Null Hypothesis

[Pat D]

I still await a single report of any findings to support the "all cables sound the same notion" using equipment better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers.
rw

You remind me of the fundamentalists who argue that their position must be true if I can't prove it false. They neglect the burden of proving their assertions are correct.

First of all, I know of no one who formally states that "all cables sound the same." Indeed, it has been shown that this proposition is false by the very people you criticise. So, you are giving a straw man argument.

Second, what you ask is impossible theoretically as the result is statistical. It's probability. It is also impossible to absolutely prove statistically that two things sound different, but no one seems to have any doubts some things sound different.

If you wish to criticise Stereo Review's test procedures, perhaps you should at least take the trouble to look up the article in question and then take it up with Hachette or with the authors.

[E-Stat]

They neglect the burden of proving their assertions are correct.

What I question is the sweeping "mountain of proof" assertion that there are zero audible benefits to using the best cables on the best systems mtry refers to but seemingly cannot find. Tests are only as valid as the testing methodology and only provide results for that which is tested. I assert that there are no valid results supporting either position based on every report found here.

If you wish to criticise Stereo Review's test procedures, perhaps you should at least take the trouble to look up the article in question and then take it up with Hachette or with the authors.

The primary issue I take with the Stereo Review test is that it is limited to simply different flavors of 30 foot long zip back in 1983. Monster of that day was basically 12 gauge zip. Yet some attempt to extrapolate those results to every other speaker wire today. Here's the quote from the link:

A 6-page article by Laurence Greenhill titled "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?" was published in Stereo Review magazine on August 1983. It compared Monster cable, 16-gauge wire and 24-gauge wire.

All the other details are really moot.

rw

[pctower]

What I question is the sweeping "mountain of proof" assertion that there are zero audible benefits to using the best cables on the best systems mtry refers to but seemingly cannot find. Tests are only as valid as the testing methodology and only provide results for that which is tested. I assert that there are no valid results supporting either position based on every report found here.



The primary issue I take with the Stereo Review test is that it is limited to simply different flavors of 30 foot long zip back in 1983. Monster of that day was basically 12 gauge zip. Yet some attempt to extrapolate those results to every other speaker wire today. Here's the quote from the link:

A 6-page article by Laurence Greenhill titled "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?" was published in Stereo Review magazine on August 1983. It compared Monster cable, 16-gauge wire and 24-gauge wire.

All the other details are really moot.

rw

These guys here consistently give unqualified advice to newcomers to use the cheapest possible cables they can find. Then they try to claim that they don't make any claims about cables not sounding different.

Pat's been doing this forever. Not really worth the bother to try to communicate with intelectually dishonest people.

[mtrycraft]

I still await a single report of any findings to support the "all cables sound the same notion" using equipment better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers. You may posture all you please. Perhaps the extent of their (and your) audio experience goes no further. What are the tester's afraid of by not divulging full details of their "tests"? Does anyone really consider that lack of disclosure to conform to true scientific principles? What are you afraid of by not divulging details of your system? You will predictably continue to dodge the question by replying "irrelevant". The (lack of) confidence in your own position speaks for itself.

As for me, I have the amps warmed up downstairs for some nice music listening. I plan to spin some Copland, Bach, and Dido this afternoon.

rw

Hey, I don't have to have a single citation. You still have the burden of demonstration for differences. Rather simple science. But then, you don't understand that stuff.

[mtrycraft]

Unlike some "yeasayers" I find the differences to be subtle indeed. I use fancy cables only on the best of my three systems as I find the other two not good enough to bother. Only the big system can float images, resolve very fine detail, and produce a reasonable soundstage. As for the burden of proof, Ferrari, Maserati, Porsche, Aston Martin, et. al. find no need to prove their worth, either. The knowledgeable automotive press and enthusiasts world-wide speak for them. Sound familiar? There are many subjective handling characteristics that defy simplistic numeric testing. Similarly, I have yet to find a "specification" or collection thereof that directly correlates to system soundstaging capabilities.

I'm constantly amused how much virtual ink is spent in this forum discussing what they claim doesn't exist. Yes, it is ridiculous to spend as much on cables as you would major components. You either hear differences or you don't. Move on. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

rw

Subtle or huge, you are still claiming a difference that you just cannot demonstrate under bais controlled listeing, regardless of component quality. Simple. End game.

[mtrycraft]

These guys here consistently give unqualified advice to newcomers to use the cheapest possible cables they can find.

