hermanv - regarding: "Speaker cable blind listening tests"

[StevenSurprenant]

hermanv - I was snooping around and found the thread started by musicoverall posted on 03-22-2005 and was impressed with your responses on that thread since it directly reflects my attitude toward this subject.

I have to say that the knowledge from some members on both sides of this debate were impressive, however I too am of the camp that wire does sound different, but can't explain it.

My experience is that wire changes the transparency of the soundstage and the focus of the imagery (the images have better form in space). I also agree that that a tone control cannot duplicate what the wire does.

While I was reading the thread, it occured to me that I got the same effect from room treatment. There was reduced smearing of the image which I percieved as greater transparency. In addition, I could hear some things that were previously masked. This made me wonder if that is what the wires were doing electrically. Since room treatment reduces reflection, perhaps there are reflections in the wires we use that produce this effect. Of course, if these reflections are occuring are they measurable?

This is just a thought, perhaps not a good one, but the way I see it, wire does sound different and the tests that we now perform on wire doesn't support my position. Maybe we aren't doing the correct tests?

One other thing...

Double blind tests are not valid for several reasons. First, everyone that claims to hear differences in wire do so on their home system at their leisure. They are familiar with the sound of their system, are not under pressure to perform, and there are no time limits. DBT's are normally done on someone elses system, with someone elses wire, and there is pressure to get it right.

So, how could we improve on the DBT? Simple! Take two wires that someone already has experiance with and claims that they do sound different and disguise them to look identical, except for color. Give them to that person and let them decide which is which in their home system at their own leisure. This would eliminate all the variables that a normal DBT imparts on the test.

[hydroman]

'Justification' is powerful. If i spent that $$ on it - it must be good! (Or i am admitting i am a fool)
People who agree with me are smart. (Those who disagree are obviously idiots and should be ignored)
I once spent an hour listening to high end vs low end CD players to find a difference (to help sell them). By the time i was done - there WAS a difference - the high end unit really 'rang' a bell on a certain piece. It resonated - it had depth ! It was exquisite! No one else could hear it - nor was willing to pay the higher price. I kinda' place esoteric cables in this box. There probably is a difference if you listen hard enough - but is it worth it? Versus buying more CDs?

My $.02 worth.

[mlsstl]

> So, how could we improve on the DBT? Simple! Take two wires that someone already has experiance with
> and claims that they do sound different and disguise them to look identical, except for color.

I'd bet that if the results didn't prove what the person wished proved, you'd have him declaring the test invalid. He would simply claim that the disguising process affected the sound quality of the underlying cable in some manner. If you have people elevating speaker cables off the floor with special lifts, do you really think you can apply an exterior coating or sheath to a cable and not have them claim the electrons disturbed?

[Dusty Chalk]

Basically what he's suggesting is a long-term DBT. I'd be all for that, except I have a hard time envisioning a scenario in which the circumstances don't disturb the test. How about a mostly-acoustically-transparent screen? It'd have to be right behind the speakers...

[mlsstl]

> How about a mostly-acoustically-transparent screen? It'd have to be right behind the speakers...

See, we're already getting into "buts" and "excepts". First people complain about neutral listening sites because they are not familiar with the equipment and set-up. Has to be in their home. Covered cables break all kind of "rules." So we're now talking about screens. They'd have to be acoustically transparent but not visually. (Do screens have a break-in period? Are they really, I mean really, transparent to sound?)

Of course, we'd also have to live with them in our residence for an extended period. Many of the cable-difference advocates talk about picking up subtle differences over a period of months. A short term evaluation would be another "out."

We would also have to believe that someone could have cables in their home behind a screen for an extended period and resist all temptation to take a peek. Of course, they'd tell themselves that would have no influence on what they were hearing.

My observation is that certain audiophiles would never accept any type of truly blind test situation. There will always a variety of special demands that will defeat the test, or "defects" in the test setup that will allow them to ignore the results to the extent needed to satisfy their ego. Regardless of the theoretical validity and advantages of DBT, I simply cannot envision ANY setup that would satisfy a certain segment of the audiophile community.

[Dusty Chalk]

No, I was just suggesting screens because there's no way you're going to get away with disguising one cable as another -- anyone with any experience in this will be able to recognize a cable by its terminations.

And yes, the dielectrics do make a difference. There's at least one company that believes the best dielectric is no dielectric (Anti-Cables).

