If it changes the tone then you admit they affect the sound right? So, if it changes the system to a point that it is more pleasent to listen too then why not? |
A simple question to all....
Do you believe an AC power cord should be used as a tone control? |
OK, you were joking but....
I don't see the problem with my simple statement, "I agree that a good power cord is essential..." Is there something in that simple statement that you do not understand? I didn't say "a good stock power cord is essential". I didn't say "a good mega-buck power cord is essential".
If you choose to read more into it be my guest but I fail to see your point except to confuse the topic of this thread. Read the rest of the sentence then the entire paragraph so you can understand the context in which I made my statement. |
How can you say it does not make a difference if you have not tried it? You should have a local shop that would be willing to let you try one out for free. You have nothing to loose. Depending of your system it might not matter at all. |
This is kind of like the debate that some reviewers had with EE's when digital first came out. The reviewers claimed that there were very audible differences between digital signals. Of course, the EE's stated "digital is digital", etc... because it all basically measured the same. Or so they thought.
Of course, J. Peter Moncrieff was one of the "golden ears" that said that he could hear "darker background, greater dynamic range, sharper detail, etc".... when comparing one CD player to another. Even though the frequency response was linear and every form of distortion was low, there were OBVIOUS differences in how they sounded. The funny thing is that he went on to document via electrical measurements that what he was saying and hearing WAS true. While one player had deeper nulls and higher peaks, faster rise and fall times, sharper images with less distortion, etc... the other was clearly not as fast or clean. Moncrieff even went so far as to publish photographs of waveforms taken via his o'scope for direct comparison to demonstrate that "not so subtle" and "audible differences" DID exist and ARE verifiable. That is, IF you knew how to do the proper tests AND interpret the data that you collected.
There is an analogy that i use on a daily basis that seems to fit here: Just because you have a hammer and a saw, that doesn't make you a carpenter. The same can be said for EE's, ME's, technicians, etc... Just because you have a piece of paper called a degree or a license, years of experience, etc... does NOT mean that you know or have seen it all. As such, the best people in ANY field are the ones that think they know very little and are always looking for explanations of how & why. NOT the people that say "that's impossible".
Like i said before, just because we can't "measure it" today doesn't mean that the differences didn't exist yesterday. I can think what i want, but that doesn't make it "fact" or mean that others are wrong for not agreeing with me. It just means that it is my opinion and only worth the value of what others put in it. As such, neither Abe nor John Dunlavy nor i are "right". We simply have our opinions. Put your faith in what your ears, eyes and heart tell you. God didn't give us all of these senses and the amount of intelligence that he did for us to throw it away because we don't know exactly how something works. Sean
> |
That someone was me, and it was a joke. Your reply accusing me of misquoting you is mighty convenient, don't you think. At first you say "I agree that a good power cord is essential..." Does this not lead the average reader of your post to believe you are talking about something other than a stock power cord? Otherwise, you might have well said: "I believe a power cord is essential"--which of course makes about as much sense as, well, no sense at all.
Or, did you truly mean to try and suggest at the outset that the stock power cord is what you were talking about? If so, why didn't you just say that in the first place? Something like "I believe the stock cord is good enough, and it is essential." Or maybe, "stock cords are essential, but they are also good too." Or how about, "I believe a good stock cord is essential."
If you truly meant to say what you suggest, then please excuse me, I do not ever like to be accused of misquoting anybody and I offer my deepest apologies. |
Plasmatronic, so you're the guy who started this intense debate! I wonder how many people here sell cable goods? Someone complained that this thread is hurting cable sales on Audiogon.
I'll have to agree that some high-end systems are deserving of a high-end power cord but mostly for the eye candy effect. At some point, the entire audio system becomes more than just a means of producing fine sound. It should look nice. Personally, I don't like brown zip cord. I prefer a slightly fatter black zip cord. And you? |
Abe, what a great idea. If I thought audiophiles had any money left over for lawn care, I'd go into the $5,000 garden hose business. An easy sell. |
"Anyway, ABE (cont'd): I am dying to know what power cord you regard as an essential upgrade from the stock power cord, but only costs $50."
J_thunders, no where in my previous posts did I say anything about essential upgrades from stock power cords so please do not misquote me. In most cases I do not believe that it is "essential" to replace the stock power cord at all.
