Null Hypothesis

I am taking a graduate-level stat course so I have had reasons for reviewing basic statistical concepts. In doing so, I now believe I can perhaps shed some light on the concept of the null hypothesis and some misunderstanding evident in posts in this forum.

1) First off-- the word "null" in null hypothesis has NOTHING to do with a null in audible differences. Lots of people are confused about this--including some people who are posting the results of blind testing. The null in the hypothesis refers to an assumed "no difference" in the mean of a sample (the test data) and the population from which the sample is taken (all humans that can hear in this case). The null assumption is necessary in order to make a judgment about the probability that your test results are due to chance.

2) The null hypothesis of an experiment is choosen as something you TRY to prove false. For this reason it is often chosen to be something that would be easy to show as false, but might be much harder to be shown as true in all cases. For example, if our null hypothesis is that "nobody can hear differences between two specific cables" we can easily find this to be false by finding ONLY ONE person who can. If the hypothesis were "some people can hear differences" it would be difficult to show this to be false as no matter how many people we test that hear no differences, we can suspect that someone else, not tested, can. Why do scientists always try to something is false rather than true? Well, demonstrating that something is false is usually easier as we only have to find one case were the the contention is false. The key point of this is that the way the null hypothesis is stated HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THE EXPERIMENTER EXPECTS OR "WANTS" TO FIND IN THE EXPERIMENT. The conventions of stating the null in a particluar way relate to practical matters of logic.

Certain wire gurus (complete with Web sites), are demonstrating not only their lack of knowledge about valid testing, but also their muddle-headed thinking abilities, when they claim things like "you can't prove a null" or "scientists are trying to find a null in cable audibility" and so on. Rest assured the scientific and mathematical communities would be more than happy to point out how or why a peer-reviewed study is making mistakes in logic, theory, or experimental practice. Scientific reaseach studies are open to all kinds of criticism and carry much much more logical weight than all the 'theories" and "white papers" written by crackpots without scientific rigor.

No, I'm not really a doctor but I like to keep it simple.

AFICT, the whole idea is to prove something. As far as testing for cable differences go, you either hear a difference or ypu don't. Simple as that. Now, as far as excluding wll the responses that essentially come out to "can't tell" is simply disallowing any response that proves there is no difference.

So, it would boil down to either you DO hear a difference or you DON'T hear a difference. Once that's accepted, then we get down to how many are correct. Of course, if you didn't hear a difference when a cable was changed, then you got it wrong, pure and simple. Likewise, if the cable wasn't changed and you still hear a difference, that's counted as a wrong also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobotCzar

I am taking a graduate-level stat course so I have had reasons for reviewing basic statistical concepts. In doing so, I now believe I can perhaps shed some light on the concept of the null hypothesis and some misunderstanding evident in posts in this forum.

1) First off-- the word "null" in null hypothesis has NOTHING to do with a null in audible differences. Lots of people are confused about this--including some people who are posting the results of blind testing. The null in the hypothesis refers to an assumed "no difference" in the mean of a sample (the test data) and the population from which the sample is taken (all humans that can hear in this case). The null assumption is necessary in order to make a judgment about the probability that your test results are due to chance.

2) The null hypothesis of an experiment is choosen as something you TRY to prove false. For this reason it is often chosen to be something that would be easy to show as false, but might be much harder to be shown as true in all cases. For example, if our null hypothesis is that "nobody can hear differences between two specific cables" we can easily find this to be false by finding ONLY ONE person who can. If the hypothesis were "some people can hear differences" it would be difficult to show this to be false as no matter how many people we test that hear no differences, we can suspect that someone else, not tested, can. Why do scientists always try to something is false rather than true? Well, demonstrating that something is false is usually easier as we only have to find one case were the the contention is false. The key point of this is that the way the null hypothesis is stated HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THE EXPERIMENTER EXPECTS OR "WANTS" TO FIND IN THE EXPERIMENT. The conventions of stating the null in a particluar way relate to practical matters of logic.

Certain wire gurus (complete with Web sites), are demonstrating not only their lack of knowledge about valid testing, but also their muddle-headed thinking abilities, when they claim things like "you can't prove a null" or "scientists are trying to find a null in cable audibility" and so on. Rest assured the scientific and mathematical communities would be more than happy to point out how or why a peer-reviewed study is making mistakes in logic, theory, or experimental practice. Scientific reaseach studies are open to all kinds of criticism and carry much much more logical weight than all the 'theories" and "white papers" written by crackpots without scientific rigor.