And? Why shouldn't they? What sonic reasons or evidence are there to use more expensive cables?

[mtrycraft]

You know, cable business might not be such a bad business to get into. All we have to is come up with some weird cable design, and say the patent is pending and then market it. The only down fall might be that we have change position to a yeasayers in order to sell fancy cables

No we don't have to change postitions. What's his name, John Dunlavy designed, created and sold a rather expensive wire based on the transmission line principle yet he conducted DBT listening showing no audible differences

[markw]

Unlike some "yeasayers" I find the differences to be subtle indeed. I use fancy cables only on the best of my three systems as I find the other two not good enough to bother. Only the big system can float images, resolve very fine detail, and produce a reasonable soundstage.

I'm constantly amused how much virtual ink is spent in this forum discussing what they claim doesn't exist. Yes, it is ridiculous to spend as much on cables as you would major components. You either hear differences or you don't. Move on. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

rw

Well, Phil, here's one of yours saying that it takes a certain calibre of system to "show off" those highly touted "subtle" differences.

Problem is that few here bother to even bother to see exactly what type of system they are dealing with when they argue against "common" cables. They simplt allude to the fact that glitzy cables do make a difference.

Actually, I'd be curious to know which systems are worthy of these fine cables and which aren't worth it, wouldn't you? I guess not. You would rather call names.

So, by your blanket condemnation of Pat's advice, I'd have to classify yourself as the "intellectually dishonest" one here. I guess too many years in Law does that to one, eh?

[pctower]

Well, Phil, here's one of yours saying that it takes a certain calibre of system to "show off" those highly touted "subtle" differences.

Problem is that few here bother to even bother to see exactly what type of system they are dealing with when they argue against "common" cables. They simplt allude to the fact that glitzy cables do make a difference.

Actually, I'd be curious to know which systems are worthy of these fine cables and which aren't worth it, wouldn't you? I guess not. You would rather call names.

So, by your blanket condemnation of Pat's advice, I'd have to classify yourself as the "intellectually dishonest" one here. I guess too many years in Law does that to one, eh?

Why is he one of mine?

I've never claimed him or anyone else to be "one" of mine.

Confront me with stuff I say and I'll respond. Employ your typical tactic of putting words in my mouth, and I'll treat you with the disdain and disgust you deserve.

[markw]

I love it when you get huffy and indignent in an attempt to avoid the issue at hand. That means I hit a nerve. Isn't that a legal tactic to avoid answering the question?

Your response to Pat D's post.

These guys here consistently give unqualified advice to newcomers to use the cheapest possible cables they can find. Then they try to claim that they don't make any claims about cables not sounding different.

Pat's been doing this forever. Not really worth the bother to try to communicate with intelectually dishonest people.

So. since it's fairly obvious you feel Pat (one of "these guys") is unqualified to offer advice to newcomers, who, in your esteemed (at least to yourself) IS qualified? Well, from your input on this site, it's fairly obvious where your beliefs fall.

You constantly say you don't know what to believe, yet you seem ready to condem those who lean towards the moderate spending group. We're not as easily manipulated as a jury you would try to hand select. You are about as transparant as a pane of glass.

... or you actually gonna try tp pull off that you never said Pat is not one of "these guys"?

Actually, the fact that you choose treat me with disdain rather than owe up to your own acts pushes me to greater heights. When you speak from one side of your mouth perhaps I'll lighten up.

Not enough action twisting words in court? Gotta come here to get your jollies?


TTFN

[E-Stat]

... regardless of component quality. Simple. End game.

It is indeed simple for those who do not think. You claim results from tests that do not exist.

rw

[E-Stat]

Hey, I don't have to have a single citation.

Mtry, I'm beginning to like you. You are honest after all !

rw

[FLZapped]

These guys here consistently give unqualified advice to newcomers to use the cheapest possible cables they can find. Then they try to claim that they don't make any claims about cables not sounding different.

Pat's been doing this forever. Not really worth the bother to try to communicate with intelectually dishonest people.

I suppose then, my 30 years in electronics research, design, and manufacture don't qualify either. In that time, I've been exposed to far more than any "audiophile" - regardless of what some claim. Maybe you have the cart before the horse. Ever consider it's BECASE we have found no evidence audible differences among like cables that we use "the cheap stuff." Gee, what a concept.


By the way Phil, we're smart enough to understand that 25 foot long speaker cables that are 24 AWG and 12 AWG, will indeed sound different - or were you just hiding that fact to try and make another invalid point in your lawyerly fashion?


