Brizonbiovizier, I buy on belief as do you. Beware that it is not just significance, it is statistical significance as in is it possible that our random sample came from a population where there was no relationship between variables. What you are talking about is that it is very improbable, not that it is statistically significant, much less meaningfully significant.
I agree with you that room treatment is often neglected, but I certainly would not include digital correction for the room in what needs to be done.
Why do you use expensive connectors on you cables? How do you know they make a difference? You use cables because they were provided and claim cables make no difference without any observations to backup that conviction. This is quite contrary to the scientific method. One seeks a theory that accounts for the observations rather than avoiding observations because they are contrary to the theory. |
hi brizonbovizier:
you are correct on the need for multiple tests. if we were not separated by the atlantic ocean, we could design an experiment to be performed , say 50 times. that way, i could clean your pocket of most of your waging money.
you also raise the question of reliability of perception. the notion that one can be confident of one's perceptions may be open to question. anytime we hear a difference based upon sense perception, we may not always perceive such a difference over multiple repititions. so you could apply your logic to other components as well.
as a practical manner, there is a risk when purchasing components. we may deicde we don't like its presentation after some period of time, evn though we may have auditioned the component for 30 days prior to purchase.
one cannot be certain of one's perceptions. they are a lot like opinions. they are probably true and probably false, and it is difficult to test them. |
hi tbg:
we are all subject to two types of errors, namely perceiving what isn't there and failing to perceive what is present. it is difficult to determine when an error is made.
the point is to assume that mistakes will be made and not worry whether a difference that is perceived is true or not.
one makes decisions on the basis of confidence, usually as result of induction. sometimes the confidence is not justified.
risk is the name of the game and unfortunately the occasional dissatisfaction from a component purchase. |
Components clearly sound different and that is what I buy on. This can be repeated blind. Cables cannot. The likelihood of a particular random outcome can be assessed from the sample size and test regime. For example if you have one listener (you) telling apart two cables in a test on one occasion you have a 50% chance of being right just by chance. You would need to repeat the identification a statistically significant number of times in repeated tests for it to have 99% significance. Noone has ever done this and i doubt you would either. Significance - means a significant deviation from chance distribution given the test conditions.
The connectors are hardly expensive - probably £10 a pair. They break earth last which is why I buy them so I can hot swap without turning components off. The importance of good connection can also be demonstrated repeatably if you put purposefully make a poor connection the sound quality suffers. Good quality connectors also minimize RF issues. Again - all well understood science. I have compared with expensive cables lent by numerous shops and they made no difference. Also I have observed ridiculous claims like skin effect and cable directionality. I used to work in rf engineering testing and i recognize this is all ridiculous and just marketing BS. |
>>>Components clearly sound different and that is what I buy on. This can be repeated blind. Cables cannot.<<<
Perhaps you are listening to the wrong cables- I easily hear the difference. |
brizonbovizier, all I can say is that we differ greatly on what is science and statistical significance, and how we personally choose components. I think that my listening pleasure would be sharply reduced were I to be driven in making decisions on audio based on limited engineering concepts that you view as fundamental. I think EE has very limited understanding of why things work and uses a fundamentally unscientific "good enough" perspective on circuits, parts, wire, and even what is safe.
What you say about statistical significance is in error. As I said, you are talking about probabilities, not statical significance. To use significance is to make believe that you are talking about meaningful significance when you are not. |
Leica - Lets see you do it in a blind test. So far many have made the claim but none have been able to deliver - which is why the $1M remains unclaimed and no cable manufacturer ever puts on a comparative demonstration.
TBG - all audio components are designed using engineering principles - either theoretical or empirical. EE has a very good understanding on how components work - they would not do so without it! It is not some alchemical art no matter what the magazines would have you believe. Your statements about statistics are also in error - I have a PhD in mathematics and work in advanced statistical on a daily basis techniques in a scientific field way beyond anything under discussion here. Probabilities are statistics are linked at the most fundamental level - even a basic understanding should show you that. |
Brizonbiovizier,
I have proven on my system expensive cables are a joke. They all vary on how much they roll off or cloud the signal. More expensive cables generally do the most harm. Most people never notice the dielectric foaming of the signal, because that distortion is buried in other component noise.
One thing I found that does make a difference is wire geometry. I have found very thin SCs to be great at extremes extension, while round wires produce a mid range bulge. |
Brizonbiovizier, wrong on both counts. Yes, electronic components work, but that does not mean that we really know what variations might improve them. Certainly, to think that resistance, capacitance, and inductance are all that matters is simplistic. What about the geometry, what about the insulation, and what about the impact of RFI and EMF?
You are right about probabilities and statistics being linked at a fundamental level but it is still the case that statistical significance is the proper term, not significance as the single word believes the fact that what is statistically significant may be of little value. If you don't realize that statistical significance can be greatly enhanced by increasing the size of the sample, your understanding is deficient.
Statistical significance center entirely on the question of whether sampling error could mean that our random sample based findings could with a certain probability have come from a population where there was no relationship between the variables in our hypothesis. We are willing to risk type I error and reject our null hypothesis lending credence to our hypothesis if the probability of such an unfortunate sample is below typically below 5 in a 100 samples.