---

GOOD FOR YOU! I hope you find the statistics course intellectually stimulating and learn useful information. Unless I'm missing something in your post, however, there may be a problem with your understanding of the null.

You said:" Certain wire gurus (complete with Web sites), are demonstrating not only their lack of knowledge about valid testing, but also their muddle-headed thinking abilities, when they claim things like "you can't prove a null" or "scientists are trying to find a null in cable audibility" and so on."

I can't comment on your remarks about wire gurus, because I don't know who you have in mind. However, you seem to be saying you can prove a null, which contradicts the following statement you made earlier:

"If the hypothesis were "some people can hear differences" it would be difficult to show this to be false as no matter how many people we test that hear no differences, we can suspect that someone else, not tested, can."

Here you seem to be saying you can't prove a null. I believe that would be the correct thing to say.

Good luck with the course!

I can't speak to what cable guru's claim. I think where the biggest break-down in all of the arguments over such inane issues as this is the statistical separation from the very goal of the test at the outset. I also have spoken to psychologists and PHD students in brain research who don't accept the null hypothesis nor would they accept double blind tests to prove or disprove cognitive brain function studies...which audio and any test of human subjects most certainly falls under - which isn't to say it should not be used either of course.

Though I certainly wouldn't spend any money on cables - so you can tell where I sit on the fence of cables. Though interestingly I did here a $100.00Mit cable once that sounded very different from the first set of cables...this was sighted and not level matched - he simply replaced the cable - both were probably 8foot sets. The MIT was quiter and rolled of the treble and muddied the bass. $100.00 and the sound was WORSE. Whatever MIT put in the box made it worse IMO. Anyone can DELIBERATELY make something like this sound different and it is in these companies' best interests to do so. Most will hear the difference and buy.

The fact that none of these companies gets positives in DBT's is odd IMO because if people can't hear the deliberate reverberation of a Rega Planet CD player(which is a deliberate attempt to alter the sound to make it different) then I wonder about the tests...then again perhaps that specific unit was not tested.

I had hoped to make it clear that the word "null" and what you are testing for are NOT related. The concept of null in testing relates to the assumption of a null difference in that sample (test cases) mean and the mean of the whole population (humans who can hear in this case).

The other point I wanted to make was that the "null" hypothesis (it is just a name, not a test for a null) is stated in a way that makes it easy (or easier) to reject based on the data. (And not on what the experiment hopes to find evidence for.)

The target of post is people reading the misleading assumptions and opinions of unnamed cable gurus (who have web sites, offer up lots of technobabble on cables, and sometimes have the initials JR--hint hint).

No scientific test, especially statistical samples, can be said to prove anything. The study merely lends support or non-support to a hypothesis. Is the fact that nothing is "proved" significant? No, because what IS established is whether or not there is evidence supporting a hypothesis. So even though we can't say any individual test "proves" that cable differneces are inaudible (or are audible) we CAN make a very powerfual statement like "there is no evidence people can hear cable differences". This statement is sufficient to lead us to reject the usefulness of expensive cables (on the quality of our music reproduction). Anyone claiming that cables make "huge" or even subtle differences has the burden to produce some evidence that they do. Claims made in uncontrolled listening are useless as evidence as they don't isolate the source of the claimed differences (including listener bias and illusion).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobotCzar

Certain wire gurus (complete with Web sites), are demonstrating not only their lack of knowledge about valid testing, but also their muddle-headed thinking abilities, when they claim things like "you can't prove a null" or "scientists are trying to find a null in cable audibility" and so on.

---

I certainly don't like the wire gurus or their websites, but I must come to their defense here...
If a wire gure claims that "you can't prove a null" they are telling the gospel truth. You can't. Not possible. And not proper statistics. You can reject the null, you cannot prove the null. The problem is thes goofy cable gurus aren't supporting their argument any by making such a claim.
Basically what they're saying here is "We're not going to prove to you there is an audible difference, instead we're just going to tell you that you cannot absolutely, with 100% confidence, prove that there IS NOT an audible difference."
As you've suggested, it is the seller's burden to provide proof, not the consumer's.

