DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?

Do cables matter?

They certainly do!

I find my system sounds much more engaging with cables!

calvinj,

Your posts are a bit confusing here.

On one hand you started a thread shouting "DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?"
Presumably this question would be posed to all of us, including those who may be skeptical. After all, why would you pose that question only to people who already think they matter?


Then you tell any skeptics to get their ears checked.


And then asked for opinions on what you wrote.

But then, it seems if someone voices a skeptical view you want to say "Go Away!"

So...who are you talking to?

calvinj,

Ok. Then if you don’t mind some questions:

I see those are some fairly expensive cables.

Do you believe such expense is required to get the type of fidelity and sound quality you are hearing from your sources?

Consider: The vast majority of recordings you likely listen to were made using non-boutique cables, priced nothing like what you would have paid for those. And yet, every detail you are hearing now through your expensive cables was conveyed by those far less expensive, non-audiophile-marketed cables used to make many of the sources you are listening to. If you are swooning to, for instance, any of the older audiophile classic recordings, none of these boutique cables with their new-fangled technology claims were around then. And as someone who works in post sound, and has also been in many music studios as well, I would point out a great many of the cables used (and there is so much involved in microphones, recording/studios/monitoring/mixing/mastering etc) are not going to be Nordost or any of the boutique brands you are listening to. (The last big recording/mixing studio I worked for had someone building Canare and Belden cables all the time - far cheaper than many boutique audiophile brands, yet closer to being the industry standard than any audiophile brand).

What does that suggest to you, as to whether the expensive cables were really necessary to convey the level of fidelity you are hearing?

rhartshorn,

Just to make it clear (if it wasn’t already): I’m not an engineer myself and therefore no expert on cables. I remain skeptical about many of the claims made by high end cable manufacturers, but open minded to the possibility some cables sound different (or even "better" in terms of transmitting higher fidelity).

What I’m getting at now is a sort of conundrum I have pointed out before when audiophiles swear by high priced boutique audiophile cables: that they are generally listening to sources created by regular-old pro-grade (one hopes!) cables. Lots of it. So it seems inherently odd to say one "needs" to spend the big bucks on the type of cables mentioned in the OP (let alone the stratospheric prices of many other cables) in order to transmit a truly amazing level of fidelity. "Regular" cable used to create the source clearly is already up to that task.

As to your Nordost question: IF the Nordost cables in question could in fact transmit more information than regular cables, then sure it would make sense similar quality Nordost cables would give you the benefit of recovering that higher level of information. It’s like moving from a 1080p TV to a 4K TV. If you are using a 4K tv to watch only sources captured by a 1080p camera feed, then you will only ever be marvelling at what the 1080p camera could have captured. But if it were a 4K camera capturing more information, and now you have 4K res source to replicate, then the upgrade to 4K TV makes sense in order to see that extra detail.

Does studio grade cable the pinnacle of sound quality, not to be exceeded by audiophile boutique cables? I’m not sure - again, I’m not an EE. The best I can do is look at the discussions between EEs and get my read on the general debate. It seems common to read from people with the relevant expertise - who aren’t trying to sell cables - that you don’t need super expensive cables to successfully transmit everything you want through a cable. That’s been pretty much done for decades and decades with professional grade cables. (For instance, Belden etc).And that it’s possible to make cables sound different - but that’s not the same as "higher fidelity" or producing new or more information that a normal, competently designed and much less expensive cable can transmit.

That’s my read on the debates I’ve read. And like others, my own experience also informs my own hunches as well. That said...though many blind cable tests have not shown people can reliably tell expensive cables apart from well designed cheaper cables, there are *some* blind tests that have yielded apparently positive results.And that’s intriguing. I I’m certainly open minded about it. (Though...again...detecting differences doesn’t automatically equate to "higher fidelity" as if one cable couldn’t transmit all the information for the signal. If one cable simply sculpts the frequencies a bit differently, people may detect that, and even prefer it).

(I used to have quite a number of conversations about all this stuff with the cable-makers at my old studio. They were degreed EEs, very experienced with cables, and stuck pretty much to Canare and Belden for the raw materials. Those cable makers have a long history of expertise and reliability, and supply the type of measured specs, with little additional b.s., that often go missing or buried by marketing hype in the Audiophile market. I had a number of my own AV and audio cables made by those folks that have served me well for many years).

nonoise,
I don't think your analogy quite gets around my point.
If you had a richly detailed Ansel Adams photo, and took a picture of it with a newer camera producing a new version,  every bit of detail you swoon about when looking at that photo speaks to the quality of the original equipment used to take it.   The new camera can't introduce any more information than was already there in the original photo.  So long as we are talking about reproducing the original photo with fidelity (as opposed to taking new photos), it's the information on the original photo that is the only thing left to impress us.


Similarly, every time an audiophile with expensive cables swoons over the finger picking on strings, or delicate reverb trails in his system, he is swooning over the information conveyed by the original cables used for the recording. The cables used in creating the source didn't need to be one "better" (and more expensive) than the one preceding it.   If cables used for the creation of the source (again...LOTS are involved along the way) were THAT detrimental to the signal, the sound reaching your system would be crap, whatever cables you used to try and get that information back.  But that's not the case - you will still be amazed at the signal you are listening to because non-audiophile cables - many of them one after the other - are fully capable of preserving the detail you are hearing.  A well constructed cable should continue to reproduce the full signal fed to it, and on to the next (properly chosen) cable. 


Your appeal to mastering eaking out more detail is a red herring here:  that's a function of playing with fequency response/eq/compression to emphasize whatever the mastering engineer wishes to emphasize - or "fix" by re-balancing the signal.  The engineer would still be using only the information available to him that made it through the original cables used for the source.

calvinj,

It seems to me, at least thus far, that you only wanted a one-way conversation: you telling us cables make a difference, asking what we thought, but not really caring and implying critical questions are just jibber jabber.


Did you not think it worth replying to my question to you?

rja,
Someone with the relevant expertise in EE could certainly predict to a significant degree what you hear. People in audio do it all the time. In my work in post production sound, if I couldn’t predict what you hear my job would be impossible (given I am manipulating sound all day long).

Further, the more you know about sound technology, be it the effects of manipulating various frequencies, what speaker measurements mean, what cable measurements mean, etc, the more you can predict what *you* will hear.

(I’ve known some amazing mixers who often blew me away at how accurately they identified frequency deviations - and knew exactly what things would sound like with a tweak of a dial).

And remember that audio equipment manufacturers, for instance speaker designers, clearly have knowledge about what technical parameters relate to which subjective effects. If they didn’t, they’d all be thrashing around in the dark, and experience, knowledge and expertise would count for nothing. Any decent speaker designer, for instance, would know what to tweak in their crossover design/drivers that will predictably produce, say, a more forward or deeper more recessed soundstage, etc.

