On a thread that is a running example of the textual equivalent of nonstop cat videos. So here it is again.
I could understand the cables are snake-oil doubters and take them seriously- in 1980. Back then there was no internet, Stereo Review was pretty much it, and Julian Hirsch was the Oracle of all things audio. Stereo Review and Julian Hirsch said if it measures the same it sounds the same. Wire is wire, and that was that.
Even then though J. Gordon Holt had already started the movement that was to become Stereophile. JGH took the opposing view that our listening experience is what counts. Its nice if you can measure it but if you can’t that’s your problem not ours.
Stereo Review and the measurers owned the market back then. The market gave us amplifier wars, as manufacturers competed for ever more power with ever lower distortion. For years this went on, until one day "measures great sounds bad" became a thing.
Could be some here besides me lived through and remember this. If you did, and if you were reading JGH back then, I tip my hat to you, sir! I fell prey to Hirsch and his siren song that you can have it all for cheap and don’t really have to learn to listen. Talk about snake-oil! A lot of us bought into it. Sorry to say.
But anyway like I was saying it was easy to believe the lie back then because it was so prevalent and also because what wire there was that sounded better didn’t really sound a whole lot better.
Now though even budget wire sounds so much better than what comes off a reel you’d have to be deaf not to notice. Really good wires sound so good you’d notice even if you ARE deaf! No kidding. My aunt Bessie was deaf as a stone but she could FEEL the sound at a high enough volume, knew it was music. The dynamic punch of my CTS cables is so much greater than ordinary 14 ga wire I would bet my deaf from birth aunt Bessie could "hear" the difference. Certain so-called audiophiles here, I'm not so sure.
Oh and not done beating the dead horse quite yet, according to my calendar its 2020, a solid 40 years past 1980. Stereo Review is dead and buried. Stereophile lives on. A whole multi-billion dollar industry built on wire not being wire thrives. Maybe the measurement people can chalk up and quantify from that just how many years, and billions, they are out of date and in denial.
Making great audio cables is much more than wrangling up ready available wire, terminations, wrappings. Both the materials used AND wire weave geometry make huge differences.
Sure, you can make your own cables to connect your components and it'll work of course, but moving up the audiophile cable chain should/will result in better audio quality. Also, the more transparent your system and/or the better your critical listening skills, the more you'll notice/hear the differences. Whether the price/performance is worth it is subjective, often a topic of heated debates.
I had some seven nines Japanese cables twenty five years ago, the ones with the silk jacket. On the Kalahari you don’t have to be the swiftest wildebeest, only faster than the slowest one. I also had some of Bob Crump’s TG Audio speaker cables and P.W.B. speaker cables, the ones you can’t buy, the ones with full sets of Colored cable ties on them 🌈
mijostyn, Thanks. You’re right that double-blind has to be done right to be effective. Yes, audio memory is very short, so samples need to be short and switching needs to be instantaneous. Appreciate the trimmer suggestion. It’s just a step I usually skip before listening.
If your audio memory is so short cdorval1 I pity you when your wife calls and you fail to recognize her voice on the phone. Maybe try asking her to talk in small samples see how far you get.
Yeah, how did this "short audio memory" belief enter the dogma? When you know your system and the music you use for comparisons, you know when you are hearing newly revealed information because you did not hear that before. And to torture yourself with some double-blind ritual--it's as useless as a dating site. Put the new item in and relax. Live with it, connect with it emotionally. My apologies to those who found happiness through a dating site.
@jafreeman , I'd actually support 'SAM', given a parameter or so...
'K....you're blissed out, listening to a 'fav' rendition.
Unbeknownst, some snot has snuck a pair of uberquiet digital switches into your stack and intro'd a deviate cable pair Somewhere in there.
At an appropo moment, the switch is engaged, then disengaged at another proper moment. And done repeatedly, given the same timing.
Now....assuming this addition was done with perhaps only your SO's co-operation....(and don't retaliate....that's not nice, and likely illegal in some states....)...
Are you Absolutely Positive you'd notice? Would you leap out of chair, and go stare at the TT? Flip switches, twist dials. wonder "WT...'?
Or?
Just being the devils' advocate....don't take as a personal attack. That's not the point....*s*
Question for you guys who think double blind is required because you can't remember what you heard: why do you care?
If you can't remember, why on Earth do you care?
