Interconnects and non-believers
teo, LOL. Did you read the OP? "For anyone who denies there are differences in cables, I have news for you. There are vast differences." I was jokingly responding in the same vein. As if the OP’s experience was here to settle the issue for all of us. It was a goofy post, begging for a goofy reply. Also: please point out the strawman on my part. Further: What have I "accused"? What have I "ignored"? What have I claimed here or elsewhere that you think to be obviously false or unreasonable? And..."almost every post I make?" You wouldn’t be strawmanning someone...would you? ;-) |
rvpiano, Well...yeah...over the top, goofy. Your OP settling a controversial issue because you got some new interconnects. But you knew that, right? We all happily post about some changes we heard in our systems. Sharing that enthusiasm is one of the reasons we come to these forums so good on you. I wasn't claiming you weren't hearing differences in your interconnects, only hinting toward "the other side" of the debate with an equally over-the-top comment. I was just riffing on the over-the-top nature of your post. That's all. |
Something to ponder: No matter how good the cable is that you use, you are never hearing anything "better" than the performance of the cables used in the recording. And virtually none of the cables, especially for many of the most heralded audiophile classics, were "boutique" cables of the sort we see now. No cryogenic freezing, no cable risers, no specialized proprietary extruding techniques, no 99.99 percent oxygen free copper, no science-fiction-levels low electrical reactance...and all the other marketing. You are hearing the quality of the most basic cable the musical signals ever passed through on the way to being recorded (and mixed, and mastered, etc). So think about it: every time you hear an advance in quality when you upgrade your cables, all the way up to the very best available in the world right now, every new revelation - those finger tips on the strings, that guy coughing in the 18th row, that incredible nuance in the natural reverb of the hall - all of that is a revelation about what those old non-boutique, non-audiophile, normally-priced cables used in recordings were able to pass along. The most basic ones in the whole chain. And then ask yourself if boutique audiophile cables are necessary for passing along extremely high fidelity signals. |
jetter, prof and teo, can’t help but notice that you turn most threads into a debate style forum. Were you "debatetateers" in your prior life? Hi jetter, I’ve long been interested in philosophical subjects (especially. but definitely not limited to, the intersection of science, religion, philosophy, skepticism, non-mainstream belief systems, etc), and so yes I’ve spent a long time having to debate and defend concepts against many very smart people who know how to drill down to find inconsistencies. This has ingrained a habit of checking my own beliefs and claims for inconsistencies. It also ingrained in me the desire, in the case I want to claim something, to provide supporting argument and not merely make assertions. That is often why a lot of my posts get long winded. I want to say "here’s what I want to get across, and here are the reasons to accept it"). That said: I believe you are being selective - though likely not intentionally - in thinking I turn most threads into a debate style forum. If you surveyed my actual posts, you would find that the vast majority of them are not "debating." If you search for the threads I’ve created, you will see that not one of them is a "debate" thread. With maybe one or two exceptions (e.g. fuses), the few threads were I have engaged in extended "debate" are those essentially set up for debate - were for instance someone has posted a challenge to a viewpoint I might support, or partially support, or which invites various viewpoints on a broader subject. Look at this thread title and OP: you could hardly say that I would have been responsible for setting the stage for debate - the thread itself is an obvious, combative challenge to those with a differing viewpoint, right? Merely expressing my opinion I’m sure, though, may be seen by you as being an ornery debater? (I don’t know, you tell me). And anyway, notice I did not in fact turn this into debate; I only made a joking reply and mentioned I wasn’t looking for extended debate on cables. I might exchange with a few people here a bit more. But...that’s what we do here in these forums. |
geoffkait, Wow! Thanks for the huge Strawman argument, professor! Your consistency in misidentifying arguments and fallacies is remarkable. You are batting 1000! An achievement of sorts, I guess ;-) Nobody said you can do better than the sound of the original recording. I of course didn’t claim anyone was saying that. So...what a surprise!...you are yet again indulging in your hobby of attacking strawmen. What I instead argued was to consider the implications, the conundrum, contained within the understanding one can not improve on the sound of the original.** . That’s why I concluded with: "And then ask yourself if boutique audiophile cables are necessary for passing along extremely high fidelity signals." (Note, that does not contain the strawman you re-phrased this to become). Presuming first that audiophile cables alter the sound....