I have a PhD in both political science and psychology where I got most of my methods training both in experimental and sample based research. I have taught research methods and statistics for 40 years and published broadly in refereed journals, not that this really matters.
I still say that your dismissal of the possibility that wires sound different is inherently unscientific and unjustified by anything you mention. Furthermore, I cannot understand why any audiophile would not avail themselves of the opportunity to listen first before dismissing possible improvements. |
Brizonbiovizier,
I understand your misperception- most cables are vaguely different at best. My cables are the Active Tesla cables from Synergistic Research and I can tell the difference 100% of the time when the active shields are turned on or off. I had a friend over and we did the blind test- sleeping eye mask on; in every instance I could plainly hear when the Active Shielding was turned on or off. I can also tell from outside my listening room. So much for your "theory". |
I worked in RF engineering for many years. Electronic circuits are well understood - the mode of operation is one of design according to theory. It is not guesswork and the limitations are well known as are what would be required to improve them. Usually the active devices in such components. With respect to cables, LCR and the shielding are sufficient to categorize any variation in behavior of the two connected components. No-one has ever produced any rigorous evidence that has stood up to scientific scrutiny that shows otherwise. Therefore accepted scientific theory (which is contradicted by the unsubstantiated claims of the pro-cable argument) has nothing to answer. If such evidence is ever produced then you will have a case. That is the scientific process - which I might add created all of audio in the first place.
As a rule political science and psychology are those fields where statistics and scientific method are most inappropriately applied - much to the merriment of true statisticians - and cables are another prime example. I stated in my post that sample size is important so I am bewildered that you claim otherwise given that it was the point of my post. If I set up a series of trials and assess relative to random expectation then I can calculate the statistical significance of your performance (if any), employing certain controls to assess effects of bias or systematic issues etc etc.
If you can do as you claim then I suggest you step up and claim Randis $1M without making excuses. If you can do it Randi is on the level and will pay you I am sure so what have you got to lose? |
Muralmanl - I agree. Many of the highest prices offenders deliberately contain anomalously high LCR values solely for the purpose of sounding "different" (in well understood ones) which can then be touted as "better" to justify the price.
Leica - then step up and claim randis $1M! have you considered that this "active device" may just be altering the LCR anomalously to achieve an effect? If it is just some sort of buffer then it is the buffer making the effect not the cable. In like manner beefing up the output stage of a component improves the sound quality often - it is distinct from the cable. In the absence of any real explanation it is impossible to say. Similar claims have been made for various cables in the past and without exception the ability to discern vanishes under blind testing. |
Brizonbiovizier, I think you hurt what case you had by your condescension. I suggest you get off your high horse and read something about sampling theory and statistics. Phrases such as "much the merriment of true statisticians" suggest that you are quite insecure in your competencies and certainly not scientifically trained. You claim that no one has ever produced any rigorous evidence that has stood up to scientific scrutiny. Well I would claim that I doubt if you would know anything about this, that it is just rubbish.
Objectivists always claim the scientific high ground and often I have learned do so without justification. It certainly is not scientific to forego listening to find if your cherished "theory" continues to hold. I doubt if anyone reading this thread is any better off for doing so. |
high muralman1:
most interconnects do not attenuate the highs . they are either very extended or accentuate the treble.
for example, nordost, synergistic research tesla, crystal cable, virtual dynamics and poema cable, definitely are not soft on top.
as someone who has auditioned and reviewed many cable products, i cannot recall encountering a cable that was rolled off in the treble. can you provide the names of a few ? i will audition them myself, unless of course i have already heard them or owned them. |
If cables all sound alike the why-
1. Why do we need to prove we have "paranormal" abilities before we can take the test? Is being paranormal a scientific variable for this "scientific" test? If so how do we prove this- winning Lottery numbers- LOL.
2. Why do we need to prove the cables sound "better" and not just different- who determines "better" and since when is better "scientific?"
2a. Is better not a "subjective" determination- how ironic or "moronic" in this case.
3. Why can we not select our cables- why are we forced to use a cable "ringer?"
4. Why can we not take the test in our own system that we are familiar with?
5. Why are we forced to run the cables through a switching box that will negate the differences between the cables being tested?
The answer is this is not a real test and that Mr. Flat Earth has no intention of paying out. |
well stated, tbg.
i have suggested blind testing but mr b avoids the subject.
practically speaking, if you can hear a difference and are confident that you do during a number of listening sessions, it should be sufficient. if you then purchase the cable and it remains in your system for a period of time, that also should be sufficient. blind tests are imlpicitly or explicitly rigged to make it difficult to observe differences. |
"I think EE has very limited understanding of why things work and uses a fundamentally unscientific "good enough" perspective on circuits, parts, wire, and even what is safe." TBG
Engineers are by definition not scientists. An enlightened understanding of "good enough" is at the heart of good engineering. Engineers design fantastic, fascinating, shiny devises that actually work.
If the goal of cable design is no audible contribution by the cable, then all cables should sound the same , by design.
If there is a audible difference between two cables, A & B, then either A is no good, B is no good or neither A nor B is good. The better cables get, then the more alike they should sound. |
Mrtennis, If you lived nearby I could entertain you with how horrible Cardas Golden Reference is, or the much touted Jenna series for instance. You would have to be here. My gear is so clear sounding, noises going missed in other systems will startle you on my system. It is their insulation that mutilates the signal.
