In my years of audiophilia I have crossed swords with my brother many times regarding that which is real, and not real, in terms of differeces heard and imagined. He holds a Masters Degree in Education, self taught himself regarding computers, enough to become the MIS Director for a school system, and early in life actually self taught himself to arrange music, from existing compositions, yet he denys that any differece exists in the 'sound' of cables--to clarify, he denies that anyone can hear a difference in an ABX comparison. Recently I mentioned that I was considering buying a new Lexicon, when a friend told me about the Exemplar, a tube modified Dennon CD player of the highest repute, video wise, which is arguably one of the finest sounding players around. When I told him of this, here was his response: "Happily I have never heard a CD player with "grainy sound" and, you know me, I would never buy anything that I felt might be potentially degraded by or at least made unnecessarily complex and unreliable by adding tubes."
Here is the rub, when cd players frist came out, I owned a store, and was a vinyl devotee, as that's all there was, and he saw digital as the panacea for great change; "It is perfect, it's simply a perfect transfer, ones and zero's there is no margin for error," or words to that effect. When I heard the first digital, I was appalled by its sterility and what "I" call 'grainy' sound. Think of the difference in cd now versus circa 1984. He, as you can read above resists the notion that this is a possibility. We are at constant loggerheads as to what is real and imagined, regarding audio, with him on the 'if it hasn't been measured, there's no difference', side of the equation. Of course I exaggerate, but just the other day he said, and this is virtually a quote, "Amplifiers above about a thousand dollars don't have ANY qualitative sound differences." Of course at the time I had Halcro sitting in my living room and was properly offended and indignant. Sibling rivalry? That is the obvious here, but this really 'rubs my rhubarb', as Jack Nicholson said in Batman. Unless I am delusional, there are gargantual differences, good and bad, in audio gear. Yet he steadfastly sticks to his 'touch it, taste it, feel it' dogma. Am I losing it or is he just hard headed, (more than me)? What, other than, "I only buy it for myself," is the answer to people like this? (OR maybe US, me and you other audio sickies out there who spend thousands on minute differences? Let's hear both sides, and let the mud slinging begin!
>>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.
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.
All of the figures that i provided was extrapolated from the data that Rod Elliott provided on his website. These were the tests that you used as a point of reference. If you've got a problem with the figures quoted, argue with the guy that provided your points of reference. Don't ask me to disprove the info that you've already stated that you accept to be accurate. You either believe it or you don't, which is it? Sean >
Sean, Through the years I have done some listening tests with him and proven that I personally do hear differences, that perhaps he doesn't, or more likely doesn't care to, but to no avail. He isn't an audiophile, and I just need to let that go. I guess there's a part of me, like maybe with you and your wife or friend(s) who you WISH you could share this with, but they just have no desire for it. This whole thread was actually a metaphor for the whole of the group, and the frustration that SOME may feel from loving the chase, and the differences we hear, and wanting to share, and getting stonewalled by them. But thanks for the advice, as usual, good advice from a pro. Larry
Virtually everything that Sean has said about speaker cables above is wrong. He is right that zipcord will suffer a measurable rolloff in the treble, but so will any cable. That rolloff will increase with resistance. (Contrary to his claims, skin effect will be negligible, because we are dealing only with audio frequencies.)
But he really demonstrates his lack of understanding when he makes these assertions in a post suggesting a comparison between Nordost and 10AWG zipcord. The zipcord will have *less* rolloff than Nordost Reference cable, because Nordost cables have higher resistance. Valhalla, for example, has a resistance of 0.0026 ohms/ft, the same as 14AWG copper--which is what Valhalla is. Of course, Rsbeck is right that the rolloff in either case is too small to be audible--unless we are using extreme lengths, in which case the zipcord will have flatter frequency response.
Tvad: There are too many variables to answer your question precisely. One speaker manufacturer which takes a common-sense approach to cables (Axiom) recommends not using 14AWG for lengths longer than 25 feet. That's probably reasonable advice, and suggests that it would take lengths substantially longer than 25 feet to produce audible rolloff. But amp and speaker impedances factor into this. If you're trying to drive electrostatics with an SET, all bets are off. (But then, if you're trying to drive electrostatics with an SET, it is safe to assume that flat frequency response is not your highest priority!)
