Marakanetz, no hard feelings. Everything's cool.
76 responses Add your response
Tazuser, I agree with your statements. I believe that the capacitance influences the signal that emerges at the output. My experience is not scientific, per se. I was a reviewer at one time and it seemed that the lower capacitance cables allowed more "freedom" musically speaking. Don't know why, but it did. And another point: putting a cable into the system and then playing it right after inserting it is a waste of time. The cables "settle," I was told in "the old days" and it was considered a waste of time to evaluate them as soon as you had put them into the system. It was suggested that we listen to a cut as soon as we put them into the system, and then listen to the same cut after 1/2 hour and then after 2 hours. Usually, and I repeat, USUALLY, you'd hear a difference. |
Tom, Hope no hard fealings 'bout "cryin' towel"?:-) Seems to me that you're not "just listening" but calculating before... and this I consider also as a scientific tool to objectively evaluate worthiness of an investment. Many present cases with interconnects and speaker wires do not require scientific knowlege of electronics and measurements and only by doing budget estimate you realize what stays on right place and what does not. |
Tazuser, I was the one who did many tests on equipment blindfolded, and had a good success record. I simply listen to the equipment, and determine if I can hear something different. Sometimes I can, and sometimes I cannot. Sometimes I may hear bloated or weak bass, or too hot or rolled off highs, or midrange anomalies, or detail masking, or soundstaging differences, etc, etc. Or sometimes I just hear more natural sounding music. I can't say what I will hear until I hear it. Regarding the methodology, we used a reference audio system in a high end showroom, with only one set of speakers in the room at one time. Equipment, or cables, were replaced at random while the subject was out of the room. Then the subject is brought is blindfolded, and asked to identify what piece of equipment was changed, and to name it. We all did rather well at this, but we were very familiar with the sound of the various equipment in question. We did this for fun, to pass the time on slow days at the audio store. It was more of a game, than a "science experiment". I don't really find alot of difference in price versus performance, as a general rule. It is more just differences in performance, but they don't seem to relate much to the price, until it gets pretty high. Above $600 for an interconnect pair, was a noticeable threshold for performance/price relationships. I had a DIY pair of interconnects that beat anything up to $600 in my system, but then I have heard several over-$600 sets since then that did better than my DIY. I don't say that the most costly is always the best. But it may be so in some cases. I'm all for science, and have a strong science background. If differences are heard, then it's up to the scientists to determine what the reasons are. I don't really care what makes it so, as long as it sounds best in my system. What I do dislike, is when statements such as "wire is wire" are made, in an attempt to "scientifically" persuade people that they really don't hear any difference, when it is quite likely that they do hear them. If the science people want to discover all the inner secrets of why wires sound like they do, that's fine with me. Especially if it results in lower cost, good sounding wires. However, I part company with those who say that they cannot sound different because they are all measuring alike. Clearly, if they sound different, then other measurements must be in order to discover what is different. If these measurements are not existing, then they must be discovered to satisfy that curiosity. Personally, I find it alot easier to just listen and decide. |
That there can be minor acoustic differences between well-made cables consisting of the same copper and the same low-effect fluorocarbon dielectric IS interesting. Puffing the Teflon with air or changing L-C values with geometry further complicates the matrix. But what about using magnets or ferrous fillers next to the conductors, as is done y a now-popular manufacturer? Flies in the face of all electrical theory for a linear response, no? |
The other evening I was visiting a friend and discussion drifted to this new audiophile hobby of mine. After a few more glasses of wine we went onto his office to see what was behind/between all of his gear. The first thing I noticed was a set of monster cable 'Y' connections(male RCA with two female RCA) so he could run music two sources to his receiver. I yanked the 'Y" and connected one of them direct and....he was impressed how much better it sounded. He laughed at how much he had been missing as the connection was done over seven years ago. Next, we disconnected everything swo as to untangle all of his AC cords, interconnects, and speaker cable. It was all twisted together. He had four or five sets of cables that were twisted through everything and yet were hooked to nothing. Now his system sounds quite bearable. Looks like he won't be participating on all of those Audiogon auctions, afterall. i got a nice bottle of wine for my efforts. |
