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!
I keep my audiophila habit a deep dark secret. Regular people think you're crazy or extravagant or both. Of course, these same people think it's fine and worthwhile to buy a Mercedes or BMW. I think people are influenced by the non-stop luxury car advertising.
There are all the same arguments in this thread-prove to me you can hear a difference, listeners are delusional, physics says there are no differences, charlatans are always eager to take people's money versus I like what I hear. I have two brothers who don't listen to music and who love golf. I gave up on golf years ago once I decided that I love hiking in the woods rather than trying to hitting a ball in to a hole on an irregular surface. We never talk about audio or golf when we are together.
Without your recent addition, I would not have found this thread. I just read it all. Most, here, go through a some similar experience/frustration attempting to share/turn on someone to the "sound". In the words of Yogi Berra, "There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell them". Next time, I suggest you just pull a Tommy Smothers. Tell your brother, "Yeah, well mom always liked you best"! Smile to yourself and give him a hug.
Not here to reserect an old thread--however...appropos to the comment I just made (six years ago) regarding how blindfolds 'alter' reactions and put pressure on respondants. Last night I watched, (for the second time) the movie, Hereafter...starring Matt Damon. There's a scene in which he and Dallas Howard are taking cooking classes and one exercise is to, when blindfolded, taste rather well known food items, then describe their flavor. Essentially, the message was, as I stated 2/10/05, they really couldn't differentiate between some well known food stuffs. I know that that sounds strange, but its really true--and I firmly believe that when audiophiles are 'put to the test', in the manner described, they can, and some do 'freeze'. Not unlike, being 'test phobic', something that I am personally familiar with, having gone through that in a younger life. In my store I had a strict 'test' policy for wires and such. Don't try to fool me--just do this: A--then B--then A again. I'll make copius notes as to which is better and how, and that becomes my decision. The key was to do this with that same product, on more than one occassion...the day, the moment, the mood all effect the senses, so to make 'sure' do it more than once. Anyway--one more addendum to this. Way back in the day, questioning his choices for crossover parts, as many people did, I would ask Jim Thiel, "Why don't you use better parts." He would say, "Well, they measure the way they do with THESE parts Larry." Deferring, I didn't push it too far, unless wine was flowing at dinner. Then, in the twilight of his life, Jim designed the CS2.4 Special Edition--with the entire difference in speakers, being vastly upgraded crossover parts. When questioned on this, he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Well, there are some things that matter that can't be measured." Amen to that.
Tgun5: Your last comment is significent. There are many CD's that,in fact, are only bearable in the car. However, I think some of this is due to the fact that our level of sonic expectations is less in the car system. Audiophiles are almost universally in "mode-critical" when listing to the main in-home system. When in the car, we relax, and do not have as high a level of expectaions. Thus, we concentrate more on the music, than the sound quality.
I also think that it would be interesting to put someone in a Mercedes Benz, then a Hyundai Elantra, (or whatever their best is, blindfold them, and ask them to describe their experience--and then tell us if the experience is worth five to six times as much. (Don't bother to point out that the Mercedes will LAST longer, since the Hyundai has a 100,000 mile warranty and Mercedes doesn't.) Also, let me cook a steak, (sorry vegetarians) for what I can buy it for at the store, prepare the whole meal, wine included, and have them eat it blindfolded and see if the experience is worth the several times price difference. Life is full of choices, a great deal of which our ego plays a large, and probably most significant part. Pride of ownership is a key component (no pun here) in the choices we make. When I got my Robert Lee special speaker cables, the Shotguns, I was fascinated at the difference they made, even though I had been using Kimber Select 3035 on both the top (treble) and bottom, (bass). And when I accidentally hooked up the low pass to the top on the right speaker, a friend of mine, who happens to be blind, said, "something isn't right here." (Talk about your ultimate blindfold test.) He and I listen like this, him not knowing, and making decisions as to what is better. Even though I am faster on the uptake, (at his admission) we always agree on the emperical difference, and how the music is affected overall, when we change tubes or use a Sistrum, and so on. The point here is, since I listen, almost exclusively with my eyes closed, (in order to SEE Chet Baker or Nat King Cole) what is the purpose of putting pressure on people by blindfolding them. This seems to be the only industry in which people are denied one of their senses to make evaluations. One other thing. I read, and can't remember where, so it's worthless data, that people, when blindfolded and under test conditions, are pressured, and have a hard time even tasting the difference between common items such as strawberry preserves and cherry, or grapefruit and orange juice. If that is the case, maybe there is something wrong with that approach. If you like it, it's good, (Bose or Polk, THIEL or Vandersteen, Maggies, et al) so what. Enjoy. PS, Thanks to the group, I am leaving my poor brother alone. He is right to think I am an **shole! HA
I'll give you this much after reviewing your systems. You don't spend much money on speaker cables. So, I guess you don't put your money where your mouth is. (meant as a compliment) Obviously, you believe what you say as do those that oppose you.
