or eyes of some meter reader. If a person is knowingly and willing participant of a DBT; could that fact not in fact make them biased? I mean the know they are part of a test, maybe they will think that they are expected to hear or not hear a difference. Seems to me that the best test subject is in fact the one who does not realize that he or she is a test subject! Also, one who is not into music as a hobby in any way.
Rapid enough swithing? Use multiple and identical soure components hooked up to your linestage or preamp. Use indentical CD's; either burn them, or as I do, get them for a family member who works in a recording studio. Now use multiple interconnects form different manufacturers. Amazingly, one remote can work multiple Cd players simultaneously. Simple, very simple, and not that time consuming. Now since you seem to now what is valid scientifically, I guess, set up the test in any way you seem fit. What do you have to loose?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
"We are greatly appreciative of Bruno's efforts in this article. However, I felt it important to mention that much of the focus of this article pertaining to microphonics and triboelectric effects is relative to how interconnects may interact when interfacing high gain low impedance drive to high impedance circuit terminations, such as the case with microphones and phono preamps. In reality the triboelectic effect rarely becomes a real world problem in consumer audio. Microphone applications must be considerate of these effects, especially since the cables attaching the microphones are often in motion caused by the singer and/or local mechanical vibrations which can induce noise into the system. In such instances there are specifically designed cables with dampening materials (usually cotton) to nullify this problem by acting like shock absorbers to reduce contact area as well as employing a different shield construction which is less prone to triboelectric noise."
I'll be sure to keep this in mind when running microphone cables. Oh wait, I already do!
What you have quoted is Gene DellaSala's comments on the article by Bruno Putzeys. How do you know Putzeys agrees with DellaSala's comments on his article?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic
ROJ, your logic is entirely flawed. When someone introduces a "new and improved" product which of course costs more, it is up to THEM to prove that it really IS better, not up to the rest of the world to prove that it isn't.
You are not equipped to make any judgements about the merits or lack of them of audio cables. This seemingly simple item to install is far more complicated to conduct a fair test on than any audiophile has the capability to do in his own home. For starters, you cannot even make a rapid enough switch between one set and another to remember and directly compare what you heard from the previous trial. There are no readily available switching devices to make that possible and unless you are technically skilled to the degree that you can design and build your own switching devices, you don't have any suitable means. Also, you don't have a way to compare the same passage of music over and over again unless you have a cd player with A-B repeat and then get someone else to help you conduct exhaustive trials with the other person doing the switching so that you don't know which one you are hearing at any given time.
Since there is no technical rationale behind any audible differences, the only method to determine if there are differences is through scientifically run DBTs on the assumption that there is some aspect of electrical conductivity that electrical engineers, scientists, and mathematicians can't explain because it eludes them but somehow makes an audible difference. Then why haven't the people who make these cables conducted them themselves? You would think that if they had at least this kind of proof, they would be only too eager to publish it and make a legitimate claim even if it was only to say that a significant percentage of listeners in a controlled experiment preferred their cables. At least two reasons come to mind. Cost is not one of them. First, in all likelihood they can't because the results prove exactly the opposite or they would have done it already. And second is that they don't have to. There are enough people out there already buying them that there is no reason to jeaopardize their profits by publishing the results of a test that might call the value of their product into question.
The notion that you can incrementally walk into this, try a few cables to see if you like them is also a false notion. Either they work or they don't. Lots of home remedies were marketed for every ailment under the sun often to be pulled from the shelves after the laws governing them were enforced. Some dangerous "food suplements" which make outrageous miracle claims for health can't be removed because they are considered food, not medications and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the law. If you listen to the claims they make or carefully read their advertising, they include legal disclaimers to protect them, not you. The same lawyers review the advertising copy for these cable companies. Read it carefully and you will see that there are no performance improvement claims. They can't legally make them because under FTC rules they must be able to prove it and they simply can't. They prey on the myths and hopes of consumers to fill in the gaps in what at most are inferences. In other words, they prey on your gullability to make a profit.
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. 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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROJ
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROJ
...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:
<a href="http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=19153&postcount=67">Two minute amnesia </a href>
Not surprisingly, there never was a response as to which of the conflicting assertions he wishes to acknowledge.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pctower
Unfortunately, many go far beyond that and make claims that are as unfounded as the claims of the "golden ears".
Such as?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pctower
"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.
-
"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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
If it were better, I would conclude that it was better.
But you might be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
May you enjoy your limited world.
rw
Fantasy is fun, isn't it?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
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?
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
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:
<a href="http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=19153&postcount=67">Two minute amnesia </a href>
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
-
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrycraft
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
|