Proof of placebo effect ?

[Monstrous Mike]

However, many cable enthusiasts will claim that some differences are not measurable, and they claim that scientific analysis gets in the way of the listening experience, .....

Science gets in the way of marketing and profits just like any other snake oil product. I think there are plenty of examples of products that sell big but have no merit or value whatsoever.

[Swerd]

Just a note...your first link states that the listeners dd not have control of how long they listened which invalidates that entire link...scratch one. Didn'tbother to read link two after you provided link one.

If you ignored the first one without considering it, and didn't read the second one, why post a reply in this thread?

Then you state that people claim to hear differences in their homes over long periods. Yes it is true that they may only THINK they hear that difference...until such time as their is a test to meet that claim of long term in the house differences then no one can assume that there isn't.

Wrong, no one can make any scientific conclusions at all from long term home listening tests performed in the absence of controls.

[skeptic]

The cable proponents have not even demonstrated that there is statistically significant evidence that there are audible differences when the testers are prescreened to include only individuals of high auditory accuity. The small sample in this case is not significant and if that is the best they can come up with, they still haven't done anything IMO.

I'm not going to relate the story again about the NY Audio Labs demo at the WQXR auditorium in 1983, but IMO, most audiophiles and audio engineers have far less auditory accuity than they would like to think. This is especially true for those who have been exposed to very loud sound for any period at sometime in their lives. Like loud rock music played at deafening levels.

[skeptic]

I agree. The procedure is critical.

The musical passages must be the same and they must be long enough so that the listener has a chance to get a representative sampling of each cable before it is switched. It must also be short enough so that the listener's memory of it hasn't faded. Switching should of course be instantaneous.

[Swerd]

The cable proponents have not even demonstrated that there is statistically significant evidence that there are audible differences when the testers are prescreened to include only individuals of high auditory accuity. The small sample in this case is not significant and if that is the best they can come up with, they still haven't done anything IMO.

I'm not going to relate the story again about the NY Audio Labs demo at the WQXR auditorium in 1983, but IMO, most audiophiles and audio engineers have far less auditory accuity than they would like to think. This is especially true for those who have been exposed to very loud sound for any period at sometime in their lives. Like loud rock music played at deafening levels.

Two thoughts:

It has been my opinion that differences in human audio perception are not so much due to differences in auditory acuity as it is to the less well understood processes that take place between the ears. Its kind of like saying that one's visual acuity determines how one interprets poetry or reacts to paintings. Your eyesight only has to be good enough to read the text or see the painting. Much happens after that initial process take place.

Instead of prescreening listeners to include only individuals of high auditory accuity, or only cable believers, it would be interesting to test all kinds of listeners, both golden- and tin-eared, identify them in a questionaire, and compare the results of the listening tests to see if being a believer or non-believer or a golden- or tin-ear makes any difference.

[pctower]

I agree that you can have a DBT test that very effectively minimizes placebo effect and other factors, leaving only one variable for the subject to judge. However, I think that a person guessing 11 out of 15 ONCE is just as likely as any other scenario. In irder to make the test valid, you would want to perform multiple runs of the same test. For example, can this person get it right 11 out of 15 times per run, for 5 consecutive runs. Of course the cable selection would be random so no pattern existed in switching. If his correct guesses for all 5 runs were in the 10 to 15 range, then I am convinced he can perceive a diffeence. However, if his guesses came up something like 11, 4, 10, 7, 5 then I would have to say he cannot hear a difference.

It can get very confusing, so I would leave it to people with more time and desire, but I believe a proper test could be conducted, I just haven't seen it yet.....

I agree and me too.

[pctower]

pctower

Your reasoning that medical trials and listening tests are different is faulty. You are correct that medical trials do attempt to determine the effectiveness of a particular medicine on a large enough segment of the populace because there is significant variation among individuals in the population. The same problem exits for audio listening tests, precisely because hearing ability, training and experience of all the participants are NOT equal. It is not possible to perform a test where all non-audible differences are, as you describe, “controlled out of the test, with the only thing left to test being actual audible differences.” If it were, we wouldn’t need to use statistics and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

As you point out from the McLaren test, 2 out of 12 people scored as if they were able to detect differences between cables. Twelve is such a small sample number that making any positive conclusion from those numbers would be wrong. To verify that finding, it would be necessary to test large numbers of people to eliminate a statistically defined problem called sampling error. Does the original test of 12 people truly represent the larger population as a whole? Does their hearing ability, prior training, and experience resemble that of the general population? That larger number people, off the top of my head, would be closer to 1000 than it would be to 100 or less. To put it simply, if we tested 1200 people, would 200 of them be able to detect the differences between cables? If this were the case, then I would support the conclusion that some people, about 1 out of 6, could hear differences in cables. It would then be up to the scientists, both biological and electrical to search for how this happens. At present, no listening test has provided such evidence.