I am in Sacramento California for anyone wanting to test my veracity.
Some of the cables you mention do indeed sound very good, at a serious price. I was impressed with two others, the Shunyata Andromeda Helix, and the Cerious digital cables. I was using Anti-Cables at the time, because they exhibited no dielectric fuzz.
The pricey cables walked all over the Anti-Cables in different ways. The Shunyata had greater extension with some serious bass. The Anti-Cable held it's own in the mids only to be trounced in the highs. The Cerious cables gave a beautiful smooth sound. I wanted them.
The thing is, when I attached ultra thin ribbon SCs to my Scintillas, both cable companies lost all relevance. The short ribbons delivered all the highs and lows of the Shunyata, was just as musical and pleasant as the Cerious and is far more real sounding than either.
The kicker is the ribbon cables only cost me $12 apiece.
Can you imagine how happy that has made me? That discovery saved me mucha bucks that can be turned to a better source, something I can't build myself. |
|
Muralman,
Those are very interesting ribbon speaker cables. I'm inclined to build a set myself to hear how they would sound with my set-up. I'll email you off-line. |
Wire geometry will most affect highs. As you increase the spacing of wires you increase the inductance and therefore it will increase the "roll-off" of highs. This may make it sound perceptively warmer. So dangling wires with a large space between +ve and -ve conductors with large runs can indeed produce an audible difference....however, so can the treble tone control. |
Tbg - I am proper scientist - you are not and have had no scientific training in a rigorous scientific field. So much is fact. As is this - step up and claim Randis $1M and prove all us skeptics wrong. If you fail to do so then clearly your POV is called into question. Oh and please produce some peer reviewed material in a scientific journal that supports the pro cable lobby - oh but you cant because it doesn't exist!
For your information sampling theory refers to the digital realm not analogue interconnects. I suggest you take a brief tour of wikipedia on the subject. I have compared numerous cables myself - no difference exists that cannot be explained purely by LCR and shielding. I have no idea why you are making the erroneous assumption that I reject the pro cable lobby purely on the basis of theory.
Randi will pay out if you can prove your claims. So come on guys dont be bashful step up - what have you got to lose except your pride and credibility and a little bit of time? |
Vman71, I will look forward to your report. Thanks for the interest. Write me if you need any detailing. |
i would take the challenge, provided, i could select the speaker cable and determine the components of the stereo system. the design of the test would need to give me the opportunity to distingish the difference between two cables and be so "rigged" that it would be virtually imposssible for me to identify the two cables. i would insist on no cone speakers and no solid state components.
\i would select the sources and be involved in other details.
i might make a private wager with you mr. b. do you have the gumption to put your money where your mouth is ? or would you like to make a personal wager ?
i hear a lot of talk, but i detect you are afraid to bet yourself. |
Brizonbiovizier I did not realize you were such an accomplished scientist. Perhaps I need to reconsider my stance- have I been duped by mass hypnosis? I wonder. Now why don't you address the following questions- surely a man of science, such as yourself, can shed needed light on the scientific method hiding in Mr. Randi's balanced challange. 12-17-07: Leica_man
If cables all sound alike the why-
1. Why do we need to prove we have "paranormal" abilities before we can take the test? Is being paranormal a scientific variable for this "scientific" test? If so how do we prove this- winning Lottery numbers- LOL.
2. Why do we need to prove the cables sound "better" and not just different- who determines "better" and since when is better "scientific?"
2a. Is better not a "subjective" determination- how ironic or "moronic" in this case.
3. Why can we not select our cables- why are we forced to use a cable "ringer?"
4. Why can we not take the test in our own system that we are familiar with?
5. Why are we forced to run the cables through a switching box that will negate the differences between the cables being tested? |
|
Come on one of you - step up and claim the money from randi and silence all objection
I can hardly take you up on your offer Mr T as I am the other side of the world.
The blind test negates the difference not the switching box. There are many switches in every hifi after all and also in the recording chain.... |
i would challenge randi, provided i could design the experiment and select the components as well as the sources. otherwise, anyone can design an experiment to increase the probability of a desired result. |
Brizonbiovizier, why don't you take the Randi challenge? What if you heard a difference? Of course, you could just randomly say different or not different and assure you fulfilled your prior conception. This is the fallacy of DBTs. The real question is whether most people can hear a difference in a test where people could not lie to fulfill the hypothesis. Were a random sample of 1500 to have enough who heard a difference to achieve statistical significance, we would reject the null hypothesis that people don't hear a difference. This would be good research not Randi's game. |
Shadorne
Wire geometry will most affect highs. You can't have it both ways. Either you believe all cables sound the same or not. Take your pick. If they sound different, then arguing about how big the differences are is just silly. A subtle difference to you may be a bigger difference to someone else. Also, unless you have listened to and compared many different cables to each other, you have no basis of knowledge on the subject. Which leads us right back to the fallacy of the double blind test where the listener's ability to hear is hindered by the unnatural requirements of the test itself. The only thing those tests prove is how bad the testing methodology is at actually discovering the truth. I have always felt that a long term double blind test that allowed a listener to enjoy music through his own system comfortably over time, would have a much better chance of actually meaning something. The problem is that it is just not practical to set up. |
If you can't hear a difference between various cable designs, you probably shouldn't be in audio, just as people who are color-blind probably shouldn't be artists or traffic light designers. If you can't hear the differences, no problem. I've got a friend who cannot hear even the most obvious differences between cables. He admits this, and consequently, he doesn't drop any cash on audiophile equipment. Good for him! However, he doesn't sit there and argue with us about the non-existence of the effects we others hear clearly and decisively, but that he cannot. He recognizes his limitations and doesn't demand we all agree with his impressions.