[mlsstl]

> there's no way you're going to get away with disguising one cable as another...

You help make my case, that regardless of any what a DBT could theoretically prove, the practical reality is that there is probably no implementation possible that would 1) either be truly double-blind, or 2) not give an excuse or "out" to discount the results.

Of course, many people also are confused about what a DBT is. They think it must have some type of rapid switching mechanism to pop back and forth between two components. What double-blind really means is that the test subject does not know which product is currently under test and that the immediate test administrator also does not know. The latter is necessary to prevent subtle hints (whether intentional or subconscious) to the test subject. A screen in a listening room - especially for a long period - fails to provide any real confidence that blindness would be maintained at the needed level.

As such, I simply don't think it is possible to design a DBT for a certain segment of the audiophile community. Far too much terminal uniqueness in our psyches.

[FLZapped]

> there's no way you're going to get away with disguising one cable as another...

You help make my case, that regardless of any what a DBT could theoretically prove, the practical reality is that there is probably no implementation possible that would 1) either be truly double-blind, or 2) not give an excuse or "out" to discount the results.

These tests aren't designed necessarily used to "prove" anything, other than two samples are either different, or not different.

Of course, many people also are confused about what a DBT is. They think it must have some type of rapid switching mechanism to pop back and forth between two components. What double-blind really means is that the test subject does not know which product is currently under test and that the immediate test administrator also does not know. The latter is necessary to prevent subtle hints (whether intentional or subconscious) to the test subject. A screen in a listening room - especially for a long period - fails to provide any real confidence that blindness would be maintained at the needed level.

Correct, rapid switching is an implemtation method based on the observations that our arual memory is less than one second.

As such, I simply don't think it is possible to design a DBT for a certain segment of the audiophile community. Far too much terminal uniqueness in our psyches.

That is exactly what these tests are for, to deprive as many sense as possible in order to force us to judge only with our ears.


-Bruce

[musicoverall]

Correct, rapid switching is an implemtation method based on the observations that our arual memory is less than one second.
Bruce

That's the part that dooms audio DBT's, IMHO. I seriously doubt I would have passed mine using rapid switching. Most people need to listen long term - despite any comments of the "the new cable blew me away immediately" variety. At least that's what I have found.

[musicoverall]

but is it worth it? Versus buying more CDs?

My $.02 worth.

Good point. I ultimately found myself having to make a choice between keeping the subtle differences of the Cardas cables in my system or having new music software. The cables were NOT worth it in that context.

[musicoverall]

>

We would also have to believe that someone could have cables in their home behind a screen for an extended period and resist all temptation to take a peek. .

If someone peeks, what would be the point of the test? I had no problem NOT peeking -was not even remotely tempted. If I had, the whole thing would have been a waste of time. If someone is truly interested in answering the question (for themselves, if no one else) of cable sonics, they'd have to be honest.

[Feanor]

...
One other thing...

Double blind tests are not valid for several reasons. First, everyone that claims to hear differences in wire do so on their home system at their leisure. They are familiar with the sound of their system, are not under pressure to perform, and there are no time limits. DBT's are normally done on someone elses system, with someone elses wire, and there is pressure to get it right.

So, how could we improve on the DBT? Simple! Take two wires that someone already has experiance with and claims that they do sound different and disguise them to look identical, except for color. Give them to that person and let them decide which is which in their home system at their own leisure. This would eliminate all the variables that a normal DBT imparts on the test.

I personally believe that DBTs, as designed and conducted, are often flawed. For example, in my opinion, a short coming of many DBTs is that participants are not permitted the chance to familiarize themselves to their own satisfaction with the different sources in sighted listening before the test is beguns; another flaw would be that they cannot control how long they get to listen to each sound, and/or when the switch to the other (or possibly the same) sound is made. Regardless however, the only valid outcome for even the most rigorous test is, "The test revealed that the test subjects, under the test conditions, could/could not reliably distinguish between the sounds". Of course, remember that not all DBTs ever conducted have turned up negative results.

But to generalize regarding negative results, I ask, if you cannot distinguish different sounds under reasonable DBT conditions, how important can those differences really be???

[Mash]

Anytime someone advocates an action involving you spending your money, your first question should be: Are they in a position to gain financially, directly or indirectly, from my purchase decision?