All good and valid points. I don't feel my reasoning was faulty. I just didn't go far enough (trying to keep it simple) by stating that many more tests and much broader samples would be required to start drawing any reasonably conclusions. As just one example, I would certainly want the two individuals who scored 11 out of 15 to come back at least 4 or 5 more times to seek if they could duplicate their success. I would also want to test a much broader group of people to see both how the group as a whole does as well as whether any more "golden ears" start to appear.

At this point it's all conjecture other than the fact that we certainly know that the cable proponents have never produced any scientific evidence of actual sonic diferences between cables of similar gauge and length. Reasonable inferences might be drawn from that fact alone.

[okiemax]

Thanks to the two replies above, I have little to add other than provide these weblinks:

http://www.tagmclaren.com/members/news/news77.asp

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm

Both describe listening tests where listeners blindly choose whether they hear a difference between two conditions. Are conditions A and B the same or different? Sometimes A and B were genuinely different and sometimes they were identical. The first link explains the statistics needed to analyze the results.

Both make the point that when the group of listeners get it right about 50% of the time, it is no different than if they had been guessing randomly. Both conclude that the listeners could not hear any difference between the conditions being tested.

There are those who claim that they do hear a difference with sighted listening tests, or when they listen over extended periods of time (days, weeks or longer) in their homes. The only reasonable explanation available, is that they THINK they hear a difference. This is the placebo effect at work.

Listening tests performed using valid scientific controls that eliminate, minimize, or account for conscious or unconscious listener bias cannot reproduce those positive results.

The Tagmaclaren study compared two expensive amps and two expensive interconnects for audible differences using 12 listeners who volunteered for double -blind ABX testing.The null hypothesis for each component (A sounds the same as B) could not be rejected by the results of the tests. The study's conclusion is quoted below:

"We conclude neither the interconnects nor the amplifier were audibly different."

I take issue with this conclusion. It seems to be saying that because the null can't be rejected, it must be true. However, all you can say about the null is it's inconclusive, since another sample of listeners might give different results for these amplifiers and interconnects. The following quote is from the ABX web site:

"No matter what score is achieved, A=B cannot be proven. That is the ABX Double Blind comparison can never be used to prove two audio components sound the same. The notion that ABX can prove components sound the same is a common misconception about ABX."

Previous posters to this thread have commented on other shortcomings of the Tagmclaren study, so I will not go over that ground again. I do have an observation about some of the data presented in the study's tables. I noticed the scores stay within a fairly tight range in the first ten or so test, and then fluctuate greatly. Without seeing the scores of individual participants, I don't know what to make of this, but I think the researchers should have addressed it.

Another oddity can be seen in the table "amplifier test, data reversed." Notice in the scores for Tests 15 and 14 combined, there are 6 correct anwers out of the 24 total, which means 18 answers were incorrect. The chance of 18 out of 24 being random is possible, but makes me wonder about the possibility of errors in recording.

[skeptic]

Sooner or later, a DBT will show a significant result. This could be due to a real audible difference OR it could be due to a flawed test procedure OR it could be due to the law of averages proving that if you perform enough tests, eventually one will give a false positive merely by chance. That is why these tests must be published giving complete procedural details so that others of equal or greater skill can evaluate their validity (fairness) and repeat them to see if they get the same results. The more time that elapses between the first introduction of these products and the time when the first positive result is published, the more convinced I become that it is because the proponents of these products simply can't. But even if they did, that would hardly be rational convincing evidence for someone tp go out and buy them. There would still be a long way to go before any of them could be shown to be superior and offer reliable solutions that no other less expensive or simpler method couldn't perform as well or better. Fortunately for the cable companies, they don't have to. They have enough customers to keep them profitable as it is.