If you must know what power cords I have used, I use mostly the stock cord. But I have built my own using relatively inexpensive parts and cable commonly available from most hardware stores or electrical supply warehouses.
It doesn't surprise me that there are so many outfits that make mega-buck magical high-end power cords. It takes very little (or ZERO) R&D investment, just pretty wires with big gold connectors, some advertising budget, and an audience willing to believe in the magic.
If I buy a fat garden hose of a certain color at 100 times the price of a standard garden hose, will the water coming from the hose magically make my lawn more green? Or will I need a gold plated nozzle to really notice the improvement? |
As the instigator of this thread, I'd like to point out that no one has yet responded to Abe's observation:
"With regard to AC power cords I cannot understand the logic of spending hundreds of dollars on colorful fat cables to plug into a wall outlet that has cheap wiring behind it throughout the house."
I'm discovering that the reply from true believers to a logical statement such as the above runs along the lines of, "But I can hear the difference!"
Of course, all debate stops when one side becomes completely subjective. Just as devotees of psychic hotlines swear their fortune-teller is genuine.
Do you ever get the feeling that this is the audio version of the age-old debate between rationalists and religious fanatics?
I'll be interested in seeing a coherent response to Abe's statement. |
Ok that sucks, It didn't post the last sentence, maybe because I was in the middle of writing it when my computer made a unilateral decision to post. Anyway, ABE (cont'd): I am dying to know what power cord you regard as an essential upgrade from the stock power cord, but only costs $50. |
Abe, you're just flat wrong, the magic number for power cords is $72 and 17 cents, not $50. What are you thinking man? BTW, what power cord do you know of that sells for $50? I can think of only one. Which cords you got? Or are you talking about $50 worth of parts, someone still has to put together? |
Abe, how many mega-buck power cables have you tried? |
Sean, if you've purchased "high-end" AC cords for pennies on the dollar I should commend you for being reasonable where you spend your money on this crazy hobby. If we had limitless funds, we would all spend several thousand dollars on each component and every cable to get the false sense that we've spent enough money to have a "better" system than one that costs much less. Expensive interconnects are not always better than cheap ones, expensive speaker wires aren't always better than modest wires. In many cases they are just different or just sound different and not necessarily better.
I agree that a good power cord is essential but as I've stated before, I completely disagree that the AC power cord should even be considered as an area of experimentation for altering the overall "tone" of a system (as written about in the other thread). You mention that you prefer to think of the power cord as a "filter" instead of a tone control. Well, what is a filter? A filter passes certain frequencies and attenuates others - you're still essentially calling it a tone control! But I argue that the 60-cycle "tone" coming from your AC mains should hopefully be nearly eliminated through the filtering in the power supply section of your equipment. Why would one try to alter the supposedly audible characteristics of the AC power source when the goal is to eliminate it completely by turning it into pure DC current within the equipment? A good solid high-current capable power cord with decent low contact resistance to the AC outlet is sufficient in my book. I don't subscribe to the bogus claims from mega-buck power cord makers that their AC cords have some magical "sonic signature". So I reassert my opinion that spending more than $50 or so on an AC power cord is wasteful. |
Abe, the majority of my "fancy" power cords are all homebrew designs with the exception of a few TG Audio's, LAT's and a Kimber. While this might sound like ALL of my power cords are "bought and paid for", keep in mind that i have five complete systems set up in my house. That is a LOT of power cords. As such, the ones that were "bought and paid for" were all "snagged" via Audiogon, Audioweb, Audioshopper, Audioreview, etc.... for pennies on the dollar. As such, i have learned quite a bit via first hand experimentation with the resultant experience that comes with it WITHOUT going broke or spending much at all.
As to my hum problem, there is some type of strange reactance between two components that i can't seem to get rid of. Believe me, i've taken all of the normal "prescribed" routes with no luck at all. The fact that changing power cords even remotely affects the sonic output at the speakers DOES verify that they have more influence on what we hear than what most EE's would ever admit to.
As to you labeling them "tone controls", i think of them more as "filters". While they are both doing the same thing in terms of affecting amplitude, bandwidth, linearity, etc... the end result IS measurable in terms of a lower noise floor, improved s/n ratio, differences in frequency response, etc....