Great thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobotCzar

I had hoped to make it clear that the word "null" and what you are testing for are NOT related. The concept of null in testing relates to the assumption of a null difference in that sample (test cases) mean and the mean of the whole population (humans who can hear in this case).

The other point I wanted to make was that the "null" hypothesis (it is just a name, not a test for a null) is stated in a way that makes it easy (or easier) to reject based on the data. (And not on what the experiment hopes to find evidence for.)

The target of post is people reading the misleading assumptions and opinions of unnamed cable gurus (who have web sites, offer up lots of technobabble on cables, and sometimes have the initials JR--hint hint).

No scientific test, especially statistical samples, can be said to prove anything. The study merely lends support or non-support to a hypothesis. Is the fact that nothing is "proved" significant? No, because what IS established is whether or not there is evidence supporting a hypothesis. So even though we can't say any individual test "proves" that cable differneces are inaudible (or are audible) we CAN make a very powerfual statement like "there is no evidence people can hear cable differences". This statement is sufficient to lead us to reject the usefulness of expensive cables (on the quality of our music reproduction). Anyone claiming that cables make "huge" or even subtle differences has the burden to produce some evidence that they do. Claims made in uncontrolled listening are useless as evidence as they don't isolate the source of the claimed differences (including listener bias and illusion).

---

I get the gist of what you are saying, but I'm still not sure about your understanding of hypothesis testing. You said: "No scientific test, especially statistical samples, can be said to prove anything." I disagree, and will try to show why with a hypothetical example.

Suppose we are doing a controlled double-blind listening test on a $10 cable and a $100 cable with 20 subjects and 15 trials. The hypothesis and null hypothesis are stated as follows: hypothesis -- there is an audible difference in the two cables; null hypothesis -- there is no audible difference in the two cables. If one subject correctly identifies the cables enough times(e.g., 14 out of 15) to remove any doubt his score is a result of chance, the hypothesis is confirmed, even if the score of each of the remaining 19 subjects is no better than random. Because of the way the hypothesis was stated(i.e., existence of an audible difference), one listener is enough to prove it. If this isn't exactly what a researcher wants to find out, he can try to state the hypothesis in a different way.

It also would seem reasonable to suspect most people would not notice an audible difference in the $10 cable and the $100 cable, and that for them spending 10 times as much for no difference makes no sense. On the other hand, if an individual hears a difference, the worth of the more expensive cable to him would be for him to determine. His right to decide how to spend his money, however, does not depend on whether the decision is based on sighted or blinded listening. Nor is he obligated to scientifically verify his hearing claim or justify the expense before telling others about the purchase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

The fact that none of these companies gets positives in DBT's is odd IMO because if people can't hear the deliberate reverberation of a Rega Planet CD player(which is a deliberate attempt to alter the sound to make it different) then I wonder about the tests...then again perhaps that specific unit was not tested.

---

Well, maybe one would get a positive result under DBT for just such a component IF the 'reverb' is great enough. Being under DBT is not a masking condition of differences. Actually, the senses are even sharper as you are not distracted by other sensory inputs.

One of my citations for JND, just noticable differences, is a peer paper for threshold detections. Conducted under forced choice DBT. It works. Just because it doesn't produce answers one wants or thinks it should is not an indication of DBts inability to deliver results.

o.o if you wanted to get technical you would need a control group
a group that listens to the same cable 2 times.
If you see a statistical difference then you know that there are problems.

but whatever, you can judge with your own ears.
However, for everything there is a limit.
Do you enjoy it to the extent to put out 500 bux for a pair of cables? Price controls all.

RobotCzar:

Here is where I believe we are at and please correct me if I am wrong.

I personally hold a null hypothesis that there are no audible differences between a proper basic cable and the ones that are claimed to have "higher performance". This null cannot be proven true, or it would be extremely difficult to prove true.. However, it would be fairly easy to prove it false by having one properly contolled test done that shows that at least one person can consistently tell the difference.

And the very fact that there is not one single test in controlled conditions that proves this null hypothesis false is pretty strong support for it being true IMHO.