[pctower]

There is also a 5.9% chance that a person could be WRONG 11 out of 15 times. What would you say if that were the case? (For all I know it is the case. :-)

I would say what I said in my other responses in this sub-thread.

[pctower]

Umm, because they hit that 1 in 17 chance thingy?

Surely you know that if you flip a coin long enough you are going to get ten heads in a row. Does this mean the coin is imbalanced? Hey, I hit 20 free throws in a row once. Does this mean I have a good shot? No, it means that some days, the sun even shines on a dog's ass.

You can't isolate test results to support your theories. You wouldn't let me do it and I won't let you do it.

I've already addressed the coin flip analogy, which is not appropriate. I'm surprised you don't see the difference. Or did you just think I would be too stupid not to see it.

That analogy assumes all listeners are identical as to hearing ability, experience and training (remember, your god, Dr. Toole, say training of the listeners is very important). Every flip of the coin is equivalent. But each listener is a unique "packet" and different from all the other "packets". In a coin toss I can pick any interval of 15 tosses I want in order to come up with the particular ratio out of 15 tosses I'm looking for. Can't do that with the individual "packets".

I don't claim the McLaren tests show anything reliable because of the two subjects that hit 11 or 15. However, if they came back 4 or 5 times and repeated that performance, only a few people such as yourself would find some weird way of ignoring those results.

[Swerd]

okiemax, DrJeff, Bill L, and any others who may be new, welcome to the realm of the eternal cable debate. While I speak for myself, I hope all the regulars here agree, thanks for joining in.

This was a good thread. While nothing was settled (that'll be the day!), it was IMO a step above the usual cable debate which typically goes more like this

Happy holidays to all and may you all enjoy whatever kind of signals you transmit through your cables.

[FLZapped]

I'm not going to relate the story again about the NY Audio Labs demo at the WQXR auditorium in 1983, but IMO, most audiophiles and audio engineers have far less auditory accuity than they would like to think. This is especially true for those who have been exposed to very loud sound for any period at sometime in their lives. Like loud rock music played at deafening levels.

Musicians are as well. Think about Violin and Viola players with years of playing with the instrument under their left ear. They all will have a hearing imbalance from left to right as a result.

Drummers are notorious for being deaf.

What about the poor guys who sit in front of the brass section....

I've had my hearing tested and I sure wish I had taken better care of my hearing earlier in life.

-Bruce

[pctower]

BTW, you're the engineer. Can you answer this:

As I recall, there was a total of 12 listeners. As to the 10 who didn't achieve a level of accuracy of 10 out of 15 or better, the odds are their choices were due to chance and we might reasonable conclude they were unable to actually detect sonic differences.

As to the two who did achieve 11 out of 15, the McLaren site says the odds are 1 in 17 that the 11 correct choices out of 15 was due to chance for each on the two individuals. Obviously for each individual, that leaves a real, if not fairly remote, possibility his score was due to chance (as you suggested in your original post).

However, can you answer this? What are the odds that the result of two listeners, out of a total of 12, getting 11 out of 15 correct being due to chance? Seems to me, the odds would have to be far less than 1 out of 17.

I think my focus on the individuals is entirely appropriate. I don't know statistics, but I suspect it has something to do with distribution or something like that.

In my opinion, we should not be testing the mean or average ability of the entire group to pick correctly. I think what we should be attempting to do is determine if there are certain indivuduals who are actually hearing sonic differences. It's the "packet" thing I discussed above. I believe this is the appropriate focus, because as I have already said, each person's hearing ability, experience and training is different. So averages mean nothing. The proper question in my mind is whether there are certain people who due to experience, training or hearing ability are able to detect actual sonic differences where all possible factors other than actual sonic differences have been properly controlled out of the test.

What I have said should not be interpreted as claiming that these particular test results as to the two individuals are conclusive of anything. However, as I have already said, if these two individuals came back 4 or 5 more times and duplicated their initial scores, it seems to me that would be pretty persuasive evidence that these two individuals are detecting actual sonic differences.

In the words of Bill O'Reily: what say you?

[Monstrous Mike]

What I have said should not be interpreted as claiming that these particular test results as to the two individuals are conclusive of anything. However, as I have already said, if these two individuals came back 4 or 5 more times and duplicated their initial scores, it seems to me that would be pretty persuasive evidence that these two individuals are detecting actual sonic differences.

In the words of Bill O'Reily: what say you?