Why, then, do so many of those who cannot hear any differences feel the need (the overwhelming and incessant need, apparently) to criticize others who CAN hear these differences? Does that mean those who can hear the differences should all give up what we can appreciate because others can't hear like we can? If you can't hear the difference, don't spend your cash. Like my friend. It's that simple.
But I think what is REALLY going on here is certain folks are insanely jealous of others' ears or wallets, or both, and so try to constantly attack those who can appreciate these subtleties. How juvenile and pathetic!
The only thing more pathetic is when folks like James Randi make absolutely moronic assertions in print, and then find legions of similar 'deep thinkers' who will blindly agree, all because Randi said it (so it MUST be true, right?) But having had first-hand experience with Randi and his Shock-Troopers previously (I was legal counselor to an OEM who suffered from Randi's rantings previously), I can assure you these clowns will never agree to any testing that isn't ridiculously slanted and pre-approved to yield results consistent with Randi's assertions. He'll only agree to use HIS system under HIS control, which said system is not even close to audiophile grade by any measure. (I believe this is what John Atkinson of "Stereophile" also mentioned in dealing with Randi and his minions regarding their 'million dollar challenge'.) I was shocked by all this, frankly. I expected Randi and his supporters to be all about honesty, logic and science. Scientists? Hardly! More like money-grubbing publicity seekers who cannot admit they are wrong.
Sadly, Randi and his crew are acting just like Uri Geller did on Carson when Randi skewered that fraud so beautifully by taking away his 'playing field' (i.e., the pre-stressed spoons and forks Geller used to dupe his willing audiences) and substituting normal, non-stressed utensils that Mr. Geller was unable to 'bend with his awesome mind powers'. That was a GREAT moment for Randi! (BTW: I was a HUGE fan of the 'Amazing Randi' until I got involved in the legal matter noted above and saw another side to his persona.) Why spoil such a wonderful image and legacy by resorting to exactly the same 'playing field' tricks Geller did? Randi is now nothing more than a successful hypocrite, one who simply insures he cannot lose his 'challenge' because he now does what Geller did: he controls the 'playing field' so that reality cannot be used to destroy his own baseless claims.
How sad!
I have never heard the 'Anjou' cables. I don't waste my money on such apparently over-priced designs that almost invariably sound inferior to great DIY designs that use sound electrical theory and application. But that doesn't mean I will criticize the buyers who DO find such products beneficial. I recently heard the Transparent Reference Opus (?) speaker cables that retail for --gasp!-- $35,000.00/pr!! At first I thought the dealer's cleaning person had left out a pair of cannister vacuums behind the speakers, but then was informed what they really were. When the dealer said the price of the Transparent cables I had to do a double-take. Yes, that's an absolutely ridiculous price, especially for a speaker cable that I bet I could beat with a pair of custom-built cables costing less than $50.00! But does that mean I should attack the dealers, the buyers, and Transparent Audio for what I believe to be a tremendous waste of money? (The dealer told me had sold SIX pairs in just a few weeks, BTW!)
This is America, folks. If people want to waste their hard-earned cash on such products, let them. If they think they heard a $34k difference, I'm not going to tell them otherwise. I didn't, but it's not my money or purchase decision. And I'm certainly not going to let petty jealousy color my view of a purchase decision made by someone else. If they've got ludicrous amounts of cash to burn on such things, good for them!
But to argue there is no sonic difference discernible between cables, regardless of price, is just pure non-sense
Every cable has its own unique sonic signature and, as Robert Stein is fond of saying, "... has the possibility of being the perfect cable in YOUR unique and individual set-up." This simple fact refutes Randi, period. We ALL know this is true, that no two different cable designs sound exactly alike (if they do, the system you're listening to is very, very low rez --apparently like Randi's! A Kenner "Close-'N'-Play", perhaps?) If no two different cable designs sound exactly alike, then price and preference cannot ever be criticized intrinsically, as 'there is no disputing taste'. This is simple logic. You may discuss your personal preference, but everybody is entitled to their own impressions and feelings --and purchasing decisions! And if well-heeled folks want to throw gobs of hard-earned (or inhherited) cash after something we might feel is utterly silly or wasteful, let them. That's what freedom is all about, isn't it?
