DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?
prof wrote, “The first is that, whatever amazing detail you EVER get through the most expensive, best audiophile cables you can buy - all that will ever tell you is about the sound quality that was passed along a large number of non-audiophile cabling to make that source (in the vast majority of recordings).” Well, that argument actually misses the point. On several levels. Nobody says you can’t also improve upon whatever other wiring and cabling is in the system. Obviously you can’t improve whatever damage has already been done in the studio. Although most good studios probably take much care with everything including cables. Let’s call that a constant. You can only do what you can do. No reason to go crazy. It’s important to keep in mind there’s no Absolute of sound, everything is relative. But there is much that can be done on the home front. You’re either on the bus 🚌 or off the bus. That’s why some, perhaps many, audiophiles go to the trouble to upgrade internal speaker wiring including crossover network wiring, internal amplifier wiring, etc. It is also worth ensuring ALL wires and cables are in the correct direction, you, know, if one wants to go all the way. Interconnects, speaker cables, power cord wires, fuses. After all, we’re 99% sure directionality is real. Aren’t we? 😳 prof also wrote, “Every time someone puts $10,000 of new Nordost cable or whatever in to their system and gasps at the soundstage information, glorious amounts of subtle, organic detail, realism of the highs etc, they are gasping at the sound quality sent through numerous run-of-the-mill cables that were likely used in making that recording.” >>>>>Obviously, as one upgrades various links in the system certain improvements should be heard. But there’s no guarantee. And not everyone thinks Nordost cables are AMAZING sounding. It all depends quite a bit depending on a number of factors. I suspect you’re using this somewhat outrageous example, off the top of your head, not experience, you’re just guessing, for effect mostly as folks have rather differing opinions of Nordost cables. Nice try though. Every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings. |
Good points. Unfortunately they only reinforce my position that demos, tests, shoot-outs, blind tests, etc. are unreliable especially if the results are NEGATIVE. And it doesn’t matter if the tests/demos/shoot-outs are fast, slow, over the course of hours or days, or whatever. They are still unreliable. Otherwise any group of all thumbs hearing challenged pseudo skeptics would be the arbiters of sound, which they actually aren’t. And while it’s a shame you personally aren’t able to distinguish certain differences in wire, direction, etc. those results should not be extrapolated to generalize about anyone else. |
It all depends on where you get off and what you’re trying to accomplish. My debutante ball was with Mapleshade at CES way back when. The (Ron Bowman, Pierre’s partner) interconnects are 54 ga or whatever, thinner than a human hair, which produce either almost no skin effect or all skin effect, I forget which. The Mapleshade cables sound really spectacular, by the way. I had brought along my Nimbus sub Hertz iso platform to isolate the Nakamichi Dragon CD System that included a unique feature: when a CD is inserted into the CD player a vacuum is produced around the CD transport for a stage of isolation. All cables and power cords (also ultra thin) were suspended from eye hooks on the ceiling with thread. The whole wild and crazy look of the Mapleshade/Machina Dynamica/Gallo room prompted someone was it Shannon Dickson? at Stereophile magazine to write that it look like something out of Plan 9 from Outer Space. E pluribus unum. geoff kait machina dynamica |
You can always tell a pseudo skeptic on a crusade because he keeps telling you blind tests will be surprising, or prove there’s no difference between cables, or prove a super expensive cable is just as good as Radio Shack cable or Monster Cable. Another clue is they never do blind tests themselves. Blind tests are as vulnerable to test errors as any other kind of test. All pseudo skeptic arguments eventually lead to Blind Tests, the pinnacle of pseudo skeptic logic. 🙄 |
