Yes they do. I’m not here to advocate for any particular brand but I’ve heard a lot and they do matter. High Fidelity reveal cables, Kubala Sosna Elation and Clarity Cable Natural. I’m having a listening session where all of them is doing a great job. I’ve had cables that were cheaper in my system but a nicely priced cable that matches your system is a must. I’m not here to argue what I’m not hearing because I have a pretty good ear. I’m enjoying these three brands today and each is presenting the music differently but very nicely. Those who say cables don’t matter. Get your ears checked. I have a system that’s worth about 30 to 35k retail. Now all of these brands are above 1k and up but they really are performing! What are your thoughts.
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...
Not trying to be dismissive or anything. I have heard the top systems and cables in the country. Vintage audio and today’s high fi is really different. I’ve spent years listening, trying and review gear and cables. So I have my opinion and you have yours.
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.”
For the AQ Ethernet cables, which are probably the only ones controlled for directionality, the direction of the little arrows for best audio is stated in the last sentence of the paragraph I just quoted. It’s the same sort of idea for HDMI cables.
And the proof about frequently debated and as frequently disputed issue of cable directionality is...…...the promotional/advertising material of the manufacturer of such a product. Why would you ever look for your answer elsewhere?
Long answer. There is such a small differnce that the average person would not be able to pick up. Thos golden ears that will be able to do so will not experience an enlightenment of their musical enjoyment. Just a slight difference.
There's PLENTY of blind / double blind test on the net that prove that.
But just do your searches and you will come up with a lot of links. Bottom line of all those tests is cables make little if any difference. Same for electronics from a minimum quality level up.
According to that here's how you should spend your hifi budget:
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.
Long answer. There is such a small differnce that the average person would not be able to pick up. Thos golden ears that will be able to do so will not experience an enlightenment of their musical enjoyment. Just a slight difference.
There's PLENTY of blind / double blind test on the net that prove that.
But just do your searches and you will come up with a lot of links. Bottom line of all those tests is cables make little if any difference. Same for electronics from a minimum quality level up.
According to that here's how you should spend your hifi budget:
90% speakers 9% electronics 1% cables>
Finally someone takes as Occam's Razor to the whole tangled thread. We even get a practical formula to use a guide!
There is such a small differnce that the average person would
not be able to pick up. Thos golden ears that will be able to do so will
not experience an enlightenment of their musical enjoyment. Just a
slight difference.
There's PLENTY of blind / double blind test on the net that prove that.
Here's a page with a lot of links ...
Some of the test results contained in the link you provided did yield "positive results." That is, the listener could distinguish differences. That's no surprise, even though many blind listening tests arrive at a negative results.
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. And don't listen to Taras22 he is the other half of the TEO snake oil machine.
Howling mob? You have a very active imagination. This "debate" is just a tempest in a teapot. In truth, there really is no debate - many listening tests reveal differences in cables, including some scientific, double blind tests.
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?
" Same for electronics from a minimum quality level up."
Gee, minimum is by definition the least quantity or amount possible ....like are we talking BOSE Wave here or something even further down the food chain? Cause least possible is pretty much least, like bottom of the pile. Or are we talking wind-up Victrola and would that be with a new or used cactus stylus ( I only ask because the used one would be more minimum ) ?
Ok, seriously now, I thought this idea had died a long time ago, and had a stake driven through its heart just to be sure, but I guess not. Even more seriously, I’m sensing some weird Julian Hirsch zombie presence here, anybody else getting that vibe, or is that just the pizza I had last night talking ( note to self, you really gotta lay off the hot peppers, especially late at night ) ?
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.
Power Cords To Me Has The Most Profound Impact On Our Gear and The Most Hard To Say For Sure How They Will Interact With Your Gear Power Supply. I Have No Conditioner That Improves Sound Unless You Have Really Bad Power Issues. Yes they Change The Sound In Areas Of The Reproduction But They Just Makes Certain Areas Stand Out More and Other Less, A Good Power Cord and Outlets In My Experience Will Always Make A More Real Improvement Across The Board.
Speaking of the clash of titans, which is of course the age old battle btwn believers of cables and naysayers, there was once a wee skirmish.
It begins with an article by Malcolm Omar Hawksford who is a pretty smart guy who knows his way around communication electronics and the theory it is based,
But then I saw the following comment to this article from a naysayer and busted a gut . You see the naysayers are prone to ask for science/engineering to prove cable difference, and here was, what seemed like a pretty nice short and sweet examination of cable theory which covers a lot of the bases.
So after given what was asked for here is the response I mentioned above ( the counter-attack after the initial Hawksford salvo )....
"Those who state that the "laws of physics" don’t allow > > for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies > > might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics > > predict the opposite. > > > Publishing such an unecessarily math-intensive article in a > consumer publication has an obvious subtext - "It’s all so > complex that you can’t possibly understand it, so believe > whatever we say". > > That seems to be the plan: the article will "dazzle ’em with science", than Atkinson, his minions and the snake oil merchants will swoop in and baffle them." . IOW, a typical $tereopile ploy. "
What can I say. but that words fail me, and that I have no idea how to get the coffee spray off my screen ( anybody got any ideas ? ).
