"The first principal is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P Feynman, speaking to some of the most brilliant scientists in the world in 1974.  Confirmation bias is rampant.

carlsbad2

Confirmation bias is rampant.

Indeed. For example, if you’re convinced cables "don’t make a difference," that’s likely what you’ll hear if you demo them. It won’t matter whether the test is blind, or not.

Confirmation bias is real. But some cables do make a difference. If you can’t hear it you either have the wrong cables, an insufficient system, an inability to hear those differences or confirmation bias against cables. 

It’s kinda funny....I’ve wanted every single set of cables I’ve ever installed in my system to sound like "The Ones", yet several sets hang on the wall of my basement shop, got passed on my boys, or got resold, because once all the excitement and expectation bias wore off, they just weren’t what I had hoped they’d be.  It can take quite a while to recognize all the subtle things going on.  

It’d sure be cheaper and less frustrating if I couldn’t hear the difference.

A truly blind test is when I change a cable or add a tweak unbeknownst to my spouse and the change is perceived immediately.

I think my bias is that I do expect a difference.Why else make a change? But it's not always positive or sometimes so subtle it's not a keeper.

 

These engineers would disagree with the OP.

_ _ _ _ _

Bybee Technologies – Founded by Jack Bybee – Physicist

 

Jack Bybee's did research in cable/circuit design for military use.

Bybee’s first commercial products emerged from Cold War-era military-industrial research. The stealthy shadow contest of nuclear submarine detection, location and evasion demanded ever-quieter circuits, lower electronic noise and greater signal-to-noise ratios. Practitioners summed up the problem as: “reducing 1/f noise, from DC to 2000hz”.  

Bybee’s technology involves exotic blends of rare-earth metals or their isotopes to reduce electronic noise in circuits. In the mid-1990s, Bybee’s AC filtering was among the first of its kind to use exotic doped materials instead of transformers or balanced power, which made it a novel concept at the time.

Jack’s science and physicist background gave him the understanding about negative effects of quantum noise. Link here.

 

Purist Audio Design – Founded by Jim Aud – EE & Physicist

From there, I earned my Electronics Engineering degree at Brescia University, and would later study Computer Science for almost two years at Westinghouse. Then I came to South Texas Nuclear, and studied what they’d call today nuclear physics. Link here.

 

Shunyata Research – Founded by Caelin Gabriel – Research Scientist

Caelin Gabriel is a former US military research scientist with a background in research and design of ultra-sensitive data acquisition systems.  These systems were designed to detect extremely low-level signals otherwise obscured by random noise, requiring years of intensive research into the sources and effects of signal and power-line noise interference.  Link here.

 

Silversmith Audio – Founded by Jeffrey Smith – Engineer

CEO/Designer Jeffrey Smith is a Wyoming native and graduate of the United States Naval Academy with a Bachelor of Science degree in General Engineering. He also earned a Master of Science Degree, With Distinction, in Defense and Strategic Studies. Link here.

 

MIT Cables – Founded by Bruce Brisson – awarded 20 USPTO engineering patents.

MIT Cables founder Bruce Brisson began purposely designing audio cables in the 1970’s after encountering the sonic problems inherent in cables typical of the day. Link here.

 

Audioquest – Garth Powell - Sr. Director of Engineering

Formerly with Furman Power for 12 years.

@knotscott

It’s kinda funny....I’ve wanted every single set of cables I’ve ever installed in my system to sound like "The Ones", yet several sets hang on the wall of my basement shop, got passed on my boys, or got resold, because once all the excitement and expectation bias wore off, they just weren’t what I had hoped they’d be.

That pretty much describes the audiophile condition I have observed, participated in (for years), and read about here and on other forums, and even in professional review publications, over the past 25+ years.  Everyone is looking for The One great thing that will clarify, tonally densify, and totally transform their system.  

I have read countless posts and reviews about about cables, fuses, Class D amps, and all sorts of small filter boxes, and testimonials from early adopters about the latest and greatest missing link they added to create their final perfect system…until the next latest, greatest thing came out.  Many of us have boxes of cables, footers, and electrical do-dads that came in with a bang and went out with a whimper.  Yes, I agree there are (subtitle) differences to be heard but IME the lasting effect is usually far less than the hype.  Black, red, blue, orange, purple, and pink, the one thing all of this stuff has had in common these past 25 years is dollar$.  The folks selling this still are mostly selling hope.