Like i said, break out the test equipment and learn something from all of this. It takes NOTHING to sit on ones' laurels and repeat what you've been told and "believe" to be correct. On the other hand, doing and learning can only benefit you in the future. Who knows, it might end up opening new avenues of thought for you OR simply reaffirm the beliefs that you already have. Are you afraid to put your beliefs to the test or challenge your "faith" ???
As i mentioned before, i WAS in the same shoes that you're in now. Trying to disprove the "idiots" using the same arguements that you've posted, i found out that the "idiots" actually new more than i did. Romex or not, power cords DO change the performance characteristics of a system. Sean
> |
Jay, I would agree that interconnects can present a noticeable difference in the sound of your system especially since the measurable and documented differences in the characteristics of these cables can have an affect on the output and input stages of components that might be sensitive to these effects - inductive reatance and capacitive reactance, both of which will alter the tone of an audio signal. On the other hand, I believe that these effects are less pronounced at the low impedance output of a power amplifier coupled to a speaker. A higher quality cable of lower resistance will provide a slight improvement in sound but my real gripe is with those very expensive cables that come packaged in very pretty cases with velvet lining and certificate of authenticity, etc. Snake Oil! Don't even get me started on AC power cords... there's another thread here on Audiogon where you can read in detail my strong opinion on this area of voodoo. :-) |
Abe, I don't kmow. I took a long time to come around and be a convert/believer, and actually believe that the price of some wires out there are a good value too. Funny thing, the better my equipment got, the more I heard differences between cables, int's & cords. I am witnessing one of the best improvements in my setup recently- an improvement as big as a componant upgrade, really, and it was worth the $600, worth every dollar. I went from DH Labs T-14, to Coincident CST1. FOr the amount of improvement I got, I feel it's a real value. |
Sean, while I respect what you are telling us and I cannot judge what you claim to be hearing, I still stand by my original point about cables in general. With regard to AC power cords, if your new equipment introduced hum into your system that varied in pitch and amplitude with different cords, I would suspect a more severe problem somewhere in the system that was only altered (and perhaps not even solved) by trying different cords. If a different cord did solve the problem perhaps the original cord was defective or something else in the system was not quite right. I have cheap cheap power cords on some of my gear with no weird hum or variations in amplitude or pitch when I change the cord.
My main point should be that, in my opinion, it is wrong to spend huge bucks on interconnects, speaker cables, and power cords that are essentailly being used as tone controls to make up for deficiencies elsewhere in the system. With regard to AC power cords I cannot understand the logic of spending hundreds of dollars on colorful fat cables to plug into a wall outlet that has cheap wiring behind it throughout the house. I would ask, would it possibly be more wise to improve the wiring behind the outlet before dumping mega-bucks on the cool looking power cord? I would agree that an inadequate power cord should be replaced but again, in my opinion, spending more than $50 or so is a waste of money (unless you get pleasure from looking at it like a piece of jewelry). |
Abe, you can laugh all you want. As an electronics tech by trade, i used to do more than laugh at such things. I was UTTERLY APPALLED by such things. That is, until i tried playing with various power cords. The differences WERE noticeable. In fact, i recently re-affirmed this by accident.
I purchased a piece of equipment that created a hum in one of my systems. Changing the power cord altered the pitch AND amplitude AND frequency spectrum of the hum. This was verified both by ear and by an SPL meter. The change in hum was not due to electro-magnetic interference created by the position of the cord either, as the cords were well away from everything else in the system.
Just because we can't explain something or seems to defy logic doesn't mean that it is impossible. Keep an open mind and see for yourself. I did and i'm still learning every day. Sean
> |
I have to agree with Dunlavy. Beyond a reasonable limit, spending HUGE bucks on fat, fancy, and colorful cables is a waste of money.
If you want a real laugh, check out the thread here on Audiogon titled "Nice Warm AC cord for a PLC". |
I think you have it right. Nobody really wants to pay more money for no improvement, but it does happen with cables. I have access to almost everything that John Dunlavy has for measurement. So what? I still hear the difference, even if I don't have the equipment to measure it properly, at least with respect to my ears. |
Sean wrote about lamp cord...
Lamp cord is not bad per se, as it is 12 ga copper stranded wire, which is adequate for most speakers as a conductor. The 20ga mentioned in Grungle's post is too small for most speaker applications.