But Randi isn't about logic or freedom, he's all about Randi --and staying 'relevant' and more importantly, 'solvent'. And if that requires him to level spurious accusations against developers of cutting-edge hi-fi products to remain 'relevant', it shows how low these 'celebrities' will stoop to stay in the all important 'public eye'. And that's saddening. Especially from a guy like Randi, that we all should expect a little more from than merely pandering to those unhappy and jealous types who want everyone brought down to their level of mediocrity. |
You can't have it both ways. Either you believe all cables sound the same or not. Take your pick. *sigh* yes some people think that way...that it has to be a choice that there is no gray area. It helps to understand that small differences exist but that these differences are just simply too small to be relevant in the vast majority of cases. Extreme geometries can roll off the highs slightly (separating +/- wires by great distances such as one foot such as in a loose dangling ribbon or wires...of course long runs are needed to make the effect audible) |
Winstonsmith, yours is a very informative post. Thanks for the information you bring to bear, which highlights the controversy well. I must say, however, that I wonder why you went so far as to say, "If people want to waste their hard-earned cash on such products, let them. If they think they heard a $34k difference, I'm not going to tell them otherwise." I heard the Wavelength $350,000 amp at CES and regretted that I did. It was incredible and there was no way I could even consider it. I don't think necessarily that people are "wasting" their money, especially on say the Siltech cords. If they can afford them, more power to them, especially if they can hear the benefits. I do know some who buy for appearances, but I know very few of these.
Nevertheless, your post does attack the irrational and illogical arguments of many of those who hear no differences. I have always wondered why they bother posting as they convince no one. You may well have the answer.
I am always, unhappy that they seek to wrap themselves in the cloak of science when few have any understand of what it means other than a few concepts in electrical engineering and a vague notion of what the placebo effect is about and of concern to some scientists. |
If you can't hear a difference between various cable designs, you probably shouldn't be in audio, just as people who are color-blind probably shouldn't be artists or traffic light designers
We ALL know this is true, that no two different cable designs sound exactly alike (if they do, the system you're listening to is very, very low rez --apparently like Randi's! A Kenner "Close-'N'-Play", perhaps?) The story of the "emperors new clothes" comes to mind...if you can't hear the difference then you have a lousy system and you are probably deaf too. We have all heard this one before. Well Winston, I think you might do well to investigate about a certain high end user on Agon with well over 1000's posts on his system and with the kind of SOTA gear and room design that everyone dreams about. Recently, this Gentleman underwent a Blind test and was unable to discern between two cables in his own system that he selected himself. (The reason he selected the cables was that he was utterly convinced he could hear a difference when conducting sighted tests and said so with such great conviction that a Blind test was a no brainer test he could pass with ease!) |
Shadorne, more information please. I don't know what a capitalized blind test means. What did he do as a result of not being able to "discern" between the cables. I suspect nothing. Perhaps he was more able hear a difference in the sighted test if the "blind" test was the usual 30 second, same/different test. This is the reason why I think these DB tests are invalid.
I would not be too critical of Winstonsmith until someone shows that there are not variations in the ability to discern differences. It seems to be unreasonable to expect that everyone's aptitude is the same as it is not on all other measures. |
First, thanks, TBG. I have seen your posts and they are thoughtful and introspective. In short, they are HELPFUL, which is the highest compliment that can be paid in this forum.
As for Shadorne, thank you for your post, too. Do you seriously contend that any of my assertions regarding cables and perception are inaccurate? Please provide some evidentiary basis and inferential logic to establish your contentions, whatever they actually are. You acknowledged previously in this thread that differences in cable design will lead to differences in measurable performance, although not audible in most systems. I agree 100% with your assertion there. Thusly you have refuted the 'Amazing Randi'. Your logic destroys Randi's position completely. There ARE differences in cables, just not big enough for most people's systems (or ears) to appreciate. You've nailed it beautifully! If you can't hear those differences, don't buy it. I don't know why you feel we are at odds in any way on this.
As to your second point, I must say, however, that just because someone has big bucks (and a dealer who knows how to spend it!), doesn't mean they have great ears. Money and taste don't always go hand in hand. Most people simply can't process enough information aurally to discern these differences (visually is a different story), and so should not be bullied or shamed into wasting their money on stuff they can't appreciate (except for bragging rights, I guess.) I thought we agreed on this, as well.
Do you seriously contend that just because someone has a megabuck system and a reputation as a stereo big shot, means they have ears we should trust? That's faulty logic. This supposed 'famous' audiophile's ability to hear is not in evidence, and has not been proven. Just because another big buck stereo-addict can't hear shit doesn't mean everyone else who claims different is a fraud. And it certainly doesn't mean the "Emperor has no clothes", as you put it.
I stand by what I said: most of this anti-high end stuff is jealousy, pure and simple. And I further stand by my simple solution: if you don't hear a difference, DON'T BUY IT!
I thought someone like you might agree with that ultimate conclusion, i.e., don't waste your money if you don't hear a difference, Shadorne. I am sorry if you don't.
And BTW: I use DIY cables myself. They sound better most of the time, and you just can't beat the price-performance ratio. I am not a guy who thinks expensive is better. Never have, never will. In fact, I just listened to three different $200k-plus systems in the top audiophile salons in LA. My second-tier redbook CD playback easily bested every system, and by a wide margin, even including a $100k analog rig that has been receiving rave reviews. (Names will NOT be provided! No burning of any bridges here!) Cost of my Sony CDP? Used, only $425 ($825 new, hyper-modified by Ric @ EVS; original retail price on the Sony was a whopping $225.00!). My amps? Hyper-modified ARC Classic 150s. I've got $12k in them, including the $6k purchase price (used, bought around end of 1990) and $6k in mods (by Musical Fidelity-USA, 1991-1992.) Speakers? Cabasse Baltic IIs and Thor IIs, unmodified. My cost? $7k (retail was $14k or so, at the time.) And various ancillary stuff like a few Vibraplanes, a battery power supply for the CDP (from Ric at EVS, again), etc., all worth around $5k. So, I've got around $25k in my system, over a nearly 20 year period. And it's annihilating NEW systems ten times the price? I guess you could say I shun high priced gear and go for quality, quality, quality on the cheap, then modify the snot out of it. THAT'S how to get great sound relatively inexpensively (well, very 'relatively'.) As long as you can hear the difference, that is.