(and acknowledging that even the most hardened "objectivist" about cables would say you want to choose the right cable for the right job, lest it degrade the signal) IF one has the view that cables are essentially just forms of tone controls, then, just as when you play with an EQ, it’s possible one cable can sound "more revealing" of what is on the recording - e.g. if the frequency contour favours the upper frequencies, more "detail" will be heard. That concept of how cables can alter a sound system doesn’t produce the conundrum I referred to. However, most high end cables are not marketed as simply being tone controls. They tend to be directed to claims that tickle the audiophile’s desire for Higher Fidelity. So... IF one has the view that audiophile cables result in "higher fidelity" of the signal - that is they *reveal* via lower distortion/higher fidelity information that goes missing on *regular* cables...THEN the problem I pointed to arises. Because, as I said, the high end cable could only ever be revealing information that was already conveyed by the non-audiophile cables used to capture the recording. In fact, you are hearing the capabilities of the *very worst* cables the signal ever passed through. Hence it seems to be a conundrum of sorts to say the expensive high end cables have properties that make them "more revealing" for music in a hi fi system than the basic cables used for most recordings. Or, in other words, it seems rather odd for many audiophiles to think they require spending big bucks on high end cables because lower priced cables aren’t up to the job of conveying a high fidelity signal. They are using their high end cables to exalt in the signals conveyed by non-audiophile cables! So non-audiophile-grade cables *must* be capable of extremely high fidelity, which suggests the emphasis many audiophiles place on high end audio cables to achieve high fidelity *may* be based on some dubious assumptions. ** (BTW, that is on the presumption of fidelity to the original signal -we can of course alter the original signal through EQ, re-mastering etc to make it into what many would think to be "better" sound. But again, that’s not what we are talking about for the moment) |
elizabeth, My view on cables isn’t a settled one, but I have hunches and inferences I’ve drawn from my own meagre tests and experience, and from following the cable debate for many years. In the spirit of exchanging anecdotes: I only use the regular supplied AC cables with all my gear. Yet somehow when I listen to systems in which every AC cord has been replaced with expensive upmarket cords, and there are power regenerators and all the things claimed to make revelatory differences....I come back home and hear on my system pretty much all the glorious things I heard on the super-expensive-ac-cable systems. In fact, I tend to think more highly of the sound I have at home. I guess my ears are made of cloth :-) |
cleeds, That's obviously why I wrote: "In the spirit of exchanging anecdotes." I have tried upmarket AC cords in my system (e.g. various Shunyata) and a couple didn't seem to make any noticeable difference, but one (the most expensive!) did seem to alter the sound of my system. But then I blind tested it against a $15 AC cable and it turned out I could not distinguish between them. It was a nice lesson on the strength of sighted bias and saved me some money ;-) As to the anecdotes I mentioned: I agree nothing can be reliably demonstrated that way. But that doesn't mean they can't be suggestive. Like many here I've heard innumerable set ups with super high end cabling. And in my extensive recent speaker auditioning, inevitably the speakers are using expensive cabling of all sorts. Yet I find the sound of my system easily competitive. Similarly, I've heard speakers I have owned, that I've sold to audiophile friends, used with the standard-grade cables I tend to use, and then hooked up to cables even up to the highest end Nordost, Crystal cables, etc. And I did not detect any revelation, anything elevated about the performance of the speakers whose sound I knew very well having owned the very pairs. Again, that of course is not all variables controlled. But it is suggestive, in a personal experience way, that the high end cables are not acting as a significant variable. Whatever they are doing seems dominated by other concerns, e.g. acoustics, speakers etc. And it suggests one doesn't *need* to spend a lot on cables in order to have sound competitive with high end systems in which many thousands of dollars were dedicated to the cabling. |
devilboy, You seem to make some sweeping claims that cables always change the sound and act as tone controls. What do you base that upon? I’m no engineer, but having watched electric engineers hash this cable debate stuff out for many years, many will tell you - (that is, ones who aren’t trying to sell you a cable) that for the most part, cable performance has been a well understood phenomenon for a long time and if you select a well engineered cable with the proper characteristics for the job (e.g. insulation, capacitance values, etc) all the signal will get through. There isn’t therefore any particular reason to expect a sonic difference if you are using two well engineered cables both suited for the same job. Sure, some cables can be engineered to sound different by altering certain parameters, but they can also work essentially identically. In controlled listening tests, (blinded for sighted bias), sometimes cables seemed to be distinguishable, other times not. Many times people who have sworn that they could easily distinguish between a high end cable and cheap cable have not been able to do so once they didn’t know which was playing. (I’ve experienced this myself). Apropos of the subject of interconnects, here’s one example testing a variety of interconnects (french site translated): http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=... Note the measurements of the cables; they are so similar it should have helped predict the results of the blind tests: that the panel could not reliably distinguish between the cables when they didn't know which was playing. So....do cables sometimes change the sound of a system? Seems plausible it can be the case for a variety of reasons. But do they always change the sound and are high end cables always distinguishable from lower priced cables? Apparently not. |
Devilboy, I never said cables always CHANGE the sound. But you wrote: Cables add their own flavor to the Sonic signature of your system. They are in fact, tone controls. How does not imply that when you change audio cables, you change the sound? And you didn’t add any caveat like "sometimes."