The problem with lamp cord, as I mentioned before is two fold: the insulation and the geometry. While some published tests have shown that lamp cord *measures* pretty good for use as speaker cable, I disagree. I feel that the geometry and the insulation DOES dictate sonic signature(s) that are audible on systems of sufficient quality. You may or may not be able to detect a significant difference depending upon your particular listening situation. It is entirely possible to make a very expensive and "colored" speaker cable - so expense or looks do not mean that it is better than mere lamp cord.
_-_-bear |
My last statement? This looks like another confusion about "lamp cord" and lamp cord. By "Lamp cord" [in quotes] I mean zip cord, I probably should have called it that in the first place. I've never paid atention to the innards of lamp cord [no quotes] proper, so I said I wasn't sure if there was a physical difference between it and zip cord.
And why are "plastic" and "speaker cable" in quotes? Now this is getting really confusing. That's real PVC, and they are used to connect speakers to amps. |
That should be 12 gauge. That's the second time I've made that mistake here. 20 WOULD sound bad. |
Why wouldn't "lamp cord" be a good idea ??? It is using the same low grade stranded copper and generic "plastic" type jacket that many "speaker cables" or "zip cord" uses. Are you trying to say that there MIGHT be a sonic difference between them ??? Could you please explain the reasoning behind your last statement ? Sean
> |
I put lamp cord in quotes because I meant any reasonably priced 20 gauge wire, like the speaker wire off the rolls at the home center or whatever people call monster cable. I'm not sure that acctual lamp wire would be such a good idea. |
Bmpnyc wrote: "Lamp cord is not acoustically transparent. The quality of the copper must have an effect on signal transfer.The cable companies that offer the purest materials
seem to garner the best reviews. Harmonic Technology's single crystal wire comes to mind."
The largest effects upon subjective results with speaker cable is not the conductor. It is two things: the insulation and the geometry.
Lamp cord copper would work reasonbly well if the insulation was changed and the geometry was changed.
If you doubt that the geometry has a big effect, then try this and report back. Get some runs of lamp cord. Run one set like lamp cord. Take set #2 and separate the two condutors completely, by inches. Listen.
I think you'll hear a difference.
Having said that, I do think that for reasons that no one knows that pure Silver and copper do sound different, and SPC sounds different again... although again, this is more subtle than the difference in insulation and geometry.
_-_-bear (bearlabsUSA.com) |
JHunter asked...
- are all the systems used for published DBTs inadequate?
Yes, IMHO, based upon those articles that I have read (which may or may not be all of them) the systems that were used are/were wholly inadquate on a number of levels.
There are also questions about other factors.
No, the tests are not worthless, but they are only valid for the test conditions - I object to these tests being used to draw wide ranging genralized conclusions.
I do not object to the DBT/ABX methodology, as far as it goes. It is certainly a methodology that does *test* something and do it reliably. What it is testing is still a big question! :- )
I personally have not tried Pink Noise in a DBT test. I am certainly willing to do so, and if someone out there wants to ante up a few $$ and some time and effort it can be made to happen... Since I'm short on both time and $$, I can't be an audio philanthropist for this one. If someone reasonably local to the NY/Phila/Boston axis wants to do such tests, I'd be willing to try to participate and lend whatever expertise I might be able to bring to bear.
Again, the differences that at least I am talking about are ones of *clarity* in the sense that information is easier to recognize. Since you *can* already recognize the information with what I will call "less than optimal" equipment/cables, this is a difficult thing to test - since the difference is one of *effort* on the part of the listener's brain!
I think this is really where the problem lies...
_-_-bear (bearlabsUSA.com) |
... internal processing...
By internal processing I do not mean that familiarity leads to recognition - although there is an element of "ear training" that plays a role in how we all hear. The question is not familliarity as much as how much internal processing you are actually doing to have your mind say "ahhh I know what that is/means."
An example of this *sort* of thing is when you randomly tune your car radio to the middle of a song, one that you hear all the time, and it takes a few seconds to figure out which song it is, as you have tuned into a spot that is perhaps in the middle of a musical phrase, so you don't have the benefit of a "start" point (musically or lyrically) to guide you.