It is exceedingly funny to me when people will more readily believe someone with either a direct financial stake in a purchase decision (a dealer) or an indirect stake in the purchase decision (a moderator here who wishes to protect the advertisers) than they will believe someone who has NO financial stake in their decision.

Do you spend $1300 on wires, or do you spend $1300 on a Jolida 302B plus a pair of Magnepan MMG? This is a simple question for me to answer.

If you try some exotic wires and you cannot hear any difference, why your system is simply not resolving enough! It CANNOT be that those wires made no difference, no sir! So the dealer can help you build a 'more resolving' system.... for $$$, of course!

You STILL cannot hear any difference with those new wires? Obviously, your system is STILL simply not resolving enough! The dealer can help you build an 'even more resolving' system.... for $$$$, of course!

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our wires, But in our systems, that we are poor.

Now if you (think you) DO hear a difference using those exotic wires, OH, JOY! You are then an anointed and holy audiophile with a wonderful sound-system, and you are a leader of audiophiles and men, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. By the way, we just happen to have some OTHER exotic wires for you to try that are even better than the ones you just bought but of course they cost a little more. Trade in your old wires? Well, the used-wire market is a little soft right now, and True Audiophiles would be concerned that you might not have broken your wires in correctly, and.... yadda yadda yadda.....

I posted an open letter to Skeptic on "SPEAKERS" suggesting he consider the Mackie HR824's connected with XLR cables. And what did I see at the bottom of that thread? Hotlinks to dealers selling XLR cables and Mackie HR824 speakers, but not at the best prices....

Deep Throat was right: Follow the Money

[musicoverall]

Do you spend $1300 on wires, or do you spend $1300 on a Jolida 302B plus a pair of Magnepan MMG? This is a simple question for me to answer.

If you try some exotic wires and you cannot hear any difference, why your system is simply not resolving enough! It CANNOT be that those wires made no difference, no sir! So the dealer can help you build a 'more resolving' system.... for $$$, of course!

Simple question, but it depends on if one already owns a good amp and speakers or not. Purchasing a Jolida 302B and Maggie MMG's would be a step backward for many people while spending $1300 to upgrade their cables might be a step forward.

A system that isn't resolving enough *might* be the problem if one cannot hear differences in wire. It could also be that their listening skills are lacking. And in many cases, the wires simply do not sound different in that application (system). I've found that to be the case many times.

Your advice about being careful around those with a financial stake in your purchase decision is good advice. But it's not enough. One must be careful when listening to someone with ANY kind of agenda. If it's to sell cables, or promote a website or to protect one's scientific credentials, it only goes to show that people should try for themselves those products about which they are curious.

So on the issue of cables, a prospective experimenter should ask himself some questions. Does the person recommending them (or vehemently NOT recommending them) have an agenda. Is he going to gain financially? Or is he perhaps afraid that someone might discover that the truth is different from what they believe? How badly does the recommender want or not want cables to affect the sound? Are they posting about their own experiences or lack of same?

An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[hermanv]

Hi StevenSurprenant, I hadn't checked this catagory for a long time, thanks for the kind words. I'm afraid the whole cable war thing will drag on nearly forever. As an EE I have every reason to doubt the technical aspects of cable differences, as an audiophile I can not ignore what my ears tell me.

Take a cheap boom box, place it in different locations within a room, the sound quality changes. Now step up to a better system, to get the most out of that system, speaker placement becomes far more critical.

As the listener climbs up the sound quality curve, he soon learns that room treatments matter. It can be as simple as closing the drapes or as exotic as buying specialty products (corner traps, bass traps, absorbers, diffusers etc.). Many of these products can be home made or purchased at often exotic prices.

IMHO the whole price thing has little to do with ego or status, it's that the better audio products on the whole are more expensive.

As the determined listener continues to improve his system, two things tend to happen; 1. He gets better at hearing small changes and 2. as the system quality improves, ever smaller effects become discernable.

What I'm saying is that the differences between cables will not be heard with a boom box in a cement bunker, but as other components including the room improve, at some point cables will begin to make an audible difference.

It is unfortunate that the magazines on the whole resort to hyperbole when describing cable differences, "Wow, I never heard such a gigantic change". This isn't really true, but when all other attempts to improve the sound quality have reached a practical limit, it may seem like the cable change is huge. This is mainly due to the fact that all the other changes have stopped offering any useful additional improvement.