In terms of altering the audible content of the signal? No. That doesn’t necessarily follow at all. That a cable carries a musical signal does not entail that it "flavors" the musical signal. A competent working cable shouldn’t "flavor" the sound, it just passes the signal along. If the cables within the component are not altering the signal within the audible spectrum, and the cable you attach to the component is not altering the signal within the audible spectrum...(and those are measurable) then there’s no reason to think one cable is "flavoring" the sound any differently than the other. No more than transferring your pictures or software from one computer to another will alter or "flavor" them differently. Sure analog isn’t as reliable as digital in terms of replication, but electrical theory is reliable enough to do a very good job at preserving fidelity. That’s pretty much why we have electrical theory to describe how you transmit a signal reliably among different cables, and the reasoning behind cable construction and selection in the first place. It’s why, for instance, in the interconnect cable tests I linked to, you saw essentially identical measurements among different cables, and no one could reliably tell the sound apart. If every single cable altered the actual sound signal to the degree many audiophiles seem to assume, audio fidelity should be utterly horrible, given how many cables sound passes through from recording to mixing to mastering through all the components in consumer systems. |
jazzdc, Your analogy seems to presume a rather huge level of incompetency in cable design. Cables seem to have been well designed to transmit hi fidelity signals for a great many years, so I'm not sure why a system is likely to end up so compromised. In cable terms, what for instance would equate to "dirty socks?" |
jafreeman, IMPORTANT: Use the best available speaker wires and interconnects. The thing that tends to get buried in the effusive praise for audiophile cables is that a good cable, that can send a high quality signal, just isn’t that hard to achieve. It doesn’t take thousands of dollars. It takes mostly getting the right cable for the job. Take, for instance, Belden cables. They were founded in 1902. So they’ve been making cables for well over a 100 years and they are standard fare in the professional recording/broadcasting industry. These guys know more than a little bit about how to construct a cable with the required properties to pass along all sorts of different signals with high fidelity. And they are not charging anything like the crazy prices your local high end dealer will charge you. I needed a fairly long run of speaker cable so I chose Belden 5000 series 10 guage for it’s low resistance, high conductivity (which was probably overkill even for what I needed). I’ve had expensive cables in my system (before I switched to the longer run of Belden I had little need to buy cable as I had audiophile buddies giving me various cast off or spare high end speaker cable, or just lending me stuff - some being the garden-hose-thick variety). Does my sound "suffer" from having gone to meagre Belden cable ("meagre" as in "industry standards quality"....)? Not that I can tell. My system sounds a glorious, open, detailed as any other system I’ve had. And as I’ve said, when I go to listen to other systems - and since I used to review a bit myself I still have friends who are reviewers and aside from having a parade of great gear, they usually cabled up with the best of the best (e.g. Nordost etc.) and my system sounds just as good - as my pal with vasty more expensive cabling often acknowledges. I've also auditioned speakers in a good high end audio store - hooked up to expensive cables - and then at my own home, and found no loss of fidelity due to my lower priced cabling. So there is no apparent lack of fidelity holding back my system from not having spent thousands of dollars on upmarket audiophile cables. That’s not to say (as I feel I must repeat) that "cables never sound different." I think there are plausible reasons some cables can sound different (though many of the reasons given by high end companies seem like quite a stretch). But the point I’m making is that cables are not some Black Art. The main body of knowledge behind constructing good cables has been known for a long time. As I said: all those incredible sounding classic audiophile recordings were made with cables before all this high end stuff started coming out. I just think that it’s good to offer some other perspective, as newbies coming to the average audiophile site will tend to take away a message that, unless they spend a lot on audiophile cables, their system won’t be high fidelity. And that the more they spend on speakers and other equipment, well the more they have to spend on cables. |
aalenik, Guys, if you don’t hear a difference... just don’t spend your $$, and let everyone else make their own decisions. You don’t need to make your opinion into a crusade. This is a very common reply and I think it reflects a strange imbalance, or bias, operating in these types of forums. So long as one is claiming cables make a difference, they can happily post about the superiority of any cable they buy over others and it’s all accepted in good cheer. There are thousands of such posts made on audiogon and other high end forums. But should someone have an alternative view - that they are not convinced of the wisdom of spending lots of money on the high end cables everyone is lauding - well then THAT person’s view is seen simply as negative and harassing, even dogmatic and evangelical. Or, conversely, a heretic has snuck into the pews. Even if a more skeptical opinion is couched in a way that is no stronger than any of the many "cables OBVIOUSLY make a difference" posts, it becomes an occasion for the "stop harassing us!" replies. Even look at the OP of this thread. It’s as "evangelical" and challenging to those who don't spend money on high end cables as anything a skeptic would write. (Even suggesting anyone who disagrees is deluded or dogmatic). But is it greeted as obnoxious, harassing or pushy by the folks who agree cables make a big difference? Apparently not. So long as a post aligns with that bias that high end cables obviously make sonic differences from lower priced cables, then it’s "Well...yeah...of course...what’s the problem?" |