What I am speaking of is similar, but more subtle in that the clues that tell you where/what on a hi-fi system, and really give you the detailed tonal and spatial information are much more minute.
Perhaps one of the reasons that you can "hear" more on your own system is that you have given your brain an "algorithm" with which to quickly process the raw sound into intellegable information.
So, the test then is to be able to walk in "cold" (no pre-programming of your brain, just "natural" sound algorithms) and be able to *instantly* recognize all the sonic clues! Of course, this is not a constant, nor is it (as far as I know) measurable (yet), but if you think about what happens when you are out in the world everyday, or at a non amplified live performance, you don't have to strain or work at all, it all just *IS* <-- kind of a zen thing.
Hope that explains...
_-_-bear |
Lamp cord is not acoustically transparent. The quality of the copper must have an effect on signal transfer.The cable companies that offer the purest materials seem to garner the best reviews. Harmonic Technology's single crystal wire comes to mind. |
Sean, when I said i wanted to try this out "properly", I meant in a blind test, in my room, with my equipment. THAT'S what it will take to convince to 'upgrade' my cable. But that's just me. I would suggest you try a blind comparison also, let us know how it goes.
I can't dispute that cables can be engineered (allowing for in-line passive electronics too) to change the sound you get, but if "lamp cord" is electronicaly transparent where it matters to an audio signal, anything else would be coloration. Of course, who knows; I might just like the colored sound better.
If the effect is purely psychoacoustic, I'd rather upgrade my speakers or buy more music or something.
Re: Dunlavy's cables, the impresion I got is that he doesn't claim a sonic difference, only that he has tweaked and flatened electronic properties that don't have a discernable effect on the sound, pure specsmanship. It looks like he has no moral qualms about exploiting the market that cares about such things. At least he's not lying about it. |
John Dunlavy strikes me as revealing part of the truth, enough of it to outdo everyone else, only to legitmize himself so that he can now charge $200 for his interconnects and even more for his speaker cable. At least he shows us some math, more than any of the others, but still not much. |
Bear -
2 points:
First, while you're new to Audiogon I've followed some of the many discussions on rec.audio.high-end between you and folks such as Dick Pierce and JJ. If I recall correctly, there was quite a thread involving the topic of system resolution.
Your argument would be stronger were there a number (say, anything more than 1) of double-blind test showing differences between cables of similar electrical characteristics; surely not ALL of the test systems are so inadequate??? Incidently, I believe that these systems have in fact revealed differences if the cables have grossly different properties, so the systems used can't be hopeless.
Second, from your post can I assume that you don't object to the basic double-blind test methodology? If so, it might be interesting to try it out on your system using a pink noise source. Have you given this a try?
Cheers,
JHunter |
Grungle, do a simple test. Simply compare some standard 12 gauge "monster" type speaker wire to some Kimber 4PR in YOUR system. There should be no major difference as they are both reasonable gauge, low resistance conductors. You can do this regardless of the resolution of the system. If you can hear a difference, you've learned something. If you can't, get a better system. Just kidding... : )
Really though, most of us were skeptics to start off with. After all, to most people wire looks like wire and should sound like wire. Right ??? It is only after an "ear opening experience" that most of us became "hardcore believers". Believe me, as an electronics tech, i had a REAL hard time believing some of this stuff. If you can go back into the Audio Review website and dig through their archives, you would be able to find some VERY intense arguments that i was involved in regarding power cords. The funny thing is that i was prepared to go to my grave believing that they could NOT change the sonics of a system in any way. I absolutely KNEW for CERTAIN that changing a few feet of wire from the wall outlet to the component couldn't "fix" all of the other "bad wiring" running from pole to pole and within the house. After all, theory and common sense tells us this, right ???
Well, i have to say that i was WRONG ( even if Fonzy couldn't admit it, i can ). I did do some testing and DID find a difference. Does this mean that we need to throw the textbooks out ? Absolutely not. It simply means that maybe we don't know as much as we think we do. Or maybe it means that we aren't looking in the right direction or asking the right questions... Who knows. All i know is that ANY wire change has the capacity to alter the sonics of a system.