But thanks for the response! It keeps the debate lively. I respect your opinion and I am glad you shared it. |
Shadorne Well Winston, I think you might do well to investigate about a certain high end user on Agon with well over 1000's posts on his system and with the kind of SOTA gear and room design that everyone dreams about. Recently, this Gentleman underwent a Blind test and was unable to discern between two cables in his own system that he selected himself. (The reason he selected the cables was that he was utterly convinced he could hear a difference when conducting sighted tests and said so with such great conviction that a Blind test was a no brainer test he could pass with ease!) I assume your referring to Mike, based on your description? The only blind test with Mike was a copy of LP on digital and the actual LP compared, and he "failed" because he missed identifying the difference one time out of six (or so I read). If my understanding of the numbers is correct, I would hardly consider that test a failure on Mike's part, or is there another blind event that I missed? |
Details are hereIt was hardly a rigorous test but rigor is not necessary when Winston and others insist that differences are so easy to hear that they are completely obvious unless you are tin ear deaf or own a crap Kenner system... My viewpoint is that differences exist but are extremely small and subtle - very rarely audible unless you go to extremes in geometry or add active elements to the circuit (L C or R elements) |
All this debate is fine, but let's share results of our individual double blind test.
Here my results: 27 out of 50 times, I picked my mega-dollars cables vs. monster reference. I sold my mega-dollar cables the next day...I bought the mega-dollar cables after "sighted" tests, and I sold the cables after "blinded" tests. Placebo is a strong sales agent. |
Shadorne, that's a test I did not know about, I have never visited that forum. Personally, I would never do that kind of test, I only make decisions based on long term listening. Based solely on long term listening, I've chosen cheaper components, cheaper footers and even cheaper tweaks, even though everything is based on sighted decisions in my system. Once when discussions were on going about blind testing, I posted this here at Audiogon: If your a true believer in double blind testing you will accept my challenge to kiss Boy George, Elton John and your wife and guess accurately 90% of the time who's lips belong to who.
Get it wrong and face the video of the whole affair being offered to Fox TV.
Ready?
(P.S. Boy George and Elton John will be wearing the SAME favorite lipstick and perfume favored by your wife). Obviously there were no takers. |
Dlanselm, was this DBT a 30 sec. exposure same/different format? You seem happy to have seen the light. That is all that matters. |
hi slanselm:
2 things:
after some period of time, are you still satisfied with the monster cables ?
the double blind test you conducted (on your own ??) may have been flawed. however, the fact that one can detect a difference between cable does not justify the purchase of either cable.
a better test would be, which cable do you prefer?
assuming a properly designed blind test with a meaningful sample of recordings, what is the result ?
by the way, whatever test you design, replicate several times. |
Well, guys, just think of all the money you saved by not being stupid and wasting cash on silly crap like expensive cables. As for me, I don't waste my money on such stuff, either. But I CAN hear the differences these cables make. And it is not always good, IMHO. Most of the time these 'supercables' just create a huge bloomy midrange, plumped up bass and rolled off treble, and pseudo-audiophiles go, "Oooooohhhh!" and "Ahhhhhhhhh!". It happens all too frequently in this hobby. Reviewers are no different, sadly.
The answer is to have a valid reference point in memory from which to compare recorded sound. The more vivid and deeply ingrained this aural knowledge is (which takes time and multiple exposures), the better one will be at discerning the true character and 'accuracy' of any given cable design.
So, do you KNOW what a live instrument sounds like in YOUR listening environment? (I do.) Have you been to any of the halls and venues where the music you listen to was recorded? (I have.) If not, how can you possibly make an informed comparison? If you don't have a valid reference point, your judgments will likely be misguided.
I have friends on the LA Philharmonic, so for years I got to be privileged and experience live music up close and personal from some of the world's greatest classical artists. I sat in the front row of the orchestra section of the Dorothy Chandler Pavillion (seats BB15/16) for over a decade, and likewise sat perfectly positioned for soloists as well (seats BB 20/21). So I believe I have a good background to make such assessments. (Although admittedly I stopped going once Disney Hall came on line; tickets are now just WAY too pricey, sadly, just like audio gear!) I have been privileged to hear Deutsche Grammophon engineers record C.M. Giulini and Kristian Zimmerman performing the Chopin Piano Concerto Nr.1, and I have been less than ten feet from Murray Perahia while he performed the pieces you can hear in his great "Aldeburgh Recital" on Sony Classics.