Some cables offer immediate and obvious differences, smear or muddling as opposed to hard or harsh seem common. Other cables have far more subtle effects, some take days of listening to many sources and kinds of music to reveal themselves. All this is made worse by another controversial subject called break in.

Double blind testing can be made valid. The problem is that in spite of wha the magazines say, most cable differences take some time to identify. This makes a usefull DBT so lengthy that many can't or won't bother. It is also my opinion that DBT tests can not be done by commitee, more than two listeners would make it nearly impossible to agree on what to listen to and for how long.

For me, hearing the difference between a good Kimber interconnect and a good Cardas interconnect is pretty tough, but hearing the differnece between either of these and a cheap Radio Shack interconnect is fairly easy.

The CD became popular because it sounded better than that old $99 record changer with ceramic cartridge we all used to have. Yet todays $25,000 vinyl playback systems sound better than a CD, all this proves is that good sound reproduction is a collection of subtleties.

[FLZapped]

That's the part that dooms audio DBT's, IMHO.

Why?

I seriously doubt I would have passed mine using rapid switching.

Why?

Most people need to listen long term - despite any comments of the "the new cable blew me away immediately" variety. At least that's what I have found.

We're not talking a musical review, we're talking about discovering differences between two samples.

-Bruce

[musicoverall]

Because hearing doesn't work like vision (for me, anyway). Although I still think it would be interesting to show someone a picture of a large blue dot and then replace it with a picture of another, slightly different blue dot to determine how accurately they could tell the difference. I read once where there are 32 different shades of color in cigar tobacco wrappers. The ones who can determine them all are the cigar makers themselves and few others. Experience would seem to reign supreme. Subtlety does not mean non-existent.

Cable differences are subtle and my ears need time to get used to their sonic signature. Even so, I didn't score perfectly but I would have done less well with rapid switching. Unfortunately, the rapid switching so common in the area of testing audio components (not that I can find much evidence of testing!) will usually give the null result, thereby adding fuel to the objectivists fire that "it all sounds the same". Too bad. The question of whether cables can sound different has been answered. The two remaining questions are "why do they sound different" and "are the differences noticeable enough to matter to the listener".

[FLZapped]

(snip all that was totally irrelavent.)

Cable differences are subtle and my ears need time to get used to their sonic signature. Even so, I didn't score perfectly but I would have done less well with rapid switching.

How do you know?

Unfortunately, the rapid switching so common in the area of testing audio components (not that I can find much evidence of testing!) will usually give the null result, thereby adding fuel to the objectivists fire that "it all sounds the same".

Sorry, but this is just not true, which is why there is so much testing using such a method. To make sure we are on the same page, when I say rapid switch, I mean two devices switched by a mechanical method - as opposed to someone plugging and unplugging cables.

I have also participated in numerous tests and I can assure you, the results were anything but null.....we weren't testing cables, but where there were differences, they stuck out like a sore thumb using rapid switching. Listening to each device seperately would have certainly yielded more nulls.

-Bruce

[Feanor]

How do you know?

Sorry, but this is just not true, which is why there is so much testing using such a method. To make sure we are on the same page, when I say rapid switch, I mean two devices switched by a mechanical method - as opposed to someone plugging and unplugging cables.

I have also participated in numerous tests and I can assure you, the results were anything but null.....we weren't testing cables, but where there were differences, they stuck out like a sore thumb using rapid switching. Listening to each device seperately would have certainly yielded more nulls.

-Bruce

I'm not contradiction the need for long term listening; this is especially important form establishing which sound is "better" (or a least preferable). However my experience is also that anything I hear in the long term, I can also hear in the short.

But though the switching might be quick, pinpointing the specific differences can take a long time: e.g. once I spent 3 hours listening to segments no longer than 5 minutes and some as short as 20 seconds before I could articulate the differences; (granted, this was using the slower cable swapping method).

[musicoverall]

How do you know?



Sorry, but this is just not true, which is why there is so much testing using such a method. To make sure we are on the same page, when I say rapid switch, I mean two devices switched by a mechanical method - as opposed to someone plugging and unplugging cables.

I have also participated in numerous tests and I can assure you, the results were anything but null.....we weren't testing cables, but where there were differences, they stuck out like a sore thumb using rapid switching. Listening to each device seperately would have certainly yielded more nulls.

