Why do intelligent people deny audio differences?

>>just because we don't know what to measure for, or precisely how to measure a certain event; this does not mean that it does not exist, nor that it didn't happen.<<

Well, when a subject listens to two different cables and swears he/she can hear large differences while having access to the identity of the two cables and then is confronted with the fact that he/she cannot pick out the identity of these cables without that access, I would say that this is significant.

Researchers have reported that people become quite angry when these "differences" that were so easy to spot just moments ago seem to disappear.

Further, look around these audio forums. Just the other day, I was witing to a kid who was telling me that one set of speaker cables had absolutely no bass,
but excellent sound-stage while another had excess "bloom" in the bass and had no "tonality." When I asked him to post his system, he was listening to 20 year old low end speakers and a 5 year old low end home theater receiver. The kid wants to know which cables will make his system sound transparent, give it accurate bass, etc. And people wrote in to tell him which cables to buy, most of which cost more than his entire system.

This is part of the cable phenomenon.

But, this is what I would say: Take the people in the study where the subjects reported hearing large differences when, unbeknownst to them, the researcher hadn't even changed cables; Those people obviously HEARD differences. Since the cables were never changed, we know what caused the same cable to sound radically different -- the subjects expected them to sound different and their MINDS produced differences.

Would I tell them they heard no differences?

No. They did hear differences. That was their experience.

On the other hand, every scientist knows that he/she is open to these various influences and that's why any scientist who wishes to have his/her findings confirmed will subject his/her results to objective testing.

In audio, the only thing that matters is -- can people hear what they profess to hear when they are deprived of the knowledge of that to which they are listening.

In absence of this kind of confirmation, all we have are "experiences" which are open to influence by the imagination for hundreds of reasons.

The last person I would trust would be the person who DOESN'T believe he or she is open to these influences.

Having said that, how many of us did rigorous double-blind tests before we bought our gear? With level matching, conducted by disinterested third parties who also did not have access to the identities of the gear under review?

I would venture none of us.

Every one of us, if we would be honest and put all pride aside, would have to admit that we conducted informal listening tests and bought what we experienced and believed was the better gear.

So, why don't we all just share our experiences and beliefs?

There should be room in the audiophile community for believers AND skeptics.

I think it would be a larger, more inclusive community.

We don't all have to drink the same Kool-Aid.

Problems only arise when one of tries to lay claim to "the truth."

Which part be de strawman?

Not very specific. You sure about that -- or just fishing?

Sounds to me like your brother is trying to get in your head and has done a pretty good job. There's nothing wrong with either of your approaches to audio -- to each his own. His works for him and yours works for you. You can't force someone to see through your eyes or hear through your ears and it shouldn't matter if someone else doesn't hear what you hear -- or else you'll end up on an audio site writing to yourself. More like Jack Nicholson in The Shining. The proper response to your brother, as well as his proper response to you is something along the lines of, "oh, you!" With a bemused shake of the head.

It has also been proven that people imagine differences that are not really
there at all. John Dunlavy used to do an experiment where he would gather
audiophiles in his lab, position a technician behind a set of speakers, change
speaker cables and the audiophiles would claim to hear large differences --
but the trick was -- the cables were never changed. Now, show me an
audiophile who is open to the idea that there is a very real possibility that the
differences he/she hears is due to his/her imagination and I'll show you an
audiophile who is REALLY open minded. There is more than enough irony in
listening to audiophiles who think they are immune to such imaginary effects
calling others closed minded. Unless you can prove that you aren't imagining
the differences you are claiming to hear or that the differences are audible to
your brother, there is nothing here but a he said/she said type of debate.
There is a very real possibility that some of these alleged differences are like
the emporer's new clothes. Without proof of the existence of these alleged
differences, there's no proof that there are any clothes to see. So, in absence
of that proof, there's no justification for smugness on anyone's part.
Anecdotal testimony with regard to these alleged differences wouldn't hold
up in any scientific debate. So, what do you do when you're debating sounds
that haven't even been proven to exist -- and no anecdotal testimony is not
accepted as *PROOF*. So many of these alleged differences disappear under
double-blind testing that, IMO, a little humility is in order. Show me the
humble audiophile who is open to the possibility that he/she is affected by
peer group pressure and his/her imagination and you win a trip to Bermuda!
But, if YOU are satisfied that you hear these things, be happy. If others --
like your brother -- are cynical, you've got no magic bullet to end the debate.
Further, just as people can imagine hearing differences because they think
they are supposed to -- it stands to reason that people can fail to hear
differences because they think they are not supposed to. Also stands to
reason that one must think any differences, if they do in fact exist, are worth
hearing in order to hear them. These are just some of the reasons these
types of debates rage on. And, why the correct response, IMO, to either
position is just a bemused, "oh you!" But -- that's just my
opinion.