prof - sorry to say you still don’t get it. Nobody is saying there’s no such thing as bias or other psychological effects. What I’m saying it’s not easy to prove or disprove anything in audio. Nobody promised you a rose garden. What you still don’t get is that negative results of a blind test don’t mean anything. All I can do is keep repeating my mantra until it seeps through that thick membrane surrounding your brain. All this other pharma blind testing and blind tests used for physics is stuff you made up or irrelevant. What lengths will determined pseudo skeptics go to try to prove that cables don’t matter or that directionality doesn’t matter or that fuses don’t matter? Well, we’re seeing what lengths they’re go, right here, ladies and germs. You can take all the Crusader Rabbits and line them up and they won’t prove anything. 🐇 🐇 🐇 🐇 🐇 Let me put it a different way. If YOU performed a blind test yourself and reported negative results I would throw your results in the circular file. Capish? 😛. Why is it that pseudo skeptics and die hard naysayers never perform testing themselves? Just a lotta, “Betcha can’t pass a blind test.” What are they afraid of? 😳 |
It’s not that someone else’s blind tests are irrelevant to me. It’s not that at all. You misquoted me. What I’m saying is ANY blind test taken by itself has no meaning and cannot be generalized to make some grand sweeping statement. So, a single test can have no meaning for the person doing the test, too, not only me, Especially if the results of that test are negative. Now, if there are say ten blind tests by different people in ten different systems then I might look at the data. Raise your hands if you still don’t understand. |
For starters musical instruments are not like audio although I can certainly understand why someone might say so. Second, I don’t trust other people’s hearing. So there’s that. Also, blind testing is actually not part of the scientific method. So, there’s that, too. That’s a lot of rubbish that pseudo skeptics want us to believe. |
cd318 @djones51 some will always argue that blind tests are useless. If this is so, then sighted ones must be ten times more useless because vision adds nothing to the objective evaluation of sound as anyone working in sound production will readily testify. In fact vision can be a good way to mask sonic defects. The fact is blind listening tests are most feared by the people with something to sell. All of a sudden when hugely expensive cables, amps, CD players are put in against their budget counterparts in an objectively fair setting healthy profit margins evaporate into the ether. Consider that over the decades despite much superstitious nonsense written about Ouija boards, the fact remains that when the users were blindfolded nothing but gibberish was ever produced. If you really want the sonic truth then close your eyes. No one listens like the blind. >>>>I really mean this, the best thing to do with that post is file under Whatever. |
The stress placed on the test subject in blind tests or any tests depends on the pressure applied. For example The Amazing Randi applied lots of pressure on potential test subjects, even when the device that was the device under was an audio cable or tweak. Fremer was the victim in the Randi Million Dollar Challenge to hear the difference between super expensive cables and some generic cable. A customer of mine was the victim of the Intelligent Chip Million Dollar Challenge. What are the negotiations involved for Randi’s blind tests? The negotiations themselves produce stress. Choice of test system. The number of test participants. Test protocol, usually involved the requirement for ten consecutive positive test results. Also, the choice of test software, choice of location of the test. Gentle readers, are these requirements or negotiations not cause for great stress when $1 million and or reputation is at stake? Yeah, prof, I’m the one muddying the waters? Give me a break! That’s exactly what pseudo skeptics charge when someone challenges their dogmatic beliefs. prof has scrupulously avoided responding to my main point - that negative results of blind test cannot be generalized. You cannot say that because a blind test result is negative that means the device under test doesn’t work or that there are no audible differences between any two cables, or between two fuses, whatever, being compared. A test is only one data point. If there were ten tests by ten different people or groups in ten different systems and most of the results were negative then you might have something to talk about. |
I leave for a couple hours and look what happens. No single good argument for or agin. I guess I was asking for too much. Lots of tenth grade personal attacks, tho’. And a whole lotta fanny patting by the naysayers. At least that’s something. Let the inquisition continue. The professor doesn’t seem to want to debate, for all his posturing. 😛 Just repeating his same old mantra. |