Funny how the complaint of people have an "axe to grind" only ever goes one way on this forum.
Always aimed at someone who may be more skeptical about the claims of cable manufacturers. But if you fall in line with "of course cables make a difference" then everything thrown the other way is forgiven.

calvinj, for instance, has made this thread to declare to all skeptics high end cables make a difference.
And over and over keeps disparaging the hearing of anyone who disagrees with him. As he just as yet again "for those of us with good ears they make a difference."

Well, what can some cloth eared person who may be more skeptical say in the face of the proclamations of Golden Ears that their Golden Ears can’t be wrong? Nothing much but to bow on obeisance I guess...dare we voice an alternative view "why do you have such an Axe to grind???!!!

I dunno. I sure see a lot of what looks like an axe to grind being tossed at anyone skeptical about high end cabling.  This thread being yet another example.

dlcockrum,

It’s a forum comprised of people with different taste and viewpoints.What ever gets "resolved" here? Nothing that I can see. In fact, what is supposed to be resolved? You don’t see everyone agreeing on speakers, or speaker design, or amps/amp design, record cleaning, etc.

This thread is nothing different from the norm for most threads, whether it's a discussion about an audio brand, or some aspect of audio philosophy or any part of the hobby: people express their options on a subject, their reason why they hold them. Some other people agree, others don’t.

You are a wise and unsullied prophet...here to save us from ourselves...

Nope.

The only suggestion I have is that your posts should be less brief and concise.

!

Here is a simple suggestion: if you think ANYTHING makes your music more satisfying then get it if you prefer. If you think NOTHING will make your system give you more listening pleasure, then it is easy to take care of that.

I'm trying to figure out what you think you just added to this conversation.  Do you think anyone here is actually arguing that you shouldn't buy what you want for your system?


Not that I've seen.

I don’t understand why some of you are so concerned with what other people think.

Well, it's a discussion forum.   It wouldn't be much of a discussion forum if nobody cared what anyone else thought.  This is a place to share our thoughts about high end audio, right?

The thread asked the question "do cables really matter?"  A bunch of people think the answer is obviously yes, some are a bit more cautious, others giving a more skeptical opinion.   Nobody is sending goose-stepping soldiers in to people's homes to take away their expensive cables.  Nor demanding anyone accept their own view or opinions.What is it that alarms you?  People voicing different opinions?

Do what you like and just enjoy YOUR music. Enjoy.

Uh....thanks! 

Time to turn off the lights in the forum I guess.  We've got the go-ahead to just stop talking and enjoy our music!   ;-)

@rodman99999

@prof- You seem to believe that studios don’t believe cables matter.

No I never said that. It wasn’t my point at all.


I’m aware that the occasional (and often catering to audiophiles) studio use some boutique cabling. But that’s not the norm and it doesn’t necessarily demonstrate anything about the cables they’ve chosen.

I’ve also known people in music and movie sound post production (e.g. sound mixers) who are audiophiles, and who buy audiophile cables for their home systems (though rarely the super expensive stuff), along with many who do not.

The fact that any engineer, or studio, chooses to buy more expensive audiophile cables doesn’t establish that the cables are any "better."It’s not like placebo and various bias effects just stop if you are in the sound business. That would be like saying "because I’m a scientist, my hypothesis is true." But of course scientists are wrong all the time about their hypotheses. That’s why it’s the method that counts, not the person.

For an engineer who claims some set of cables are better than another, it would come down to what method he used to judge that. Usually good engineers would have a technical hypothesis that can be measured.If we are talking about sound engineers (not EEs or whatever) simply selecting new cables because "they sounded better to us" then that’s just the same anecdotal evidence that any other audiophile uses to select cables. And anyone is susceptible to bias effects.


Am I saying the cables selected by the studios you named are in fact no better than other industry standard cables? No. I wouldn’t know that.(Although I’m skeptical). All I’m saying is that piling on more of the very anecdotal-style evidence that I find questionable doesn't really help.

And as I’ve said: the point I’ve been making about standard studio cabling (which is all over the map, insofar as I’m referencing variety of sources that audiophiles listen to, spanning decades and decades of recording), is that boutique-style audiophile cables are not required for extremely high fidelity signal transmission. Is it possible that *some* audiophile cables are even better quality than most ever used for recordings? I suppose it’s possible. But, even if true, it does not seem *necessary* to spend that extra money in order to have your cables transmit extremely high fidelity signals, given "standard" cable is used to do this all the time.

@david_ten

I honestly don’t know if you were serious in giving teo’s posts props, given I have yet to see anything but what looks like irrelevant (or specious) drive-by philosophizing from him. Though I may certainly have missed some excellent posts by teo, virtually all I’ve seen (at least in these types of threads) fall pretty heavily into the geoffkait category.

What I see are vague attempts at establishing some elitism for those who
believe the tweakier side of high end audio - various versions of "those poor skeptical souls are unenlightened." E.g.:

It’s why we have such threads as cable debates. Some people live with an outward projection only, and some have a two way path of awareness, which is what is required to build a self beyond the basics.

And some of those who don’t like what skeptics have to say seem to fall for Teo’s faux-philosophical tone, noticing it’s disparagement of critics supports their own feelings, and think "wow...deep...and so right!"

But what I haven’t actually seen from Teo is an actual cogent argument, that would show his points are directly pertinent to, or act as an actually justified critique, of anyone’s points.  In other words: I've yet to see Teo do anything other than raise vague strawmen.

But...hey...I could be wrong. Is Teo doing anything other than appealing to people’s biases with his vague put-downs of skepticism?

Can you point to the relevance of anything teo just wrote to anything I’ve written. Anything that shows I’ve claimed something untrue, or unreasonable, for instance?

Ok David, thanks.  

^^^ Or maybe more like asking if Premium Gas really gets you better mileage or makes your car go faster?
;-)

Ok teo,

Your previous post about Einstein and death threats was completely irrelevant. (And you’ll find a similar post to the one you made in virtually every pseudo-science forum. "They called X scientist crazy too, you know! Critiques of X claim are just being dogmatic!" If you think any of it amounted to a relevant critique of anything I’ve written here, you just haven’t been reading at all carefully).

You have been doing your best to cast aspersions on folks like myself for voicing some caution in the face of the claims made by the high end cable industry, retailers and audiophiles.

Note, btw, the author of the very paper you cited also includes similar skepticism in his conclusion:

AUTHOR OF PAPER: "The audio cable market certainly owes something to the appeal of audio jewellery but there is also, with little doubt, a significant element of sell-delusion on the part of consumers and probably also reviewers, retailers and manufacturers."

Of course you don’t quote that part ;-)


But at least in posting links to that paper, you are moving toward some specificity. But not quite yet.

