Do your ears deceive you?
If you think cables, interconnects or other wiring make a difference, yes they do. This is a long article so I won't post it here but will a link describing how blind testing results in correct guessing that is no more accurate than random chance. Enjoy.
I’m still surprised that people cannot hear differences in cables. For me, nothing could be easier, and a few of my non-audiophile friends I’ve given cables to, hear it, and they can even identify what they hear cogently. But then, my friends were either conductors, play acoustic instruments or it was their major/minor in college, so they KNOW when a cable is correctly reproducing triple-tonguing, or dotted quarter notes. And given I set up their system, and eliminated noise by arranging cables carefully (which means, NOT on top of each other, especially a power cord touching a signal interconnect (speaker cable or interconnect) and an excellent anti-vibration platform (I have Critical Mass Center Stage footers). I think too many systems lack the resolution to hear this, but I still think it is more the noise that people induce by stacking components or, as I’ve already said, cables touching each other. A good cable should make it clear that one is hearing a Stradivarius, not a Guarneri or an Amati. It would be helpful for people to at least have a passing acquaintance with live music - and I don’t mean the amplified kind. And the number of people familiar with live music seems pretty dismal to me. So, it is not a surprise that there is so much dismissiveness among the people coming into the High End in the past 20 years over things like cable. |
@fleschler - and the greatest difficulty is attempting to gauge the difference of sound quality of a specific piece of equipment in a listening space that isn’t ours…. I’ve found it’s next to impossible to do that away from the specific familiarity of our own personal listening spaces - it’s the ultimate gift of complexity in this crazy hobby of ours 🤦🏻♀️😂 |
@kevn Yes, that’s a certainty. Very few (none maybe) beginning audiophiles are capable of discerning acoustical properties which coincide with music reproduction at a high level unless hearing a audio system that can accomplish that. Being a musician does not qualify either. After hearing 1000s of systems at shows, audio salons and friends homes, I am able to compare them with live acoustical music and determine what I like. Audiophiles have differences in music preferences as well as their hearing attributes/character so different strokes for different folks. I also have a great advantage over beginners having recorded in studios, performed and engineered recordings (simple) in major orchestral venues and appraised/inspected most recording studios in So. Cal. I’m still not an expert though. Time/amplitude-dynamics/tonality-overtones/etc. are immensely more complex in music than photography is (with it’s more easily measured parameters). I’ve taken about 100,000+ photos during my worklife and began with the lowly Argus C-3 rangefinder at 10 years old (beat my parents who just pointed and shot with maybe 2 photos out of a roll being okay-my exposures were fabulous, too bad audio is so much more complex). |
My opinion, from my experience, everything in the signal path from the preamp connectors to the speaker wire make a significant difference. From my experience the 100% oxygen-free copper connectors give better overall bandwidth in sound. Most notably transparency, detail, bass clairiy punch, low end. I chose " The worlds best cables" because the reviews were good, and I could afford them. I used interex 10 gage OFC on speakers. Works for me. The Worlds best cables made a significant difference from $20 inter-connects. . Most likely, installing a $1000 or more in interconnects or speaker cables would not be worth it on a $3000 integrated or separate PA Pre amp. ( to each his own) I think in a high end system that brings out every detail, it would. Thats what the big bucks are for. I am sure there would be a difference, but I doubt $1000 worth in sound on a cheaper mid fi wont be worth it. The WBC cables made my system brighter, I had to turn down the mid and tweeter! If your system does not have adjustable mids and highs, you might end up with too bright of a result and not be happy with it. When I visited my local brick and mortar, the owner first asked if my speakers were bright in mids and highs. I am older and need that. He suggested a Hegel or Primaluna system because they are work well with crisp, bright speaker components. So changing cables on an already bright electronics and speakers might not work if the cables enhance that. If I was going to drop a bunch of cash on cables with a high end system, I suggest talking to a pro at a brick and mortar business that carries your system because they will be able to guide you right, and, probably let you try a few different ones. They can be a real benefit figuring things out. What you like in sound is whats important and they can help you get the best sound you can afford. |
Thanks, roadcykler for reapproaching such a topic in this Forum...