And just how selective is your ever-erasing memory anyway? Do you remember saying you need double-blind? Can you remember what you're typing for the time it takes to type a word? A sentence? A paragraph? Do you remember your name??? Food- can you remember what a hot dog tastes like? Are you able to remember how to drive? What other things in your life do you find impossible to remember for any length of time?
I'll just comment on pre-disposition....and move on....
Say what? *L*
...just a tease....;)
Having a spouse that majored in the 'science of the mind' back @ CSCSF, how the mind 'works' (and doesn't) has been something I had more exposure to than most. That, and a contiuing fascination of what and how that coiled mass in ones' skull taints and paints one's entire existence....
Don't misunderstand me....everyone thinks. One could surmise that some 'do' it better than others, which does have a particle of truth.
What you think, how you perceive, how you react....has been, and continues to, be so subject to the experiences of ones' entire life that one can say with all honesty that nobody 'thinks' alike.
I can 'walk a mile in your shoes'...and still not experience it in the same way. I'm not You. You are certainly not me.
To say "You can't remember what you heard a minute ago?!"
Of course you can. How you experienced that is already been immersed into the rest of your synapse structures.
You didn't hear what I did....or the inverse of that.
We can agree that we listened to the same thing, through the same mechanism, at the same time.
It doesn't surprise me that there's so much discussion about it in these pages.
What floors me is the amount of time, energy, and space spent trying to make the 'pointless point'.
'Tribal squabbles' comes to mind....well, mine, anyway.
And I'm well aware that I don't think like most....nor does that bother me one iota.
On a serious note, there is a nugget of truth here. Some people simply do not really know what they hear. Its not that they haven’t heard it, but they lack the vocabulary to express what they have heard. Almost always the people talking this evanescent memory line are incapable of saying exactly what they are talking about. I’ve never once heard one of them say they heard two things so close it came down to the micro-dynamics or timbral harmonics or image focus or anything like that. No. Instead its always apparent they have no words whatsoever for what they are talking about. They are plain and simple too lazy to try and learn the vocabulary.
Now it turns out there’s a whole line of psychology devoted to trying to discern which comes first, the thought or the word. How do you even know the thing you’re talking about without knowing the word for it? Not only can you not talk about it, it turns out you cannot even think about it.
This comes up in x-ray school. An x-ray is nothing more than a 2 dimensional gray scale representation of a 3 dimensional object. When you first look at one its hard to make any sense of it at all. Then you learn a whole lot of anatomy, pathology, mega medical terminology, physics, electronics, chemistry (no kidding) and then with all of this knowledge together with a lot of years studying these things, one day you look at the flat image and are surprised to be able to see what’s going on in 3D.
And guess what? No radiologist or MD ever once asked for a double-blind. That would be nuts. That would show only that they really don’t know what they’re doing. Same here.
25+ years in high end professional acoustics, and no one uses terms like micro-dynamics or timbral harmonics w.r.t. a sound reproduction system, probably because "micro-dynamics", isn't a function of sound reproduction, it is a function of recording and mastering, and timbral harmonics is essentially a tautology, since the timbre already means the combination of harmonics that compose tone. Having made up words that sound erudite but essentially carry no meaning does not give one superiority the person who hears the same thing but describes in just as distinct, but non "technical sounding" jargon.
I blame the audio "press" most of whom possess no technical background, from either an educational standpoint or practical standpoint in audio or audio sciences. They make stuff up, and other people just pick up on it cause it sounds good. Mainly, it just causes confusion and people calling each other names on audio forums.
40 + years, and not one, yup not one that I can find, demonstration by a cable vendor that definitively shows an audible difference, let alone an improvement between good wire (low resistance, reasonably low capacitance/inductance), and their uber-expensive wire.
40+ years, and not one vendor willing to put their money where their mouth is and show, in perfect for them conditions, that they can reliably pick out their uber expensive wire from run of the mill wire.
40+ years, and still no proper blind demonstrations at a trade-show that illustrates the clear, claimed "night and day" difference between their uber expensive cables and good cables (good resistance/capacitance/inductance, and shielding for interconnects).
Thing is, I do know that some of those uber-expensive low capacitance wires are more likely to lead to amplifier instability (audible), than less expensive wires (as Pass and Polk found out). I can find it on a scope in seconds, and fix it in not many more (for pennies), and most good amplifier vendors have already addressed this issue. I know I can vary resistance enough between cables to create a statistically audible difference. I know I can build in enough capacitance to create a statistically audible difference (for some people, most younger than this group). I know that to reduce those differences to statistically 0, it does not require a lot of money.