I agree with your post and would like to add that I have been told to look for cables that exhibit low capacitance and inductance. I believe that the capacitance issue is more critical with interconnects because of the low signal levels at this stage. I cannot say how significant it is because I believe this would depend on the equipment used. I wonder how much of this perceived difference people claim to hear between cables is due to high capacitance issues between their equipment. For example, a possible mismatch between input and output impedances between a CD player, preamp and power amp. Another issue that could add to this problem is long interconnect runs. I have discussed equipment issues with many people and have discovered that some setups place monoblock amplifiers close to speakers to minimize speaker cable runs. However, the interconnect must then be longer then the speaker cable in order to reach the amplifier. If the interconnect is high capacitance, and there are impedance mismatches, this may create an audible difference. I would welcome input from those who claim the differences are obvious. What test methodology was used? What speaker cables/interconnects were involved in the test? Details would at least give me something to go by and help me with my tests. I did get some input from someone in this forum that differences are not easy to distinguish with a simple blind A/B test. It requires a more lengthy time period for differences to become evident. Perhaps a longer A/B test methodology could be used. I also ran across a post where someone claims that he has done many A/B tests and his friends have attempted to try and fool him with different cables. He claims a 90% accuracy rate in distinguishing between cables. Thats very good. I would be interested in what differences he picks up on and his test methodology. I would also like to know if he finds that a correlation exists between price and performance. I researched some different cable manufacturers products and would be interested in doing a comparison between the Nordost line, DH labs interconnects, and a standard pair of radioshack speaker wire. I read on the Nordost website about there approach to cable design and they seem to be research oriented in their designs. The only conflicting issues that they stated in their literature had to to with wire shapes. Essentially they state that the nordost 2 flat speaker cable is rectangular in shape because this improves capacitance and inductance over round wires. However, their higher line cables are solid round mult-stranded litz designs due to the improved skin effect of this design. Very unusual to promote one design philosophy as better, but then to use the worse one for higher product lines. DH labs has an interesting dielectric material with their air matrix interconnects. They claim a closer dielectric constant with that of air due to the unique construction of this teflon based dielectric. At least worth investigating. It would be interesting to put these products to the test. |
Taz, I've no doubdt as you do that cables might/or might not sound different... The main fact I realy care about is pricing of cables that realy don't show any of the engineering or scientific mechanizm and might even rich the cost of a good speaker or the source component. That is the main today's audio-bull that realy psychologically drives by its beautifull design(only out-view realy counts!) making naive and rich believe that they will change the sound a lot. In fact in audio freequencies wires can only change the responce(on randomly selected freequencies) by 0.1...0.3dB(now that's to the real measured and objective differences between $10 RadioShack speaker wire and $300 JPS speaker wire). These differences are only can be audiable with infected brain but not with ears. As to manufacturers that produce ultra-wide-band amps able to start parasite oscillation at RF(that's where shielded costly wires might work) breaking-up the normal performance I want to emphisize with bold letters that audio amplifier should ONLY work at audio freequencies. The rest of junk must be filtered out not with wires $2k/m/pr but with simple penny-cost passive and active elements; the double-side PC-board must be properly measured for overall reactance and analyzed for self-resonances that might occur during RF interfearance. |
Hello. Your misinformed post caught my interest. I have relisted it below. " guess gravity did not exist till Newton discovered, and North America was not a part of the world till Columbus stumbled across it too! People like Bomarc who claim to have the answers based on science delude themselves. Just because nobody has found a way to measure the differences yet doesn't mean they don't exist. It simply means this area of research is in it's infant stages. Infants should not be allowed measuring devices!!! I suppose the study in Germany in which classical music conductors are seen to hear more than the untrained listener should be ignored since there obviously is not more music being played when they listen as opposed to the average listener! The biggest problem science has is the pedestrian who actually knows very little that takes