Speaker wire is it science or psychology

I have no interest in responding to this post, these pop up about every 3 weeks or so and usually get way into the doulbe figures with responses, but I would like to comment on Whosyourdaddy's take. What a sickening story that is - it's too bad audiophiles can't have an uprising or boycott to drive some of these prices within reason. The only way I can justify the outrageous margins on wire is to wonder how much volume can a "wire" company have. No matter how much markup you have it's still about selling units. If you get your dream flagship interconnect of a brand today, in a few months that one is not as good as the new and improved version with new names and model numbers. I mean, can electric transmission be improved and altered that many times since Ben franklin fried his ass? Hence, they fill the pipeline with the new model - new volume. Dealers love it cause they need volume too. I guess in this hobby we just can't ever be completely satisfied becauce we buy into this concept. I'll be the first to admit cables are an integral part of the chain but when you buy enough wire over say 5 years, that you could liquidate and buy a car or put a downpayment on a home for first time homeowner, like I said, it's sickening.

Even though I apparantly can't spell, I'm pretty good with numbers though - that's my take.

Re Detlof on Redkiwi: Here Here (Hear Hear?)

Pops, you are right, it is sickening. What you forgot to mention is the audio press which also helps to keep the wheels greased. It would all grind to a halt, if consumers would no longer play along.

Right Detlof, the press loves to spin. Lead us around like sheep.

Of Course it is a science. Speaker wires did not fall out of sky.!!!They are designed to carry a signa from amp tp speakers. The difference you, I mean most of us hear is as result of how good the science concepts have been implemented.

Pops and Detlof hit it on the nose. Like I said, 10% of cable is true science and the remainder 90% is psychology (snake oil) pushed by the press. The minute we can not tell the difference between cables, they ( meaning the press or their advocate/deciples) tells us that our system is not good enough to tell the difference. This is somewhat true, but doesn't that make you feel like an idiot because your not smart enough or can afford to have a system that can tell the difference? What's worse is when you tell them your system (which you have spent a lot if money on), but you still can't tell the difference, they say it's your ear that doesn't know how to listen. Are you suppose to feel handicap now because can't hear that they hear? Before you know it, you start to trick your mind to hear what they tell you what you should hear just so that you can hold a conversation with the press in their lingo. Talk about psychology. I don't mean to insult anyone with my comments. I am just trying to raise questions/discussions to see if we have all gone over board with this. Think of this as the checks and balances of our society/industry. The industry advances every year and they do take us in various directions. Consumers like you and I should have discussions like this to keep the industry going to a direct that we are comfortable with. After all we are their life blood considering how much money we have spent. In addition, don't you think Audiogon tracks and expose these comments to the vendors as feedbacks?

Whosyoudaddy, good comment. I tried out a rave reviewed pair of speakers a few years ago and rejected them because they were too bright. When the dealer told the distributor (a famously obnoxious guy in the industry) his response was that (1) I obviously needed better cables (so I wasnt't smart enough to use his speakers properly) and (2) the dealer shouldnt lend out his speakers to people with junky cables.

Thanks for stealing my thoughts whosyourdaddy. I should have said it is part science, part psychology, part voodoo& snake oil and part whoopla. But the fact remains- With use of science principals you can achieve a perfect cable( with right combination of components) but after certain price point(read percenatge perfection compared to 100% being absolute perfect), the benefits are probably there ( measurements wise) but you are at mercy of psychology science to tell the difference. Similar to system as whole, after certain price point, rate of return diminishes drastically.