I’m not trying to start a fight 🥊 or show anyone up, but honestly, if you’re not on board the whole directionality train 🚂 shame on you. I’m talking about controlling the whole manufacturing process to ensure that directionality of wire is accounted for in the final product. Controlled for directionality, folks - all cables, interconnects, speaker cables, digital cable but more recently power cords and HDMI cables and probably Ethernet cables, too. If Audioquest sells top tier Ethernet cables the chances are good they’re controlled for directionality, like their top tier cables, HDMI cables and power cords. I’m not just talking here. I’ve got the AQ Carbon HDMI Cable. Controlled for Directionality. Accept no substitutes. Too bad all wires are controlled for directionality. It ain’t that difficult. To sum up, if you’re a cable skeptic you’re probably living in the 1980s and don’t know it. |
I’m just assuming Ethernet cables are like any other cable with metal conductors. You know, since all wires are directional. THIS JUST IN! It looks like my assumption was correct... from AQ web page for Diamond Cat 7 Ethernet Cable: ”RJ/E Diamond prepared Cat 7 Ethernet cables use solid 100% Perfect-Surface Silver conductors, which completely eliminate strand interaction, one of the biggest sources of distortion in cables, for clearer, more dynamic and involving sound. Superior conductor metals minimize distortion by having fewer grain boundaries and less impurities (such as oxides) at those boundaries. Solid High-Density Polyethylene (PE) insulation helps maintain critical signal-pair geometry. Of course all AudioQuest Ethernet cables honor the directionality inherent in all analog and digital audio cables; arrows on the jackets indicate the direction (from source to destination) for the best audio performance.” |
Reasons why blind Cable tests should not be taken seriously 1. Test system was not be verified as having no errors, i.e., Absolute Polarity, out of phase, poor speaker placement, etc. Many if not most systems mask subtle differences. This produces what is known as a “rush to judgement.” Who came up with the expression, Audiophile Myth, anyway? Uh, a Pseudo Skeptic. Hel-loo! 2. Too many things can go wrong with any test to be able to say this test proves such and such. If someone was determined to prove that differences between two cables DO EXIST he would ALWAYS DO THE TESTS LATE AT NIGHT OR EARLY MORNING. How many of these “impartial” tests are self fulfilling prophecies? You decide. 3. Speaking of subtle differences what’s wring with them? Many characteristics of sound ARE subtle. That’s what we advanced audiophiles are looking for, we want subtle but powerful. Like subtle improvements to the human voice. You have to know it when you hear it. Nobody is demanding “night and day differences.” If you are unable to hear subtle differences that would be your problem. Wake up and smell the roses! 🌹🌹🌹 4. Test participants cannot be verified to actually possess keen hearing skills. It should be noted almost all audiophiles consider themselves excellent listeners. Cough, cough 5. Cables under test cannot be verified as being competent broken in. Yes, I know what you’re thinking, well get an idea of the differences without going to all that trouble. 😀 6. Cables under test when disconnected break the delicate mechanical/electrical interface which takes at least several days to reestablish. 7. Directionality can be be ascertained for cables under test. Cables in the incorrect direction just don’t sound very good. When many if not most of the blind tests were performed directionality was not even a gleam in most audiophiles’ eye.👁 8. Results of a single test cannot be generalized, especially if results are negative or inconclusive. If a test is repeated by the same personnel in the same system that has merit. If the test can be repeated by different personnel in different systems that would have even more merit. 9. A single test is only one data point. It takes more than two points to make a curve. In order to draw a conclusion about cables or anything under test there must be a number of data points, the more the better, so one can draw a smooth curve through them. |
Gee whiz, guys, it looks like your humble narrarator is the only one here with golden ears. I have no difficulty whatsoever hearing subtle differences. Or earthshaking ones, either. I wish I could help you guys and gal out, I really do. That’s what is known in the biz as tough toenails. That’s the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. 🍪 My observation is that by and large most audiophiles don’t know where they are on the curve or how to get higher on the curve and can’t even tell when their sound takes a step or two backwards. That’s called lost in the sauce. |