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.
Nope, sorry, professor. That’s a lotta gobbledegook. My position is very clear. There is no such thing as a good blind test. Period. Let me know when it sinks in. The talking machine finally hits a brick wall.
When testing an individual, even if
they "fail" multiple well designed blind trials ...
A listener can't "fail" a listening test - that's a common misnomer about scientific listening tests. A double-blind listening test doesn't test the listener. It tests the devices under test.
... 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.
Proper listening tests include a variety of listeners, not only those with a so-called "claimed ability."
In one
wine study the wine experts were being tested not the wines the
researchers dyed a white wine red they were fooled they described the
white like it was a red.
That doesn't sound like a valid test at all, but an illusion to influence an outcome. So it's not an objective test.
No one would argue that there might not be the subtlest tonal differences between cables but you will have to look for them. Even then it won’t be apparent whether they are genuine improvements or electrical aberrations due to idiosyncratic cable design. The ensuing debates can and have been going on for decades. Mostly with skeptics on one side and the paid journos, dealers, misguided cable fanboys et al on the other.
The fact remains that a scrape the barrel $50 system with some decent speakers from any of the following - Audio Note, ATC, B&W, DeVore, Eclipse TDs, Harbeths, Classic JBLs, KEF, Klipsch, Linkwitz, Magnepans, Monitor Audio, Quad, Sony, Spendor, Tannoy, Vivid Audio, Wilson etc will simply blow away any $50 speaker paired up with uber-overkill electronics using the most eye wateringly expensive interconnects and cables imaginable.
I found that a $40 Sony system from Walmart with bell wire to give excellent results paired with even the smallest Rega bookshelf’s let alone any of their larger brethren. So much so that I upgraded the free supplied cable to $1.50 per metre oxygen free just in case!
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!")
" The fact remains that a scrape the barrel $50 system with some decent speakers from any of the following - Audio Note, ATC, B&W, DeVore, Eclipse TDs, Harbeths, Classic JBLs, KEF, Klipsch, Linkwitz, Magnepans, Monitor Audio, Quad, Sony, Spendor, Tannoy, Vivid Audio, Wilson etc will simply blow away any $50 speaker paired up with uber-overkill electronics using the most eye wateringly expensive interconnects and cables imaginable"
Speaking of "facts" here is a "fact" you may want to consider. Way back when I worked in a stereo store we used to do a slight variation of what you were talking about ( it was a great way to show clients the importance of system matching and it was always a giggle to see the clients response when they heard entry level speakers hooked up to premium electronics and vice versa. We had the cheap speakers right beside the most expensive speakers in the house and the client always thought this great sound came from the expensive speakers...and we would also flip the system going with cheapish electronics and expensive speakers and that never worked that good eh, in fact it really sucked.)
The thing is we did this literally hundreds of times, so in study terms that was a really large n and all with the same result. Bottom line you are absolutely and positively dead wrong, in "fact" you are 180 degrees out of phase on this. But please don’t let this face-plant deter you, just keep swinging for the fences, who knows you may hit one out the park one day.
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:
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 ;-)
"... in the service of convincing customers on the merits of buying the expensive gear sold by the store"
For the record it generally wasn’t expensive, though admittedly, sometimes it was. And basically I didn’t say anything about pushing expensive equipment, that was strictly your wee self fluffing fabulation.
And please its really bad form to fluff yourself in public to make your argument look more impressive than it is. There is a place on the interwebs for stuff like that but this is family site, so please exercise some discretion, I mean, think of the children.
And you were talking about rigour and studies and double binds and stuff, so if I get your drift here, you are looking for something scientificistical ( which for those keeping score is the science version of truthiness and not a nonsensical typo ). Well this is your lucky day because here is something that may just fit your bill. It was already posted up-thread but you may have missed it, after all fluffing yourself is probably a pretty hard trick to pull off and still be aware of your immediate surroundings.
Note it is a bit complicated and doesn’t easily reduce itself to a simple club with which to beat the opposition into submission so it may not fit your purposes here , but it does have a lot of valuable information that most people with a genuine curiosity about truth would find interesting.
So now you got some science homework, so off you go, and please stop the self fluffing in public, its really embarrassing and pretty transparent.
So, maybe my solid, soft annealed, silver, single core speaker wire with no terminations in an oversized jacket (making air the primary dielectric) is a good way to go after all.
It has higher conductivity than copper and a less granularly crystal structure for a smoother propagation with virtually no reflections due to the lack of terminations.
My goodness, firing the personal insults at full blast! Is this going continue to be your modus operandi? Maybe you don’t care, but whatever titillation comments like those may bring you, it makes it harder to take your posts seriously.
You made some claims to cd318 about "facts" and I believe I showed it would be a rush to judgement to just accept your anecdotes as establishing the "facts" you assert to be true.
Given your attitude is one of disparaging what I write, I presume the article you linked to is meant to act as some form of riposte to what I’ve been saying here.
I’ve read it before. And read it again tonight.
I’m left with this question:
What do you actually think that article establishes, and how is it relevant to what I’ve written?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