The above post addresses your desires directly.

No it doesn’t. You are still posting stuff without making the direct connections - and hence actual argument - that I asked for.

Remember what I’d asked:

prof: Can you point to the relevance of anything teo just wrote to anything I’ve written. Anything that shows I’ve claimed something untrue, or unreasonable, for instance?

First...you did not in fact show that what you previously wrote - in your "Eisntien" post - was a relevant critique of what I’ve written.

But as you’ve ignored that, now you’ve just posted a link to a single paper. So, please explain how that paper undermines the position I’ve taken here, or shows I’ve been unreasonable or claimed untruths. Can you do this...WITHOUT cherry-picking something I wrote while ignoring the context I’ve given my position in this thread?


That’s what I’m waiting for: for you to actually, specifically justify your critiques.


Thanks.

cd318,

It’s always struck me as telling that audiophiles/reviewers/cable manufacturers will describe these awesome so-obvious-you-are-deaf-if-you-can’t-hear-it changes made by a given cable.

But when you ask people to identify the cable when they aren’t personally swapping the cables so they don’t know which is which, suddenly you get "but you need such a Highly Resolving System to pick up these differences...otherwise they are too subtle to hear....and how in the world do you expect me to pick out these subtle difference reliably under SUCH STRESSFUL conditions as a blind test???!!!

Seems a sort of wanting things both ways: obvious differences that skeptics must be deaf not to discern; differences then become so subtle that the mere addition of blind controls make the differences impossible to reliably discern.



*(That’s in regards to many typical replies to skeptics suggesting blind tests for cables, where such cable-loving audiophiles reject blind testing. That’s not to say that blind testing automatically invalidates all claims of cable differences. Although one can find numerous examples of blind tests that did not support cable differences, there are also some that suggest people heard differences).

ron1319,

That sounds like fun!

Though so long as your helper knows she's switching cables (or not) the test isn't double blind.   But still, the results will be interesting to hear about.  (Double blind tests for various equipment can be quite hard to set up, but I've done a number of single blind tests, though with seemingly low probability of experimenter bias,  that have been interesting).  

teo_audio wrote:

It’s been covered that due to how the human body works, hearing and mind aspects, that double blind testing for sonic comparison purposes...beyond a very few basic a-b switches... does not work.

You may want to take that up with researchers like Dr. Floyd Toole and Dr. Sean Olive (not to mention a great many other companies that have used double blind testing to develop, for instance, new digital audio codecs).

It’s always interesting how cable-differences-promoters like Teo don’t seem to have any problem with causal, sighted comparisons - a scenario well known scientifically to introduce human bias variables - for showing positive results. One doesn’t, for instance, see Teo objecting to the methods used to produce a favorable sighted review of his cables in a recent audiophile site.

But as soon as the subject turns to blind testing, especially those that don’t show positive results, well then it’s time to nit-pick the test methodology to death, even casting doubt on the scientific enterprise of blind testing.


Funny this double-standard.

As always, I would ask Teo to explain how he can invalidate the results of blind testing, while not cutting off the branch he is sitting on. That is, if you are going to cast doubt on the method that takes the most rigorous attempt at reducing known variables, how in the world will you justify a less rigorous method that will be vulnerable to well known variables (e.g. human perceptual biases)?


And note that when people try to nit pick blind testing for audio, they will tend to start referencing research that suggests our auditory memory becomes problematic in certain test circumstances. Most good DBTs take this in to account. But the conundrum happens because tests that indicate problematic areas for DBTs tend to revolve around the problem that more subtle the difference, the worse our audio memory is. But even given this, it should give little comfort to the cable-loving segment of audiophiles. This is because all you have to do is look at the claims routinely made for the effects of high end cables, in which the audible differences are often claimed to be far from subtle. e.g.

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/has-anyone-tried-these-stunning-new-cpt-power-cord

And how often is a skeptic’s hearing questioned by those advocating the sonic differences of high end cables? It’s virtually certain that at some point the skeptic’s hearing is questioned because they fail to hear differences that are SO OBVIOUS.

But once it comes to asking if someone can hear those differences when they don’t know which cable they are listening to, then those differences seem to grow smaller, and smaller - blind tests not sensitive enough! - and the excuses grow longer and more numerous.

Again, I’m not in the camp that just denies audio cables can sound different. But at the same time, the type of objections many audiophiles - and those selling cables ^^^^ - raise against more controlled testing scenarios are often unconvincing (and often naive).

geoffkait,

Not to mention negative results of double blinds tests signify nothing.

Sure geoff.
That's why if you come to the FDA proposing to sell a new drug treatment, and your blinded clinical trial results were all negative for showing efficacy, the FDA won't think twice about approving your drug.

Negative results of blind trials have no significance.  Nope.

Yeesh.

geoffkait,

What is it you don’t understand about things that can change the outcome of tests that are outside the control of person or persons performing the test?

Of course! That’s why there are test protocols to reduce the likely influence of confounding factors. Is any test foolproof? Of course not. But it’s silly not to recognize that some test protocols would be better than other test protocols.

Don’t you know someone who is all thumbs?

Ha. Ok geoff, I’ll give you this: you’ve produced a novel level of bad argument against blind testing, the "some people are all thumbs, so blind testing is useless" argument. Maybe we can come up with a catchy acronym?

Besides, there is absolutely no (rpt no) similarity between the medical or pharmaceutical industries and audio,

Except of course that both cases share the same problem that human subjects (and experimenters) introduce the variables of bias and perceptual errors. Which suggests the wisdom in both cases to control for such confounding variables.

But, sure, let’s just accept that the field of high end audio, and human perception in that field, is magically excepted from these concerns.We know this suits certain business models ;-)

ganainm,

I’m totally with you, and have myself reiterated many times: I’m not arguing that anyone shouldn’t buy whatever makes him/her happy, for whatever reason they want. Nor do I advocate turning every purchase we make into a scientific double-blind experiment. I have had numerous bits of gear, even some tweakier stuff, that I’d think is well on the fringe of actual audibility (or well over the cliff). But it’s stuff that makes me happy, and I’ve even been happy enough to avail myself of likely placebo effects here and there. I’d hate for anyone to demand how I spend my money and would never push my own standards on others.

It’s only when people start making objective claims about reality, using their own subjectivity as the apparent standard of reality, that I think becomes problematic. So I add my own opinions and reasons for believing as I do, as a counterbalance. I’ve been very glad over the many years of inhabiting audio forums to have seen rigorous debate about these issues, as they have been quite helpful in guiding my own approach to my system. (And saving money!).

The problem is many people don’t seem that acquainted with the principles of rigorous empirical inquiry, as exemplified in science.
If you question their subjective experience, they react emotionally and defensively, thinking it’s an insult or that you are being dogmatic and arrogant, as in "who are YOU to tell me what I did or didn’t experience??!!"