So, you think your brother is ignorant -- and condescending -- because he doesn't hear what you claim to hear and he probably thinks you are deluded -- and probably questions how you can say you don't care if you have no explanation for why two power cords should sound different, you just accept it with no further investigation and then assert that HIS ignorance is bliss. Ultimately, this sounds more like fodder for family counseling, not an audio site.

Being without skepticism does not render one Edison. That's a flawed argument. I don't mean to be ugly, but you posted your family squabble on a public site and asked for feedback. I'm just telling you that it seems your brother has gotten under your skin and that it seems to me like there is more to this than audio -- this seems to be a problem for you. In my experience, when someone becomes an evangelist to the extent where you want your brother to set aside his skepticism and see the world the way you see it -- it has become a larger problem than audio. You seem extremely conflicted about your brother -- that much is pretty obvious. This, to me, seems like a larger and more important problem for you to delve into rather than trying to gather like minded audio enthusiasts to side with you against your brother -- sorry -- that's just the way I see it.

You'll have a far easier time discovering timing problems in your speakers and in your room than in your cables.

>>I guess you could say that's niiave>>

I could...if only I could pronounce niiave.

Kidding.

I don't think it is naive to pick one's gear based on sound rather than
reputation. I don't think anyone argued otherwise. Not even sure how this
came up.

Am I being niiave?

>>zip cord tends to roll-off the top end<<

LOL. If you call rolling off dipping at 20Khz by an amount that is most likely
inaudible. It is a joke to call that "coloration." This is misleading,
incomplete information. Give the real numbers over the audio band rather
than starting urban myths.

>>Nordost lacks warmth and tends to accent the upper midrange and treble region, making it just the opposite of heavy gauge zip cord.<<

Again, if Nordost accents the upper midrage and treble region, this should be easy to measure and quantify. Instead of throwing around this kind of verbiage, give the measurements and then we can see if Nordost is the "opposite" of Zip Cord over the audio band.

If someone wants to prove he/she can hear the difference between two power cords, the answer isn't to administer a test to the non-believer under the flawed premise that if the non-believer is honest, he/she will admit to hearing differences. The answer is for the BELIEVER to take a properly administered ABX test to prove that he/she can hear the differences he/she claims to hear. Otherwise, you've got the makings of a Monty Python sketch whereby if the non-believer fails to hear the difference, you claim victory by claiming the non-believer was not honest.

.

CROWD:

Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...

BEDEVERE:

Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.

VILLAGER #1:

What are they?

CROWD:

Tell us! Tell us!...

BEDEVERE:

Tell me. What do you do with witches?

CROWD:

Burn them!

BEDEVERE:

And what do you burn apart from witches?

VILLAGER #2:

Wood!

BEDEVERE:

So, why do witches burn?

[pause]

VILLAGER #3:

B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?

BEDEVERE:

Good!

CROWD:

Oh, yeah. Oh.

BEDEVERE:

So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?

VILLAGER #1:

Build a bridge out of her.

BEDEVERE:

Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?

VILLAGER #1:

Oh, yeah.

BEDEVERE:

Does wood sink in water?

VILLAGER #1:

No. No.

VILLAGER #2:

No, it floats! It floats!

CROWD:

The pond! Throw her into the pond!

BEDEVERE:

What also floats in water?

VILLAGER #1:

Bread!