@steakster

Disagree with the OP about what? Are you saying that they disagree with him about the problems with blind testing? How are we supposed to know that they disagree just because you show us that they are all educated?

Confirmation bias is real. But some cables do make a difference. If you can’t hear it you either have the wrong cables, an insufficient system, an inability to hear those differences or confirmation bias against cables. 

+1 @zlone

+10 @mitch2 

Not this $hit again....give it a rest already.

No. My ears do not deceive me.

Just because you can't afford it, doesn't mean I can't hear it.

Grow up.

Hearing the “difference” is only part of the equation. Determining that the “difference” is also “improvement”. Heck, the change in SQ could be further from truth, not necessarily closer. 
 

Like hitting a golf ball perfectly without watching to see where it lands. 

@cleeds indeed I'm not a cable denier.  but when I hear a cable review that sounds like a wine review complete with overtones of anis an sage, by BS meter pegs.

Not this $hit again....give it a rest already.

No. My ears do not deceive me.

Just because you can't afford it, doesn't mean I can't hear it.

Grow up.

Why so defensive? If cables actually do make a difference, price shouldn't matter. Also, who said anything about affordability? 

Here we go again.  The question of whether cables make a difference or not.  If you're a person that, after all these years, still don't believe that cables make a difference, fine.  You just go ahead and stick with your bulk, Monster, speaker cables, just like we did 40, 50, years ago before we knew any better.  Really, who cares?

The OP's source a 28 year old test that only tested differences between wire gauges. The only test that matters is the person doing the listening, in their own system with their own music. Theories and opinions by others are irrelevant. 

@roadcykler

Good article! Long, but it makes sense. I have used these RadioShack interconnects that he is talking about some decades ago and can attest that they were first rates (although they did subscribe to the notion that the signal was directional). Bottom lines, one should be honest with oneself: at the end of the day, it might be cheaper.

It’s not that complicated. Don’t buy complete junk that’s going to be a weak link, and don’t spend more than about 5% of your system cost on cables because you can probably get more improvements elsewhere. Then forget about it and enjoy. 

@cleeds
And again and again, and round and round.

The author of the article didn’t say that cables don’t matter. His company actually sells cables. What he’s saying is that a lot of expensive ones don’t justify the price tag and a correctly designed one should not be overpriced because it’s not hard to design a good cable because we are dealing with known theories. Read the article, it makes sense.

spenav

... Read the article ...

Why? It’s from 1996, so there can’t be anything "new" in it and it's w-a-y too long. If you’re interested in reading more about cables, feel free to explore the links I already shared. There are thousands of posts in those threads.

 

@ dill ... The only test that matters is the person doing the listening, in their own system with their own music. Theories and opinions by others are irrelevant.

Yep...pretty much sums up most audio discussions.

IMHO, it’s important to try things even if you don’t immediately hear a difference.  Every situation is unique.   Many times it’s a small step in the right direction. It can take time to recognize, plus it can clear the path for the next little upgrade....they add up. It’d be a shame for someone to not try any upgrade because you read here that someone else didn’t hear a difference. Keep plugging...your system might improve. Doing nothing assures that it won’t.

 

I seriously wonder about a blind test for a 2K and 20K streamer.

steakster

Jack’s science and physicist background gave him the understanding about negative effects of quantum noise

 

Truly impressed by this new pseudo-science terminology "quantum noise". I have no doubt their cables would make a startlingly significant improvement.

Later

My system is modest but very sensitive to any changes. However, once I had some fun with comparing Wywires Diamond, that's their top of the line $2700 RCA cables, and older Gabriel Gold Infusion RCAs. I was using my trusted Nakamichi 682ZX deck as a source and VAC Avatar integrated amp. Damn, they were so close, but at the third go I did hear slight differences, not better/worse but differences. They both sounded great and I use then both. In higher resolution system the differences might be more pronounced, I don't, know. Wywires is a little more balanced and Gabriel Gold more engaging. I bought them both used, Diamond for $1150 and Gold for $200. For most recordings, especially acoustic music, I actually prefer Gabriel Gold a little.