The ops statement is really nothing but an ad populum argument. Everyone is doing it (well really they aren't), so it must be right. The vitamin and supplement industry is > $75 billion worldwide, and much of that is near useless (and many of us, me included over the years), fall for it. There are a plethora of things people buy or believe in, vast numbers of people, for which there is little or no evidence, if not evidence of harm.
Having been around acoustics and psychoacoustics, academically, professionally, and in assistance of research, I know how to tweak for a desired outcome, and to be exceedingly skeptical of claims, knowing that in properly controlled comparisons, all those night and day claims, magically disappear. You would be amazed that blind, a lot of audiophiles can't even pick their own speakers out of a lineup of similar sounding speakers reliably ... and yes, you may be curious how I know that.
Now if only there was a way to put this argument away once and for all .. but for the life of me, I can't think what that way would be .....
no one uses terms like micro-dynamics or timbral harmonics w.r.t. a sound reproduction system, probably because "micro-dynamics", isn’t a function of sound reproduction, it is a function of recording and mastering,
I see. So they record it, but we don’t have to reproduce it. Interesting. And for this you consider yourself a professional. No wonder I have so little respect for credentialism.
40 + years, and not one, yup not one that I can find, demonstration by a cable vendor that definitively shows an audible difference, let alone an improvement between good wire (low resistance, reasonably low capacitance/inductance), and their uber-expensive wire.
You do realize you just admitted that in 40 years you have never been able to hear any difference between any cables. Brilliant. I’d never dream of putting anyone down with such a devastating insult as you just did to yourself.
roberttdid 40 + years, and not one, yup not one that I can find, demonstration by a cable vendor that definitively shows an audible difference, let alone an improvement between good wire (low resistance, reasonably low capacitance/inductance), and their uber-expensive wire.
>>>>I got as far as “40 + years” then I stopped reading as I was confident some lengthy chest-beating was about to occur. If number of years of experience actually meant anything we’d all be geniuses. Around these parts that is considered an appeal to authority anyway.
Double blind testing is oft embraced by audiophiles as a scientific methodology guaranteed to yield correct results. Nothing could be further from the truth. A double blind test doesn’t mean anything, it’s only one data point, so stop pretending that it does. Too many things can go wrong in any audio test - and usually do. Conclusions might be drawn after a Sufficiently large number Independent tests have been performed, I.e., preponderance of evidence. I’d opine many if not most audiophiles are blissfully unaware of many variables involved in audio tests anyway.
millercarbon This comes up in x-ray school. An x-ray is nothing more than a 2 dimensional gray scale representation of a 3 dimensional object. When you first look at one its hard to make any sense of it at all.
>>>>>>X-rays themselves are made of the same particles that the audio signal is made of, only higher energy. Did that ever come up in x-ray school? One wonders of it comes up in audio engineering school.
All difference perceived one by one can be illusory, but after my 2 years of home made systematic experiments in listening sessions, the negative or positive changes reveal themselves very swiftly and in an obvious way... At the end the increase S.Q. is staggering with the exact SAME E.C. (electronic components).
For the memory of sound, my first helper is my subconscious emotion analysis, I dont listen only to sound that I consciously recorded (this kind of memory is very short lived), I listen to myself where something in me, gives to me through the emotions the sensation for the recognized right sounding direction....This is the basis for my very good sound memory but this memory is not direct experience recorded, it is the affective memory of the sound impact in my body, not the sound itself....This memory is not foolproof and must be trained...
In the beginning I had no words for many subtle dimensional vatiations in sounds, but between the direct sound experience and the names there is the emotional body, ans this emotional-body linked to the ears-body is the sherpa for the journey toward the apex of the mountain and this emotional body gives his living content to the abstract name or concept.... In linguistic there is 2 polarities: the idea and the body dimension of the living speech, none of them is reducible to the others; music and emotions are their complex playground interpenetrations...And the cosmos-world and the body are also a polarity....Goethe after Humboldt in linguistic is the great thinker in these matters and the true and most profound phenomenologist....A Newton of the living world so to speak....
"40 + years, and not one, yup not one that I can find, demonstration by a cable vendor that definitively shows an audible difference, let alone an improvement between good wire (low resistance, reasonably low capacitance/inductance), and their uber-expensive wire.
40+ years, and not one vendor willing to put their money where their mouth is and show, in perfect for them conditions, that they can reliably pick out their uber expensive wire from run of the mill wire.