boxer12, "Guys, if you don’t hear a difference... just don’t spend your $$, and let everyone else make their own decisions. You don’t need to make your opinion into a crusade" So you don’t see any "crusading" about the original post? It’s rather obviously out to persuade (if not outright castigate) cable skeptics. But if a skeptic speaks up it’s a "crusade?" What if the quote you supported went like this: Guys, if you hear a difference (between cables), just spend your $$ and let everyone else make their own decisions. You don’t have to make your opinion into a crusade." Can I trust you would find that equally "solid advice?" Or is it only solid advice for one side of the opinion spectrum? And if you would endorse the version I just wrote as well, then what should that imply about those who hear differences in cables? That they should stop talking about it, and posting all the claims that they heard differences? Certainly it would at least seem to implicate the OP as crusading. See, this is the problem with saying only to one viewpoint "please shut up, we don’t need to hear your view." It’s hard to be consistent. The main problem is that aalenik’s post contained a sort of strawman: That people giving their own skeptical view are in some way "not letting" everyone else make their own decisions. Who isn’t being allowed to make their own decisions? It’s just that when some people voice their own skeptical view of cable differences, it seems to p*ss off those who are in to hearing the differences, and they want the skeptic to just button up. Why can’t someone take hearing another view without it "ruining" or "stopping them making their own decision?" Knowledge is power, and it’s likely that views on both sides of the debate contribute some knowledge, so anyone can come to his or her own conclusions. |
rvpiano, My response to aalenik was meant to address the general concept of sonic differences between cables. And since most of that debate centers around the claims of high end cables, which we all know to be more expensive than the norm - I was referencing those. That said, I can see how when I mentioned your post I conflated the issue of "higher prices" with your claim about "differences between cables." Sorry. That was sloppy of me. That said, your claim that "There are vast differences" obviously falls within that much debated arena (which is why you made the post in the first place - acknowledging there are skeptics). So, money aside, it's still an example of what I was arguing: That if you voice an opinion that is in line with "cable obviously make sonic differences" then no one blinks an eye, even when it's made in a challenging (even derisive) way. But should a skeptic voice some skepticism, he is accused of being dogmatic, harassing and out to wreak the fun of other people. A sort of "sit down and shut up" implication if you don't go with the flow. |
aalenik, Prof - You (and few others here) need to get over yourself. Again...this is a strangely emotional form of reply. Why? What is so threatening to you, that someone might not believe exactly what you believe? I mean, I dare to give some reasonable statements for why I have decided not to spend my money on high end cables...and you feel the need to say "get over yourself?" I supposed you don’t feel the same need to tell that to the OP. I wonder why? Because if I’d made a statement anything like it, but against those who believe in cable differences, you know you’d be telling me to "get over myself." Since when does my opinion "challenge" yours just by EXISTING? That’s whack!! This suggests you’ve completely misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote exactly the opposite: that someone offering a different opinion does not (and should not) be seen as a problem, or somehow stopping someone else from doing what they want and like. We should be able to be chill about the fact someone else might not believe what we believe. Someone hears differences in cables? Shout it to the world! Enjoy. I may offer a slightly different take myself. So what? Listen, I feel that you have every right to your opinion/observation/belief that all cables sound alike. I never wrote that. It’s not what I believe, so why would I write it? What is so hard about actually reading what someone says? Did you not see the times I mentioned where I say it’s plausible cables can sound different, and also wrote explicitly: Prof: That’s not to say (as I feel I must repeat) that "cables never sound different. But the weird thing is that to people talking about cables, everything goes in and comes out as black or white. If someone simply has a more cautious view on the audibility of cables - for instance that some cables claimed to sound different *may not* sound different, but others may sound different, and all of that is only provisional and could be wrong - it goes into the ears of people and comes out "HE SAID ALL CABLES SOUND ALIKE! NO DIFFERENCES EVER!" How about just reading a bit closer instead of wasting energy on strawmen? (And speaking of strawman, a very common one continually raised here regards whenever someone dares mention blind testing and sighted bias. To bring up the problem of sighted bias IS NOT to claim "you didn’t hear a difference." It is only to say in some cases, you may certainly have heard a difference, but the method of evaluation doesn’t account for other variables like sighted bias, which allows some doubt. You might have heard it, but the method isn’t that reliable to determine this with great confidence, unfortunately ). The other side of that is that you should respect the rights of others whose opinions differ from yours, and consider that maybe they DO hear something. Again...nothing I wrote is in contradiction to that. Why in the world would I think someone shouldn’t have the right to tell us they heard differences between some cables? That’s bizarre. My biggest problem with the nay-sayers is that they may discourage newbies from listening for themselves and forming their OWN opinions. Aside from the fact I’m not trying to discourage anyone - just giving reasons for my own cautious opinions about cables: My biggest problem with what you are writing is how it suggests you have no confidence that other people aren’t able to process information and make up their own minds. Oh dear...they MAY see someone who gives some reason for skepticism about a certain cable claim. How will they cope???!!! As if there wasn’t a massive number, and greater proportion, of pro-cable views sitting right here to read as well. You are telling them to NOT EVEN TRY, because you have already told them THE TRUTH. And if they DO hear something, they must be wrong. Complete and utter nonsense, as I have done nothing of the kind. Take a few breaths, perhaps re-read what I’ve written with the attitude that nuance is a good thing to notice, then we could possibly have a fruitful conversation about what we both actually believe. |