Yet another comparison. First I put Purist Audio Dominus Rev B power cord on PS Audio regenerator and Purist Aquila on VAC amp and then reversed it. The difference was big, with Dominus on VAC and Aquila on the regenerator it was much better in every respect.

My ears don't deceive me, as far as I know. I asked another non-audiophile person to listen to all these changes as well. Same conclusions.

“Do your ears deceive you?”

Yup

 

Thats why I rely on my lying eyes….

"If you can’t hear it you either have the wrong cables, an insufficient system, an inability to hear those differences or confirmation bias against cables." 

Or Door #4, there are no audible differences to be heard.

Claiming  'insufficient system"  is the height of arrogance close only to  blaming "an inability to hear those differences."

Maybe you could define of what a sufficient system is made.

"Maybe you could define of what a sufficient system is made."

One where you can hear the differences between cables.

Cables need to be considered as a component not an accessory. As with any other component system synergy is the key that unlocks the door. IMO the issue with HEA(retailers/reviewers/YouTube) is the focus on 1 component NOT the complete system. 

@panzrwagn 

"If you can’t hear it you either have the wrong cables, an insufficient system, an inability to hear those differences or confirmation bias against cables." 

Or Door #4, there are no audible differences to be heard.

Claiming  'insufficient system"  is the height of arrogance close only to  blaming "an inability to hear those differences."

Maybe you could define of what a sufficient system is made.

It was not my intention to appear arrogant in regards to the 'insufficient system' remark. This just comes from experience as I have built my system. I believe that the more refined your system becomes, the higher likelihood that cables will make an audible difference. Where that level of refinement starts is dependent on too many factors to objectively define it.

Secondly, I think it is a simple fact that not everyone can hear the difference. I believe if you invited a group of non-audiophiles to your home for a cable shootout, many of them would not perceive the difference between cables, though some percentage might. 

I have had a couple of cable changes that resulted in such a dramatic contrast that I think just about anyone could hear the difference. More often I think the changes are more subtle and more obvious to the owner of the system.

 

In other news, blind people are convinced everyone else is just making stuff up and there's surely no such thing as sight.

I believe if you invited a group of non-audiophiles to your home for a cable shootout, many of them would not perceive the difference between cables, though some percentage might. 

Similarly I believe if you invited a group of audiophiles for a cable shootout where they knew which cables they were listening to you'd get completely different results from hearing the same cables if it was a blind comparison. 

Cable differences are more subtle than speaker and cartridge difference....usually a lot more subtle. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but they are more difficult to recognize.

One of the issues with blind testing is the duration of the sound sampling....it’s usually only a few minutes per, which seems readily apparent that it isn’t sufficient time to decipher minor differences. If the system doesn’t have very high resolution, and/or is a system you’re not extremely familiar with, that adds another element that makes it more difficult to decipher minor differences. Add the element of pressure to hear a difference, and it’s simply not a good situation to determine subtle sound differences. Just a few of the many reasons I don’t put much credence in blind testing. It’s far better to listen for days and weeks on your own high res system with music and a room you know well.

 

@divertiti - This is priceless!

In other news, blind people are convinced everyone else is just making stuff up and there’s surely no such thing as sight.

 

My experience is different I can hear differences on cables . I can also hear the difference on cart as well.

Of course your ears can deceive you. Your mind can play tricks on what you "want to hear" as opposed to what is really being played. This will largely depend on your age and hearing, but no question about your mind playing tricks on what you "want" to hear.

On a side note, I have not changed any of the power cords nor I have spent extra $$ for speaker cables or interconnect upgrades. In case you are wondering, here is what I have:

Speaker cables: Kimber 8TC Kimber Kable 8TC Speaker Cable Review

Interconnects: Wireworld Equinox III Wireworld Equinox III+ interconnect & speaker cable

 

 We don't typically listen under blind conditions.  If an improvement is perceived, and it is unshakable under normal listening conditions, then it works for you. We need not ask why - unless we're curious about it. When people start giving untested and unlikely explanations for why, that's when people rightfully start questioning, and that's when the ones making the claim needs to prove their explanation in a rigorous manner. 

asctim

... When people start giving untested and unlikely explanations for why, that's when people rightfully start questioning, and that's when the ones making the claim needs to prove their explanation in a rigorous manner. 