Having retired yesterday at age 78 (not great with money, enough but not large ~~) I'm going to up the ante a little and address tweaks, upgrades and general betterment over a journey of 55+ years, attempting to stay focused and trim. Growing up around tons of live music, more in a role of designated listener, I became hypercritical early on when non-musical sounds were introduced to my systems, such as surface noise and early gear distortions. My passion for great sound has NEVER waned and a restricted budget has forced lots of experimentation over the years. Converting to digital in the mid-90's once it struck my emotions, the focus became better wire, isolation of the gear, both internally and externally. Tube buffers, and or, tube gear in tandem with digital playback were mandatory distortions for my flavor preferences. I had befriended a fellow with a niche hi-end store in Lewiston, Maine, who was pushing the envelope with modifications of gear, wire experiments and extreme isolation of gear, including Marigo Lab products. This is dated yet no less of value today: The Audiophile Voice | MARIGO AUDIO LAB I suspect the expectations can be wildly different for us in improving our systems. And, yes, there is often a "honeymoon period" of excitement that can fade over time, causing us to lose confidence in taking risks. In my case, yes, there were mistakes made. However, my great passion found a fix and the process of bettering my systems has never waned. Here, I want to repeat that there was not a lot of money. A $2,300 active solid-state preamp in the mid-1980's was my largest investment. There is little I would not try in improving my sound. Tonality... sounds = real ...has always been primary, followed closely by all the audiophile stuff...full range full body impact in 2 channel audio. Back to expectations. I have a friend who grew up with his dad's uber Infinity RS loudspeaker system. He cares, has a capable vinyl-based system, is happy with early Blue Jeans cables, well made and do the job. He simply is not interested in what he considers "minor improvements." I suspect there are many gradations of this type of preference. In my case, I never want to be "finished," always pressing forward as knowledge and budget allows. Room tuning and the u-BACCH Plug-in crosstalk cancellation have been huge gains in the last couple of years in a tough cube of a studio. The benefits of professionally applied DSP vastly outweigh any negatives in my experience. My recommend to those with similar passion is to be bold, self-forgiving and experiment. As I told a longtime friend this morning who is struggling with a download issue, "...it IS worth the struggle...but never fun to HAVE to muck through it." ONWARDS! More Peace Pin (bold print for old eyes)
|
Thomas Edison's education: https://www.nps.gov/edis/learn/historyculture/edison-biography.htm HOWEVER: he had a plethora of Scientists and Inventors (ie: Nikola Tesla, for a time) in the employ*, at Menlo Park. *means: WORKING FOR A COMPANY, for the more obtuse reader. Ted Denney owns a COMPANY, that manufactures some excellent and efficacious products. He's been offering an unconditional, money-back trial period, to purchasers, since the 1980s (don't like it = don't buy it), that makes one's listening experiment (as previously mentioned), fairly painless. Quantum Tunneling: An example application of the principle: https://www.synergisticresearch.com/pc/v8powerblock/ Like I said, earlier in the thread:
OH WELL: let the primitives (ie: the vapid/Undynamic Duo above) go build a another runway! Happy listening! |
| Post removed |
I don’t know the person mentioned above but this pseudo-science term "quantum-tunneling" cracks me up. His product(s) must belong to the category of "extreme snake oil".
|
"Ummm......I’ll have the Quantum Tunnel tostadas’ with the Quark Sauce.....and a cup of black matter, no matrix...." The only audio jewelry I recognize.... ...is that which it presents in my presence.... ;) If it isn't the music, why bother? Flat earth....🤨 "The universe is laughing behind your back....." I'll do it to your face.....hard to find one beyond mere clueless.... |
| Post removed |
@steakster Remarkable...You think that small companies are manipulating quantum mechanics and electrodynamics in their little shops in the backyard, and scammers like Ted Denney, a high school dropout with no technical training is "Quantum Tunneling" his products, and I am the flat-earther. Your ability to be taken in by the most ridiculous claims is the reason the scam audio jewelry industry exists. |
Many cable manufacturers are using the results, regarding the following mentioned science, as guidance in building cables for audio systems. The only experimentation left for one to do, is try them in their own system/home and determine if they make a difference in their own listening experience. Another rerun: That the studies of QM and QED have been revolutionizing virtually every branch of Science, since the early 1900s, has been firmly established.
That's called, "HISTORY"!
https://www.livescience.com/
Not to mention the multitude of modern inventions, that are the results of the same.
The evidence is all around us and ONLY the most obtuse, or: willfully ignorant, could possibly ignore it.
To deny the above exemplifies the Dunning-Kruger Effect*!
Were one needing a thesis submission, to a Psychology Undergraduate Office; the local Naysayer Church would make an excellent case study of the above*. |
@steakster I can't believe you are calling out some of the biggest shysters in the industry as credible. I'm surprised you didn't include Ted Denney. As for the rest, I do NOT, under ANY circumstances, believe that any of these companies do anything more with Quantum-whatever than misquote, bend and stretch truth, and use to deceive gullible audiophiles with meaningless word salad and pseudo-scientific nonsense. Some of the claims of these companies are so preposterous that it is astounding that ANYONE would believe them. |
The cables question is ill-formed. I would agree that there is a difference between the worst and the best. There are many physical properties to consider: Resistance; Capacitance; Inductance; Dielectric Absorption; RF rejection; connection integrity.. So yes, there are differences based on physical principles, and understood to physics. Are they important? Yes - but system dependent. If you seek transparency, then that's easy - decent connectors and quality cabling like Canare will set you up nicely, and be somewhat better than lamp cord. But, for example, if you have an over-bright system, then a high resistance, high capacitance, high inductance, high DA cable may correct it to the point of listenability. Of course, you might do lots better with better components, but cables do make a difference. They are just the worst way to do it. IMO. |
@cleeds I think you misread me. I don’t require any explanation. Evidence described by user’s perceptions are perfectly adequate for me, with no further claims or explanations beyond that. If they like it, they like it. Period. But, if the manufacturer starts making technical claims, it is scorn worthy if they don’t back it up. If they’re not going to back it up, why make a technical claim in the first place? If it’s just how users perceive it, who cares how it works? Why bother with all the technical hocus pocus, or credentials of the person who designed it? If it works, it works! I’m not curious enough about it to do any formal testing myself. I’ve listened, and since my listening skills aren’t good enough to be impressed, I’ll leave it to those who can perceive what the fuss is all about and are curious about how it actually works to do those kinds of experiments. This is my selfish side. I’m interested in things I can hear, things that matter to me. I hear a lot of problems with 2 speaker stereo. Even though it sounds quite good, it’s a hack job way of creating stereo sound. I’ve got much bigger fish to fry than cable improvements. The problem is, I have no reasonable idea how to fry them. |
@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.
In friendship - kevin. |
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:
|
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: |
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.
|
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.
|
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. |
@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.
|
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. 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. |
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
|
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!
|
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. |
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.
|
"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. |