It looks like this thread started out talking about differences in front end components, and then veered off into cables. Here is what I think might be even more interesting than a double-blind cable test: how about a double-blind system test? I know this might be difficult to arrange, but I think it would be fascinating to take a "standard" 2 channel Japanese receiver, disc player, and speakers system from a chain like Best Buy, and run it against a relatively pompous high-end system, like an EMM Labs, Kharma, Lamm system. Both systems would have feature full-range speakers, and a means of ensuring identical SPLs between systems would be essential. I think it might be surprising how many people could not tell the difference between the 2.
Cable believers don't think that they make it happen. It's the cable disbelievers who think that the believers make it happen(via self delusion).
Essentially, for the first time on this thread, I agree with Rsbeck. People are going to believe what they believe.
Some people will act based on what they experience, and some people will doubt their experiences, and act contrary to them, because they would rather believe what others tell them they should believe.
If we relied strictly on numbers, like is suggested by some on this thread, then we'd all be listening to old Pioneer receivers from the 70's, which had "perfect" distortion numbers, but sounded like hell. These same kinds of people who are anti-cable today, were yelling to the rooftops that we were wasting our money on audiophile equipment, because any cheap receiver "measured perfect", and spending anything more was foolish. It was only the audiophiles who persisted in pointing out that some audiophile equipment sounded better and measured worse. The "measurement people" then fell back on the same argument, about it being "all in your head". Remember that? Well, after a couple years of this same kind of argument happening today about cables, it was found that designing for ultra-low distortion into a static load ruined the sound in real life applications. I'd say that this is about the same situation.
Science eventually "caught on" to what was happening in the "distortion numbers race", and realized that their testing was flawed, and that it actually led to the reduction of performance level in real world applications. It took awhile, but some people never really accepted that science was wrong(incomplete). They still listen to that crap from the 70's, thinking it is "perfect".
I think that this is like a movie, "Revenge of the Bench Testers". Where the plot consists of disgruntled bench testers(and their minions) who were embarrassed by their failures in the late 70's, coming back to destroy the audio world by planting seeds of self-doubt into the audiophile community who embarrassed them 25 years ago. Mwuuhuuuhahahaha!!
Don't worry. We found that they are not invincible, and last time all we had to do was disconnect their feedback loops, and they went back to their benches. :^)
Spectrum analyers are great. See my review of my new toy, Behringer DEQ2496. But they are not as sensitive as the human ear in some regards. The example I have heard...Imagine the Boston Symphony Orchestra going full bore, and one trombone player hits a sour note. The audience will hear this, but no spectrum analyser will reveal it. Spectrum analysers can be very effective diagnostic tools working with test signals like white noise, but should not be expected to do everything.
people who don't think they are susceptible to (...)influences are arguably the most likely to be susceptible. That's why scientists (...) perform(...) double-blind tests
Maybe. Scientists also perform such tests to gauge how PERCEPTIVE people are. There, the variable is perception rather than the subject of perception (which IS different). Amazingly in certain cases, similarly flawed responses ensue:)
BTW, has anyone used a MIC to measure zip cord, as part of a total system response??? (As in the roll-off that doesn;t seem to roll on the spectrum analyser?)? Cheers
>>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.
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.
We don't need a test to prove that the sun comes up in the morning. Only the disbelievers need the test.
However, it someone puts something together, and can get me to the location, I'll put my money where my mouth is. I've done this before, and I have no worries about doing it again.
>>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.
>>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!
I am frequently told by non-audiophiles, when visiting my home and seeing (not hearing) my audio equipment that, although they're sure I can hear a difference, they're sure "they couldn't hear the difference anyway". I politely respond that, "of course they could hear the difference, but the difference would not necessarily be worth the cost for them."
I point out that they would not question if there is a difference between a Ford and a Ferrari (or Bentley - choose your favorite). No one would suggest that Yellowtail Cabernet tastes the same as Chateau Margot.
As in wine and cars, "extreme performance" carries an extreme price differential that is rarely seen as reasonable except by true enthusiasts.
But, zip cord does *sound* rolled off. How can you say that it doesn't *sound* rolled off? This is almost like the Xeno paradox where a person is convinced he cannot reach his destination it goes againstsome midpoint theorem.
And, your other premise is basically saying the same thing as your first but with a different anecdote. So, I bunched them up into one premise for conciseness.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
>>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."
"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?
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.
>>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.
>>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.
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...
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.
>>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.
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.
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.
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.