But of course all we are doing is applying the principles learned and used in science; acknowledging the obvious fact that we are fallible, including our perception and our inferences from our experience, and trying to account for that fallibility. The example I’ve used before: my son is involved in a long term double-blind study w. placebo control group, for a new allergy treatment. The doctors are not allowed to know who is on the real medicine or on the placebo. Why? Because we know their having such knowledge can influence/bias the outcome of the trials.Do the study doctors protest "What? Are you trying to tell me I can’t trust my own judgement to get around my bias? What insulting nonsense! I’ve used my judgement to get through life, and I’ll use my knowledge of who is on the medicine and who is not to get through this study just fine thank you"

Of course the doctors don’t throw such a fit. Because they are simply acquainted with the facts of the matter about human bias, and the need to control for that variable.


But when these variables are raised in threads like this you invariably raise hackles as if you’ve attacked someone’s religion, or at least some of their cherished beliefs. It’s understandable on one level because, hey, our subjectivity is essentially our main tool for getting through life and making inferences about how things work. Threaten someone’s strongly held belief based on a strong subjective experience and it seems on the surface a bit destabilizing. One can say "Oh yes, I agree we need that rigor for certain areas of science...but I don’t need it to come to firm conclusions in my audio hobby." And in that way compartmentalize things. But unfortunately, human bias doesn’t stay compartmentalized like that and it seems the honest thing to do is admit it, and take this in to account when deciding on how strong our claim is going to be about cables and other things, where objectively verifiable evidence is less forthcoming.


(That said, I think many in this particular thread, including those who believe cables often make a sonic difference, seem more open to the points being made by some of us more skeptical critters).

^^^^

*fist bump for ganainm*

elizabeth,

I am totally in the audio cables can make a difference camp, but I can also say some folks ARE bamboozled by hype and cost and size and bling.

But not you? ;-)

I kid...but with a serious point; in the cases you believe to hear differences between cables, how have you determined you, yourself, have not been bamboozled? Surely, such fallibility isn’t just a problem for other people.

elizabeth,

Thanks for those details.

In those cases, it certainly seems that you did not fall for a certain type of expectation effect (e.g. that something newer, or more expensive, will sound better).

However, that's not the only way perceptual biases work.  First, expectation bias doesn't work with perfect regularity only in that direction (expecting better).   Perceptual errors can work the other way, hearing something as worse - even when there may be no actual audible difference.   When we start looking for differences, very often we find them whether they are "there" objectively or not, and then we may decide we don't like a difference we think we perceive.

It reminds me of years ago when I had several levels of power cords to test out from a big manufacturer, from their modest version to their expensive.  I was of the mindset that I wasn't sure if they would make a difference or not so I would have said "I'm not biased to think these more expensive cables make a difference."  When I heard the "cheapest" one on my system, which was still many hundreds of dollars more than the stock power cords I'd been using, I didn't perceive any difference.  "See, I did just go and think I heard a difference just because it's a more expensive boutique power cord.  I'm not biased!"

Then I heard the next one.  Thought...well maybe I am hearing something.

Went to the most expensive.  Wow!  Such an obvious change!  Bigger, richer sound, more organic.  Loved what I thought I was hearing and "it's not because of bias, I wasn't expecting this!" 
 

But then after a while I thought part of the effect of the cable was to make my system sound tonally darker than I liked.  Ok, so now it's doing something obvious I don't like.

But then I decided to have a pal help be blind test it against a stock power cord.  Then, when I didn't know which was playing...voila!...the differences I was sure I heard vanished.  No "extra smooth, richer, more organic and darker sonic signature" was there to distinguish the very expensive power cable from the $15 stock cable!

That was one of the early encounters with the power of my own perceptual biases that made quite an impression.  It's hard not to do some re-orientating once you've been shown the power of your biases and how utterly sure you can be about something you perceive, yet show that inference to be entirely questionable.   


(BTW, I used and loved my Meridian 508.20 CD player for many years and at one point jumped "up" to the "better, newer" 508.24 player.   Yet I was disheartened in perceiving the 508.24 as less engaging than my 508.20 so I sold it at a loss.  I know where you are coming from on that).

The most recent instance where I used blind testing was when I changed music servers, from imac/itunes to a raspberry pi/logitech server.  The last thing I expected was a sonic difference, and yet the new server immediately sounded more pinched and "brighter" to my ears.  After a while I had someone help be blind test against the itunes/logitech server and the difference I thought I heard was gone; they were indistinguishable to me.  From then on the new server never bothered me and the "brightness" never seemed to appear again.


Again, these are just examples concerning the principle that perceptual bias and mistakes are not so simple as "I expect to hear a difference so I'll hear one"  or "I didn't expect to hear a difference, but I did, so it wasn't a case of expectation bias."  There are various factors going on.

Anyway, I won't pursue that any further, and thanks again for your input!

elizabeth,

I think you have a general misunderstanding of the implications of what I’ve written.

I simply acknowledge my fallibility, and have no problem doing so. It causes me little concern. Blind testing is just an occasional tool in the toolbox, I’m far from turning everything in to a science experiment and as I said I happily let my criteria loosen whenever I want.

So take cables, the subject of this thread and forum. I can’t remember the last time I gave much thought at all about cables, in terms of being concerned about replacing my cables.  The particular AC cable blind test I referenced was probably in the early 2000s, and I haven’t been bothered about AC cables since. Yet, if I had NOT done that blind test (as well as looked in to the controversies about AC cables) I may well be among all those who fret about AC cables for practically every piece of gear they buy. I’ve got two monoblock amps, an integrated tube amp, two preamps, phono stage, DAC, etc. That right there is a lot of AC cables that I may have thought I had to replace in order to realize the heights of my system. Not to mention my home theater gear as well. But I’m spared all that money and research because I have reasons not to think it’s a priority.

The same goes for all my cabling, speaker wire, interconnects etc. Can’t remember the last time I fretted about the sonic qualities of any of my cables. I’m spared all the extra money and time many here spend on cable swapping.

If I get a new piece of gear, I don’t burn mental energy worrying about burn in - "is it sounding right yet? Is it finished burning in?" - like many on this site.

When it came to that recent music server change and I thought I heard an issue, turning to a blind test actually *stopped* me fretting about the sound. If I’d been like many audiophiles I would more likely have presumed my perception was right, that there was something "wrong" with the sound of my new server. And that mindset could easily have sent me in to the den of computer audiophiles who think everything makes a sonic difference, replacing every bit of the chain they can. God knows how much chasing of "solutions" I may have gone through to "fix" the sonic problem my ears "told me" was the case.