Nonsense. This isn't a scientific forum. No one here owes you any "rigorous" explanation or any other kind of proof, although of course you're free to conduct your own experiments and share the results. If the empirical evidence described by users here is insufficient for you, perhaps you are in the wrong place.

We don't typically listen under blind conditions.  If an improvement is perceived, and it is unshakable under normal listening conditions, then it works for you.

So you'd be ok owning expensive cables if you knew that if you were blindfolded you couldn't discern a difference between them and inexpensive cables? That would be ok because when you could see the cables (normal listening conditions) they sound better? I know the answer is that you wouldn't know that because you wouldn't test that. I figure that's the reason most cable lovers bend over backwards to justify not testing their sighted conclusions.

Long ago a friend went crazy over a couple speakers designed by a Professor of Engineering.  The Prof claimed to have found the magic enclosure dimensions and configuration for flat 20-20K response from a single 4 inch driver.  Also claimed a perfect stereo image regardless of placement.  The friend was dead serious believing the claims.  Actually sounded like what you would expect from a 4 inch driver in an enclosure about the size of 2 cigar boxes.

In another discussion a person referenced a speaker cable blind test conducted by "experts" as proof blind tests are the only valid method to identify if differences exist.  Two cables at very different price points were evaluated.  Listeners heard a difference.  Therefore because it was a blind test the results must be valid and statistically significant.  Only problem, 3 music tracks, 3 listeners, 2 cables of large cost disparity.  A poorly constructed test that proved nothing.     

The tendency to believe those with knowledge, authority, or the badge of "expert" is very strong.  Those factors contribute heavily to individually held bias. 

Cable skeptics have an obsession with cost over synergy which is the key with cables. Dedicated lines also help with subtle nuances, what % of skeptics have dedicated lines? 

For those audiophiles following this thread and are still on the fence as to what to believe, there is no easy-to-grasp one answer fits all. Some cables in fact do not make a difference, regardless of their cost; some do, but in very small degrees of improvement; others degrade the signal, to audible effect; some are good enough to hear the jump in sound quality enough not to want o live without; some listeners, as with the way they see, listen very very well, while just as many others are not as able to catch or observe things they see or hear; most cables cannot be spoken of in isolation of the systems they sit in, together with the impedances that come before or after, as they are part of a profound relationship of the entire signal chain; the rare few do perform at such a high level, the entire signal chain may matter less. 

The first vital thing in all this, is that the effect of all cables, however impactful one may feel their improvement to sound in their system, is often considerably smaller and subtle in relation to everything else to be considered in a system. The second vital thing is, commonly, regardless of how small the difference may be, its specific nuance of difference to sound realism can be so great, it cannot be unheard if one has sufficiently developed listening ability to discern that difference.

The last vital thing is in being very honest knowing what kind of a listener you are, and if developing better listening skills while putting effort to understanding the specific signal chain making up your entire system, is worth the time and passion in your quest for hearing the sheer realism of reproduced sound in playback equipment. If indeed it is not worth your time and money, it would be obviously silly to put money into equipment, cables or anything one does not hear the benefit of. Sit back, calm down, and don’t waste your time trying to persuade others to be like you - it is perfectly ok not to driven by the pursuit of the highest levels of sound realism.

But if your passion drives your chase of the dragons tail in this crazy and wonderful hobby of ours, know it will be a very very difficult journey, fraught with countless demos, experiments, frustrating moments, and wasteful decisions, as there as so many variables and relationships in any signal chain to consider. There is no easy road here. Just know the journey will be absolutely worth its while.

 

In friendship - kevin 

@kevn,

Not a bad explanation but it’s a lot simpler than that.

If your system is of sufficient quality, one can absolutely hear a difference in cables.

It’s easily demonstrable.

My issue isn’t whether or not someone can hear a difference, my issue is that if one CANNOT hear a difference in their system, then no one else should be able to either.