I just read this whole thread (whew) and have one possibly original observation to share: there seems to be some suggestion in the original posting and subsequent discussion that "psychological"="sensory"="not verified with electronic measuring equipment and therefore not real." I wish to offer a distinction: there is a popularly understood sense of the word "psychological" to mean "only imagined." I strongly disagree with the implication that "sensory"="psychological" in this sense. Just because something is observed by humans but nobody has caused it to create a statistical artifact on a paper trace, the something can still be real. Steve, while you wait for the measuring equipment to be delivered, please consider gathering some data with the equipment that's already built into your body. The human sensory apparatus is way more sophisticated than the most impressive soldered-together collections of silicon and metal. Consider the fragrance industry, which employs finely-calibrated human noses operated by their owners, and employs them in a most scientific manner. Machines have not been invented which can do what those people can do. Their apparatus is sensory, but their sensory perceptions are not "psychological" in the sense described above. I personally have heard difference in cables strongly enough that I believe them and have no doubt that a blind test would confirm my observations. If I may offer for your sensory measurement the artifact which finally convinced me: Track 2 of Dave Matthews Band "Crash", about 2:50 in--someone in the background is saying "t-t-t-t-t". That sound is palpably different on different cables. I never even noticed it until I installed some better-but-still-cheap interconnect cables a couple days ago (like, $50 or so). Until I heard that, I too pooh-poohed cables. Now I'm afraid to listen to more expensive ones, for fear I'll have to have them. Cheers.

Nice job Kd, I think you may be on to something here. Now how to show it so those who need something on paper, something on a read-out. It's not understood enough to know what to test for or how to conduct the test. As I've been trying to say, but am not blessed with your skill, just because we haven't tested it doesn't mean it's not there, only that we don't understand it or how to test it. Please continue your offerings Kd, very nice to hear from you. J.D.

Oh yea, one other thing Kd, I tried to warn Elizibeth when she first tried silver wires. Your caught and there is no going back. I know your already eyeing some $100 interconnects on auction. Good-luck and welcome to my addiction.

Where is Julian Hursch when you need 'em

Thanks for the kind words. I must confess something though--I just re-read Steve's original post and he asked about "exotic speaker wires." My comparisons were with interconnects; I haven't tested fancy speaker wires yet, although I am confident they also make a difference. I did try biwiring and wow, did _that_ ever smooth out the sound. And with truly cheap 14-ga hardware store zip cord.

Steve, Tom Nousaine published a very interesting article in Sound & Vision detailing the results of blind tests of speaker cables. He had audiophile listeners compare 16 AWG zip cord to their own chosen brand/model of speaker cable, in their own homes, on their own systems, with their own chosen playback source and media. He gave the listeners a choice between ABX switching and cable-swap (scored as same-different) methods (except the last listener; for her, he used both ABX and the cable-swap method because the others had chosen ABX). No time limits; in fact, he let the listeners warm up and practice so they would become as comfortable as possible with the tests. A minimum of 10 trials per listener. None of the listeners, despite their high opinions of their own hearing prowess, could correctly identify the cables they were listening to a statistically significant number of times: in comparing the zip cord to a set of T1 bi-wires, one listener guessed correctly 3 out of 10 times, which is within the likely range of results that would arise from just guessing or flipping a coin. Another listener's results were 4 out of 10; again, within the range of strictly chance.

In short, the listeners were asked to prove that they could indeed hear audible differences between the cables, and none succeeded.

Regarding ABX: Some may allege that rapid A-B switching "hides" real differences. That's one vague assertion! My opinion is to the contrary: it allows the closest thing to actual side-by-side comparison possible in audio. Obviously we can't listen to two things simultaneously and judge between them; the best we can do is put the same audio through both DUTs, match the levels, and freely switch between them as needed to make the comparison.

70242 - My engineering friends agree that the only possible way to detect a subtle difference is with A/B testing. Our audio memory is very short. Thanks for the post.

The thread almost died so you started talking to yourself?

Paulwp - I am astounded at the level of ignorance I have found here. People pontificating on the differences between this and that who don't even know what AC is. People without the slightest idea of how their gear works confidently ridiculing the engineers that design it.

Audiogon seems to be the gathering place for those who are both arrogant and ignorant.

Trolling again I see... Hope no one rises to the bait.

Elizabeth - I have been trying to explain AC to someone. AC for god's sake. So they can understand why the arrows on their cables are ridiculous. Does anyone jump in to help out? No. Why do you think this is?

Everytime I read about ABX testing/Blind/double blind testing I have to wonder: What is the effect on the sound quality of the component(cables) under test, due to the addition of the switching gear?. No matter how good the gear is, there gotta be some dilution.

Stevemj: You're not off-base. Cables are not directional and can't be for audio, specifically for the reasons you described. The conductors have to pass current equally well in either direction.