something a much wiser person has said and repeats it without understanding what it means. Every interconnect is different! If you cannot hear the difference you are in the wrong hobby! If you can hear the obvious, just forget the 'junk scientists' who claim you delude yourself and enjoy the music!!!" I was wondering if you had done experiments with different cables. Were the differences as obvious as you seem to imply in you post? If tests were conducted, how did you perform the tests? My experiments have not shown any percievable differences. Does this mean that I am in the wrong hobby? I am open to further testing, but at the moment am content with the idea that good cables are all that are required. A good cable is well insulated and properly designed with sufficient electrical measurements for its required application. It should also be properly priced for its application. Please do not misrepresent the above remark as stating that I have given up. I am still very open and eager for knowledge on how I can derive these differences you seem to hear with ease. Perpaps your test methodology will help me in my search. The study in Germany you brought up has no relevance to the discusson of cable differences. It should be obvious to anyone that a trained classical musician will have an advantage picking out instruments and/or details that you or I may not have noticed. If that musician pointed them out to us in a recording, I am sure that we would pick up on them as well. I assume this study was conduced in a live environment in which case no cables were even involved. Regardless, it does not imply or support any evidence that there are obvious or noticeable differences between cables. I realize that your position does not require evidence as this would be a contradiction on your previous statements. Afterall, that would involve science. Your post only provides stronger evidence in support of the audioholics article on percieved cable differences. The use of the study in Germany which has no relevence is proof of this. It is not relevant to the discussion and only thrown in to create confusion rather then deal with the specifics of the issue. "The biggest problem science has is the pedestrian who actually knows very little that takes something a much wiser person has said and repeats it without understanding what it means." I completely agree with the above statement. I believe you are guilty of it in your initial post. Science is the reason that you have high fidelity to begin with. Seems silly to throw it all away now. |
I was surprised when I sampled a few of the responses as to how may people disagreed with the information presented on this website. I found the website rather informative. I have done some limited A/B testing with cables and I honesty can say that I did not hear any differences between the cables in my test. However, I am open minded and would actually appreciate someone explaining to me why cables sound so dramatically different. Also, what is the issue with the information presented in the audioholics web site? How dramatically different is the sound to you? Are you certan there are noticeable differences between cables? What equimpent are you using? Also, do any of you live in the Northern Virginia, DC area? Appreciate anyone who can help. Thanks in advance. |
The truth about interconnects - can you handle it? Bomarc, I couldn't agree more on not degrinigating science. I don't think it's necessary to get into an argument of relative objective/subjective perception of reality. What I wanted to point out, though, and I'm definely leaning toward objective realism here, is that irregard to what my perception is telling me, there is an objective difference. whether or not I can sense it, and to what degree falls under relative subjectivity. This is where I think personal preferences come in. How each individual perceive that objective difference through their senses become subjective, which translates into personal taste. Of course I can be completely wrong, but my senses are telling me otherwise. |
Jchen--Your understanding of the placebo effect, at least as it applies to perception, is wrong. (It's actually wrong even as it applies to medicine--the placebo effect can work even when the doctor tells you the pill won't work.) Simply knowing that two cables are different can make them sound different to you. In studies of hearing perception, people who listen to the same thing report that it sounds different about half the time. That doesn't mean that all cables sound the same. It just means that when they do sound different, it might be real, or it might be in your mind, and there's no way to know for sure--short of the sort of objective scientific test that will be pooh-poohed here, so let's not even get into that. Now, you're free to say, "I don't think it's in my mind," and buy whatever cables sound best to you. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking you have to denigrate science to justify that. Nobody has to justify anything in this hobby. |