analogluvr Geoff Kait can you read? You say prof avoided your point that a blind test doesn't determine whether there are differences between the devices in question. He actually said exactly that in his well written post to Elizabeth. >>>>The real question is can you read. He is not agreeing with my main contention that no single test - whether blind or not - proves anything, especially when the results are negative. And it’s because too many things can go wrong. Do you guys want me to draw you a picture? |
It should be pointed out that Nelson Pass’ article on cables is almost 40 years old. Not that it’s a bad article but it was written at the very beginning of Cable history right after Polk, Fulton and Monster Cables, the first “exotic audiophile cables” were introduced. The article obviously doesn’t address the *many* developments that have occurred since 1980, including extremely high purity copper conductors, Silver conductors, break-in theory, advanced connector design, controlling wire directionality, long crystal copper, shield design and exotic innovations such as cryogenic treatment, Carbon conductors, liquid conductors, EMI/RFI products, graphene enhanced conductors, etc. The article was written, arguably, at the beginning of high resolution systems; the very first digital systems (Yikes!) were still a couple years away at that point in time. Not to mention all the other advanced audiophile developments in room acoustics, advanced fuses, and vibration isolation and many other tweaks that came much later. from Nelson Pass’ article, “At this point many audiophiles are wondering, "Where are the listening tests?" I have listened to these cables on a variety of amplifiers (mostly my own) and loudspeakers, including Magneplanar Tympani 1 D’s, MG II A’s, modified Dayton Wright XG 8 MK III’s (as shown in Fig. 6) Cabasses; I have also heard some examples on Dahlquist and Snell loudspeakers. Frankly, I found it difficult to assess the results except at the extremes of performance. For 10 foot lengths with properly terminated cables and speakers with inductive high frequency characteristics, the differences between low inductance cable and twin conductor are extremely subtle and subject to question. With a low output inductance amplifier and a Heil tweeter (whose impedance is a nearly perfect 6ohm resistive) the difference was discernible as a slightly but not unpleasant softening of the highest frequencies. Fulton or Monster cables were a clear improvement over 24 or even 18 gauge, though a little less subtle than I would have expected, leading me to believe that the effort associated with heavier cables pays off in bass response and in apparent midrange definition, especially at crossover frequencies. The worst case load, the modified Dayton Wright electrostatics, presented some interesting paradoxes: the extremely low impedance involved showed the greatest differences between all the types of cables. However, the best sound cables were not necessarily electrically the best because several amplifiers preferred the highest resistance cable. In one case, I had to use 24 gauge cable to prevent tripping the amplifier’s protection circuitry.” Link to full article at, https://www.passlabs.com/press/speaker-cables-science-or-snake-oil |
Comment on how this thread is going. What have we learned? 1. Naysayers continue to claim blind tests can prove the device tested doesn’t work as advertised. 2. Naysayer and pseudo scientists claim blind testing is part of the scientific method. 3. Naysayers and pseudo skeptics claim negative results for a blind test mean something. 4. Naysayers and pseudo skeptics claim blind tests can ferret out audiophiles who support Cable differences or who support controversial tweaks or ideas such as wire directionality. 5. Naysayers and pseudo skeptics continue to believe that because blind testing is used in pharma and wine industries or because violins were tested blind that means blind testing also works for audio. 6. Naysayers and pseudo skeptics follow in the footsteps of the Amazing Randi who was quick to realize the marketing potential of offering audiophiles a million bucks if they could pass his blind test. |
Uh, Teo, I will let you in on a little secret. Just between you and me. There is no such thing as a valid test or valid test procedure. Not for audio. Haven’t you been paying attention? Besides Randi is not about to give away a million bucks to some audiophile or reviewer. Randi is not an audiophile. He has absolutely no freaking idea if an audiophile or reviewer can hear any of this stuff. He did it to get attention. Hel-loo! I think I should know as I was his most frequent target back then. Although I confess I like seeing my name in print S much as the next fella. |