VILLAGER #2:

Apples!

VILLAGER #3:

Uh, very small rocks!

VILLAGER #2:

Uh, gra-- gravy!

ARTHUR:

A duck!

CROWD:

Oooh.

BEDEVERE:

Exactly. So, logically...

VILLAGER #1:

If... she... weighs... the same as a duck... she's made of wood.

BEDEVERE:

And therefore?

VILLAGER #2:

A witch!

CROWD:

A witch!!!

.

>>In case you can't remember, you weren't able to refute any of the scientifically derived claims that i made in that thread.<<

ROFL. Yeah, that's the ticket. I recall you claiming that when people disagree with you it actually confirms that you're right -- and you posted a bunch of other incomplete misleading garbage in that thread.

If you have spectral analysis to back up your comments, let's see them.

Otherwise, this is a lot of hot air and urban mythology.

Experiences can be explained in any number of ways, but proof is another story. There were all kinds of explanations, for example, for why cars could roll uphill in that particular spot I mentioned earlier, some people explained that it was due to gravitational anomolies and interferences and others said they didn't care how it was explained, they just knew it to be true because they'd experienced it. Turned out, it was an optical illusion.

Someone earlier mentioned that speaker wire sounded better when oxidation was cleaned from the terminations -- that's easy to explain. Oxidation robs signal across the spectrum.

On the other hand, you've got someone claiming that Zip Cord is "rolled off" and continue to claim it is rolled off even after it is shown that the alleged roll off is .1 db or less between 10Khz and 20Khz and is way below the threshold of audibility. Yet it was claimed that if Larsky's brother was honest, he would admit to hearing this "roll-off." How do I explain this type of phenomenon?
The only nice way to explain it is to just accept that some people believe what they believe, no matter what. But others, like me, aren't going to believe it -- because in this case we have facts that refute it.

One time, I recommended a certain interconnect to a poster. Another poster wrote in to say that this particular interconnect sounds "grainy" and suggested another interconnect that had received nice reviews. I showed him that the two interconnects were actually made from the exact same Belden Cable and Neutrik XLR connectors. He replied that everyone knows the interconnect he was suggesting is superior. How do I explain that? The mystery of audio cables? There is an undeniable psychological element to the "cable phenomenon."

There *is* one more premise; That is -- there is a lot of questionable stuff around cables; differences that disappear under double-blind testing, people who claim to hear large differences when the cable hasn't even been changed, people recommending mega-buck cables to a kid with a $500 system, testimonials that are not believable, people making claims about cables that are demonstably untrue -- unless we're going to believe that cables that are .1 db down at 20Khz are audibly "rolled off" just because someone says so in an authoritative voice, cable companies with misleading advertising and people parroting it around the internet, etc.

So, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical.

You can explain some of these phenomenon any way you please, but if you're looking for a magic bullet, some way to "win" the debate with a skeptic, you'll need more than that -- you'll need objective proof. You'll need to prove it in a properly administered double-blind study.

If you don't have that, IMO, you shouldn't expect to convert a skeptic.

So, why try?

Why try to "win" and "convert" and "convince" a skeptic that what you've experienced is "the truth."

Okay, I know why we do this, so it is a rhetorical question.

But, if you do try to "win" "convert" and "convince" a skeptic that you've got "the truth" -- you'll be confronted with the fact that you have no proof.

And, you don't.

With the possibility that you've imagined these things.

And, it *is* possible.

Unless you've eliminated the possibility by conducting a proper ABX test, it is a possibility.

What then?

You're left with an experience and a belief.

So, I am suggesting we all start with this premise instead of crashing there and then complaining.

>>scientifically derived claims that i made<<

It would be more accurate to say that Zip Cord is down .1 db at 20 Khz.

Like I said -- it is doubtful that this is audible.

It is even less scientific to make further extrapolations such as this causes Zip
Cord to sound full, or whatever.

You have no double-blind listening tests to confirm these projections.

So you have guesses based on unproven theories based on something that
hasn't even been proven audible.