If anyone here feels so strongly that they have cables that make an audible difference, then I urge you to go to your local college's electrical engineering department and challenge some professor to do some proper testing on you and your cable. If the test comes out positive then you would be a hero to the audiophile community. Further you would have proven my null hypothesis false and now us scientists could get to work on finding out why your particular cable made a difference instead of chasing ghosts.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Greene

Ten feet of Radio Shack 14AWG zip cords versus ten-foot $995 Tara Labs speaker cables at DLC Design, an audio consultancy in Michigan.

---

Please tell us more about the rest of the setup and test material used.

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Greene

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).

---

Well, seeing how gullible audiophiles can be and want to part with their hard earned cash, now Chinese are getting into the game. Gene at Audioholics claims that alot of fancy cables from manufactures comes from china which is just a plain Belden cable with fancy packaging with name of manufacture on it. He said he get several offers each year from overseas as to make him fancy cables for marketing with Audioholics printed on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Please tell us more about the rest of the setup and test material used.

rw

---

Immaterial, isn't it. Especially when you don't have anything to show that it matters one witt.
Any excuse will do for you. But you need better game plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony_Montana

Well, seeing how gullible audiophiles can be and want to part with their hard earned cash, now Chinese are getting into the game. .

---

That is how you make a real killing. Buy for pennies and sell for 3-5 digits:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtrycraft

Immaterial, isn't it.

---

Depends upon what you are trying to prove. You will likely not get any debate regarding the results of every single test for which you have provided internet links. Like say the gripping results from "Stereo Review Dares to Tell the Truth" ? Exciting reading for the receiver set. ;)

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Depends upon what you are trying to prove.

rw

---

Well, after all this time, all these words were expended, all these magnamous advertising claims and after all these bruised egos, I would have hoped by now that someone, anyone would have proved by now, with some scientific certainty, that significant sonic differences in cables exist that would logicly justify the extremely wide price range between the least and most expensive cables/interconnects. I can't think of any other commodity with such a range on commonly manufactured items with such a wide price variation.

So far, no go.

But, I'm also waiting for undeniable proof of aliens, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and that Elvis is still alive as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Depends upon what you are trying to prove. You will likely not get any debate regarding the results of every single test for which you have provided internet links. Like say the gripping results from "Stereo Review Dares to Tell the Truth" ? Exciting reading for the receiver set. ;)rw

---

News to me if I posted that link to SR. Unless, of cource you are fabricating again.

But hey, you have offered nothing to date to support anything you claim. Or, maybe you claim nothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtrycraft

That is how you make a real killing. Buy for pennies and sell for 3-5 digits:)

---

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 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtrycraft

News to me if I posted that link to SR.

---

It seems you just don't read (or retain) what you post. First you talk about the Russell claims, when there are none. His web page merely contains a collection of completely unsubstantiated claims, the Stereo Review one being among them. Here is the tired old link again:

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

Then you point to the McLaren link as though that seems to support your assertions until I pointed out to you that they were not comparing $2 cables, but $300 cables vs $100 cables.

Perceptive listeners can hear the difference between give away wires and very good ones on commensurately good systems.

rw

Then you point to the McLaren link as though that seems to support your assertions until I pointed out to you that they were not comparing $2 cables, but $300 cables vs $100 cables.


So what? You really think the $2 cable sounds different? Prove it.

Perceptive listeners can hear the difference between give away wires and very good ones on commensurately good systems. rw


Hogwash. You have no evidence beyond an empty claim, sheer speculation as those claims are very empty. LOL.
You still don't get it. You don't have any evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtrycraft

So what? You really think the $2 cable sounds different? Prove it.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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

---

I really, really think the burden of proof is on those who claim differences, don't you? Most of the scientific community would think so.

After all, in courts of law, it's up to those making the charge to prove the defendent did something. It's not really the responsibility of the defendent to prove he didn't do it.

Your continually falling back on this weak "well prove they don't make a difference"line simply proves the weakness of your case.

Methinks you would be happier "over there" where you are not asked to think. Simply to believe. That's fine for religious beliefs, but cable differences should be a more scientific endeavour. No?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

I really, really think the burden of proof is on those who claim differences, don't you? Most of the scientific community would think so.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat D

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat D

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony_Montana

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 :D

---

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 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pctower

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtrycraft

... 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtrycraft

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

---

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

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pctower

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Greene

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLZapped

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLZapped

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