-Bruce

[okiemax]

I participated in a double-blind ABX comparison:

Ten feet of Radio Shack 14AWG zip cords versus ten-foot $995 Tara Labs speaker cables at DLC Design, an audio consultancy in Michigan. The test was conducted by DLC owner Dave Clark (inventor of the DUMAX dynamic driver measurement system) and Tom Nousaine. Both work full-time in the audio field and both are internationally known.

As usual in DBT's, some people quickly claimed they heard differences in the subjective sighted warm-up audition.

During the double-blind portion of the test no one actually heard differences based on their "scorecards", although one golden ear had quite a few "correct" responses in a row so thought that was absolute proof that at least HE heard differences (not statistically significant but close) and he probably still thinks so today over 10 years later.

One lesson I learned is that golden ears always think they can hear differences among components and no test data will convince them there is even a possibility they could be mistaken.

Have you even heard a golden ear say or write:
"They sound the same to me" ... or
"I don't hear any difference"?

I never have, and I've been an audiophile since 1966.

These wire beliefs have reached a point where some golden ears think they can hear wire
"break-in" ... and I expect some time in the future when I predict most golden ears will be using "high end" wire lifts ... that one will claim he can actually hear when a mouse walks under his suspended wires because that disturbs the magnetic field. However, there will be a new name for magnetic field that sounds more high tech -- "magnetic field" is just
too old fashioned. Won't work in the ad copy written for the wire "Manufacturers"
(three guys in their garage attaching terminations to wires they bought from Belden and sealing them in fancy packages).

Is a complete description of this study available?

[E-Stat]

In that time, I've been exposed to far more than any "audiophile" - regardless of what some claim.

Exposure to far more what ? Cheap cable? Mid-fi gear?

By the way Phil, we're smart enough to understand that 25 foot long speaker cables that are 24 AWG and 12 AWG, will indeed sound different...

Good. Evidently, you hear better than Greenhill and his perceptive test panel. They couldn't.

Say mtry, you probably need to take this link off your "proof" list.

rw

[okiemax]

I initially got into this debate because I wanted to know that if cables can sound different, what properties or parameters were responsible? Then I quickly came to the realization that claims that cables do sound different is not even an established fact. I have listened all the arguements on both sides of the issue and have come to the conclusion that it is all completely unfounded, like many other types of claims in our society.

Personally, I believe society is at a point where we do not need to perpetuate unfounded scientific claims. This type of behaviour has done humanity a great disservice in the past and that is one of the reasons I stick around and monitor the situation albeit this is fairly benign discussion topic.

It still dumfounds me how many people believe in things that are patently false. Examples are: Do you need to wash your hands after going to the bathroom? No. Does water rotate counter-clockwise down a drain in the Northern Hemisphere? No. Can you catch a cold from a draft? No. Do chocolate cause acne? No. Does reading in a dim light damage your eyes? No. Does shooting a bullet through an aircraft window cause explosive decompression and suck everybody out the hole? No.

We need to systematically eliminate all of these myths and prevent new ones from forming. A lot of power (i.e. people who hold authority) today depends on keeping people ignorant and it is my view that this has got to stop. Cable sonics may be fairly insignificant to society but it is the principal of spreading unfounded claims and passing them off as fact that is what is at stake. If it can happen with audio cables, perhaps it could happen with something more important to all us of causing real, undesirable results.

YOU GIVE BAD ADVICE ! I tried not washing my hands before going to the bathroom, and guess what happened. My fingers stuck to my fly and other parts I won't mention. OK, so I had just been eating pancakes and syrup without a fork, but you should consider people will do things like that before making your dumb suggestions. I also noticed water in both the toliet bowl and the sink rotated counter-clockwise after I started it going that way with my sticky hands. After that I decided to not test any more of your screwball theories, such as rubbing chocolate on my face to cure acne or standing in a draft to cure a cold. However, you can't be wrong on everything, so maybe I will stop fooling around with fancy cables to save our civilization.

[mtrycraft]

YOU GIVE BAD ADVICE ! I tried not washing my hands before going to the bathroom, and guess what happened. My fingers stuck to my fly and other parts I won't mention. OK, so I had just been eating pancakes and syrup without a fork, but you should consider people will do things like that before making your dumb suggestions. I also noticed water in both the toliet bowl and the sink rotated counter-clockwise after I started it going that way with my sticky hands. After that I decided to not test any more of your screwball theories, such as rubbing chocolate on my face to cure acne or standing in a draft to cure a cold. However, you can't be wrong on everything, so maybe I will stop fooling around with fancy cables to save our civilization.