mbishop63 One thing I've found about interconnect cables is you have to be patient through the "break in period". The improvement in sound quality won't be instantaneous but rather a gradual change. Maybe cable manufacturers could find a way to precondition their products before shipping. Well, if you believe cables need to "break in," have I got a product for you! https://www.thecablecooker.com/ |
Speakers need breaking in, capacitors need breaking-in, cartridges need breaking-in, who doesn’t believe that? Who doesn’t believe those things? Generally speaking, from what I’ve seen: You’ll find skeptics among those have relevant knowledge of electronics, engineering and physics. Who aren’t themselves trying to sell you the products in question. Or who cater to professional industries where woo-woo claims tend not to pass the muster, vs those manufacturers that advertise to audiophiles. Or who come from a rigorous scientific background who maintain those as standards for evaluating technical claims. (I’d put, for instance, someone like Dr. Sean Olive in that last category). Most audiophiles are not very technically literate (I include myself as well - I don’t have the technical chops to evaluate many of the technical claims). So high end manufacturers can market with all sorts of technical sounding gibberish. As long as it tickles the audiophile’s "so this means it will sound better" module, it will sell to audiophiles. And since we audiophiles tend to have quite lax methods of testing such claims - if we put it in our systems and think we hear a difference, then the claim was true! - almost any claim can seem to be justified in the audiophile world. This is why I tend to look for opinions from people who have relevant experience and expertise. who don’t have an interest in trying to sell me the product in question. to help vet such claims, Or, who at the very least, display an adherence to empirical rigour, and who don’t ignore relevant variables (e.g. bias etc). So take for instance speaker burn in. Are there relevant experts who critique the idea? Sure. For instance Dr. Sean Olive, an award winning AES member who was a research scientist at the NRC studying "the perception and measurement of loudspeakers, listening rooms," has written to someone asking about speaker break in: “As far as "breaking in" the loudspeakers, this should have no effect on the performance or sound quality of the speaker; unfortunately this one of the many audiophile myths that, in most cases, has little scientific merit. Of course, over time, you may perceive the speakers have changed or improved because you may have adapted to their sound. That is a psychological effect that is not related to any physical change to the loudspeaker itself.” Of course you’ll see some high end speaker manufacturers claiming break in. But for one thing, we have to remember that this can be seen as rather convenient - because there is the well known adaptation effect that occurs in our perception, where we adapt to something, including sounds, over time. So if we find something "wrong" with the sound of a speaker at first, given time we can often adapt to those colorations. A high end dealer or manufacturer claiming "break in" allows for the possibility of this adaptation effect. "You love the sound of our speaker when you first set it up? Great. Told you it was wonderful. Oh, it sounds off to you? Well, don’t send them back, hang on to them and keep listening. They need to break in. Oh...and it can take hundreds and hundreds of hours!" That’s a win-win situation for increasing the likelihood of keeping a sale, so it would be the path of least resistance to any manufacturer to support this idea, no matter what scale of personal confidence they may have in it. And btw, it doesn’t even have to be cynical or deliberate: people selling high end speakers certainly can and do believe in break in. But the fact that break in has this strong added appeal to sales can’t be just ignored. So even for those manufacturers who claim their speakers need a great many hours of break in, I would ask "what data can you show for this claim?" Paul Barton of PSB, for instance, ran tests on speakers/drivers for break in and determined that, while some differences were measurable, they were incredibly minute and barely or not audible. As for Cables, I don’t see large companies with huge amounts of experience in constructing cables for demanding professional environments telling anyone they have to "burn in" their cables - e.g. Belden, Canare. Or take companies like Prysmian Group, the largest manufacturer of cables in the world, who build cables for all manner of the most sensitive requirements. If you download sales/spec sheets on their cables you will see incredibly detailed specifications and values. But nothing suggesting anyone has to "break in" their cables in order to realize their very precise performance values. And if the performances of their cables actually did change that much over some "break in" time that could be a heck of a problem, so that is something they would be very incentivized to mention or deal with. Or take resistors/capacitor "break in." Look at for instance Vishay. First of all, I’ve read reports from people who actually work with Vishay and who have broached the whole "break in" idea with Vishay engineers, concluding the break-in claims aren’t "real." And this makes sense if you look at Vishay’s products and information. They do resistors and capacitors not only for audio, but for a wide range of industries: "industrial, computing, automotive, consumer, telecommunications, military, aerospace, power supplies, and medical markets. ". So their business includes many VERY SENSITIVE USE environments, where precision is everything, and B.S. won’t fly in those environments nearly so much as in the high end audio community. Then look at their product information for any of their passive resistors/capacitors, and you’ll see very detailed technical specifications. Given the sensitivity and seriousness of the use to which many of those will be put, if resistor/capacitor "burn in" were a significant issue, if the values would actually change to some significant degree, that would be a Big Problem. Industries NEED the product to hit those advertised values, right off the bat, not wait around for "burn in" hoping for the best. What I have yet to see in favor of these "burning in of cables/capacitors" claims is what any demanding professional customer for one of these products would want to see: measured differences in "new" vs "broken in" components, with those differences carefully correlated to their level of audibility using controlled listening tests. The effects of bias on perception is very well known and documented. I have a bit of personal acquaintance with this as well, having conducted some blind listening tests of some items (e.g. some cables, CD players/DACs, digital servers). I know what it’s like to "absolutely hear" an "obvious" difference with a new piece of cable etc, but then find this "obvious difference" suddenly disappears when I don’t actually know which cable I’m listening to. It’s very instructive to go through this process, to understand just how vividly our perception can be fooled. It seems that a great many audiophiles think their perception can’t be fooled. "Nobody can tell me I didn’t hear what I know I heard!" All I can say to this is to simply point out it is in contradiction to well established scientific facts about human bias and perception. Which is why I will continue to take such reports, especially on the more controversial subjects, with a grain of salt. And...as it seems required that I point this out in NEON LETTERS every time: None of the above establishes "there are no differences between cables etc" or that "burn in never happens." Rather, they are simply some of the reasons on which I place some of my skepticism and caution about some of the claims in high end audio. I haven’t decided "these things are not true" so much as "If the evidence isn’t of great quality...I’ll hold out for better evidence." |
rvpiano, I believe you regard science as a kind of religion in itself. Then you believe wrong. Science, and my attitude towards it, is the furthest thing from religion; it’s an anti-dogma stance. (Dogma is pretty much antithetical to learning and knew knowledge). Scientific knowledge is provisional, always ready to be revised on new evidence; the opposite of unquestioned knowledge held dogmatically. Unquestioning faith in current science leaves no room for discovery. I have no such "unquestioning faith" and in fact my views on science are born of questioning, as is science itself. The idea that this leaves no room for discovery is incorrect, to say the least. As if we’ve learned everything there is to learn? Who would hold such an absurd notion. May as well tell scientists and engineers to must pack it in and go home then. The fact is, the long hard road to science has taught us a lot about our foibles and science is our best attempt to correct for them (not perfect...just our best method so far). Nothing science tells us is Absolutely True - it’s all provisional, ready for revision should new evidence arise, and it’s all ready for new discoveries (which of course are made all the time). So the ideas you are imputing to me are your own concoctions, and certainly don’t represent my view. You ignore the possibility that the tools of measument may not yet be sensitive enough to assess what a large community of audiophiles recognize. Amazing. Once again: YES perhaps some (or many) people are hearing things like differences with cables, AC cables, capacitors, burn in etc. I’ve simply pointed out that there are *some reasons* for caution about many of the claims and that there are *variables involved* that many audiophiles are not taking into consideration when declaring such differences. If you flip a coin and say "Well, it landed heads so that means it’s raining outside now" I am not going to say IT IS NOT RAINING, because it may well be raining outside. But I will rightly point out "that’s not a reliable method of determining the weather." Similarly, if you are just putting new cables in to your system and declaring they make an obvious sonic difference, I’m not declaring "WHAT YOU HEARD WAS FALSE" but rather: there are some problems with that method that make such inferences unreliable." (E.g. sighted bias, and other issues). And the further we get in to areas of controversy, that are disputed by people with relevant technical expertise, the more caution is warranted in such subjective reports. Now...could audiophiles be hearing things that science can’t yet measure? That’s always a possibility. But the problem is EVERY fringe belief system says the same thing. Talk to psychics, or New Age religions, or any of the countless unscientific medical claims (homeopathy etc) will tell you the same thing. They think based on their subjective experience their claims are true, but "science can’t currently demonstrate these things." It is the calling card of quackery and crackpots everywhere. So in order to ascertain whether it’s *more* than quackery (which it could be) it makes sense to ask things like "what is the technical explanation and does it make sense?" and "how have these claims been tested? Any control for bias effects? etc. And if an audiophile is going to claim "I can hear things that science can't measure" then he would have a burden of proof. You don't walk out of a hearing exam only having scored up to hearing to 13K, but still declaring "I can hear to 22K, you just couldn't measure my hearing acuity." That won't fly. If an audiophile makes any similar "this is true but you can't measure it" claim, and the only basis he has was "I'm sure I heard it" then...there are problems with this. It doesn't separate itself from the possible-quackery crowd.