Don't get me wrong here. We are not saying that ALL wires sound DRASTICALLY different, but that differences ARE possible. Not all changes will make the system sound "better" or "worse". Sometimes they just sound "different" or sometimes they sound the same. As such, most of us have tried various cables in different locations of our systems, judged how we liked them, if we could notice benefits, decided if we wanted to keep them there or try them someplace else, remove them, etc... and then moved onto something else.
Don't rule things out unless you've tried them yourself and done so under several different circumstances. As a case in point, here's a simple analogy to think about. Just because your car doesn't "act up" at the time that you take it in for service doesn't mean that there isn't a "problem". Sometimes you just have to create the "right circumstances" for the situation to occur. Once that happens, the "change in performance" could be QUITE drastic and VERY noticeable. The same can be said for wire / cable changes within a sound system. Sean
> |
Ah, gotcha Bear. It's even more confusing in that we both use CAPS for EMPHASIS.
Doc Warnock, good point about practicality. I was geting carried away because I just finished a statistics course. I was all ready to wip out the null hypothesis, sample size, and a confidence interval...bunch a' greek letters too.
The point being that anecdotal evidence isn't really that strong, and enjoyable as they may be, these arguments can't be satisfactoraly settled without something more rigorus. Even then people would keep setting up straw men, flawed analogies, etc. so they won't have to change their comfy little outlooks.
Anyway, until I can at least try this stuff out properly for myself, I'm going to side with the skeptics and spend my resources elsewhere. |
Bear, by "internal brain processing", do you mean familiairity leads to recognition? |
JHunter wrote...
-->
Bear is up to his usual "debating" tactics. If decades+ of established acoustics
methodology and all the evidence (from scientifically valid testing) goes against
you, then just claim that the testers don't have a system with sufficient
resolution. Could you give us an example of a system that you feel does have
sufficient resolution? <--
I'm not sure what you mean, since I am relatively new here on Audiogon...
But, the published tests quote the systems that are used for the "testing." so it is fairly simple and easy to determine what level of resolution they are capable of.
As I have stated earlier, the limiting factors are: A) your hearing, B) the system and C) the source.
I have also said that it is far easier to hear very subtle
changes on an instantaneous basis when listening to PINK NOISE, as compared to *any* musical source. None of these tests involved any Pink noise.
HOWEVER, what counts in terms of long term listening is how much 'internal brain processing' is required for your concious to figure out what it is hearing! That is the difference between systems - nothing more.
It does NOT require a high-end system for you to recognize speech - a telephone is good enough. You can listen to a tiny 2" TV speaker and understand what is going on. Right?
So, the point that I make is that thus far the systems used for these tests are at minimum *questionable* in terms of ultimate quality and resolution, AND the source material is also questionable. SO, the conclusions drawn are valid ONLY for the specific TESTING that was done, nothing more.
JUST to exagerrate for clarity, IF the cable 'tests' were done with 2" TV speakers, it is very unlikely that anyone could possibly hear any differences, right?
This is clear.
As far as a "system" that I think has sufficient resolution, there are all sorts of candidates that I think would likely do the job. But, there is little point in quoting a list of components, as that is NOT the point at all. Needless to say, IMHO, none of these candidates were utilized in said published tests.
The point is to truly understand the limitations of published tests, and what they mean in reality. |
No way to quote an earlier post...
Unfortunately there's no way to *quote* a previous post
in order to respond - like you can do on a usenet newsgroup by hittin the "reply" button... Grungle, I was responding to
your post and copied parts of it in order to make point by point responses... sorry if it caused confusion...
plus it looks like the software quotes the first few words of your post to make a title...thus my first line above!