You are right. And let's say that these guys were better listeners for the sake or arguement. If they were able to repeat (e.g. in 4 or 5 more trials) an 11 out of 15 score then there may be something at work.

But I would still concerned if they consitently get 4 out of 15 wrong. How would one explain that? If there are cable differences I would think you would get it right every single time. I mean isn't there anybody who brought home an exotic cable and didn't hear a difference or are all these home audio enthusiasts noticing cable improvements at a 100% rate? It seems that way to me. This is odd indeed.

[Swerd]

The proper question in my mind is whether there are certain people who due to experience, training or hearing ability are able to detect actual sonic differences where all possible factors other than actual sonic differences have been properly controlled out of the test.

I agree that it is curious that those two scored that way. The Tag McLaren study didn’t address experience, training, hearing ability, or any other reason why listeners could or could not hear differences. It only asked the question “who can?” out of a small sized group of listeners and went through a typical statistical analysis of the numbers.

If those two individuals were retested again to see how reproducible their scores were, I would want to see additional control tests done. The ABX test as described by the Tag McLaren test did not include any controls:

The actual process of the test was to play 30 seconds of A followed by 30 seconds of B then 30 seconds of X, where X could be either A or B. Each time the piece of music was played it was announced as “This is A”, “This is B”, “This is X” etc. The participants in the test had a score card on which to record whether they thought X was A or B. The test was repeated 15 times.

I would do negative control tests, an A–A or B–B test, where the two sounds being compared were identical. Unlike the ABX tests, the listener would respond by saying whether or not he heard a difference. This would ask how often a listener reported, “I heard no difference” when there was none, or to state it conversely, how many false positive responses were made.

Similarly, I would do positive control tests where two genuinely different types of sound reproduction were compared, and again the listener would respond only by saying whether he heard a difference or not. This would ask how often a listener reported, “I did hear a difference” where one really existed, or how many false negatives were there. It would be useful to have an assortment of different reproduction modes that presented the listener with a graded series of comparisons from easy to difficult.

With those controls you could then compare the ABX results to something. How often listeners hear a difference for the positive control and how often they fail would be an important measure of the effectiveness of the experimental apparatus and of variability among individual listeners. A listener who answers yes to most of the positive controls and no to most of the negative controls could be considered as most reliable in the ABX test. Ideally, all listeners would hear a difference in the positive control and none would hear a difference in the negative control. However, it is possible to deviate from the ideal and still make useful conclusions, as long as suitable controls are included for each listener to determine his frequency of false negative and false positive responses.

The number of listeners who pass the control tests, regardless of their answers to the ABX test, might also be considered as a measure of validity for the whole experiment. The use of a positive control could help argue against potential criticism that subtle differences in sound due to different cables can only be heard after long-term listening by providing information of how often people can or cannot hear the differences in the positive control tests. It would be interesting to test golden-ears vs. tin-ears or cable believers vs. naysayers with such controls.

[okiemax]

Happy holidays to you too ! I liked the animation in your post.

[mtrycraft]

Why would there be differences between no treatment and a placebo pill in the first place? a placebo pill has nothing in it to start with. In essence it is also a no treatment pill?

I am not sure what you are asserting here?

Perhaps you didn't read the research right or misunderstanding it and drawing the wrong conclusion from it.

A placebo has no real value other than a control in a DBT.
After all, these protocols are only valid for DBt protocol to account for bias, a placebo in effect.
That is what is the case in audio, the need for DBT to account for bias.

Perhaps you need to read some of these:

"Listening Tests, Turning Opinions Into Facts", Toole, F. E., Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 30, No.6, Jun 1982, pg 431-445.

"Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listening Preference", Toole, F. E., Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 33, No 1/2, Jan/Feb 1985, pg 2-32.

"Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listening Preferences", Toole, F. E., Part 1, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 34, No.4, Apr 1986, pg 227-235; Part two, JAES Vol 34, No.5, May 1986, pg 323-348.

"Listening Tests-Identifying and Controlling the Variables", Toole, F. E., Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, AES, May 1990.

"Hearing is Believeing vs Believing is Hearing: Blind vs Sighted Listening Tests ond Other Interesting Things", Toole, F. E. and Olive, S. E., 97th AES Convention, Nov 1994, Print #3894.