If your systems are not capable of resolving the entire structure of the piano pedals lightly creaking as Perahia leans into a passage from Beethoven or Liszt, or the sounds of his fingernails ever-so-lightly clicking on the ivories, or the sound of his clothing rustling with each movement, then you don't have anything to worry about, cable-wise. If you can't hear the lucky concert-going attendees softly whispering to each other at Perahia's feet as he performs, or the shifting noises of his bench as he moves around during the performance, then you're not missing a thing by not having those expensive wires and cables that supposedly reveal such things.
But at a concert, if you sit close enough, you WILL hear those very sounds (if your ear's sensitivity allow for it, of course.) And so, if a system can reproduce those subtleties, but only with a megabuck set of ICs, you shouldn't try to dissuade people from bringing such realistic and palpable musical wonders into their own homes. Maybe only a few people can actually appreciate such subtleties, as you contend. But let them see/hear for themselves if the cable's performance matches it's price point. But don't try to brow-beat people into agreeing with your viewpoint. If you feel you've been stupid and bought cables on reputation rather than true objective performance, then sell your expensive cables and go with the cheapos that float your boat. Good for you! But please don't go around saying everybody else is equally stupid for not selling their expensive cables and emulating your own actions. They might just hear a little differently than you do. Not necessarily better, just diffferent.
For those of us who CAN hear those differences, please don't tell us (either directly, or through intimation) that we don't know what we are talking about, or that we are imagining these differences. It is you who appears as ignorant (i.e., unaware) of these low level sonic phenomena, either deliberately (which is simply ridiculous), or as a result of physical limitations of your auditory system's processing capabilities. Do you deny that Shaquille O'Neil can dunk a B-Ball without effort, just because you likely can't even touch the rim jumping as high as you possibly can? Just because you can't do something doesn't mean everyone else can't either. Please don't make blanket assertions about other people's abilities or inabilities to perceive relative cable performance, just because of your own admitted or apparent limitations in those regards. It smacks of a 'sour grapes' attitude that was as unwanted in Aesop's time as it is today. 'Goners deserve better treatment than that. |
I stand by what I said: most of this anti-high end stuff is jealousy, pure and simple.
So, I've got around $25k in my system, over a nearly 20 year period. And it's annihilating NEW systems ten times the price? I guess you could say I shun high priced gear and go for quality, quality, quality on the cheap, then modify the snot out of it. THAT'S how to get great sound relatively inexpensively (well, very 'relatively'.) As long as you can hear the difference, that is Winston, I don't disagree with your approach. I don't doubt that you have achieved far superior sound than a new $250 K system. However, ordinary folks like me do not always hear these obvious Pear Anjou versus Monster differences and I tend to think of these differences as either extremely subtle or simply not audible. So I think we agree. I also agree that if the "well-heeled" can afford an extremely expensive cable then good for them. They will have no fear of any lack of quality with a $7000 speaker cable and that may be such a small amount of $ to them that even the peace of mind is worth it. I am not at all for jealously attacking these well to do people. However, I often see people with more invested in cables than major components such as speakers. It is these people that may stand to lose from "cable hyperbole" rather than the well-healed who will no doubt have every SOTA item. On another note you appear to be one of those who could easily beat Randi's blind test and clearly you believe that you are not unique. We ALL know this is true, that no two different cable designs sound exactly alike Therefore it begs the question why Fremer and others do not step up to the plate and collect a million dollars. David, I bought the mega-dollar cables after "sighted" tests, and I sold the cables after "blinded" tests. Placebo is a strong sales agent. I think it takes courage and integrity to admit to being a mere mortal audiophile. I think Mike deserves tremendous kudos too for his forthright manner during his experiment. When you have invested a significant amount of your own money on something, it is surely so much harder to accept that the magnitude of the benefits might be so small as to be negligible. Your experience matches mine in some ways, but in others it is different, as you have tremendous SOTA sources/amplifiers in your system and I don't. |
My test involved switching my "reference" phono cable and and my "reference" interconnect. (My speakers are active, I do not use speaker cables.)
Both cables were switched out at the same time(or not). I switched the "reference" Phono with a cheap Monster Reference, and the "reference" interconnect between preamp and active speaker amp with the same Monster reference cable.
I did 10 switches a day over five days. I did not switch the cables myself, and was not told which cables I started with. I was not trying to pick which one I liked best, but I was trying to name which cable were playing. I left the room for about 1.5 minutes exactly while cables were switched or not switched. The minute and half might have been my issue.
The results: I answered right 27 out of 50.
Why did I take a test after purchasing instead of before? Actually, before purchase I did switching myself. The power of marketing, placebo, suggestion, you name it is very prominent in the results, I now think.
I could not be happier that I "failed", by my own standards.
Now others are welcome to point out the flaws in my DBT's but it will go in one ear and out the other. Because what I did learn personally is if their is in fact a difference identifying it reliably is beyond me and MUCH MUCH MUCH more difficult then I had been "marketed" to believe. My feeling is if "I" need a perfectly executed scientific experiment to discern the differences, then I will look elsewhere for system improvements.
Others please respond with your own results not "hyperbole"
I have no vested interest, I am just curious...
I am not trying to shift anyone's mind. I have voted with my own pocket book, both ways to the extreme and have moved on.
|
This thread has taken a less threatening direction than most of those dealing with the usual "prove it sounds better" versus "I hear one is better" threads. I think this is largely because of Winstonsmith's use of DIY cables and good defense of the importance of achieving accurate sound. But in reality Dlanselm's personal experience really has no impact. Most of us still proceed with using the components and wires we hear as best and can afford.