You are too funny
He forgot to tell you to wash before you go. That will cure that problem.
Try to turn the water the other direction and see
You need airborne for the cold. Mine works so well, it works from afar, left at home when I fly. No, I have a lifetime worth in one tablet. I haven't tested an exparation date though.
Let you know that in a few years

[FLZapped]

Exposure to far more what ? Cheap cable? Mid-fi gear?

rw

HAHAHHAAHHA, certainly not your snobbery. -Bruce

[skeptic]

Now you are gaining some insight into how real scientific knowledge is acquired. The statistical analysis of data is only one aspect of it.

The scientist who wants to test his hypothesis sets up the fairest test he can think of. He then conducts the test with enough participants and enough trials to be statistically significant. If he prequalifies all of the participants or segregates them into sub groups he tracks that too. The data is analyzed using statistical means to determine if the results are significantly different from the null meaning no statistical difference from random chance. He publishes his results including every aspect of his test procedure in a respected scientific journal which will be subject to review and discussion as well as repetition by his peers. If he finds the results statistically significant from the null, then his hypothesis is assumed to have validity until someone else comes along with a different test to challenge him. When that happens, there must be an investigation to determine why the first test got different results and plausible explanaitons convincing to the profession. When a body of knowledge is built up leading to the same conclusion over a long period, the hypothesis becomes the prevailing theory but is never immune to being challenged.

Now how do audiophiles come to their scientific conclusion about cables? They disconect one pair, try another, and proclaim one far superior to the other without ever having gone through even the most rudimentary analysis of what else might be different of if the comparison is even fair such as their old cables being corroded from years of sitting exposed to the air.

Can cable manufacturers do this? Do they know about this type of test? You can bet your last dollar that every single one of them does. Then why don't they do it? Why wouldn't they want to prove to scientists, engineers and audiophiles alike the superiority of their products? I can only assume the answer. And the answer is a) they know that they can't because their own electrical tests already has shown them that no usable difference exists and b) they don't have to because they already have a market that would only be diminished by the negative results of a test. Or maybe they have already conducted the tests and just don't want anyone to know the real results.

[Monstrous Mike]

The scientist who wants to test his hypothesis sets up the fairest test he can think of.

That's a good post skeptic. The response to it could only be something unscientific, anecdotal or illogical.

The fact is that there is even a standard that one can use to conduct proper subjective evaluations of audio signals. It is called "ITU-R Recommendation BS.1116". This standard was used to develop audio compression coding algorithms like MPeg-3. It is a real, documented, adopted, accepted and utilized method for subjectively evaluating audio signals.

All of the "shootouts" in hi fidelity magazines comparing cables and amps and CD players are basically just audio masterbation. The same applies to discussions on audio forums about in-home "trials" which supposedly show conclusive evidence of sonic differences between various audio products.

If you think about it, other than telling people what cable is correct one to use for the signal at hand, where to get it for a good price and how to hook it up, all the rest is simply fluff. Face it, these debates regarding cables and amps are not about science or truth or reality; they're about entertainment and that's about all.

If that's your bag, then I suggest you Cable Forum where your entertainment is protected from people like me and skeptic by higher beings.

[Monstrous Mike]

YOU GIVE BAD ADVICE ! I tried not washing my hands before going to the bathroom, and guess what happened. My fingers stuck to my fly and other parts I won't mention. OK, so I had just been eating pancakes and syrup without a fork, but you should consider people will do things like that before making your dumb suggestions. I also noticed water in both the toliet bowl and the sink rotated counter-clockwise after I started it going that way with my sticky hands. After that I decided to not test any more of your screwball theories, such as rubbing chocolate on my face to cure acne or standing in a draft to cure a cold. However, you can't be wrong on everything, so maybe I will stop fooling around with fancy cables to save our civilization.

I hope your post was a joke because if any of the myths I posted are actually true, I would like to know.

[rb122]

I hope your post was a joke because if any of the myths I posted are actually true, I would like to know.

Let's just say that if I see you coming out of a restroom, I ain't shaking hands with you!

[skeptic]

That is merely the first rung on a very tall ladder to arrive at the conclusion that swapping audio cables is a way to improve the performance of a sound system. Because even if you come to the conclusion that audible differences can exist, there's a lot more work to do to arrive at the recomendation for using them as a tool. The next step would be to understand what the differences are, what causes them, why they happen, and under what circumstances. And who could hear them. After that, the differences must be shown to be superior, not merely different. That's the science. Then comes the engineering. Next you must show that the method for obtaining these improvements, the swapping of cables is the most effective or cheapest way to achieve the beneficial results. Then there are questions which must be answered about how and when to use them, and which ones to use in a particular circumstance. That's a very long way from; they sound different so go out and buy them.