Look, I already explained why blind tests have no meaning for audio. If blind testing was an indispensible part of the scientific method. That statement would not be true. So, for the umpteenth time, for audio blind testing is not part of the scientific method. It may be true in certain specific cases, I would have to think about it. Depends on many factors like what the test procedure is so on. You can make a blanket statement. Who cares about pharma and wine tasting? Please, no angry posts from glupson or anyone else claiming I don’t care if people die or go crazy. |
Yes, I know that’s what you said. Blind testing is actually not (rpt not) an indisputable tool of science or the scientific method. Especially not when it comes to audio. Blind testing was not used to discover gravity, or what gravity actually is, quantum mechanics, black holes, the Higgs boson, the velocity of light, Avagadro’s number, Planck’s Constant, the amount of dark matter in the universe, orbit mechanics, gravity waves, the distance to the edge of the universe, E= mc2, the photoelectric effect, Hubble constant, the precession of Mercury, the development of computers, the development of digital audio, or the development of the atomic or hydrogen bombs. |
The “blind injection” used in LIGO was a simulation of a real (gravity wave) signal. This was only to keep the LIGO team on their toes, inasmuch as they would treat it as if it were real and file a detection report, etc. It was not (rpt not) a “blind test” as we are discussing it. It’s not as if they had to pick the correct one. The simulated LIGO signal and the real LIGO signal were identical. Please note I’m not saying blind testing isn’t used sometimes. I’m not discounting the utility of blind tests in some area of science, but it’s certainly not a requirement or a mandatory part of the scientific method. I am, however, discounting blind tests as having much if any usefulness or credibility for audio. |
That’s an excellent point that most people who aren’t intimately familiar with all the details of specific types of cables or any audio product, it’s all too esoteric for the average person, would be influenced one way or the other even if the test was SIGHTED. Even hardened audiophiles oft don’t keep up with very much of the newer developments in cables, especially HDMI, Ethernet cables, power cords, etc., as we have seen, no pun intended. |
And speaking of psycho babble, this just in, ”And everyone at your local Psychic Fair, or alternative healing convention, or anyone peddling pseudo-science, says the same thing. Congratulations on the company you are keeping ;-)” Note to self: you can usually tell the ones ones who didn’t go to school. |
roberjerman @ ron1319: I’d bet that if you repeated your tests again the next day or next week you’d get different results! Human memory of sonic "differences" is very fallible and prone to error! Making comparative testing difficult and frustrating! >>>>I trust you’re speaking for yourself as my audio memory is perfectly fine. Sorry to hear of your difficulty and frustration. Maybe you need to eat more fish. 🐟 besides, as I’ve oft commented things change from hour to hour, day to day, week to week for a lot of reasons so of course it would make sense that things might sound quite different from time to time. The difficulty is correlating sound with the variables, as always. Nobody promised you a rose garden. 🌹 🌹 🌹 🌹 If it was easy everyone would have a great sounding system. - Your friend and humble narrator |
It’s not that difficult to see from calvinj’s point of view there is no debate. He made that pretty clear in his somewhat baiting OP. That’s why the OP was all caps. I’m sure calvinj thanks all those who took the bait. 🤡 By the way, there is no difference between cable skeptics and say, skeptics of the Tice Clock, Mpingo discs, Silver Rainbow Foil, the Green Pen, Schuman Frequency Generator, tiny little bowl resonators or demagnetizing CDs. The only difference is how the skeptic will decide to formulate his philosophic and scientific attack. |
calvinj OP No it’s actually a blocked shot. Some of us have excellent hearing and can hear a difference. It’s makes a huge difference in some of our systems to our ears. We will do what we do while you stick to homemade monoprice or whatever. >>>>>If it looks like a troll, acts like a troll and walks like a troll....it’s a troll. |