Tvad: Remember when I said there were too many variables? I meant it. There's no such thing as "theoretically not a problem." Either there's a substantial rolloff or there isn't, and you'd have to crunch the numbers to be sure. The numbers, by the way, would include the output impedance of the amp and the impedance curve of the speakers (not just the nominal impedance).
Assuming that the output impedance of your amp is reasonably close to typical for solid-state amps, however, I wouldn't expect HF rolloff to be a problem for 30 ft. of 11AWG wire. But that's an educated guess, not a fact.
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
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.
Viggen: I claim no formal expertise in this area. I would invite anyone to print out the posts of Sean, Rsbeck, and myself, and show them to a degreed electrical engineer. Ask him (or her) which ones are on target.
I'd also apologize for my part in hijacking this thread. My only aim was to correct some technical misinformation.
Sean, It's funny that you should suggest the 'test'. Years ago, I mentioned to him that cleaning all the connections of his system contact points, and applying Michael Dayton-Wright's Tweak, would improve the sound, and he really got a chuckle out of that. So, challenged, I did just that, (Kind of Tom Sawyer like huh?) and he was stunned at the difference. Of course, the contacts were filthy, so the largest improvement probably came from the cleaning rather than the Tweak, nontheless for a couple of months he was more receptive to some of the thoughts of a 'high end' nature. But as many have pointed out, he's happy, hell let him be.
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean timing is not an issue where differences in cables are concerned. And, I don't think data presented has any bearings on these.
Nor, does it mean rolling off is an issue.
And, how do you remain objective between siblings. That's asking the impossible. *tongue in cheek*
If your brother cant hear the difference of the sound of your cables, and your Halcro, I would consider him, Still very intelligent, but I would suggest,for him to see Ear specialist, He might have a hearing problem.
I'm NOT about to type out the novels that i did last time all of this "evidence" was introduced. Rsbeck failed to respond to any / all of my previous rebuttals on the subject because he couldn't refute the information that i used as a reference. That's because my reference was his reference. Refuting my statements would be the same as impugning his own reference point, hence his silence.
Since that thread has since been deleted ( hmmmm... wonder why??? ), i'm not going to argue with a brick wall. He keeps arguing the same thing, over and over again, which only covers a very narrow part of the big picture. When it is repeatedly demonstrated to him that cable bandwidth is directly related to the impedance of the speaker load that it is terminated with, he seems to go deaf / refuse to face the facts.
Pabelson: Most EE's know what their text books have taught them. The smart ones are the ones that use the text book as a guideline and then learn on their own. This is how technology and our knowledge base is furthered. If we relied on past technology and accepted "perfectly understood" theories as being the final word, the world would still be flat and the Sun would be revolving around the Earth.
Pabelson: Most EE's know what their text books have taught them
And textbooks teach quite a lot about circuits & circuit design -- don't they... Despite what we (consumers -- not EE's involved in audio circuits) know or don't know about them:)!
Because the most significant variable is the ear/brain processor and nothing that is inherent in the equipment we listen to; try getting that across to subjective audiophiles. Audiophilia is a faith-based activity these days... No it doesn't all sound the same, but most of the time the differences are so insignificant as to make the whole thing beside the point.
Text books, and the study they relate to, teach us how to learn, as well as some facts and techniques. Most of the electronics technology current when I went to school is obsolete today, but the open-minded but systematic approach to learning that I was taught is still valid, and, at last report, Ohm's law still applies. One cannot chase after every fool idea that comes down the pike, and science can help identify the ones that just might be valid for further study. Could science miss a good one? Sure. But some crazy guy will try it anyway, and become a hero.
Amongst the audiophile community, there is a very significant statistical majority that there are audible differences in cables. These are people who have done all kinds of listening tests in their home environments, and many would have preferred to not spend any unnecessary money.