[E-Stat]

...certainly not your snobbery

I think you misjudge me. Remember the thread where you dubbed me Mr. Elitist? A poster asked as to what cable he should use and I replied with a question about the system in which they were to be used. If someone were to ask whether or not they should use premium fuel in their car, then the most appropriate response would be to ask them what car they drive. There is nothing snobbish, elitist, or judgemental in either question. Some engines, mostly higher performance ones, are designed to use premium and in some cases can be damaged by detonation if they use anything less. I will readily acknowledge (are you listening Monster Mike?) that there are a number of oil companies that try to deceive the public into thinking that using premium fuel is somehow always better and will improve the performance of all cars. Poppycock. False claims. That's true snake oil. The fact that snake oil pitches and claims exists does not, however, change the performance quotient for those engines that do benefit from the use of premium fuel.

Real snobbery or elitism is an attitude that some thing, some preference, some desire is simply beneath someone else's superior judgement. How could you even tolerate listening to anything less than my Megavoice speakers? The mere thought! Are you serious or just ignorant? Sucks to be you. Like, for example, Skeptic's view on classical music. That is snobbery. What is not snobbery is the observation that classical music can be (given the recording, of course) a more demanding test of an audio system.

Snobbery is not me. I enjoy listening to ALL of my music systems. I use that term loosely as I include my Sony Diskman, Sony Boombox, and computer audio systems along with the vintage mid-fi garage system and the "big one" down in the basement in that list. I probably spend more time listening to the home computer with ripped MP3s (gasp!) than any of the others. (It does have a rather cool set of Monsoon planar speakers, though) A true snob would have nothing of that. Why, how could I possibly listen to anything less than my tube driven electrostatics? Why even bother having any inferior alternatives? Oh, the very thought of such!

Speaking of premium unleaded, I have yet to see any "expensive cables are no better" test where they are using a car that uses premium fuel as the basis for the test. Forgive my mixed metaphors here. Mtry says he knows of no such citation. If you were to test EVERY SINGLE car that uses regular leaded with premium fuel then you would likely determine that there is simply no performance gain and use of premium is simply wasting money. That is a perfectly valid assertion within the test sample. If, however, you extrapolated your results and assumed that would be the case for ALL cars, then your assertion would not be supported by the facts. That is where I believe we are in the cable debate. There is no snobbery in framing the results of any test in context of that which is tested.

Just to make you happy, I will boast for a moment. Or at least report on my incredible dumb luck. I have known John W. Cooledge and Harry Pearson for over twenty five years. As audio reviewers, they get access to a wider range of exotic equipment than do most folks. I have heard about six different $30,000 amplifiers, tube and solid state alike, at Seacliff. Each one sounds different, offers a different set of compromises, and FWIW, my preference is different from that of my friend. Skeptic would be pleased to know that it was they who really got me into classical music when I was 18. After all, the good doctor Cooledge has been a baritone in the ASO Chorus for about thirty years and been on the symphony's board for a long time. The music collections of each range in the multi-thousands. Anyway, I have been exposed to hearing some of the most truly spectacular (and astronomically priced) systems available. HP's current $300k review system is simply beyond belief. It resolves detail that I never heard on my not-too-shabby system. And that is not limited to the best Mercury, Everest, Telarc, Wilson, Chesky, Reference Recordings, et. al. of classical content. I'm talking Madonna and DJ Rap. I was simply amazed that there is a rhythmic line in DJ Rap's (she) "Bad Girl" cut that I never really heard before that is rendered so clearly and so separately from the rest of the instrumentation. The stage width is staggeringly wide. Does that knowledge diminish the enjoyment I get with my "mere" systems when I come home? Not in the least. I simply marvel at what is possible. And look forward to my next visit... which may be around Easter - JWC got a new SUV and we're planning a trip to Seacliff.

rw

[mtrycraft]

Exposure to far more what ? Cheap cable? Mid-fi gear?


Good. Evidently, you hear better than Greenhill and his perceptive test panel. They couldn't.

Say mtry, you probably need to take this link off your "proof" list.

rw

You need to read it and see the data what is shows, what is audible what is not. 24ga was audibly different, yes.