I'm new to this hobby but in regards to the placebo effect, I can say that I only started my research after I heard differences from swapping cables on my system. The placebo effect only works when you have a preconceived benefit of a certain product (advil, etc.) I had none in regards to cable differences. I was running a generic Monster cable until a dealer lended me a pair of Siltech. The differences were more than obvious and that's how I ended up in this "miserable, bank-breaking, but somehow joyful" land of hi-fi. |
Well said, Sean, except that I know of no one with any scientific credentials whatsoever who claims at all wire sounds the same. That canard was actually invented by the "everything sounds different" crowd, because it's easier to refute something that clearly isn't true than to take on the arguments your opponents are really making. |
Nrchy, do you really think that we cannot explain why cables sound different ? Personally I think we can, which is why the cables that people consistently rank the best show similar physical characteristics, whether it be minimum capacitance, minimum inductance, or stable, known impendance ... depending which is the key design parameter for the use of that cable. I agree with you that "scientists" who claim that all wire sounds the same based on their limited science are misled. On the other hand scientists who claim that cables do sound different, and that in virtually all cases there's a simple explanation why they sound different, are being totally honest, and are probably correct. |
It seems to me that a corollary of the Audiophilic Truth (everything makes a difference) is "no two things sound the same" - upon which an industry thrives. To compare the current state of electrical engineering with pre-Columbian or pre-Newtonian scientific knowledge is specious. Physicists and electrical engineers know how wires work. Their properties are not difficult to understand, and my guess is that their performance differences, if any, can be measured by current technology, from a satellite. Do I think all interconnects sound the same? No. But many of them do sound the same and the differences I hear in the others are very small, less than what happens when you move your head (except in the case of some cables I have heard that are apparently designed to attenuate either the low end or the high end). Just out of curiosity, how do you people who hear all these big differences control for the position and attitude of your personal measuring apparatus (the ears mounted on your head)? |
I guess gravity did not exist till Newton discovered, and North America was not a part of the world till Columbus stumbled across it too! People like Bomarc who claim to have the answers based on science delude themselves. Just because nobody has found a way to measure the differences yet doesn't mean they don't exist. It simply means this area of research is in it's infant stages. Infants should not be allowed measuring devices!!! I suppose the study in Germany in which classical music conductors are seen to hear more than the untrained listener should be ignored since there obviously is not more music being played when they listen as opposed to the average listener! The biggest problem science has is the pedestrian who actually knows very little that takes something a much wiser person has said and repeats it without understanding what it means. Every interconnect is different! If you cannot hear the difference you are in the wrong hobby! If you can hear the obvious, just forget the 'junk scientists' who claim you delude yourself and enjoy the music!!! |
HISTORICAL INFORMATION: before 80's people did not hear substantial differences in interconnects as they "hear" it right now since some of them rich the cost of diamond necklace(yo gotta be keddin' if they don't improve sound!) so the hearing abilities is much greater nowdays than back than. think about it we now even hear an audio furniture! |
None denies that cables sound different but by all means when you strip or look inside the mega-priced ones you see just the same industrial grade wires with some phoney information about close to ideal purity that you can easily buy for pennies at Home Depot. The same thing is to the speaker wires as well. Any further fancy coating and gold-plated plugs for $50/pr just makes no sence at all. No need to go further than $9/pr Dayton connectors in that case for even $100k equipment. Wires that cost like a diamond necklace won't ever be any better than $40/pr ones. And in that price range there are plenty-of-plenty to choose the one you'll like if you will hear the differences between them. They will certainly sound better than thin RS ones for $3. The reactance influence is so minimal and audio freequencies that you needn't worry about that as long as equipment does not oscillate from RF. |
Bomarc ... I'm pretty much in agreement that so far I haven't heard of any audio phenomena that could not be explained scientifically, including the science of the perception of sound. I must have miunderstood your previous post because I think we're in close agreement. There have been many times when I've managed to improve the sound of my system by making a change that I was convinced would have no effect, and then afterwards I have been able to think through why it has worked. For example adding an external DAC to my mid-fi CD player made almost no difference, even though the DACs, power supplies and output stages were much better in the external DAC. Then I added a monarchy DIP and suddenly the external DAC sounds much much better. I then did some reading on timing jitter and it's pretty clear what happened. Same with interconnects, speaker cables etc etc. |