These differences are statistically significant enough to comprise a valid observed phenomenon, over a disparate group of individuals.
Now, 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.
Case in point: When optical communications networks are used, fiber-optic cables carry the signals. Electricity is applied to one driver, and comes out the other end's receiver as electricity(of course opto-couplers are used in this case, but bear me out). If I took that fiber-optic cable and tested it for electrical characteristics, it would seem that it wouldn't even carry any electricity, and it won't. But that doesn't mean that signals are not carried on it. You have to design your testing protocol to measure what you are trying to determine. When we add in the opto-couplers and know(ahead of time) that we are transmitting light signals with couplers on both ends, then we can measure the performance adequately. Similarly, we don't really know for sure(and this whole thread bears this out) what we are trying to measure. All we know is that the existing measuring techniques are apparently not adequate to account for a statistically significant and widespread observation.
So, one way to deal with it, is to just "dismiss" it as folly, or imagination. The other way is to figure out why the tests are inadequate, and determine new tests that actually can make some headway to finding out how to measure what is so commonly observed. The first step in this is to try to determine what the cables are doing that is not in our testing.
If every scientist dismissed everything that could not be readily measured at the time, we wouldn't know anything at all. Measurements are made to quantify observed phenomenon. Anything that is a statistically significant occurrence, justifies further investigation to find tests that can quantify it, whether they be electrical tests or acoustic tests, or whatever.
Something is going on here with these cables, and it would behoove us to find out what it is, and why it is.
Now, 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 scientific approach is to build on prior knowledge, not to ignore it. Prior knowledge tells us why cables sound different--sometimes it's physics, sometimes it's psychology. If you cannot accept this, you're free to try to disprove it. Good luck.
>>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.
On another thread, member Aball mentioned that the French and German governments are collaborating on a research project to find out why there are differences between what is currently measured, and what is heard.
Apparently, according to what Aball read, there is some kind of micro-corona effect around wires, which interacts with the surrounding atmosphere or dielectric, causing ionization effects, that they have discovered. He reports that this effect differs with varying applications. This collaboration has evidently produced a " measuring box", which can measure this in some way.
It is interesting to see that efforts are underway to explain this phenomenon.
Kind of a funny anecdote... this grad student was teaching this class and asked if we can complete this sentence... "causation does not equal.... ?" And we were like... huh? She's like... you guys haven't taken statistics? It's causation does not equal correlation! And... in my lowest voice.. I was murmurring... BAKAyaro it's correlation does not equal causation...
>>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.
>>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.
I am in virtually perfect agreement with TWL, in his comments. I have always believed that, 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. In the Scientific Journal of @1898, a comment was made, and I believe attributed to the US. Patent office, to the effect, that 'all that can be invented, has been invented, or discovered.' Now this is a very lose, and imprecise quote, but the essence of what was said is correct. But I think it conveys at least part of my philosophy, and TWL's. That is why I mentioned that I only preferred, what sounded better, 'to me' as a designer, not what had the best reputation,or was 'supposed to be better.' It takes guts to simply follow your gut and say, 'this is better.' The caveat here is, of course, 'to me'. Therein lies the subjectivity. But again, I think TWL is on the mark. Good comments, and I too am glad to see that some research is being done, such as you mention.
"all that there is to be invented, has been invented"
I remember hearing about that exact same comment, the person who said it was held in great regard, like an ex-president or something. ANyone know who said that?
>>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."
The part where you use a premise proven false to prove a conclusion to be false by arguing there is seemingly relatedness between them but isn't really.
While i said i wasn't going to do it, here i am again. As if i could have stayed away.... : )
Rs: Your attitude on this thread is noticeably different than where we left off on the other thread that you took down the same route. After i had fully disected Audioholics / Elliott's info piece by piece for all to see, you basically ran for cover and the thread stopped shortly after that. After all, there was no reason for the thread to continue once the "major debate" had basically been resolved. That was with ALL of the bases were covered bit by bit and all of the data laid out for all to see and follow along with. I even quoted Elliott's own verbiage, word for word in some instances, that supported the conclusions that i had drawn. As such, you can't say that you didn't see those posts, etc... and that is why you were re-posting the same data, as you had responded after the fact in that other thread. What is amazing to me is that you would try to pull the same stunt all over again here in this thread.