Personally, I see no benefit with double blind audio tests, but single blind tests are fine. Who cares if the person running the test knows which wire is which? I have participated in several of these with in one case where a Bozak preamp was preferred by several prominent designers of other preamps. But these blind tests all used matched volumes but lengthy listening comparisons. Also none of these were seen as anything more than entertainment. I am certain no one ran out and bought a Bozak.
I have also participated in short duration same/different DBTs. I know the confusion that comes with these tests. I certainly found them curious and hypothesized why the strange results. Then I realized that the tests must invalidly capture what we mean by sounding different, especially in one where most of us then compared the two amps involved still in a blind comparison but with longer listening comparisons and the opportunity to go back and forth between them. We all now preferred one of the amps. To me this is a more valid comparison and certainly yielded different results.
Again, all of this is largely entertainment of little relevance to a buying decisions. Dlanselm obviously did change his mind as a result, but I doubt many of us would. I certainly found no interest in buying the Bozak although I did seek it out several times at audio stores. I also did not buy any of the other preamps in the test.
Why there is this constant debate about DBTs perplexes me. Frankly, I have more trust in my ears than I have in others. |
Shadorne-
Thanks for such a nice post. It is most appreciated, especially your kind words. And please let me apologize for being somewhat forceful in my approach previously. I was a little too harsh here and there, and that is simply unacceptable. Again, I apologize. This apology also certainly extends to Dlanselm for his sharing something not everyone would. Thank you for that!
'Goners are really awesome folks who work together to share and grow this great hobby of ours. We should be supportive of one another, or at least exceptionally gentle in our criticisms. I failed that standard miserably by my postings, which could have been much nicer in tone. Forgive me, all of you. I won't let that happen again.
As for your comments, Shadorne, regarding relatively impecuneous folks who may be taken advantage of by slick marketing and superb salesmanship at the dealer, I share your sadness at someone being taken advantage of. But we are grown ups and should take responsibilty for our actions. Nevertheless, a part of me completely agrees with you about how this can be somewhat tragic when folks are taken advantage of in this way. But as long as they are happy with the outcome and not being legally defrauded, I say let them have their fun, even if the 'Emperor has no clothes'. Lots of people believe stuff with all their hearts that I cannot agree with, and for which there is no scientific evidence. Those shows about 'Ghost Hunters' are particularly annoying.
But we live a wonderful, fully FREE country, the best in the world IMHO(despite some recent slip-ups), and it is this freedom, the freedom to even act silly and foolishly, that makes this country so damned GREAT!
So let's celebrate together in this fabulous forum such as we have here in the 'Gon. Let's support one another, and most respectfully agree to disagree when contentions that are mutually inconsistent pop up here and there. I want EVERYONE to get great sound, and to help us get there, there's more than enough good audio gear and opinions to go around, as far as I'm concerned. And by freely sharing our opinions and experiences we enrich the entire community of audiophiles, and thereby help advance the state of the art, which is in everyone's best interest.
So thanks again, Shadorne and everyone else, for your posts. They are thoughtful and enriching. I appreciate them.
PS-
Same to Tbg, BTW. Always thoughtful and rational, your posts illuminate and educate. In fact, thanks to all you 'Goners, because the community here is GREAT! We all deserve a little pat on the back for helping to make it that way!
HAPPY HOLIDAYS & HAPPY LISTENING!! |
hi winstonsmith:
you are a wise a generous human being.
regardless of the reason for selecting a particular brand of cable or for that matter any component, the important question is how long will you remain satisfied with the product ? how long will you keep the cable and when you sell it, why ?
it certainly is helpful to be favorable inclined to the components in your stereo system. it is costly and emotionally draining to buy and sell after a short period of time.
if anyone has a "formula" for a longevity of satisfaction with a stereo system, please come forward. |
present and counted for
My DIY "nudibranchs" are a last stop. Any audiophile should be able to recognize that listening to the music. |
Mrtennis, regarding. it certainly is helpful to be favorable inclined to the components in your stereo system. It is costly and emotionally draining to buy and sell after a short period of time.
If anyone has a "formula" for a longevity of satisfaction with a stereo system, please come forward. I do pretty well, I begin by accepting what's practical and possible and aiming only for equipment that I know won't offend me or limit the music I want to listen to. My system has changed over the years, going on "recent" history my Sound-Lab speakers lasted for 15 years and then I changed to Dali Megalines which I've enjoyed for 3.5 years with no desire to swap. I've used Koetsu Cartridges for 9 years and just recently switched to Air Tight. I've had my Walker Turntable for 8 years, Purist cable for 20 years and Aesthetix for nearly 10 years. I guess amps have switched more than the rest. Between 1989 and 2007 I owned Atma-Sphere, Tube Research, Wolcott, Viva, VTL and Air Tight. Amps are difficult to match up perfectly to speakers (at least to my ears) requiring more than a little experimentation. I'm sure there are Audiogon members who have swapped even fewer times than I, but I'm certainly not an equipment of the week guy even though I've listened to hundreds of pieces of gear I don't commit to buy all that often. |