Sean: The question isn't, can cables sound different? Of course they can, and I know of no one who would argue otherwise. The question is, when they do sound different, can we explain why? And the answer is, yes we can. Now, it might turn out that someday someone will discover that our current explanation is wrong. But, as in the cases you cited, that will happen because we happen upon things we cannot explain, which forces us to look for new explanations. So far, nobody's come up with any unexplainable phenomena. |
As an electronic design engineer, and a fervent believer in the scientific approach to understanding our world it saddens me that so many "scientific" people are so closed minded to anything that they cannot explain with their limited science. Be skeptical, by all means, but don't be closed minded, because once you reach that point all progress halts. Remember Einstein .. imagination is more important than knowledge. Or the saying "To those with limited knowledge there are infinite possibilities ... to those with great knowledge there are few". I'm skeptical that time travel or teleporting will ever be a reality, but I will never say never ... can you imagine explaining to a person of 500 years ago that people would travel to the moon, or that the rate of progression of time was altered by gravitational fields, or that the mass of an object increases with the speed of that object ? I was very skeptical of cables, and I remain very skeptical of the amounts of money paid for cables, but I have heard with my own ears that they do make a difference. |
While I believe their are some great cables out there that can make an improvement in the sound of your system, I also believe their are some cable manufacturers that are fradulent, and their is no protection group to police it. And even if their was it would be difficult to prove given the complexity of why something works, especially in system A and not in system B. Never the less a manufacturer can make up any mumbo jumbo for advertising purposes and suck in the audiophile whose never ending quest is for the perfect sound. For me the true test is would I be willing to wager money I can tell you the difference between cable A and Cable B. I own several cables I would be willing to bet a $1000.00, I could tell you the difference blindfolded. I own other cables that I would not bet a nickel on. |
Amen, brother Bomarc. BTW, Twl, I care as much as anyone here about the faithful reproduction of music. As I attend many concerts each year, I have live music to compare my system to. I listen very carefully, and converse with many people who do as well. My responses here ARE based on my listening tests. Enjoy your music, Charlie |
Twl: I suggest you stop railing about science until you make some effort to understand what it is. You've crammed more misinformation into one paragraph than I've seen in a long time. Just because you are uninformed about the current scientific understanding of human hearing doesn't mean the science doesn't exist or is incapable of explaining everything--everything--you hear. |
As long as any of you simply "look at" and "measure" these cables, and do not listen to them, there is no real determining being done. That would be like me "listening" to the Mona Lisa, and determining that all paintings were alike. Or "watching" a symphony being played, and concluding that Beethoven looks just like Tchaikowsky when being played. You technical people need to let go of your attachment to measuring instruments and listen to equipment. Just like 20 years ago, when this argument was "put to bed", we have forgotten that, and are now arguing the same old stuff all over again. Are you going to tell me that a Technics department store receiver sounds better than a Pass Aleph? Why not? It measures as good or better. Wires don't matter, capacitors don't matter, everything is the same, they both amplify and have low distortion specs. Is this your position? All I can say is that for people who claim to be "analytical and scientific", your analysis and science are sadly lacking. Are you going to try to say the sun is not shining, because you are using a light meter under a shade tree, and forgot to look where you were standing? You have to actually listen to the product to determine how it sounds. No measurement in the world is going to tell you this. All science begins with an "empirical analysis". This means "an observed phenomenon". Then tests are done to determine what is happening. Using tests that don't relate to the phenomenon cannot be used to "prove" that the phenomenon isn't happening. You are using science in reverse, and cannot even see that is what you are doing. That is not scientific. The premise that "everything has to fit into my little R-L-C bag" is just bad science. Claiming "psychological" effects to explain what you don't understand, or can't measure, is a convenient escape from the real conclusion that you can't measure what is being heard, so you lean on that in order to cover the shortcomings of your testing methods. The real truth here is that the "scientific" argument is the trailing edge which is well behind the cutting edge of listening testing. |
