I see calvinj is still running with the old "ears or gear" response to cable skeptics. Which is of course just another form of put down - if you don’t hear these amazing cable differences either your ears are crap or your gear is crap...hey, don’t shoot the messenger ;-).
There are many reasons this is a dubious defense. First, this "ears or gear" put down has been used whenever audiophiles are defending claims of audible differences to skeptics - differences between solid state amps, various tweaks, you name it. And yet:
1. Many blind/double blind tests have been run using claimed "golden eared audiophiles," including audio reviewers, and with high end systems of all manner, and the claims of "easily audible differences" often did not survive these tests.
2. If we were talking about truly minute differences easily buried in the noise floor, THEN it would start to make some sense that one needs a super high resolution system to be able to discern these differences.
But ultra-minute differences ARE NOT THE TYPE of audible differences often ascribed to cables by audiophiles (much less manufacturers). Rather, we are often told cables make BIG, OBVIOUS, YOU HAVE TO BE DEAF NOT TO NOTICE differences. And those differences typically involve "extended/smoother highs, fuller mids, lower/tighter bass, punchier or looser sound, expanded soundstaging, more precise imaging...and on and on. All sorts of "unmistakable" sonic differences.
The type of new signal conveyed to a loudspeaker by these cables describes all the types of differences that should be and are audible via any number of modest, well designed speakers. For instance, I have a very old pair of cheap two way box speakers from Thiel, before they went all high-end and first order crossovers. It would surely bring some laughs as put up against the "super resolving" modern speakers others are using. And yet these speakers are fully capable of showing me differences from large to subtle. A soundstage expands from one recording to the next? I’ll hear it. Smoother highs on one recording, slightly tighter bass from another? It will be there. New master of a recording; easily heard. And the most subtle notching of the frequency response via an EQ is easily audible. But somehow all the grossly large differences a fancy cable would transmit, just wouldn’t be audible???(And though I have had many "highly resolving" loudspeakers, including my current Thiel 3.7/2.7s and MBL 121s which use the mids/tweeter often seen as world class in resolution....any of my more modest monitors - Spendor, Waveform, Hales etc - also show me all manner of subtle sonic differences).
It reminds me of listening to my brother’s album masters. He often invites me over to evaluate several different masters for his album. Yet, struggling musician that he is, he just uses and old JVC amp, plain-jane cables, and some really old modest PSB speakers. And yet...miracle of miracles!...we can easily discern all the subtle differences between masters - a slight brightness here, a bit of grain there, reverb and space slightly truncated here, depth expanding there, a bit tighter and punchier, or a bit more lush, etc. Most of the same sonic attributes audiophiles often talk about when comparing cables, seem discernible on modest sound systems.
So again, to be clear on what I’m saying: I am not of course saying that some speaker systems are not capable of more resolution than others. Rather, I’m saying that the TYPE of audible differences often attributed to changing cables are of a nature that should not require super high resolution systems, as those type of sonic differences can be heard in relatively modest speaker systems.
3. We hear from audiophiles with a wide variety of systems claiming audio cable differences, AC cable differences, power conditioner differences. It is not remotely contained to audiophiles with Ultra High Resolving Systems. And yet when people with more modest systems claim audible differences, it seems those claims are just accepted: "Well of course you heard differences...cable difference are easy to hear!"
Which leads me to provisionally conclude:
4. This common "ears or gear" response is just an excuse to yet again find a put down of anyone skeptical, with little evidence but self-serving anecdotes (well I can hear it on MY system!).
(And btw, while the above shows I don’t go along with calvinj’s "ears/gear" stance, if he would like to compare gear and listening experience, and general experience in the world of reproduced sound...we can do that ;-))