But I knew that the first variable I could check out easily enough was my own perception. So, a pal drops over and in a little over 1/2 hour we’ve done some blind testing that completely relieved me of the impression anything was wrong. Done. No more thought at all about it.

So I think you’ve actually got it the wrong way around: it’s often folks who utterly trust their hearing over any objective evidence to the contrary, who seem to fret far more about their system, with every little thing making a sonic difference, constant upgrading of cables, chasing all sorts of tweaks, etc.

Believe me, I can be an obsessive audiophile, but it tends to be when I’m in speaker shopping mode. Much of the other stuff that audiophiles sweat; I don’t.

(BTW, as I have other audiophile pals including a friend who reviews, I still get to hear and play with occasionally various boutique audiophile cables - sometimes when I need some cables I’ll get some spare or cast off audiophile-company cables, or we will check out new cables at their place. But for my system, even though I have some audiophile cables still sprinkled here and there as they were given to me, I don’t fret much about it, so long as I have cables with the basic specs to do the job I need).


On the other hand, you seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of just admitting your own fallibility (in terms of your perception and inferences form what you believe you hear). I wonder why that is? I think it’s pretty liberating to be able to acknowledge "I could be wrong...."

Wow elizabeth. Classy!

My responses to you were polite and honest. And after my first substantial response I finished saying "Anyway, I won’t pursue that any further, and thanks again for your input!"


So I was done.

But you chose to respond with a snide bit characterizing me as not trusting myself and not knowing which way was up or down. THAT was a baiting type of response, not mine.

So I politely explained how your characterization was inaccurate. And then again you’ve gone back to simply disparaging my character, without showing where I was unreasonable.


I’m not the one making baiting posts here. If you want to join in a thread clearly about debating the merits of cables, but are inclined to critique the person when you can’t point out a problem in their reasoning, then I’m not the one degrading the content of these threads.

At least my replies are there for more fair-minded folks to evaluate.

As you demonstrate, elizabeth, brevity is easy when you reduce your posts to attacking the person, not the content.
Stay classy. ;-)

Al and mapman,
Thank you for the nice comments. 

I see calvinj is still running with the old "ears or gear" response to cable skeptics. Which is of course just another form of put down - if you don’t hear these amazing cable differences either your ears are crap or your gear is crap...hey, don’t shoot the messenger ;-).

There are many reasons this is a dubious defense. First, this "ears or gear" put down has been used whenever audiophiles are defending claims of audible differences to skeptics - differences between solid state amps, various tweaks, you name it. And yet:

1. Many blind/double blind tests have been run using claimed "golden eared audiophiles," including audio reviewers, and with high end systems of all manner, and the claims of "easily audible differences" often did not survive these tests.


2. If we were talking about truly minute differences easily buried in the noise floor, THEN it would start to make some sense that one needs a super high resolution system to be able to discern these differences.
But ultra-minute differences ARE NOT THE TYPE of audible differences often ascribed to cables by audiophiles (much less manufacturers). Rather, we are often told cables make BIG, OBVIOUS, YOU HAVE TO BE DEAF NOT TO NOTICE differences. And those differences typically involve "extended/smoother highs, fuller mids, lower/tighter bass, punchier or looser sound, expanded soundstaging, more precise imaging...and on and on. All sorts of "unmistakable" sonic differences.

The type of new signal conveyed to a loudspeaker by these cables describes all the types of differences that should be and are audible via any number of modest, well designed speakers. For instance, I have a very old pair of cheap two way box speakers from Thiel, before they went all high-end and first order crossovers. It would surely bring some laughs as put up against the "super resolving" modern speakers others are using. And yet these speakers are fully capable of showing me differences from large to subtle. A soundstage expands from one recording to the next? I’ll hear it. Smoother highs on one recording, slightly tighter bass from another? It will be there. New master of a recording; easily heard. And the most subtle notching of the frequency response via an EQ is easily audible. But somehow all the grossly large differences a fancy cable would transmit, just wouldn’t be audible???(And though I have had many "highly resolving" loudspeakers, including my current Thiel 3.7/2.7s and MBL 121s which use the mids/tweeter often seen as world class in resolution....any of my more modest monitors - Spendor, Waveform, Hales etc - also show me all manner of subtle sonic differences).

It reminds me of listening to my brother’s album masters. He often invites me over to evaluate several different masters for his album. Yet, struggling musician that he is, he just uses and old JVC amp, plain-jane cables, and some really old modest PSB speakers. And yet...miracle of miracles!...we can easily discern all the subtle differences between masters - a slight brightness here, a bit of grain there, reverb and space slightly truncated here, depth expanding there, a bit tighter and punchier, or a bit more lush, etc. Most of the same sonic attributes audiophiles often talk about when comparing cables, seem discernible on modest sound systems.

So again, to be clear on what I’m saying: I am not of course saying that some speaker systems are not capable of more resolution than others. Rather, I’m saying that the TYPE of audible differences often attributed to changing cables are of a nature that should not require super high resolution systems, as those type of sonic differences can be heard in relatively modest speaker systems.



3. We hear from audiophiles with a wide variety of systems claiming audio cable differences, AC cable differences, power conditioner differences. It is not remotely contained to audiophiles with Ultra High Resolving Systems. And yet when people with more modest systems claim audible differences, it seems those claims are just accepted: "Well of course you heard differences...cable difference are easy to hear!"

Which leads me to provisionally conclude:

4. This common "ears or gear" response is just an excuse to yet again find a put down of anyone skeptical, with little evidence but self-serving anecdotes (well I can hear it on MY system!).

(And btw, while the above shows I don’t go along with calvinj’s "ears/gear" stance, if he would like to compare gear and listening experience, and general experience in the world of reproduced sound...we can do that ;-))

Well gosh, if a group wants a discussion among folks who only want to discuss differences in cables they think they hear, with others of the same mind set, by all means do so and have fun. Just call it something other than "DO CABLES MAKE A DIFFERENCE...." which seems to invite dissenting opinions.

Exactly!

This is what I pointed out before. Why in the world start a thread asking IF cables make a difference....and then complain when people actually give their views, pro *and* con?

Previous threads have been similar, asking this question but when anyone provides the other view, the skeptical side, you get versions of "Why are you here bothering us? Can’t you just leave us alone!!?"It’s like "Do cables make a difference? Note: The only people welcome to comment are those who think they make a difference." Then...why ASK?


And it’s not like those of us with questions about cable claims are chasing cable-lovers all around the place. This sub-forum is filled with people happily discussing their cables. Personally I generally only enter these "debates" when that is the actual subject of a thread. And still EVEN in threads in which the opposing view seems to be asked for, if you give it you come in for personal and disparaging remarks here.


Also I find comments from, say, elizabeth quite strange about skeptics "raising hell." How would someone "raise hell" just voicing their own skeptical view of cables? That seems to imply a rather emotional/dogmatic commitment on the part of a cable lover if encountering someone else’s lack of belief just ruins their day.