[mtrycraft]

Bring us a good positive listening test. Don't have any? Why is that?
No one claimed A=B wich is a mathematical claim. Just that there is no audible difference that you can hear.
That has yet to be demonstrated aftyer 20+ years. Maybe in another 20 years someone will be able to. We'll see. Then we can change our minds on the issue. In the meantime, there are no audible differences.

[woodman]

[QUOTE=okiemax]Rockwell, you are offering a theory as proof. It is an interesting theory, but we also might consider other theories, such as those that question the testing.[/QUOTE

What Rockwell offers is as much "proof" as should be necessary for anyone that's not been terminally infected with the audiophile virus!

I'm not a big fan of the placebo effect in general, believing that far too much is attributed to it both in medicine and audio.

Tell me (if you can) how you would explain the mind-boggling demonstrations performed by stage-hypnotists who tell their subjects how delicious the chocolate cake they've given them tastes, when in fact what they've actually given them is a piece of lemon? Or, when the subject is told that everyone in the audience is very sad and crying, the subject joins in and cries (real tears) right along with them, when in fact everyone in the audience is actuall laughing their asses off? Need I go on? Doesn't the hypnotized subject HEAR the laughter? Really?

If you aren't willing to consider the "placebo" effects (which I call ABEs)as they relate to audio, you have my deepest sympathy, for you are the willing victim of all of the scam artists that this beloved hobby is chock-full of, and it's costing you dearly for your stubbornness!

[mtrycraft]

Not long ago I read an interesting analysis of the number pi. As you ma know, the decimal numbers are random, no patterns has been established to hundreds of million decimal place.
Yet, there are two sequences of 10 succeeding odd or even digits in the 1st 1000 decimal places. No matter how small a chance havoing such a sequence, there are two within the 1st 1000 places. Just chance.
Same for this test.
Those two with high scores in one test didn't do as well in the next round.

[mtrycraft]

I wonder how many could enter a strange room and correctly identify if it had been painted with the exact shade and hue of color as their own room at home, especially with unfamiliar lighting. Not many, I'll bet. But that's what ABX attempts to do with sound - with unfamiliar acoustics and gear.


Hogwash.
First, golden eared audiophiles have no problem doing this feat with unfamiliar component. Just ask them.
Second, very poor analogy, not even close.



Say, have you ever tried to explain a noise in your cars engine to a mechanic? (Or better yet to your wife/girlfriend?) and they just can't hear it? But you do? Because you're familiar with the sounds of YOUR motor. That's not placebo. That's experience.

Well, maybe you are hearing things, maybe you don't. But, again, this is not even an analogy to DBT testing, ABX being one such DBT testing.

[okiemax]

Why would there be differences between no treatment and a placebo pill in the first place? a placebo pill has nothing in it to start with. In essence it is also a no treatment pill?

I am not sure what you are asserting here?

Perhaps you didn't read the research right or misunderstanding it and drawing the wrong conclusion from it.

A placebo has no real value other than a control in a DBT.
After all, these protocols are only valid for DBt protocol to account for bias, a placebo in effect.
That is what is the case in audio, the need for DBT to account for bias.

Perhaps you need to read some of these:

"Listening Tests, Turning Opinions Into Facts", Toole, F. E., Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 30, No.6, Jun 1982, pg 431-445.

"Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listening Preference", Toole, F. E., Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 33, No 1/2, Jan/Feb 1985, pg 2-32.

"Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listening Preferences", Toole, F. E., Part 1, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 34, No.4, Apr 1986, pg 227-235; Part two, JAES Vol 34, No.5, May 1986, pg 323-348.

"Listening Tests-Identifying and Controlling the Variables", Toole, F. E., Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, AES, May 1990.

"Hearing is Believeing vs Believing is Hearing: Blind vs Sighted Listening Tests ond Other Interesting Things", Toole, F. E. and Olive, S. E., 97th AES Convention, Nov 1994, Print #3894.

Mtycraft, you seem to be arguing against the placebo theory instead of for it. Referring to the NEJM study, you said," Why would there be a difference between no treatment and a placebo pill in the first place?" I thought you believed a placebo could be a powerful influence on the mind, so powerful as to make an ill person feel healed or a listener hear things that aren't real.

In the study, if the placebo had power, improvement would have been greater in subjects who received the placebo than in those who recieved no treatment. But the study showed improvement was about the same for the two groups. So if the placebo (or power of suggestion) in a medical setting really isn't so powerful, why not question theories about it in other settings?