:- ) |
Gregm, I could not agree more. As my system evolved into the current collage of stuff, I tried different cables to achieve the sound that I desired. I have a mixture of silver plated and plain copper. What I use is not important to this discussion but the fact that they work in my system is. I have taken some cables to other systems and found the synergy is not there. I can clearly identify with the concept of matching cables to a system and the owner's taste. |
Jaykapur, be real careful who you modifying cards with! Some guys get real angry when cards are marked. :-) |
Jay, I think that you may misunderstand what I said. In your example, the gain in power may be real and thereby detectable as "statistically significant". But it is the practical significance of such a trivial gain that is in question. And I agree with you that people who are willing to go to such great lengths, both financially and otherwise, to exact such trivial differences do indeed "look crazy" (your words), or at least a little neurotic. |
Greg makes a good point, if someone moves a throw pillow to a different chair in my house, I would notice it, and say that it was a significant change (positive, or negative). If someone comes to my house, and is not very familiar with it , that person would not perceive anything wrong, or different. It is my complete familiarity with my room arranements that allows me to notice significant differences in what might be a subtle difference to someone else. Same with cables and systems. These tests don't prove or disprove much of anything, but if one person can hear differences 100% of the time,then anyone saying there is no difference is a fool. |
Docwarnock - Some people view audio gear as a hobby or an obsession like modifying cards. A guy who puts a new $1,000 exhaust in his car to gain 1/10th of a second in the quarter mile (a statistically insignificant gain in power, according to you) might look crazy to some. A guy who puts a new $1,000 power cord to gain 1dB of improvement in some area might also look crazy. But both guys are trying to make their gear the best it can be, not fit into the pefectly average category. |
In a recent post, Detlof mentioned that he tailored his system to "his ears", i.e. the kind of sound reproduction HE likes. I subscribe to this view and, thereby, my opinion on equip is tainted with my preferences in musical reproduction.
Cables are part of the system and, assuming they contribute a sonic signature (i.e. different cables can make the system sound different), "that cable is best that supports/enhances MY sound the best".
In this respect, I also subscribe to Doc's view above, in that "vast improvements in sound (can) be hooey". Only vast if enhancing YOUR sound. If not, hooey (despite positive audiophile adjectives...).
Can't we say that cables are both a personal and system dependant affair? |
The community should understand the difference between "statistical" and "practical" significance. Consider the following example.
Through omniscience, we know that:
Car A gets 20.1 mpg.
Car B gets 20.2 mpg.
Obviously, the TRUE difference between the fuel efficiency of cars A & B is 0.1 mpg. Sampling a sufficiently large sample size of cars A & B, we would be able to detect a "statistically significant difference" between the mpg for the two cars. But once we do detect a "statistically significant" difference, what does it mean?
In this case, it means precious little in terms of "practical significance." That is, how much is a 0.1 mpg difference really worth in the real world? Not much! And certainly, consumers would not be willing to pay a significant amount of money for such a trivial difference in fuel economy.
Now to come back to the issue at hand in this thread, let's assume that it really is possible to find a "statistically significant" difference in the sound of cables (this is a leap of faith given JD's blind testing results, but references to a "J. Peter Moncrieff of IAR" keep cropping up and I'll accept this single result as valid). The central question becomes -- Is this "statistically significant" difference a "practically significant" difference. I would argue that it is not, especially in the context of the obscene prices charged by high-end cable manufacturers.
Understand that when statistical testing ends in non-significant results or mixed resutls (i.e., sometimes significant, sometimes non-significant) the most frequent reason is that the difference that is being observed (i.e., the "effect size") is so small. I suspect that it is the case here. Any true differences in the sounds of cables are so subtle and small that they cannot be detected with any consistency if at all. So a rational person must ask, is it really worth thousands of dollars to achieve such a subtle and small difference? Only the individual can answer that question for themselves. But as far as the audiophile cable manufacturers' claims of vast differences in and superiority of sound, I maintain that they are hooey at best. |
My post was stuck on the front of Bears.
*I* wrote So You Want To Argue, everything down to "...frustrated by". We must have hit POST simultaneously or something.
Re: system resolution and J. Peter Moncrieff, like I said, you can't draw conclusions from that small a sample, he may be an extreeme statistical outlier. I'm not convinced yet, but I am willing to accept that a critical number of people can hear cables in a "high enough resolution" system, it's just a shame to have to rely on so much anecdotal evidence from both sides.
Still, overall we're talking about the discernment abilities of everyone who considers cables (most all audiophiles willing to make the investment) and their individual systems.
:Grungle:
end of message (just in case!)
----- |
The problem with blind tests is that they are typically conducted in less than familiar surroundings. As such, one may not be comfortable in test setting. They are also not allowed to familiarize themselves with the subtle timing, tonal or spatial cues that various cables CAN produce, but may take time to recognize. As such, being able to pick out the irregularities that do occur when going from cable to cable can become an extremely difficult task simply due to lack of familiarity.