Try listening to (and with) your ears rather than to your friends, engineers or not. I have a physicist friend who was fully convinced that my weird wires (Omega Mikro, Mapleshade) didn't make sense. He still feels that way but agrees that they do make music, better than he's ever heard it reproduced. |
I'm an electronics technician, not an engineer. But I do work with some engineers. I brought some ads from some audio magazines to them, and let them look at some for some interconnects and power cords. They were all astounded that anyone could possibly believe this nonsense. The characteristics of any wire can be measured, and in fact has to be for industrial use. The right wire is critical for industrial applications. But what blew them away was a power cord that cost almost a grand, that could be gotten from digi-key for $3. Perhaps Penn & Teller should do a show about this stuff. |
Wires make difference on components that are not properly designed and tend to pick up and oscillate from already increased 21st century RF influence causing large circuit instability or even permanent damage. Like in the old-day designes all you've got to do is not to let it be present in the input (piece of cake actually) with pennies worth of electronic elements. Tend to say that ALL audio circuits had been already designed and have a bunch of ways to avoid bias instability and RF influence. For me as EE working in large financial institution(as a financial specialist) there is a very simple explaination: Electronic specialists needn't reinvent any wheel nowdays. All the specifications on audio-electronic equipment jumped far higher than standards of High Fidelity and the question stays pretty clear: How to "resurrect" the dying after 80's audio market? All you need(as a designer or manufacturer) to do is hook-up a dealer or few(market stability) explain him that you've got some outstanding own scientific conclusions and selected the best of the best to create this wire that should retail for the price of diamond necklace. Dealer is the one with commercial sting will add some "harmonic distortions" to transduce it with nice advertizing manner to his dumb client. Yeah, wires and cables do "its best" for the ones who hears well and reads well commercial magazines to compensate simple and inexpencive circuit elements that should be present in every audio component but believe me they are not. What drove me realy for my conclusion is despite my knowlege of electricity and signals I started to read magazines and started to develop some belief but... I was CURIOUS to strip my Mainstream Hybrid expencive powercord and realized that it's OXIDED after one year of usage!!!!!!!! WHERE THE HELL IS 99.9999999999 OFC COOPER??? I also looked up in Home Depot power wires that I have a large roll for near three years and there were no corrosion whatsoever!!! Anyone wishes to strip some Shyniata or Siltech out here? I also stand for component manufacturers that stand for their product(where they realy put labor) able to proove that their components sound equally to the listener with ANY type of interconnects or speaker wires and believe me there are such and many of us after my post can write them bellow... |
Okay folks. I am kind of new here--oris that "hear"(?), but I am a quidk study. I suspect that anyone moving from Radshack, circuit city, good guys,etc. standard off the shelf cables to Acoustic Zen, Cardas, etc.-quality cables will hear a terrific differance. Perhaps this is enough. There are those of us who appreciateg great bass and especially vocals and there are some cables that might show some differance. I did change from Radshack digital RCA to Acoustic Zen and I am a believer! As far as speaker cables and comparisons, etc., the test is easy: Just wire one speaker with one cable and the other cable goes to the opposite speaker. you can even run the system on mono setting. If you like it, buy it. |
Dandr: For more info on good listening tests, check out: http://www.pcavtech.com/abx and http://www.pcabx.com |
Dandreescu, The point is not to remember which cable has tighter bass or high. The point is: do you like the sound/music or not after you listen and tweak for enough time? So you know the best you can get from this cable. Very often, a component impress people at first listening does not keep the excitement long. Especially we don't want to bet our hundreds CD's collection on one or two namely reference CD's. I know many friends regret their purchase realizing later that the particular component is only good for <20% of their CD collections. And actually a so called better high and low componet make 80% of their collection sound worse. It is not uncommon to hear this. I personally had experience of blaming on wrong components before. Like some cables or CD players were edgy.... and later found the room was the cause. After fixing my room, the edgy cable became better cable. The other example is the bass: after using a better transport, the bass is tighter and reverse my