I don't have any of the referenced papers by Dr. Floyd Toole so I can't comment on them. My guess is they say something to support your believe that audiophile cables are no better than lamp cord and that people can't trust their ears. If that is the case, I wonder why Dr. Toole's employer (assuming he is still with Harman International) has this to say in the owner's manual for their JBL Tik Series speakers:

"Careful selection of of cables and interconnects can have quite a dramatic impact on the dynamic contrasts experienced by listeners."

If you are interested in the manual, do a Google search on the following term: jbl home support. Then choose the Ti10K from the product list -- it's almost at the bottom.

There also is an interesting interview of Dr. Floyd Toole by Melanie Garrett of of HOME CINEMA online. The following quote is from it: "Floyd is of the opinion that technical measurements are not much use unless they can reliably predict what we as listeners will subjectively experience as good or bad sound quality. In a nutshell, he not only has faith in his own ears, but he is also interested in yours and mine as well ..."

You can get to the interview through Google by entering the following term: home cinema online garrett toole.

[okiemax]

Tell me (if you can) how you would explain the mind-boggling demonstrations performed by stage-hypnotists who tell their subjects how delicious the chocolate cake they've given them tastes, when in fact what they've actually given them is a piece of lemon? Or, when the subject is told that everyone in the audience is very sad and crying, the subject joins in and cries (real tears) right along with them, when in fact everyone in the audience is actuall laughing their asses off? Need I go on? Doesn't the hypnotized subject HEAR the laughter? Really?

If you aren't willing to consider the "placebo" effects (which I call ABEs)as they relate to audio, you have my deepest sympathy, for you are the willing victim of all of the scam artists that this beloved hobby is chock-full of, and it's costing you dearly for your stubbornness!

I never said I wasn't willing to consider that there is such a thing as the placebo effect in audio. It is theory that lacks proof. Despite all the research that has been done in medicine on the subject of the placebo, there is still controversy over it. Are you saying there shouldn't be controversy over it in audio.

I guess there is some relationship between hypnosis and placebo in that both have to do with suggestion, but I don't think you help your case by the examples you use. Demonstrations of hypnosis are easy to fake.

Mmm...this lemon taste like chocolate cake. Can you say S-H-I-L-L ?

On second thought, perhaps there is more to this hypnosis thing than I want to admit. The pretty pictures in those Stereophile mag ads may present subliminal messages: BUY OUR EXPENSIVE CABLES. BUY OUR EXPENSIVE CABLES. BUY OUR EXPENSIVE CABLES.

But I'm a chepskate, so I bought a $42 interconnect instead of one of the $500 advertised models. I didn't like this cable, so I returned it. Now, I think I see the problem. Buy a cheap cable, get a cheap placebo. If you want a REAL PLACEBO, you got to shell out big.

Just kidding ! Hope you have happy holidays!

[RGA]

I don't support buying them either but for an entirely different reason. In more than 20 years since this cottage industry has been in existance, I have yet to see even one single attempt by the people who manufacture or retail them to make a serious convincing case that they improve the performance of sound reproduction systems. Given the time that has elapsed, the number of people making money from them, and the prices charged for some of them, I presume that they simply can't. Whether or not they sound different to some people under some circumstances hardly begins to demonstrate that they sound better and certainly not to all people in most or all circumstances. Therefore no matter which ones you buy or how much you pay, you have at best, a hit or miss chance of getting anything of value for your money. I know they'll have to do far better to have a chance of geting any of mine.

This is of course my point as well. I can't say I've listened to many cables. When I first heard a MIT cable (the one with a box attached) for a $100.00 I did indeed notice a very clear audible difference than whatever the other wire was(cheap though). SO the salesman stands there and says "see how different speaker wires DO in fact make a very noticeable difference." And the salesman was not lying they were different. Better? no, worse in fact. The sound was muddied up rolled off and dulled down. Presumably some sort of resistor is in that box.

I'm not saying some people would not find that better, if perhaps you own the brightest speaker in the brightest room on earth this cable might help.

But $100.00 for "MIGHT" is too much. Then again most places selling cables give you a 30 day full money back gaurantee which surprised me. If they measure differently in the audible spectrum, then maybe given enough time one will notice a difference on some recording or on some instruments. Maybe not, but a 30 day gaurantee what the hell costs you nothing.