Now with all of the info gone from that thread and me stating that i'm not going to go through all of that again, you climb back on your podium and pontificate the same message again. Is this thread doomed to take the same turn of events? Probably. It won't be my fault though as i'm really going to shut up now. Everyone that saw that other thread, and especially those that participated in it, know EXACTLY what was said, why it was said and how those conclusions were arrived at. I made sure of that because i broke it down piece by piece as best i could. Trying to say that you've "explained away my argument" in this thread AFTER the fact with all of the evidence gone is a pretty lame thing to try and pull.
As far as the original thread goes, my guess is that Agon deleted it for multiple reasons. That is, there was soooo much bickering in it AND there was technical proof that demonstrated that not all speaker cables are created equally, nor do they perform equally. This may have discouraged potential advertisers from spending their money with Audiogon i.e. seeing their name in lights, but in a negative manner. While i don't agree with such things, Audiogon is a business and it isn't my business to run. Their decisions are what keep this website operating, so that is all that counts.
I'll only add one more thing that i brought up last time. How can someone trust someone recommending a product that they themselves are not using? You keep spouting off about zip cord being as good as anything else, so why not sell what you have, make some money back on it and then use some zip cord? This would put you dollars ahead and you could then set an example for all to see. You would also have several dollars left over, allowing you to buy some more music and maybe even grab a meal or two while shopping for tunes.
At least with me, everyone knows that i put my money where my mouth is i.e. i recommend the same product that i'm using and have taken the time to explain why. And also as mentioned before, if i could find something that worked better, i would use it. The cable that i mentioned and use is not the "end-all" of speaker cable design and technology, it is simply the most well-rounded product available at a reasonable price.
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."
The way I see it is you disagree natural occurences can be explained without the classical/scientific/mathematical axioms because people claim they can hear the differences between cables when they are actually listening to the same cable. So, you have one conclusion and one premise. I might be simplifying your argument a bit, and I apologize.
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.
Slappy, as I said, I THINK, not sure, that it was printed in the US Scientific Journal, not sure of the name either, this is one of those things in the dark recesses of a 50+ year old brain. The quote was attributed TO the US Patent office, as if, "Hey our job is done, they ain't gonna invent ANYTHING else."
Look, even though everything has not been determined yet(maybe), 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. Scientifically measurable, known, and quantified.
Now, maybe some might say that this is not sufficient, and I'd be one of them, because I think that there is more to it, yet undiscovered. But, at least this data IS available, and it DOES account for some sonic differences in cables.
So the argument that there are no differences is FALSE.
Now we get to the part about "Can we hear the differences between an expensive cable and a cheap cable?" This depends upon the system and the individual listening.
In the other thread, where A/B/X testing was used, there was at least one person scoring 80%. And this was in a test with acknowledged flaws. This shows that even under duress, and poor test conditions, with short listening times, SOME PEOPLE CAN tell the differences.
I'm sorry for the ones who can't. But at least they can buy the cheap stuff and be happy.
Twl...You fell into that mistake of half-baked science! The fact that one of the auditioning group was right 80% of the time doesn't prove anything. Group statistics are all that matter in a test like this one. Someone usually wins the Lottery. Stay with your "gut feel" philosophy which I, as a scientist, can respect even if I don't always agree with your conclusions.
I really don't get it. Not only my ears but the ears of every friend that stops by my house comments about how wonderful my system sounds lately. And, it's because of new IC's and speaker cables. I don'd much care if anyone else thinks that zip cord is just as good. Let them use zip cord. I really don't care. What I do care about is having someone insult my hearing and how I spend my money. About the only thing I would agree with is that most IC's and speaker cables are way over priced and don't offer the kind of performance they hype in their marketing. There are some really good products though and are reasonably affordable. I feel sorry for the poster here that his thread has been highjacked just to bicker. Let us all get a life.
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.