-Bruce

Are any of these tests published? Not necessarily the ones you've been involved with but any? I searched awhile back and couldn't really find much on the 'net. The few DBT's I found mostly showed null results and the ones that showed differences were the obvious ones (extremely long or thin guage cables, speakers, etc).

[musicoverall]

I'm not contradiction the need for long term listening; this is especially important form establishing which sound is "better" (or a least preferable). However my experience is also that anything I hear in the long term, I can also hear in the short.

But though the switching might be quick, pinpointing the specific differences can take a long time: e.g. once I spent 3 hours listening to segments no longer than 5 minutes and some as short as 20 seconds before I could articulate the differences; (granted, this was using the slower cable swapping method).

Not usually the case for me. When someone swaps a cable in my presence, they all immediately applaud the change while I'm sitting there in a fog until I have a chance to focus better.

Ahhh... I think we've found the culprit! It's not the test, it's my attention/focus!

I did notice that the differences I found sighted were the same ones I found blind but during the blind tests, the differences were much closer to negligible.

[Feanor]

Not usually the case for me. When someone swaps a cable in my presence, they all immediately applaud the change while I'm sitting there in a fog until I have a chance to focus better.

Ahhh... I think we've found the culprit! It's not the test, it's my attention/focus!

I did notice that the differences I found sighted were the same ones I found blind but during the blind tests, the differences were much closer to negligible.

Many supposed changes are inaudible to me; also, some I can just barely hear are irrelevant. This just isn't in the true, audiophile spirit. To the true audiophile all system changes make a difference, and all differences are significant. (These differences may be real or imagined, but that doesn't matter.)

But I can't be too judgemental. My hearing doesn't go beyond 10-11 kHz so others might hear what I do not.

[musicoverall]

Many supposed changes are inaudible to me; also, some I can just barely hear are irrelevant. This just isn't in the true, audiophile spirit. To the true audiophile all system changes make a difference, and all differences are significant. (These differences may be real or imagined, but that doesn't matter.)

But I can't be too judgemental. My hearing doesn't go beyond 10-11 kHz so others might hear what I do not.

No problem there. No one can possibly say what is or isn't audible for someone else, try as they might.

I've found even the significant differences need to be judged as to value. Some people have no problem spending $2000 for a very minor improvement (a significant change might also be minor in the overall context). That's ok with me but I prefer to spend the bulk of my disposable income on music.

[PeruvianSkies]

Great arguments indeed, but I think there is one thing that is being overlooked from both sides...tolerance.

1. Why do people who don't believe that there is a difference in cables care what other people do with their money and with their cables?

2. Why do people who know that they hear a difference in cables care what those who don't hear a difference think?

I have come to my own conclusions on cables and the bottom line for me is that they do make a difference, however, I have to point out a few things first...

Cables do not 'sound' a certain way, rather they 'allow' for either more, less, or neutral influence on the signal. What I mean is that a really good cable should only do 1 thing: accurately carry the signal successfully and with precision timing to the speaker or between components. If a cable is 'doing' anything to the signal other than that, as in ...manipulation, than it's not a good cable.

So good cables are more revealing of the original source...question is...how do we know? Well, that is where it takes a good ear and one that is knowledgeable on what a recording should sound like. This is an artform, a craft, a skill, something that takes time to train, just like tuning an instrument by ear. People with perfect-pitch (like myself) can hear a certain note and know what that note is and can tune an instrument or pick out a passage and identify the notes being played, this is through training and long-term listening.

[musicoverall]

I'd have to speculate on question #1 and, although I have ideas, I probably shouldn't post them.

As for question #2, I absolutely do not care what those who can't hear differences think. My concern is that a newbie might read them and decide not to try cables for themselves, thereby denying themselves a real improvement in the sound of recorded music in the home. Certainly people should have a healthy skepticism but the emphasis is on "healthy". The fact is that until you try some different cables - and pay attention! - you don't know if you can or can't hear the differences. If you can't, no problem.

Totally agree with your assessment on cables. They are not tone controls. The best ones I've heard simply allow the music to pass with the least amount of additives or deletions. I've heard very expensive cables that I thought were garbage, and not even as good as common zipcord. But those same cables inserted into a very expensive but "multi-colored" system improved the sound. Best to work with as neutral a system as you can get. When that is achieved, lousy cable makes its presence felt (heard) pretty clearly over long term listening in particular.