40+ years, and still no proper blind demonstrations at a trade-show that illustrates the clear, claimed "night and day" difference between their uber expensive cables and good cables (good resistance/capacitance/inductance, and shielding for interconnects)."
Yes, good work.
Can’t really see how it could be spelled out any clearer for those who hoping for cable upgrades.
If only it were that easy to upgrade your sound by swapping a few cables. If only.
Still, many of us tried. Thin wire, thick wire, stranded wire, solid core wire, cheap wire, expensive wire, fancy plugs, bare wire, reversing the wires etc.
I think the only thing I didn’t try was direct soldering onto the connectors, but I do remember someone writing that they had done that with their NAD 3020 integrated...
You realize that in under 100 characters, you just admitted you have reading comprehension issues as I clearly stated that resistance, capacitance, inductive and stability issues could create audible differences in cables .....
You do realize you just admitted that in 40 years you have never been able to hear any difference between any cables.
Oh, I have tried many things as well, including recreating the effects of Pass and Polk (and no doubt many others) on amplifier stability, not to mention having access research grade acoustic lab environments, and trained and untrained biased and unbiased testers. Hence why I made the statement that wire can make an audible difference, and why I differentiate between crap, "good enough", and uber-expensive.
Still, many of us tried. Thin wire, thick wire, stranded wire, solid core wire, cheap wire, expensive wire, fancy plugs, bare wire, reversing the wires etc.
But hey, I seem to have triggered the rath of the Pet Audio Rock dude, so I must be doing something right?
40
+ years, and not one, yup not one that I can find, demonstration by a
cable vendor that definitively shows an audible difference... 40+
years, and not one vendor willing to put their money where their mouth
is ... 40+ years, and still no proper blind demonstrations at a trade-show ...
So what? You are of course free to do your own testing. If you do, please share your results here.
If one can't find any studies of measurements not lining up with hearing ability, the logical explanation is the measuring is not up to the level of one's hearing.
It takes some real pretzel logic to say it's the other way around.
If
one can't find any studies of measurements not lining up with hearing
ability, the logical explanation is the measuring is not up to the level
of one's hearing.
Wouldn't you want to verify that "logical explanation" with some testing, rather than just jump to conclusions? Wouldn't that be particularly true if you couldn't find any test at all for the DUT, including those that produced a null result?
And this is why we still have millions and millions of people who believe the Earth is flat, because the "measurements" don't line up with what they think they perceive.
Not if you care about accurate repeatable results. You have already jumped to the conclusion that you have hearing abilities that are not being measured. In the audiophile world, that rarely means you isolated the test to your hearing, and nothing else. Unfortunate, but true.
If one can't find any studies of measurements not lining up with hearing
ability, the logical explanation is the measuring is not up to the
level of one's hearing.
... we still have millions and millions of people who believe the Earth is flat ...
Got proof? Please keep in mind that most "flat-earthers" aren't serious at all. It's a goof. They do it in jest, in large part because it upsets some people like you.
The famous Neil Armstrong quote, “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” was the brainchild of Kubrick’s wife Christiane, while Kubrick was filming the Moon landing on the old set of 2001: A Space Odyssey. 👨🚀
Isn't Galen now doing work for Blue Jeans? ..... just sayin.
With the exception of the ground wire, I am going to go out on a limb and say that pretty much none (or very close to it), can even communicate why a larger gauge would be better for low power noise sensitive equipment like a phono-pre, a pre-amp, streamer, etc.
Better yet, what advantage would there be to "better", i.e. low inductance, low capacitance, power cords for these products at all?
Now present the exact same argument for a power amplifier that is not hitting its limits.
I mean all those people out there extolling the virtue of big gauge AC wire, fancy geometries for AC, etc. must know why it makes things better right? Right?
You must have been participating in the snake oil screechers’ campaign against BJ Cables. When they decided to distribute the Iconoclast cables designed by Galen. This is why.
You know he lists his Linkedin profile as doing work for them? No doubt an exit strategy for him as he gets older, and an easy opportunity to increase margin and exposure for them. More power to them. I stopped feeling guilty about taking advantage of people wilfully uninformed ages ago.
40 + years, and not one, yup not one that I can find, demonstration by a cable vendor that definitively shows an audible difference,
That's an awful lot of cable demo's to not be able to hear a difference. I get that you don't comprehend what I'm saying. But surely you can at least try and comprehend what you yourself have said? You're saying you cannot hear a difference. I believe you. I totally, totally believe you.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