Or similarly "I can’t measure it with a multimeter, therefore it cannot exist."

I don’t know why a tiny little fuse makes a difference in sound quality in a $6000 amplifier or preamplifier. All I know is that it does. $200-$300 for that improvement is a bargain.

I don’t know why 2 different strands of copper wire (or silver, or whatever) sound different than a coat hanger. All I know is that they do.

I don’t know why a $10 power cable sounds different than a $500 power cable, but it does.

I don’t owe anyone an explanation. I don’t care what equipment anyone runs, or what anyone else thinks. I don’t need double blind testing, nor am I seeking anyone’s approval. I don’t need a bunch of people to come over and tell me which ones THEY like best, or if they can hear a difference at all. I don’t care what anyone ese thinks. What matters to me is what I hear, and what I think.

Herd mentality.

Buy what you want, listen to what you like. If cables didn’t make a difference, why do I have boxes of extra cables sitting around? And btw, not all of them are the "cheaper" alternatives to what I’m currently using. Some cables sound better with certain pieces of equipment than others. THAT’S why I have boxes of cables sitting around. So when I swap a component in/out (which I do fairly often, especially CD players), I have options to experiment with, TO FIND OUT WHAT SOUNDS BEST.

 

 

 

Those of us that believe cables play an important role in fine tuning an audio system are not trying to convince anyone. Time, effort and money are needed that could derail the casual Audiophile in finding out the truth. In conclusion fine detail and subtle nuances are IMO what HEA is about. Not everyone has the same level of passion and interest in this hobby/lifestyle. 

@panzrwagn "Maybe you could define of what a sufficient system is made."

@coralking "One where you can hear the differences between cables."

 

Interesting question and points. A musician family buddy, also a very capable audiophile and I traded and listened to a substantial collection of interconnect and speaker cables on three different systems years back. It was a valuable exercise to check ourselves, the systems, our hearing, and beliefs about different cables.

On system A, we noted cables changes and the differences were very evident. On system B, a bit harder to discern notable differences yet still there to a smaller degree. On system C, a lower level quality system was much more difficult to discern differences to justify any of the higher $ sets of cables. Afterwards, moved cables from system C, back to system A, and quickly realized differences again.

A time consuming and expensive journey for sure to buy & try different cable setups if you don’t have a loaner program or friends to trade with to try different setups and combinations. 

 

The element of "negative bias" is not often discussed here.  A concept is proposed that "pegs the needle on your BS meter."  Then, reluctantly, (perhaps to prove someone WRONG!!) you listen anyway.  Astonishingly (and, sometimes embarrassingly) you have to admit there IS something there after all!! Ears 10: Brain 0:.

I can think of a minimum of 3 instances in my audio life where I was certain my knowledge base was complete (well, complete enough to reject THIS premise), only to be hit over the head with a sledgehammer -- and better for it.  

 

     There are many posts, worthy of +1s, in this thread.

      Then: there's the very first post, to which I'll respond.

      Richard Feynman was addressing a graduating class at Cal Tech, which MAY have contained some FUTURE, "...most brilliant scientists in the world..., but: it wasn't a convention of accomplished Physicists, by any stretch of the imagination.    Unless you're a naysayer, trying to make a point and the stretch fits your narrative.

                      Read the actual commencement address, here:

                https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm   

      Anyone, actually familiar with Richard Feynman's history, should realize: his Nobel was a result of his work in Quantum Electrodynamics  (QED).

       Most of the theories, on which our beloved audio cables are built, are a direct result of that work.

                                     As I've posted, numerous times:

                WELL: the Cargo Cult's building another runway.

                                         Time for a rewind:

Cargo cult science is a pseudoscientific method of research that favors evidence that confirms an assumed hypothesis. In contrast with the scientific method, there is no vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis.[1] The term cargo cult science was first used by physicist Richard Feynman during his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology.[1]

Cargo cults are religious practices that have appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures.

     Do a bit a research and you'll learn those primitives were limited in their understanding, of what they saw with their eyes, based on their prior experience, education and BIASES.

                                                A rewind:

                 It isn't that the Denyin'tologists are ignorant.

               It's they're knowing* so much, that's WRONG.