Nilthepill: Why would the switching cause "some dilution?" Do you own a sound system with no switching? With no contacts? All junctions soldered from source to speaker drivers? I doubt it. With good switches, you don't get "dilution."

70242 - It's a pleasure to have you here. When I started posting comments about some of the absurd claims made for different types of cable, I was contacted by a cable manufacturer. I will send you their E-mail. It attempts to describe why wires sound different. It's good for a laugh.

I don't know if manufactures just have a low opinion of audiophile's intelligence or if they really don't know any better themselves.

Stevemj; it's a shame that you're unable to trust your own senses. Craig

702, its interesting what you say about not being able to hear simultaneously. I have not been unsuccessful in discerning between different amps or wire in rudimentary blind testing, ( no scientific aspirations here in this case) what I needed however, were longer stretches of music (female sopranos, solo violins, solo cello for voicing or big orchestral renderings for width and depth of soundstage and layering or certain string quartets for resolution and speed). In listening, I would pinpoint aural clues for myself at specific points of the score. Once I had this, it was fairly easy to differentiate between various DUTs. What I needed was familiar music, scores which I knew inside out and preferably also had heard already live.

Garfish - If you trust only your ears and not your brain, you wind up with many hundreds of dollars wasted on exotic line cords, speaker wire, IC's with arrows on them, distribution boxes that the manufacturers brag about not having anything in them, conditioners that exercise electrons, audio bricks to put on your preamp .......... just how goofy do things have to get before you begin to wonder.

Steve..... ears are connected to the brain, but obviously not with everybody.... and if Garfish trusts what he hears, he, like the most of us, is having fun and he's learning something new everyday. No stale repetitions of fundamentalist RHUBARB (REDkiwi, I just love that word! )here!

Detlof - I think I remember you posting something about copper wire that can have asymetrical conduction properties. Something about crystals in the wire. It was related to why cables have arrows on them.

Hook your cables up backwards and see how they sound. I bet they will sound terrible to you.

Hm... Hmm, hmmm. Hm-hm.

also read what the manufacturer of one of the most respected loudspeakers has to say http://www.verber.com/mark/cables.html

Are we there yet? Welcome to rec.audio.opinion and AudioReview. com cable talk. The thread was dead. Let it rest in peace. If you're interested in Mr. Dunlavy's views they have been discussed at length over and over again on those other forums.

Steve, sorry, that was not me, I'm innocent on that one.
Regards,

There is something I wanted to say for a long time (being a musician): there is no scientific evidence that for example a Stradivarius violin sounds better than a study violin. Even violins of exactly the same age, wood, building techniques et cetera can differ enormously in sound (and thus in price)... Nobody - even the builder - can explain this. We have to avoid the temptation of trying to explain everything technically. I am envolved in the organisation of one of the biggest music festivals in the world and it is my experience that it is hardly possible to find out why some instruments sound better in one concert hall than in another. I don't like the pseudo magical terminology often used to prove that cable x sounds better than y. But there is a difference, sure!

Eantala, thanks for pointing out Dunlavy's thoughts on this subject for us, though VERY thoughtprovoking, I find it a little biased and onesided, but then are we not all in one way or antother...and Koen thanks for your post, you should perhaps have added, that these days nobody knows anymore, inspite of CAD etc, how to make a violin, which would have a sound comparative to a Stradivari or Guarnieri for that matter. That knowledge has obviously been lost for good.

Requiescat in pace. This has become audio's version of The
Hundred Years War. There's been very little light but a whole lot of heat generated. (Time to look at some other topics, eh?)

Detlof: I'm not clear on what you're saying. Do you actually listen to two DUTs simultaneously? What was your "blind" testing setup?

Hi Stevemj; ears are connected to brain-- brain does all interpretation (perception) of sound (see your 3/24 post). We all know this-- don't we? I choose to trust my hearing, including perception of such, and my common sense. Respectfully, you seem to want to tie all this up into a tidy scientific package, when personally I think listening to music is much, much more complex and can't be relagated to a neat little "formula" or "procedure".