With all of that in mind, the tests conducted by J. Peter Moncrieff of IAR showed his ability to differentiate between cables 100% of the time under double blind test conditions. On top of this, he was also able to distinguish whether there was was an ABX box in line 100% of the time. His ability to do this with witnesses refutes ALL other tests. Once an accuracy level that is irrefutable has been achieved, it simply becomes a matter of system resolution and the individuals' ability to hear such changes that comes into question. It is NOT a question of if there are audible differences anymore.
The fact that David Spiegel (the inventor of the ABX box) also told me first hand that another reviewer was able to differentiate between cables. This gives further credence to the FACT that cables can be audibly different. While Spiegel could not remember the reviewer's name, she showed up in response to a challenge that he issued that was open to ALL reviewers. My guess is that it was Enid Lumley, but i'm not sure. Keep in mind that Spiegel did these tests because he wanted to be able to prove or disprove that there were sonic differences amongst cables. As such, he will to this day say that HE can't hear a difference between cables under test conditions but acknowledges that others might be able to.
Give it a rest. Sean
> |
Bear is up to his usual "debating" tactics. If decades+ of established acoustics methodology and all the evidence (from scientifically valid testing) goes against you, then just claim that the testers don't have a system with sufficient resolution. Could you give us an example of a system that you feel does have sufficient resolution?
BTW, this is not to say that people don't get more enjoyment from their system from various cables even without any audible difference. I use Nordost from my DAC to amp just because I like knowing that it's extremely low capacitance, and almost bought Straightwire Rhapsody speaker cables just because they look great! In neither case did I hear a difference from the previous cable, but maybe my system just doesn't have enough resolution, eh?
Cheers,
JHunter |
Most cable manufacturers are not wire manufacturers at all. It requires a significant capital investment to set up and operate a wire factory. The barrier for YOU to become a wire manufacturer is mostly the need to run the damn thing 24 hrs a day to make a profit and cover your overheads! So, unless you can sell MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of feet of wire, you're not going to be in any sort of wire business. MANY of the domestic wire operations have folded in the last several decades because it's tough to sell that much wire.
So, it is necessary for audio cable manufacturers to sub contract out their needs to one or more existing factories - their runs are insignificant compared to a typical industrial order - THUS, the prices are higher.
I have my pure Silver stranded wire drawn, stranded, and jacketed with PTFE ("teflon") for me by a small specialty manufacturer, I assemble it into what becomes Silver Lightning Interconnects. It is very expensive per foot because of the small quantities involved. By the time I'm done with the labor involved in the assembly and add in the costs of overhead and the materials, believe me there isn't a ton of profit. You can't look only at the cost of materials when you think about these cables.
I agree, some are junk, snake oil, and WAY overpriced. But not all. |
So You Want To Argue.
Dunlavy's argument is that people can not distinguish between cables better than
chance IN BLIND TESTS. His support is the result of many tests conducted at his
facilities.
Right, and this is the problem - YOU CAN NOT GENERALIZE from one test situation and then declare that "A" is the truth based upon these results. This is what John *tends* to imply by his posts and writings - when questioned closely he either avoids the issue(s) or has to agree.
If you want to argue against Dunlavy, prove that people can sucsesfuly
distinguish between cables IN A BLIND TEST, or that his sample was not
statisticaly strong enough to make the generalization.
I do not have to do EITHER to question his CONCLUSIONS. It is sufficient to say that his test methodology is flawed and so the results that stem from it are equally flawed. They are statistically valid, but this comes from FLAWED tests. PERIOD.
Mentioning that you can discern differences under other circumstances is
TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. That is what he claims is the placebo effect which he is
so frustrated by.
I don't want to slam JD or his products, but let me say again that the LIMITING FACTORs in such tests are A) the listener's hearing ability, B) the system. I would suggest that at least in the tests published so far that item (B) is extremely questionable. Let me add that (C) the source material is also a limiting factor. NO DIFFERENCES CAN BE HEARD if any ONE or ALL of the limits are reached.
And even if under his circumstances YOU can, that does not refute the claim, you
would also need a reasonably statisticaly valid sample of people to perform the
same way.
Statistics are only as good as the TEST that underlies the statistics. There's little doubt that one can design tests that will give the appearance of being statistically valid for almost any result.
Think about the problem more fully.
_-_-bear (http://bearlabsUSA.com)
|
