What are you complaining about, Detlof? Yours are 20% better! |
Well, Mark, as you can see from the many responses you got, there are a sizeable number of audiophiles who believe in the value of high-end cables. They believe because they have listened to different cables, and those cables have sounded different to them. And if you listened to the various brands of cables out there, they might sound different to you, too. That doesn't mean they are different. It just means that you're as susceptible as other humans to the brain's proven tendency to hear things that are not there.
So welcome back to the hobby. Keep on the lookout for snake oil. There's a lot of it about these days. |
Tekunda: Your analogy to digital printing assumes that there is such a thing as a "high-res" cable. But there isn't. Cables can differ in their impact on frequency response, but except at the extremes that impact falls below the known thresholds of human detection. Interference can be a problem, though I wonder how common it really is. And bad connections make a big difference, although quality of connections is not what the cable "industry" emphasizes, since even zipcord is capable of a high-quality connection. |
Mark: I'd add Dunlavy to Sean's list. (He even admits his own cables don't sound any better than anybody else's!) But I suspect most component manufacturers would see no value in trying to unconvince audiophiles of something they're convinced of. Besides, the proof is there that most (note that I said most) gear doesn't require specialized cables--if you want to accept that proof. But as we know, many audiophiles do not (as is their right). I don't see what else science could do to convince them. |
Lmb: It seems pretty clear that you know next to nothing about what science has learned about human hearing. We have measurement devices far more sensitive than the human ear, for example. And any difference you can *prove* you can hear (not just claim to hear) we can explain. When someone comes up with something we can't explain, then it'll be time to work on some new theories. |
Lmb: Here's where we differ: We both agree that there are cables which sound different when compared sighted, but which are indistinguishable in a blind test. You conclude that there must be something wrong with the blind test. I, and the scientific community that studies such things, conclude that sighted information is a factor in the perceived difference in sound. You're entitled to your conclusion. And I'm entitled to point out that mine has some solid experimental work backing it up.
You ask scientists to come up with some measurement that will explain what you perceive. Don't hold your breath. They already have their explanation, you see. |
Lmb: By this point in the dialogue one side or the other usually gets snippy, and the other side leaves in disgust. If we keep up with this civility crap, we could bore ourselves to tears.
Training is essential in valid audio tests, although the type of training isn't necessarily what you pick up at the local audio salon. And I suspect the variation in hearing between audiophiles and non-audiophiles is smaller than you think it is. Absent data, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.
Or...somebody could get some data. I'm not up to it myself, but someone so inclined could do a DBT of cables using a state-of-the-art system and the best audiophiles he could find. You'd think somebody would have an interest in proving us narrow-minded objectivists wrong.
As for your reported positive test, I'm afraid I missed it. Please provide details, or a specific cite. |
Well, this is just like S-pile! A straightforward report on a nice piece of research involving training listeners to hear differences, and then a paragraph of pure tripe:
"Although small in scope, both studies lend credence to audiophiles' assertions that they can hear minor differences—such as those between amplifiers or CD players, devices with extremely small frequency-response discrepancies—and that the ability to do so improves with practice. The studies also call into question the validity of blind tests that do not account for the skills of the participants or provide a meaningful way for them to learn the sonic characteristics of the equipment or recordings being compared."
This research provides NO evidence that audiophiles or anyone else can hear the kinds of frequency response differences between typical solid-state amplifiers (which is not to say that all amps are indistinguishable). And anyone doing auditory research knows you have to train listeners (including audiophiles, who would need to be trained in detecting the particular differences under test).
Granted, not every DBT ever done has been accompanied by adequate training. But the only way to really discredit such efforts is to do a test where listeners ARE properly trained, and show that they can hear differences. And that, as people like me love to point out, ain't ever been done yet. |
Lmb: So many questions, so little time. But I'll take a flier at a few:
I don't know about recording and mastering engineers, but my sense is that the folks whose business it is to actually study the propagation of signals do indeed think they have a pretty complete handle on how signals pass through cable. For example, silver is only about 6% less resistant than copper. If you plot their relative effects on frequency response, the differences will probably fall well below the known thresholds for human detection. No law that says you gotta accept that (or believe me, for that matter).
My favorite question of yours is: Why some manufacturers, use shielding, twisting, and passive filters on their wire? Would this not imply that different cables sound different simply by design?
My answer: No, it implies that they need a gimmick to distinguish their product from the other guy's, when they both sound the same. (A bit unfair: Shielding can be important in some cases, and I don't want to speculate on passive filters. Why you'd want such filters if they do affect sound I'm not clear on.) |
Lmb: I'm not sure who your "pro audio members" are, but I know of no one who believes that all cables sound the same.
On the other hand, I think John Dunlavy would admit that his i/c's and cables are, for most applications, audibly indistinguishable from "top-of-the-line" Radio Shack stuff. |
