DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?

@calvinj  

OK, I won't waste time with made up words.  Archimago has tested a boat load of cables over the years.  His methodology is sound.  His metrics show no change to many of the quantifiable specifications regarding hifi that have an effect on sonic character. If you get a chance, that is at least worth looking at.

From an epistemological point of view you wrote, "There are those of us that know that they make a difference based on the ability of your system to be resolving and transparent."

How do you really "know?" Via the sense of hearing, is that as reliable as science?  Only you can say what you think there. The business with high resolving systems sounds rather elitist and takes away from your credibility.  If you say you can hear something in the cables, how can you say at the same time no one else can if they don't have a resolving and transparent system?  That sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Who is to say that confirmation bias is not at work either?  Someone spends $500 on a cable because they believe it will enhance the sonic performance of their system is going to be psychologically pre-disposed to hearing it.  There is no way around that.  How much so is up for debate.

Glupson,
I was, as you can tell, pointing out the philosophical pitfalls accompanying the manner in which the OP went about gathering his knowledge of cables and the incongruity in the way he defends his argument.  He may very well be 100% correct.

Personally, I have not experimented with cables and as such have no opinion on the matter.  With that said, I have been thinking about it and researching lately. As a man of science, and the inherent quality that goes hand in hand with gathering quantifiable and empirical data, I do lean in that direction.  I will, however, be borrowing some cords from my local dealer and performing a test much as @dorkwad described. 

In the end, cables do matter, in all sorts of ways, but that has more to do with how people "know" things.  In looking at the many facets of this particular conundrum, it seems language, the senses and emotion are the main vehicles used in gathering and solidifying the said knowledge. I am happy to read some of the informative posts, engage in a little discourse and listen to good music without worrying too much about the cables.

@geoffkait 
I disagree as it seems highly unlikely that someone would pay money for something they expect to provide an enhancement and not expect it to work. The "hope" that it will enhance is correlated with the pleasure in the brain. Moreover, confirmation bias is not ordinarily found in an experiment that focuses on empirical data.  It is found in pseudo science that seeks to pass itself off as veracity. Much like your skilled listener experiment-- you can't control variables properly.  There is your logical fallacy. You can't quantify listening skills, just as glupson described above. You can give hearing tests to determine the frequencies people can hear, but you certainly cannot attach a number to what they can hear when listening to subtle music which is comprised of always changing frequencies from multiple different instruments.

The degree to which confirmation bias may effect someone is, as I said up for debate. But even after a failed expectation, they certainly are not going to say, "I am going to find another cable that does not live up to my expectations," (Popper) rather they will look for one that meets their needs/hopes.  As such, they will, until the second they make up their mind, be pre-disposed to a positive outcome.  How much so is unclear.

Attaching value, $500 vs. $5000 is a highly personal position that you can not possibly know except for yourself.  How do you know what sort of disposable cash flow "undecideds and newbies" have, and how much value they place on it? You can't, which is yet another logical fallacy. Also, an assumption that I am a "newbie," your use of the word and, is based upon what? My number of posts? There is your slippery slope.

@geoffkait 

But I will agree that not everyone, in the whole world, is susceptible to confirmation bias in regard to a purchase.  That would be a generalization.  There have to be a few people out there that would be unaffected.  Not me mind you, if I bought a cable, for virtually any amount of money, that was supposed to improve the sonic capabilities and did not, I would be disappointed.  Because I would have been super hopeful and probably could have even talked myself into the belief the sound was better. I will try it some day soon, probably, but not now.  I am too busy enjoying the music. Enjoy it yourself. I imagine you have a nice set up!

glupson,

Spot-on man.  I am not even an audiophile.  I love music and just like good sound.  OK, I also want to get "my" money's worth. I really don't even care all that much about the issue at hand.  I am just enjoying the discourse, whether I am right or wrong, and listening to some quiet tunes until my little boy wakes up.  Then I can increase the volume.

@cleeds 
Good call on the "borrowing."  My current dealer won't, so I shall endeavor to expand my horizons.

@cleeds 

I understand the test very well. "ranking listener acuity" is not empirical per se.  You are assigning numbers to a qualitative result.  You are attempting to control for variability by using a double-blind method of testing. The key is the word attempting. You are in no way controlling for human variability. Can knowledge be gleaned from such tests? Yes.  Is it definitive? No.  This is why these test will never be as reliable as someone running tests on the actual tracks of music through a sophisticated machine.  If total harmonic distortion and other variables t can be measured using actual electrical engineering equipment with associated units remain the same in a test of 10 different power cords, what explains improved sonic quality?

 @geoffkait @cleeds 
I'm unclear as to why you can't engage in a bit of discourse without getting personal.
@geoffkait What in goodness sake has glupson done to anyone to merit that sort of talk. Get some rest gentleman.
@prof 
What I was attempting to get at, rather poorly it seems, is humans are notoriously unreliable test subjects. Because of human variability, it is extremely difficult to get adequate support to satisfy a hypothesis that ultimately results in a scientific "law," unlike something like Ohm's Law which is pretty much a bedrock principle in electronics. We can point to failed medical studies and drug recalls. We can't control human moods, blood pressure, sleep patterns, vascular anomalies, etc.  All of that makes it less reliable than running the same test through a computer with Rightmark and testing for THD, frequency response, dynamic range etc.. Those are quantifiable numbers that speak to the transmission/reception of sound waves.  "I liked this one better," can be added up along with it's opposite number. You want to quantify that fine. That's simply not good enough for me. Nor, is it very good science.  On the other hand, some knowledge can be taken from it.