In the case of calvinj starting this thread, I think it’s become apparent that he never really was interested in any in-depth conversation, or challenging of his own view, so much as just posting the OP as a put-down of anyone skeptical. Yes, yes we know calvinj, we’ll all get our ears looked at and upgrade our crap equipment....as you’ve told us many times how deficient we are.

rbstehno,

I don’t think you quite got the point I had made.

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).

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.

What you seemed to miss in my analogy to cameras, is that EVEN IF it were the case an audiophile cable were able to transmit more sonic information than the cables used to make the recording, if you are using that cable on the other side of the recording process - in your sound system - for the most part you are still limited to "viewing" the information at the level it was "sampled" by the original cables used to make that source. Your new cables can’t create new information that never got to the source recording in the first place. Just like using an 4K display to view a 1080p source, if almost everything you ever watch was recorded with a 1080p camera, you are not seeing more than 1080p even on your 4K display.

So essentially calvinj has shown, repeatedly, that he really just created this thread to troll people who are more skeptical than he is about cables.

Elizabeth also was happy enough to enter this thread and "alienate another audiophile" and "drive the nail in."

And yet we see complaints ini this same thread that "cable skeptics" are the ones looking to agitate.

nonoise,

Thanks, but I found your post fairly confusing, not sure exactly what you wanted to argue. Because it seemed at some points you acknowledged that standard cable used for the recording transmitted 100% of the signal...and then at another point seemingly leaped to the idea you want a "better cable" to transmit that same information in your stereo system.

The way you got there didn’t make sense.

So, as you said:

The music residing in that recording is there even if it came across on some run of the mill Belden cable.

Right. The incredible sound of many recordings that blow audiophiles away was easily transmitted via run of the mill cables.

The better cable will reveal more of it.

Wait...how can using a "better cable" in your stereo system "reveal more" than what is on the source (which was captured by, for sake of argument, standard Belden cables)?  That seems impossible.  You can't reveal "more" of what wasn't there; the only thing there to "reveal" is what was transmitted by the original, basic recording/mastering cables.

Can you clarify your argument for me?

Thanks.

Sorry nonoise, I still can’t make heads or tails of what you are saying, and I see nothing addressing the point I had repeated to you. (I think maritime51 is right about this, but I’ll try pressing on for a moment).

There are better made cables that allow more info to come forth.

That’s the very claim that is being questioned here. What is your evidence for this? Take a standard Belden 10-gauge 5T00UP for, say, a 6 foot speaker cable run. I choose this because Belden has been making professional industry standard cables for decades upon decades, know what they are doing, and because one can find test measurements for this cable, e.g:

https://www.audioholics.com/gadget-reviews/blue-jeans-10awg-speaker-cable-5t00up/blue-jeans-cable-me...



Can you point to independent measurements of a high end audiophile cable showing it transmits "more info?"

You’ve said as much earlier when you admitted that a minute amount improvement can’t account for the big increases that some say they hear and appreciate.

Essentially, yes. But you seem to mistakenly infer I have agreed that people actually ARE hearing the BIG improvements they claim, rather than it being from bias/imagination etc. Maybe some people are hearing real differences; but it's hard to discern in which cases that may be,  when it's all anecdote with no controlling for imagination and bias.

I say they do.

Well....anyone can say anything. But that’s called "begging the question" given what is under debate.

The signal measured shows everything to be okay but it doesn’t take into account what is smeared or messed with by a lesser cable.

Wait, so you are saying a standard cable can measure just fine, but the measurements don’t take in to account "smearing and messing up" of the signal? That’s not making sense; can you explain better? How do you know a cable is smearing/messing things up....if measurements show it’s passing the signal fine?

The smeared or compromised sound is not what’s getting through in the final recording. It’s what being heard while it happens. And it’s repeatable until a better cable is used. Then, one can hear and appreciate the difference.

Try as I might, I can make no sense of that paragraph. (Can anyone else parse what nonoise is trying to say?)

I still don’t see how you have addressed the issue I raised: IF you are hearing wonderful sonics from a recording that was created using regular cables, THEN that tells you what type of sonic information those regular cables are capable of transmitting.

Ok nonoise, I can see we can't go any further.  I think you would probably have a more meeting-of-the-minds with Teo, as you seem operating on the same wavelength.    ;-)

Wow, discussions in the cable forum can get strange.

^^^^^  and...there we go again....

Another in-depth analysis of the issue.

ron1319,

I am going to buy a USB cable because even though I’ve only listened to one of them so far, I’m 99% sure I will be able to differentiate between my printer cable and the better USB cable blind. My current belief is that the difference wasn’t subtle which is not what I expected.

Have you ever considered, just for the heck of it, having someone help you with a quick blind test of your cables. If you are getting new USB cables, that should be a pretty easy swap.

In my case my source equipment is in a different room from my speakers, so that makes it easier to set up a test where I can’t see/hear what’s going on during the swapping.


Though even if you have your source in the same room as the speakers, I"m sure you could do a blind test with someone helping so you don’t know which cable they swapped in. It may not pass peer review...but even informal blind tests at home can still be somewhat surprising and mind-opening :-)

unreceivedogma,

Yes blind testing is used all over the place, including in physics.

It’s even used by orchestras in auditioning players, to remove things like gender bias:

https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias

But of course, blind testing and science just can’t apply to the mysterious realm of high end audio. It’s Just So Different you see! People can make all the inferences they want in high end audio and magically avoid bias. (Even though, of course, bias can be shown...but don’t let facts get in our way...)

calvinj,
I see you aren't done baiting people.  What a sweetheart.

Though you started a thread with a poor attitude and continued it, fortunately some have entered with an interest in honest conversation.

elizabeth,

A few things....(and I realize this will likely go longer than you may want to read, but others may be interested in this response):

1. The first thing is to note how you seem to be speaking about cable differences. If, as your post implies, the differences between cables can disappear so readily when you are simply asked to listen under blind conditions, that in of itself suggests the differences are not of a scope commonly claimed for cables. We constantly hear about BIG OBVIOUS differences, often describing obvious tightening, or deepening of bass (or the reverse), obviously larger soundstages, extending/refining high frequencies, lusher or tighter midrange, less grain, more dynamic, and on and on.

As I wrote before: these type of differences are akin to what one may hear from a totally re-mastered album.


And yet the idea floated here is that those OBVIOUS differences just won’t be heard when you don’t know which cable you are listening to.

I work in post sound production manipulating sound all day long, in large and often very subtle ways (sometimes I’m literally tweaking, or matching the sound of the "air" in a room). I can guarantee you that if I took a sound, made a copy and very slightly tweaked it, say increasing volume by 3dB or tweaking it via EQ to slightly brighten it, or add the teeniest touch of reverb, I could blindfold you and you would be able to tell the difference during fast switching back and forth. (Of the time of say, allowed by an ABX box).