vote on my IC. The other way around, I change my mind on some DAC becasue switching around digital cables. So, a good component lasts! it responds well for most music and associated gears you throw at it and should last long. I still remember which CD or LP I enjoy very much tens years later. Maybe I remember the amp or speaker, but I usually forget which cable I used with them. Only remember recent cables I have been playing around. A good cable should not remind you about cables all the time, otherwise there is a bug in your system. Like man will not know woman on the first date, and definitely should not A/B girl friends in a short time bcz it won't work. Eventually, we will find it out after marriage after man and woman live together. Same as music and our gears. Even some journal put out so call "blind test result", how many of us will trust it? I think many will say "a bunch of lousy listener" to replace "this crappy commercial writer". We still will not have conclusion. |
Bluefin, our audio memory for detailed musical presentation is very short, same as memorising a phone number for 10-20s in order to call someone in our phonebook. Unless yours imediate recall memory is truly exceptional, after 3 mo from listening to a component you'll have just some vague impressions of how the music details were[ are you very sure that the cable you listen 3 mo ago has a slight tighter bass than the one you listed today? Would you be more inclined to detect a difference if you were listening to the same cables half a minute appart?] ... Obvious,normal listening does not include switching cables like crazy, but we are not talking about normal listening but of some kind of test designed to pick up some differences... 5 minutes is too long! I'll listen to about 25-30s on one cable, than I'll switch to the other one. If the 2nd cdp will start playing 25s after the first, I'll be able to listen to the same slice of music presented through 2 cables, one after on other. Tired and nervous? Nah, I'll do it when I'll be rested and relaxed. My happines in life is not linked at all with the test's results, I'll do it for fun [ some of my weekends are booring also...] If any audiogoners are around Barnwell, South Carolina, are all invited for a listen-beer on the house! Cables not broken in? It may be a point. Many vendors do burned them on the cable cooker, someone can also buy used... Bomarc,the level matching seems like a good point,I did't think about it. OK, maybe we'll not eliminate the placebo, just reduce it a little will be ok... on other ideea for a test: same CDP, 2 different cables-ICs R/L to my Mg Head OTL tube head amp and than listen through the Sennheiser Hd600, each ear will listen to a different cable!...what do you think?[ does not seem very rigurous, but is very easy to do it!] cheers. |
Actually, most of people can tell the difference between cables. It just takes more CD and system tweak to make sure what you think better is generally true for most of music and the variation of your system setup. Any component, like source, IC, amp...., should be tested in a natual listening condition in your home and rest of setup, and please give it enough time. "Blind Test" can be dangerous, are you sure those tester have the same taste and ears as yours? Even you do the blind test yourself, are you sure no simple system tweak can reverse your first vote? The only sure way is to play around with it for a while in your daily life. |
It seems that people will deny that wires make a difference for several reasons: 1) They tried them and heard no difference. 2) They will not try it because their "theory" says it won't make a difference. 3) They're open minded, and would like to try, but are scared that they will be ripped off. To all those in number 3) camp have a look at this thread. You can make interconnects for under $20 that sound fabulous. http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?fcabl&1046928936&openflup&1&4#1 |
I do believe that interconnects affect the sound, but the effects are due to the rational, measurable effects of the electrical characteristics of the cables on the signal. Every cable has it’s own R/L/C characteristics. These characteristics affect the signal as it passes through the cable, in the same manner that a filter affects any signal. The real question is: Why are the measurable, quantifiable characteristics of cables not included in discussions of how the cables affect the sound? For example, replacing a pair of interconnects with a pair with higher capacitance will cause a greater roll-off in the high frequencies. In a system that has a bright sound, this might be good; but in a system that is dark, this would make it worse. If we could reach a consensus on what changing each of the electrical characteristics of an interconnect should have on the sound, then we could move on to the next logical question, which is: Why should we spend big bucks on a particular set of cables when a pair with exactly the same electrical characteristics can be had for a fraction of the price? I can tell you for a fact that the guys selling the big bucks interconnects will do everything in their power to de-rail this kind of awareness and self-education within the audiophile community. BTW, has anyone tried putting a pyramid over his or her system? I hear channeling cosmic energy through your circuit boards does wonders for the sound. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.) |