Then tell me, please, what a good method would be to separate hype and self delusion from reality. If not by asking for compelling technical explanations/measurements or controlling for known variables...how? Will it just be your word against the other guy? But you carry that to an unreasonable extreme. So you say, but you haven’t demonstrated anything unreasonable about it, yet. How would you suggest we evaluate "hype" claims from plausible claims, and whether a sonic difference is due to self-delusion (or bias effects) vs being "real?" (And I wonder if you think the standard medical study controls - which take human bias seriously in their methods - are "too extreme.") Your disclaimer at the end does not really counteract the main thrust of your argument. Well, since you did not seem to understand the main thrust of my argument, it’s hard to give your statement much credence. Everything I argued is consistent with my final statement, that I was not claiming any definitive views or demonstrations about the audibility of the claims made in this thread. Please, try not to think in black or white. It’s possible for people to have nuanced views on these things that don’t just fall into dogmatism of one kind or another. |
Yeah, speaker break in seems a lot more plausible to me. I'm not sure though about the magnitude of the effects. I never noticed speaker break in on any speaker I've owned, (and I'm a careful listener) so I just have to infer what I can from outside information. I mean, my system can still "sound" different at different times to me, and my speakers are far past any break in period, being years old. So I bet, in my case, it's more down the changes in my mood, state of mind etc and how it affects my perception, than to the system (as our minds and perception are vastly more plastic than the likely changes in a system day to day). I don't claim answers; I'm trying to figure my way through high end audio like anyone else. |
aalenik, Though you were joking, to be clear I’m not remotely angry and felt I was being conciliatory. And I understand you aren’t asking me to believe just on your say so. (No more than I’d ask you to believe anything just because I say so). I’ve known and/or spoken to a great number of audiophiles, high end salesman and manufacturers (as I suspect any of us have who have been in this hobby for many decades) and I think most manufacturers believe in their product and their various claims, and aren’t trying to hoodwink people. That’s why I’d written: "And btw, it doesn’t even have to be cynical or deliberate: people selling high end speakers certainly can and do believe in break in." That said...when it comes to cables, given one can find companies charging up to $10,000 for an ethernet cable, I reserve the right to a special level of suspicion about the cynicism hiding in the audiophile cable industry. |
rvpiano, Sorry, didn't mean to wear you out. Don't respond if you don't feel like it, but if you even just ignore my last post to you, I would still be curious about your answer to one question. You'd said there was a degree of hype and self-delusion in our hobby. How do you think we could determine hype from substance, and just as important, self-delusion from reality? |
cleeds, Thanks for your answer. Here are some thoughts that come to mind when I read it. The best approach is to use the same techniques that have proven effective in the rest of your life. After all, deceit and propaganda are everywhere. That would be reasonable advice only insofar as someone has been using ’proven effective’ techniques to begin with. Obviously a great many people fall for deceit, propaganda, scams and a huge number of other errors. You don’t want to say "keep using the same technique" to them. So it seems we would need to refine this advice to discern "effective" (or reliable, more reasonable) techniques of inquiry vs ineffective/unreliable.
I admit I don’t get this reference to "fear." If we were talking about the hobby of cliff climbing, well then yeah. But I can’t remember the last time I felt "fear" related to my high end audio hobby (except perhaps fearing dropping my speakers when transporting them). Would you like to elaborate on what role you think "fear" plays in high end audio? understand the subtle distinction between illusion and delusion. If you can avoid being fooled by illusion, then you are not much at risk for delusion. Generally speaking, an illusion is a mistaken prima facie inference from a misleading sense stimulus. A delusion is a mistaken belief held despite what should be motivating evidence to the contrary. Being aware of one does not protect against the other. You can be deluded and experience illusions. You can understand some things to be illusions, but be deluded simply by an error-strewn thought process that leads you to a conclusion you will not give up. On the other hand, one can fall for any number of illusions, but so long as one is open to error-correction, this will not amount to delusions based on those illusions. But I take what I infer to be an implied point: that being fooled by an illusion is not the same as being deluded. I would certainly endorse that! It’s one of the mistaken assumptions I have to keep battling. Suggesting someone may be falling for a perceptual mistake doesn’t suggest they are "deluded" or "deluding themselves." They just don’t mean the same thing. However, IF someone persists in a belief derived from a perceptual mistake, and that belief is incorrigible in the face of any counter evidence, then it can cross into a form of self-delusion. Which, again, suggests the relevance of having an error-correction technique. Avoid snap judgments and evaluate "expert" advice carefully. Do at least some of your own research. That means not simply reading the opinions of others, but diving deep enough to conduct your own analysis. In audio, that means you are going to have to do some of your own, first-hand testing. Agreed. That all makes sense. Though, as before, it also needs the context of what constitutes "good research," "reliable testing methods" etc. After all, Flat Earthers would endorse every word of what you just wrote as well, as they question expert views, think about it themselves, do their own tests etc. The problem is, they are operating on various faulty assumptions, and poor methodology. Hopefully we would want to avoid that in the realm of high end audio. But it often seems like this is not the case. Thanks again for your thoughtful reply! |
fsconicsmith, of course I remember you. I really appreciated your contributions regarding the 0/93s! And thanks for the kind words. On cables: I have tried to make it clear that my own view is far from settled, and that I’m not claiming there aren’t ever differences in sounds among cables. I'm in no position to know such a thing, let alone believe it. Rather, I think I still have good reasons for not placing a strong emphasis on high end cables in my system - that is spending a lot of money on cabling. Which is a different thing. Cheers. |