It is also rather dishonest to say that the link I provided in the other thread
helped your case -- the person posted spectral analysis and contradicted you
and you claimed he really agreed with you but didn't want to admit it. So,
you also claim to be a mind reader and you've proven to be rather impervious
to contradictory information.

Hmmmm --- I guess if you fail to back your claims and I fail to engage you
further on this topic -- you can claim victory again.

Like Artie Johnson used to say,

Verrrrrrry Interesting.

.

12 gauge zip cord -- frequency response: Minimum is 26.8dB at 20kHz and
maximum is 26.93dB -- a total deviation of 0.13dB. The HF rolloff between
10kHz and 20kHz is 0.1dB.

http://sound.westhost.com/cable-z.htm

Table 4: Frequency Response Comparison of 50 ft cable lengths

Sound King 12AWG (Zip Cord) -- Total loss at 20Khz when driven into a 4
ohm load... -.745 db

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/
speakercablefaceoff012.php

The psycho-acoustic data shows that for pure tones at 16kHz the smallest
average detectable difference in level is 3.05 dB. The findings were based on
individuals 20 to 24 years old that had normal hearing to 20 kHz (See note 2).
This is what might be called the best of conditions for hearing differences.

Audio, July 1994, "Speaker cables: Measurements Vs Psycho-acoustic
data" by Edgar Villchur.

So, a .1 db "roll-off" between 10Khz and 20Khz is clearly
inaudible.

Whatever is one's problem with 12 gauge Zip Cord, the notion of audible
"roll-off" is unfounded. Anything based on the premise of audible roll-off
is similarly flawed.

It is like saying the Loch Ness Monster has bad breath from eating seafood.

If you fail to produce old Nessie, your guesses about her breath are
immaterial, irrelevant, and unfounded.

>>Nevertheless, that doesn't mean timing is not an issue where differences in cables are concerned.<<

But, it also doesn't mean that it is an issue, either. Most of these "issues" -- like the myth about "roll-off" are passed around like a rumor, but are either easily debunked or there is no evidence -- outside of cable advertising -- to support the notion that they actually exist.

Cable advertisers dream up maladies, create insecurity in audio consumers, then give them the cure for the malady they've dreamed up.

>>the scientific response should be that since existing electrical testing methodology has only shown minor differences,and that A/B/X testing has not determined anything sufficient, that there must be some other testing methodology found to either support or refute this widespread observation.<<

The number of people who hold a particular belief does not add validity to the belief. Where I grew up, there was a road up in the mountains where if you stopped your car and took your foot off the brake, your car would seem to roll uphill. People would scream and freak out. People who didn't believe would become converted upon experiencing this phenomenon. Then, after some scientific investigation, it turned out it was just as optical illusion. Cars were actually rolling downhill. Didn't matter how many people believed their cars were rolling uphill -- they weren't. When investigation revealed that it was an illusion, it would be standing logic on its head to suggest that the number of people who believed their cars were rolling uphill meant that scientists should keep devising new tests until they could support what the community believed.

There are all kinds of examples of this.

There are people who believe they can determine where water is located underground by using a curved tree branch. They are called "dowsers." In some rural communities, they are held in high esteem. But, when tested, none of these dowsers have proven to have any such ability. What happens when dowsers and psychics fail the test? You guessed it. They blame the test.

In the best case scenario -- there are beliefs held by audiophiles in great numbers, but which have not stood up under scientific testing, but which audiophiles nevertheless continue to believe. If one believes in something for which there is no proof -- then that is, by definition, called faith.

Skeptics will not be won over by the numbers of people who believe and people who believe will always be vexed by skeptics.

If one is a believer in things for which there is no proof, it seems to me that the believers should simply accept the fact that there is no proof, embrace the belief as a belief, and accept the fact that -- at this point -- skeptics simply are not going to be won over by anything other than iron clad scientific proof.

Trying to raise anecdotal testimonial to the level of proof won't do it.

Simply attacking the tests won't do it, either.

Again -- best case scenario -- maybe the tests ARE invalid. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that they are. That just means there is no test to prove what the believers believe so it remains unproven.