I’m sure this would not "stress you out" to where you could not longer hear such differences, especially because they are real, and discernible to most listeners. The same would go for comparing an album that was re-mastered to sound different from the original, in the way that many cable-lovers claim occurs with cables.

It CAN get tiring trying to discern audible differences to the degree they are very subtle. The less subtle, the less work you have to do, the more subtle, the more you have to concentrate to find any difference. But again, note that audiophiles typically swap in a new pair of cables and, with no "strain of concentration" at all, confidently declare they heard an obvious difference. For the most part, these types of differences should not be a "strain" to hear, even in blind testing.

2. It’s a common misunderstanding of blind tests, particularly the ABX type used for amps, cables etc, that it has to be done under a condition that causes "stress." Ideally one uses fast switching (due to problematic audible memory for subtle differences - the longer it takes between switching, the less able we are to keep a very subtle sound in memory). But fast switching does not automatically entail listening to fast snippets of sound - rather it simply means being able to switch quickly from one sound to the other when you DO want to compare them. A blind test can be as leisurely as you want...over months if you want, switching whenever you feel as relaxed as you please.


Tom Nousaine, a well known proponent of blind/ABX testing did quite a few extended bind tests with audiophiles (for instance a five week long blind test between two amplifiers Andromeda vs HCA800II).


3. Blind tests don’t mean actual audible differences necessarily go away.Even in my case, I successfully identified differences between an older CD player, newer CD player and a DAC (either with 100 percent, or almost 100 percent accuracy, as I remember).

4. What blind tests can test: Despite the ever present noise level on threads like these - that is geofkait’s muddying of the water ;-) - one just has to be clear on what we want to test.

For instance, if an INDIVIDUAL claims to be able to hear a difference between his new cable and his previous cable, THAT can be tested via DBT. If the individual doesn’t show a statistically suggestive result for identifying between the two cables, strictly speaking you can conclude he failed to demonstrate his own ability to discern between the cables. If the results are strong enough, you can provisionally conclude "sorry bud, you can’t really hear a difference." Does that mean that the cables don’t sound different at all, or that no one at all could hear the difference? No. But the general audibility wasn’t being tested; the capability of the individual to discern between those cables was being tested.

You can ask other question like "Can a bunch of average non-audiophiles tell the difference between A and B cables?" You can set up that test, and potentially get strong results suggesting they can not. (Or the reverse).

You can ask the question can a golden eared audiophile, or a group of such, hear differences? Again...you can get a result relevant to the question the test is set up to investigate.

You can ask "Are the differences between X and Y cable audible in a general sense among human beings?" Then you go and test a wide enough variety of people, with enough tests, look at the results and see in which direction they point - are you stuck with the null hypothesis, or are the results positive for the hypothesis the cable differences are audible? There are any number of scientific tests arriving at such generalities (e.g. with some rare exceptions, humans can’t hear above 20 kHz).

The results are never conclusive in some Absolute sense....but then nothing in science, or life, really is. You just gather ever stronger evidence to support a conclusion.

As I said, I’ve done various blind tests and I draw my own conclusions from my experience, as we all ultimately do (although obviously there are better and worse analysis of how our experience fits with wider sets of facts...)  So for me, if I blind test some items and I find it so difficult to hear the difference that I end up guessing, then it’s sitting at a level of difference that I’m not going to worry much about. I’ll save my money if one is more expensive than the other. And I think it’s too bad more audiophiles don’t avail themselves of this tool - are have been mislead about it by blind test naysayers. Tons of people end up spending amazing amounts of money on items that may not have made the difference they thought. I’ve seen many posts by people who have spent lots of money on cables saying "look, I wish they didn’t make a difference because they cost me so much money, but since they DO make a difference, I’ve spent the money." If such people availed themselves of some blind testing they *may* find out they didn’t need to spend that money. Certainly you can go the route of "I don’t care about all that blind testing stuff - my sighted experience is part of my perception and if I hear a difference, well that’s my experience and I’m happy to pay for it."


That’s cool. I actually go that route sometimes myself. But I don’t see why it’s ever better to do something via less information via more. If one WANTS to make sure their money is paying for "real" performance differences, one can try some blind testing, but if one is happy with the experience of sighted results, one can do that as well.

I really appreciate your reply elizabeth, thank you!

cd318,

geoff doesn't even try honest debate where you respond reasonably to what the other party actually wrote.  It's like playing a game of darts with someone who never even hits the board, but keeps tossing darts towards the toilet.  You get tired of picking darts out of the toilet, as that is the game they are really playing.

taras22,

Ok, so you made an admittedly silly equivalence between a change in 3dB and the change in lights from on and off in an a room. 


I portrayed that difference as subtle but distinct.  Which it is. And for reasons backed up by the links I gave.

So what's left?  What does claiming you and others here are not "average" have to do with what I've been saying, which is that if the audible differences between cables are so obvious and distinctly heard  as many claim (by Golden Eared audiophiles, if you wish), they should be discernible in blind testing by those same people?


It looks like this was the end game of your comment:

Was just trying to get your goat, or more correctly, your herd of goats.

Great, more attempts to bait and annoy from the pro-audiophile-cables side.   What is it that brings out this need to bait instead of discuss?


Again, I find it ironic that people here complain that skeptics are troll-like and are just baiting others, and yet take a look at the character of the responses I keep getting here.

(And, thanks to those of you who *have* been open-minded to this discussion...unlike for instance the OP).

Ah, the classic "calm down" reply. "Why you so mad bruh"?

Baiting or silly replies are hardly reasons to get upset; I just point them out for what they are, and note they are relevant for claims that it’s the skeptics looking to tweak noses, not the other way around ;-)

No need for apologies taras22. We don’t all need to write dissertations in a comment section. (As I’m accused...somewhat rightly...of doing).

Nice to make the acquaintance of someone else doing more-or-less what I do! I’m off to make more sausage...

Cheers,

taras22,

Would you like to explain further?


Your comment suggests you misunderstand the relationship between altering acoustic energy levels and our perception of loudness.While increasing a sound by 3dB doubles the acoustic energy, we do not perceive a doubling of volume. This site puts it well:

https://www.abdengineering.com/blog/perception-vs-reality/

Perception:
Sound studies tell us time and again that a 3dBA increase in sound level is barely noticeable to the human ear. In fact, you have to raise a sound level by 5dBA before most listeners report a noticeable or significant change. Further, it takes a 10dBA increase before the average listener hears “double the sound.” That’s a far cry from 3dB.