elizabeth, The amazing thing I find is some folks think their wisecracks and insults, or carefully constructed arguments... Elizabeth, is this comment directed at my posts? Can you show me where I’ve been insulting people? And if you investigate the thread to find examples, please pay attention to the posts directed at me. You may well find some insults coming from that direction. For instance, it seems here you are implying writing such as mine to be "drivel." How magnanimous do you think that is on your part? Do you not care that maybe I’m writing about things I care about? ...make a dent in anyone’s beliefs. First of all: whats the matter with simply representing one’s OWN beliefs, and why we hold them? Again, here is the imbalance I keep pointing out. Anyone can write as much as they want how their new cables obviously made a difference and/or include appeals to technical claims for one cable over another, and make all the claims they want about why "obviously cables sound different!" But if I or someone else explain why we are being cautious about such conclusions, well then we are cast variously as dogmatic, proselytizing, evangelical, impinging on people’s "freedom to enjoy" and even ...gasp...being Machiavellian (that was a particularly fun histrionic characterization on Teo’s part). So anyone has a right to express their views and why they hold them, don’t you agree? The question is: why do you seem to not blink an eye when one view is constantly put forth (cable differences) but bristle so much when another view is expressed and defended against challenging questions? Isn’t this very thread title and OP a call out challenge to people who may be more skeptical? Further, how would it be wrong, in either case, to wish to present good reasons for a position? And if someone finds those reasons convincing, if it changes their mind...what’s the harm? What’s so wrong with having things you believe challenged? On EITHER side. They do not. All the written drivel has not changed one person’s notions. That’s a common theme, but it’s not true. Sure, in any typical discussion or debate, someone’s view is rarely changed in real time, especially between the people arguing one side vs another. But over time people certainly can change views. I was more of the mind that everything might make a difference when I got heavily into high end audio - and felt I heard all sorts of differences (audio cables, AC cables, isolation feet, etc). But observing interesting debates on the subjects got me challenging my own assumptions. It also spurred me to try blind testing on my own. It was extremely enlightening and has informed some of my skepticism ever since. I’ve seen numerous audiophiles say the same about their journey. (Though fewer of them tend to hang out on a place like Audiogon). Further, not everyone is dogmatically stuck in one camp or another. Many of these discussions can be viewed by people who haven’t made up their mind, and seeing different viewpoints defended can influence their own point of view, either in the short or long term. But, again, before you characterize other people’s writing as "drivel" and implicate them as being insulting, I’d ask you to consider how you just wrote...and look at many of the posts directed at me (some of which have been removed, though...) Cheers. (BTW, I never feel insulted by anyone, whether they mean to insult me or not. What would be the point? They can either explain where I’m wrong, or they can fall to insults or mischaracterizations). |
Teo, Your response turned on attributing this argument to me: It simply means that you can't hear it.. You made that up. Simply, made up the move from "I didn't hear it" to projecting the conclusion "therefore others could not hear it." Because I argued no such thing. I'd never make such a ludicrous argument as "I didn't hear it, therefore no one has ever heard it and the phenomenon in question isn't real." Which is why I've been quite careful NOT to make such an argument. (And you skipped every caveat, such as that I started out saying speaker break in seems to have some plausibility to me). So...when you can settle down, read what I'm actually writing and properly represent it or respond to it without strawmannirg my position...then maybe we can have a fruitful discussion. For instance, can you actually point to anything I've written or argued that is B.S.? I'm not saying I haven't written anything that isn't mistaken, but strawmaning someone isn't a way to move things forward. |
rvpiano, Well, I have to say our assessment of Teo’s post(s) are pretty much at odds. You mention three words that pretty much what come to my mind when I read it. ;-) I can see why you may like it; it’s a diss of people who claim not to hear differences in cables, so it expresses the sentiment of your original post. But I would challenge you to actually pull a good argument out of what he wrote. And one that isn’t ultimately self-defeating. It’s one thing to go of into soliloquies attributing some specious argument to other people and "knocking them down." It’s entirely another thing to specifically address what someone actually written. Teo as far as I can see spends a lot of time on the former and doesn’t seem terribly interested in the latter. Note when I pointed out his critique of my position derived from his own strawman, he didn’t acknowledge this at all. Similarly when I responded to another post of Teo’s: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/beware-the-audio-guru?page=4 He just carries on, ignoring all the problems pointed out in his string of confidently declared claims. And that his very argument about the skeptics, and those who "can’t hear" the differences seem to just as ready to undermine those who claim they can. (And this is a common problem with arguments against blind testing, or other forms of controlled testing, and skeptical challenges: the Golden Ear who can easily heard "transformational" differences when he swaps in new cables suddenly looks for every excuse of why it soooo haaard to pick up these now-micro-differences in more carefully designed tests. The problem remains: if you think tests in which efforts to really control and account for known variables are unreliable...what in the world make you think tests with fewer controls, which allow for all sort of known bias effects, are MORE reliable????) Teo continually poses as if he is tearing down the foundations of the type of skepticism people like me bring to some high end audio claims, but he has yet to accurately interpret or critique anything I’ve been writing. But maybe that’s because my posts are too dangerously "Machiavellian" to touch ;-) As I keep saying: we need to move out of black and white thinking - that someone either has to be a Believer or a Disbeliever - and that any nuance or caveats are just sneaky and Machiavellian. It really is possible to consider two points of view; to represent a case for skepticism without committing to that case, or to have come to a negative conclusion. (Anyway, bye thread for now as I’m off on vacation...cheers everyone!) |
@fleschler Well I’m glad to see you put the effort into cross posting your castigation of me. One can perhaps admire your thoroughness! I wonder, though: What do you think about this thread that starts by calling out cable skeptics as dogmatic or delusional? Is that the kind of rhetoric you see as fitting and helpful? I don’t see you voicing any problem with it. Is it only open season on people who have doubts about high end cabling - disparage them as one wishes? Fortunately I’m not trying to be anyone’s guru. But if you find me a bore on cables, it’s possible you may still find something of interest in my babbling over on the speakers forum. Many seem to have enjoyed my recent “speaker journey” describing the many speakers I’ve auditioned and compared. It’s a pretty big list and maybe you’d find it more entertaining. |