Only two problems remain.

The desire to have others believe and the frustration that develops when this desire --for whatever reason -- becomes acute.

I would only suggest that we each take a personal inventory and look into why we need others to believe as we believe, how acute is that need, to what lengths we are willing to go to try to try to convince non-believers, what is the quality of the evidence we have to offer, why is it so damned important to convince others rather than just have a discussion between people who hold different beliefs, and how do we behave when confronted with a non-believer? Do we call names, engage in ad hominem attacks, form in-groups and out-groups? A cursory look around these audio forums reveals that we do indeed engage in all of this unfortunate behavior.

What does it all mean?

We're human.

And -- it ain't just about cables.

.

>>Since that thread has since been deleted ( hmmmm... wonder why??? )<<

Well, if you think you posted a lot of scientifically valid, educational stuff and they deleted it, I don't blame you for wondering why. On the other hand, you posted much of the same stuff in this thread, it was refuted -- everyone can see it was refuted -- yet you continue to claim that I have no answer and perhaps even more strangely continue to profess that the references I post actually support you, just as you told me in the other thread that people agree with you, but refuse to admit, etc. etc.

Hmmmm......

I'm just guessing here, but maybe Audiogon doesn't see the educational value in the approach you've taken on this particular topic and maybe they didn't think it was worth archiving.

Or, maybe they feel they've got enough examples of these squabbles over cables in the archives already.

Who knows?

Those would be my guesses.

I suspect you just didn't like the argument, but can't quite put your finger on the reason.

It is simply true that people can be influenced to "hear things" for any number of reasons. We like to think it is the great unwashed who fail these tests, but the people who claimed to hear these large differences and to express these preferences while listening to Zip Cord the entire time were audiophiles and reviewers -- "experts." "Experts" are open to influence like anyone else. So, anytime there is an audio review, there is always the possibility that the reviewer was influenced to "hear things." Even in a single blind test, the person conducting the test can influence the test if he/she knows the identity of the gear under review. When it comes to cables and power cords -- all bets are off. Skeptics will not be moved by anecdotal testimonials and believers always seem to get angered when confronted by skeptics.

There is a way around all of this, but it calls for humility from all sides.

It calls for embracing these positions as "beliefs" rather than "the truth."

So...there ain't a chance in hell it will happen.

That's why these debates will never end.

>>How many premises did you have?<<

I think I had two of them, but I could have imagined it.

>>you basically ran for cover and the thread stopped shortly after that.<<

No. I told you the topic had been beaten to death and I was dropping out.

Using your twisted logic, I guess I've kicked your butt in this thread and you ran crying to your mommy because you quit the thread two times.

Sheesh, man. You don't make no kind 'o sense.

>>But, zip cord does *sound* rolled off.<<

No, dude. Zip Cord sounds rolled off...to YOU.

Now, since we know it isn't, we need an explanation.

Which is easy. It is your imagination.

Can one's imagination cause such a thing?

Absolutely.

>>How can you say that it doesn't *sound* rolled off?<<

Because if it were rolled off, it would show on a spectrum analyzer.

This ain't a mystery.

You're walking proof that imagination, peer group pressure, golden ear syndrome, and many other things can cause one to hear what isn't there.

And, like I said, some audiophiles will persist even when the evidence proves
them wrong.

Because people believe what they want or need to believe.

And this is one of the reasons there is much skepticism with regard to the claims made by audiophiles.

Even when you show them two cables ARE the same, they will claim they sound different.

It is a real phenomenon.

>>every friend that stops by my house comments about how wonderful my system sounds lately.<<

This must feel nice, but as evidence goes, it is not very convincing.

It may be that the cables are making the system sound better, or it could be something else.

You've inserted new cables, you enjoy your system more, your friends sense you enjoy your system more, you are way into audio, they accept your expertise, they see that your eenjoyment has increased, they believe your system sounds better, so their minds tell them it must sound better -- or they tell you your system sounds better because they like you, want you to be happy, etc.

This is just one of the reasons listening tests, to be valid, must be done double blind.