                       *heart of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

                                              OR, two:

     The Church of the Naysayer Doctrine (like every other faith-based, religious cult) has as many dopes as it does Popes.   

     Bring up anything resembling SCIENCE/PHYSICS, dated later than the 1800’s and they become apoplectic, not having the formal education to comprehend the concepts, or- possible ramifications.    THAT would be hilarious, were it not so pathetic!        

           Gimme That Old Time Religion, Gimme That Old Time Religion, etc.

        At the very first mention of something as simple as Wave Function (a BASIC tenet of Quantum Mechanics), the Cargo Cult will label you a KOOK.

        But remember: they can only view/understand you, based on their limited experience, education and BIASES.

         They have overlooked the fact that, if not for the hypotheses/theories and experimentation, regarding Quantum Mechanics: a plethora of modern conveniences, medical devices and the gear they so love, would not exist.

          Had scientists, chemists and inventors shared the doctrines of the Cargo Cult (Denyin'tologists), there would be no semiconductors, computer chips, LASERs, or Magnetic Resonance Imaging devices (MRIs).

                                         Solid State amps?

                                     OOPS (back to tubes)!

                                        Your Smart Phone?

                                        FA'GET ABOUT IT!

                                         Your car's GPS?

                                                NOPE!

    Then too: some may be willfully ignorant and just enjoy being contentious.

                        Others: obtuse, uneducated*, misinformed?

      *Typically, from what's been exhibited here: H.S. STEM, if that, would be a safe inference.

      Either way: the result, when the Cult begins it's rhetoric is a classic demo of the Dunning- Kruger Effect.

                                          But, I digress: 

       Bring up those pesky details, regarding the likes of QED, Dielectric Absorption, Poynting's theorem and possible application/effects, relative to frequency, that our musical signals are carried via photon or wave, outside the conductor and you're a KOOK?

         Again: the Cargo Cult can only understand anyone with an actual background, experience and education in Physics/QED, based on their beliefs, education, experience and biases

                                      Remember this?

     One anecdote  that some may find interesting: their walks in the woods and how Feynman's father would encourage him to look beyond the fact that something in nature exists, but into why and how.

     It saddened him that while attending college, during a visit home and one of their walks: his dad asked what he was learning in college.

     At that moment, he realized: if he tried to explain what he was learning, there was no way his dad could understand.                               

                            It wasn't an insult or condescension.

                                                Just reality.

                                    Oh well: let 'em go build a runway!

                                                    references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_quantum_mechanics#:~:text=Examples%20include%20lasers%2C%20electron%20microscopes,systems%2C%20computer%20and%20telecommunication%20devices.

https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsquantum-mechanics#:~:text=Quantum%20mechanics%20led%20to%20the,the%20science%20of%20quantum%20mechanics!

https://uwaterloo.ca/institute-for-quantum-computing/quantum-101/quantum-applications-today

          But: I'm a kook, because I believe in the SCIENCE, from which all that sprang?

     https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-practical-uses-spooky-quantum-mechanics-180953494/

           Einstein got that last one wrong (Quantum Entanglement), BUT- I still wish he'd been alive, when the Hubble Telescope proved, what he considered his, "greatest blunder" (his inability to bring symmetry to his field equation, without lambda)

.https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200507/history.cfm#:~:text=Einstein's%20original%20equations%20had%20been,how%20the%20universe%20will%20end.                                     

                                            How about that?

Another example of a hypothesis/theory, with no way to EXPERIMENT/MEASURE, what you're sure must be there, in some detectable way, or another.

                                               Just for fun:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-times-quantum-physics-blew-our-minds-in-2022/

                                            Happy listening!

 

@coralkong - simple for us, but not so for the many audiophiles who may have just started out with perhaps less developed listening ability - I was one once, you see. As with trained photographers, who observe and see with great skill, learning how to listen is no different - except that it is compounded by so many more variables and nuance. While it takes just over 26 frames per second to see moving picture, the ear operates at a level in the tens of that, complicating our ability to listen with accuracy even further. 
So yes, while it appears simple in conclusion, it definitely isn’t when there’s an entire world to parse through in the realm of the time domain that is music  ; )

 

In friendship - kevin.