Dandr: Unfortunately for audio comparisons, our brains are wired to synthesize information from all our senses, rather than to isolate information from a single sense. So if you're just comparing two cables blind, your brain is already telling you, "These are two different cables." It's really easy to make someone think they're listening to two different things when in fact they're not. So no, just comparing the cables blind will not eliminate the placebo effect. For your CD player comparisons, it's important to match levels (with a volmeter; an SPL meter won't do). The same system with as little as a 0.2dB difference can sound different--even though one doesn't sound any louder than the other. Also, remember the limitations of single-blind testing--if there's anybody in the room with you who knows which wire is which, there are all sorts of subliminal ways they can communicate that to you. Try to avoid that if you can. One reason audiophiles don't do more of these kinds of comparisons (besides simply not liking the results) is that it is not easy to really do them right. That doesn't mean that what you're trying to do isn't worth doing--anything is better than non-blind comparisons. You just have to remember that if you hear differences, you haven't definitively proved anything. Overall, though, you have my respect for giving it a try. Have fun (and enjoy the beer) and tell us how things turn out. |
The best way is to live with the component under test for three months. Blind test is not a very accurate way to compare different components anyway. As posted by others, a normal listening is not to switch cable every 5 min, I don't care you double or triple or .... Some need longer time to settle, and those cables will lose in blind test. And people are nervous and tired in the tedeous "blind" test. You listen to Beethoven 9'th and say "what a great music" at end. I don't think you will say any good thing if I switch between Beethoven and Mozart every 5 min. Or repeat the same section every 5 min. |
I have been sitting on the fence for a while now when debating if X cable that costs $20 is better than Y cable that cost $300. That being said, a friend let me borrow a set of PS Audio Statements and the second I put them in the system, I heard what I didn't want to hear...a significant difference. Trust me, I DID NOT want to hear a difference. I would have loved it if the $20 set of IC's I had sounded the same as the PS Audio's...but sadly they didn't. So needless to say, I am now saving my pennies for some of the sweet PS Audio ICs.....are there better out there than these even....I don't know and I really don't want to know. My pocket book cannot handle it. |
Bomarc, thanks for your response. I am reading a lot of health care DBTs professionaly designed, but other than some basics I am not at all an expert in statistics...I am trying to do a single blind study [ I will not know, of course, what cable I will listen too, so that will not suppose to eliminate the placebo?] but I'll write what I'll hear for cable A and B...I don't know how many times should I repeat it until it has some statistical significance, but hey, I am not planning to publish the results in Stereophile...It is suppose to be cheap,laid back and fun. I did it before comparing the Musical Fidelity A3 cdp with the Philips sacd 1000. The results were obvious in 15 minutes.On cdp, one player was heavy in the bottom end and had some rolled of highs[ sacd1000], the other had better dynamics and details.[ even my non-audiophile wife got the same differences ] Also the air around instruments and lack of digital glare was evident with pure dsd material...Those modest personal observation did match others reviews, so it may be that I'll find consistent differences with cables. [ However,I will not extrapolate, as two amps or cdps are supposed to be way more complex than two twisted copper wires made from the same purity material...] I just don't grasp why folks are so tense about this subject, it's like preaching darwinism in a southern baptist church... |
i find it strange that people claim there is no difference between different types/brands of speaker and IC cables. i consider myself new to the hobby, and the most noticeable change in sound on my system came from, in this order: 1) speaker; 2) amp 3) cables 4) preamp 5) NOS tubes 6) upgraded CD player |
Dandreescu: The problem with your approach, if I understand it, is that you won't be avoiding the placebo effect. You'll be listening to two cables that you know are different, even if you don't know which is which. So if they sound different, it MIGHT be because they really are, or it might be because your brain is overriding your ears (which happens frequently, despite the protestations of some). If you do notice a difference, have a neutral observer play one or the other at random, and see if you can guess which one is playing. If you can guess correctly 8 out of 10 times, they probably really do sound different. Otherwise, it's likely all in your head. |