>>What I do care about is having someone insult my hearing and how I spend my money.<<

Feeling insulted is a choice that you make. To anyone who is objective, the idea that one's hearing is open to psychological influence is not insulting at all. Otherwise, every scientist would feel insulted as he/she prepared double blind tests in order to rule out such influences.

>>his thread has been highjacked<<

Actually, the thread has not been hijacked at all. The title of the thread is --
why do intelligent people deny audio differences. There are very valid reasons why intelligent people doubt many of the claims made by audiophiles.

You seem like a nice guy -- I hope your system does sound better!

Happy listening.

>>So the argument that there are no differences is FALSE.<<

It has not been argued that there are NO differences.

I don't think anyone would argue that 24 gauge cable would sound the same as 12 gauge cable, for example.

There may also be cases of cables with capacitance so high that it may cause an audible difference. Why anyone would want such a cable is another question.

It has been argued that it has not been PROVEN that there are AUDIBLE differences between some of the cables that audiophiles claim sound different.

That's all.

That's enough to rile up feathers.

What you have is a lot of CONTRADICTORY evidence. You have anecdotal testimony that some cables sound different, but no one has ever published a double blind study supporting it. To date, every double-blind study that has been done has turned up the opposite -- subjects cannot reliably tell the difference. When this is posted, there is always conjecture about the system used, the expertise of the subjects, etc. But, apparently, no one can find the system and subjects who can pass these tests -- so guess what -- it remains unproven.

On the other hand, you have a buch of unbelievable testimonials, cable advertising that misleading, tests that show people can imagine differences that are not there, etc. Which all points up why it will take double-blind studies to prove there are audible differences.

And, it has been argued that this is what it will take to convince skeptics.

Whether it is a worthwhile enterprise to try to convince skeptics rather than to just enjoy and embrace one's experience is up to others to decide.

I have suggested it, but no takers.

I have suggested that it is probably not a worthwhile endeavor and that in absence of this need to "win" or "convince" or to "prove" -- no proof is necessary. Only experience and beliefs need be shared.

Predictably, this does not satisfy.

Many people come here to be considered "experts."

>>there are definititely at least SOME measurable differences in some cables(resistance, capacitance, inductance, dielectric, shielding) which HAVE been PROVEN to have effects on the sound of cables.<<

It would be nice if such a study were available, but there is no such study.

If there were, it would show that cables are not mysterious at all, but are very predictable, which would take all of the fun out of the cable phenomenon.

You would think some well-heeled cable believer would fund such a study, provide the system needed, the subjects that can pass the ABX tests, and put an end to the debate.

But, no one has.

So, there's no proof.

Just a number of people who feel insulted because anecdotal testimony may be interesting, but it is not acceptable as proof.

Personally, I think my suggestion would lead to more polite conversation.

Oh well......

>>But really, most "cable believers" think that testing to prove something that is easily seen to be self-evident to be a waste of time.<<

Exactly. People naturally want to think they can trust their perceptions.
This is why researchers report that people who've just heard large dfferences between cables get rip roaring angry when the blindfolds go on and the differences disappear. People don't want to think they can be influenced to hear things by peer group pressure, the appearance of a cable, things they heard on the internet, the need to be able to hear differences between any two things because it seems like any two things should sound different, although many times they do not, the need to perceive oneself as having golden ears, or the mind simply creates differences subconsciously because it is confronted with two different looking cables, etc. etc. etc.

But, it stands to reason that people who don't think they are susceptible to such influences are arguably the most likely to be susceptible.

That's why scientists guard against it by performing double-blind tests.

But -- hey -- most of us are just audio nuts, we're not scientists.

Bottom line: I end my particpation in this thread with the same thought with which I started. People believe what they believe. This thread, to me, has born that out. There are lots of approaches to audio that work and as long as we are all happy with our systems, who is to judge?

It was interesting chatting with you all.

Thanks, and happy listening.

Larsky -- I hope you and your brother work things out.

Life's too short to fight with family over audio!

Oh -- one more thing. If this thread is gone in a few days -- it is Sean's fault. :-)