More good info here:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-levelchange.htm

Your reply suggests that raising sound output by 3dB is like going from a dark room to a light room - e.g. implying a difference from soft to loud.  If you thought that raising a sound by 3dB would amount to a major difference in perceived volume, instead of the slight perceived volume increase it really is, you wouldn’t be much use in a mixing studio or post production sound editing job.


Yes, many people *can* perceive smaller increases in sound output, and that factor becomes more pronounced in quick switching scenarios, which is why you really have to be careful level matching for quick switching blind tests.


I can pretty much guarantee that if you were listening in my home theater to a movie, and you left for 1/2 hour, you wouldn’t be able to discern with confidence if I turned it up 1 dB, or 2 dB, and most likely even 3 dB.
(And that’s one reason why audiophiles relying on memory for *truly* subtle sonic differences is problematic).

But quick switching will reveal the differences more easily. I’m altering volume levels all day long, from 1 dB differences to much higher. I chose 3 dB because it is a subtle-but-distinct difference in volume in terms of our perception, that as I said elizabeth would reliably identify in a blind test. (But would not reliably identify, likely, in a test where the time between hearing each file was extended).

So, again, in terms of our perception, yes an increase of 3dB will be heard as a slight tweak in volume, vs a large change in volume. (Which is why if I want to raise the level of one track over another in a subtle degree, but distinctly audible, I often raise it by at least 3dB).


And I chose 3dB as an analogy because it is a subtle *but distinctly audible* change in sound, to illustrate that subtle *but distinctly audible* sounds should be discernible in blind testing fast switching. The claims made for cables are that the changes are *distinctly audible.* (And often not subtle). And if they are distinctly audible - especially audible alterations of bass, high frequencies, etc, they should not disappear in blind testing.


And your problem with this is....?

analogluvr,

You passed the reading test! ;-)

As you saw, I made it quite clear that any results from a well designed test are provisional, limited to the scope of that particular test or set of tests. Results never "prove" things but only possibly add data that do, or don’t add support for the hypothesis in question. You look at what you want to test, then you *do the scope of testing that hypothesis requires.* And you don’t draw conclusions beyond the scope of what you are actually testing for. When testing an individual, even if they "fail" multiple well designed blind trials that doesn’t mean there are no audible differences between the cables tested. The result is that individual simply didn’t demonstrate the claimed ability in a controlled test. Multiple trials will always, obviously, add more confidence in the results than single trials, whether it’s testing individuals, or groups. 

...

cleeds,

A listener can’t "fail" a listening test - that’s a common misnomer about scientific listening tests.

Did you notice the word was in quotes? That indicates it’s use was qualified - used advisedly - in this case a short-form term for not producing positive results in a blind listening test. I’d already clarified in more detail what inferences, strictly speaking, can be drawn from blind tests, which along with the quotes should have indicated I was using the term "fail" advisedly, not in a strict philosophical sense.

Secondly, it’s a misnomer to think that scientists don’t talk of subjects "failing" tests. Of course they do. For instance study subjects in medical trials can be said to have "failed to respond to the control treatment," etc.

More pointedly, you can test claims about individual people. If an individual claims to have a certain ability - e.g. to identify where hidden water is by dowsing - and controlled blind testing shows their positive hits turn out to be the same as expected for random guesses - one can rightly speak of that subject having "failed to demonstrate the ability in question under controlled test conditions." Exactly what I wrote about in the case of an individual audiophile who claims he can hear a difference between cable A and B, where the blind test results don’t support the claim.

A double-blind listening test doesn’t test the listener. It tests the devices under test.

Of course double blind (or single blind) listening tests can test a listener.
What do you think happens in a hearing test? It’s not testing the equipment; it’s testing what the listener can discern. The same can be said when testing an individual’s ability to discern between two audio cables.
Two different cables *may* be producing slightly different signals.  Or they may not.  But you can test if an individual reliably discerns between them.   If they produce statistically relevant postive results, it supports the claim they can hear a difference between the cables, and also implies there *is* a difference to be detected between the cables.  But if they do not produce statistically relevant positive results, you can't determine there is no difference between the cables; only that the listener in question failed to demonstrate the ability to discern between them under controlled conditions.

It may have been an off day for the individual, or it may be that they can’t reliably discern a difference, but other listeners can. So you can test claims relating to individuals via blind tests, using the device in question, but that does not necessarily constitute being able to come to conclusions about the device used in the test.

If you want to test a more general question like "are there audible differences between cable A and cable B?" then you set up many more tests, with a wider arrange of listeners, and gather ever more evidence pro or con for the hypothesis.

One’s confidence grows in scale with the amount of evidence, and at some point it could be reasonable to conclude "cable A is not audibly different than cable B." Just as wide ranging tests of human hearing sets the general audible high frequency limit for humans, with qualifications, at 20kHz.

It’s just a standard inductive inference from particular instances to a general conclusion. It’s never conclusive, but no inductive inference is conclusive in any absolute sense.


(And purveyors of pseudo-science love to harp about inductive inferences not being conclusive - "just because THOSE tests didn’t show an effect for my claim, it doesn’t mean there isn’t one that wouldn’t be demonstrated by another test! You could be wrong you know, you scientific dogmatists!" And they use lack of Absolute Certainty in the scientific method to insert their own wacky claims that "science hasn’t disproved!")

taras22,

Anecdotes from your days selling audio gear do not constitute a refutation of what cd318 wrote. (Selling! And we are to assume no bias may have entered the demonstration scenario to influence an outcomes benefiting the store?)


Not that I’m strictly defending the exact claim cd318 made...but the general spirit of the point made by cd318 - that so long as you have competently designed cheap stuff up front the hierarchy of sonic importance will go to the speakers, is quite reasonable.
If we are exchanging anecdotes: I’ve heard for instance John Otvos’ heralded (when they were available ) Waveform Mach 17 speakers driven at his house via cheap Kenwood amps and cheap no-name cables. That system to my and my audiophile companion’s ears outperformed much of what I’d heard elsewhere (at that time, I’d listened to most of the Big Name stuff, hooked up to gazillion-dollar sources and cables, at stores, shows, audio reviewer’s homes, fellow audiophile set ups, etc).

In terms of more strict test methodology for the type of claim you seem to be making, I don’t see in your example the rigorous attempts to control for possible confounding factors as I see in, for example, this test:

http://matrixhifi.com/contenedor_ppec_eng.htm

ATC SCM 12 speakers hooked up to both low end and high end sources, tested for a group of listeners blinded to the identity of the source.Results were consistent with random guessing.


So on one hand I can look at tests done by people clearly doing their best to reduce the contamination of bias, and on the other your anecdote about a scenario where an audio store sets up a "test" (with little information about the level of rigor) in the service of convincing customers on the merits of buying the expensive gear sold by the store.

Hmm.... I wonder which data seem more reliable ;-)