You (seem to) want to approach selecting wires based solely on science. I want to select wires based on the much more precise, and broader perspective of music appreciation, or "art". I continue to maintain that both are necessary parts of our lives, but I have enough confidence in my own senses that I can select wires without getting too bogged down in engineering. I have strong interests in both art and science. If you value art at all, I think we could get along. Cheers. Craig

Craig, that was a beautiful post and I could not agree with you more. Wished I would have been able to express my own point of view so clearly and in such a straightforward fashion.
702, I was not listening simultaneously, with rapid switching inbetween, rather I was allowed to listen to the DUT in question (I did not know, which one it was of course)
as long as I wanted to, until I felt sufficiently sure to think to be able to identify it. The DUTS in question were Gryphon and Spectral and a Jadis pre. We also tried MIT and XLO speaker wires. Regards,

Detlof, what amps did you use in this setup and what were your sources? LP or CD? Agree with you about Craig's post.

Hello Kat, in the ecample I had in mind, we used LPs, a Spectral cartrige, made by Scantec I think, with a Goldmund Reference at the time. The amps were old Spectral 200 class A and Jadis 200 monoblocks . The Jadis preamp was easy to discern with both amps. It was much more difficult between the Spectral and the Gryphon, but after a while I could make out specific differences between the two- believe or not, by the way certain cembalo pasages in a Bach Suite were resolved in the background. The XLO excelled with the Jadis gear, the MIT with Spectral, so that part was easy. Speakers were Quads.

Detlof, Kat; thanks for the kind words. Cheers. Craig

Garfish: Why do you believe that trying to understand audio technology precludes music appreciation? Understanding how things like wires work can help prevent you from ascribing non-existant characteristics to them, because your senses, or how you perceive what your senses tell you, can be misled by your expectations.

Detlof: Thank you for the clarification. How closely did you match the levels on the preamps, and many trials did you do?

Hi 702; Good post. I agree 100% that I would like to be able to accurately measure more-- it's just that we can't so I resort to much that is more "psychological" in nature, ie how does one measure enjoyment? We have to listen to make that judgement, IMO.

Buying decisions have to be made to get us anywhere as music lovers, and as science can only get us so far, we have to take the necessary steps beyond science to put together a musically satisfying stereo system. Using our senses-- including common sense, also very much makes us an integral part of the process.

I admire the accomplishments of scientists and engineers as without them, we'd have no stereo equipment or recorded music, but without art (music) there would be no need for stereo it. Speaker wires are not even the tip of the iceberg in this issue, IMO.

I was a Forest Soil Scientist for 32 years, and as such I did a great deal of landslide investigation(s)-- used state of the art models etc. But at the end of the day when the Manager had to make a decision about building a road, or logging a timber sale, it virtually always came down to "my professional judgement" to make a recommendation because we never had enough research, studies, information etc. There was was not time, money, or capabilty to do the research we really needed/wanted to make even 75% accurate predictions.

And so it is with audio. And sorry for the diversion. When the scientific info. is available I will be most happy to use it and see if it measures up to my listening standards. We had a rule of thumb-- no one ever has all the research/information he wants. --didn't intend to get so carried away. Whew! Craig.

702, to your question: no scientific pretentions here, it was strictly amateurish. Level matching was by ear. I don't remember the exact number of trials. We spent practically a day and we did lots of "runs". The hits were significantly higher than the misses and I remember going through a distinct learning curve. More I cannot say anymore with exactitude. Too long ago. Regards

WOW Craig, great and thankyou and also Detlof thanks for the clarification.

Hi Katharina-- thanks for the kind words. Cheers. Craig

Garfish: We're in agreement on the need for enjoyment. I like to get as much musical enjoyment from audio equipment as I can, too. Listening to music is almost as much fun as making music. But if I can get the same level of high performance and enjoyment for X dollars instead of 20X dollars, I know I'm going to hold on to 19X dollars, because there are other things in life I like to do, too. That's my sensibility; other people can have theirs, however much they differ. It's a free country. I enjoy driving my car, and if I have a choice between a Shell station selling gas for $1.60 a gallon and a posh, gilded station selling gas for $18 a gallon and serving free cappuccino, my choice is already made, and I don't care if I'm giving up the snob appeal of the more expensive gas.

702; I use Shell gas too, small world-- $1.47 per gal. It's a way to save money to upgrade my amps! Thanks. Craig