Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by King Alecay, Apr 6, 2012.
I will refer anyone who is interested to this site: http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/subjective-vs-objective-debate.html
EDIT: I am not trying to get any people who believe in expensive cables mad at me by posting this link.
That's a damn good article that confirms what I've long thought about "High End" gear, cables, tweaks, and so-called "hi-res" audio.
Yes it is a very good article I know. I don't mean to be rude but why are you registered on this site (and have nearly 9,000 posts) if you've never believed in high end gear and hi-res audio though? I agree with you on the fact that expensive cables aren't better than cheapo ones (however I have never listened to headphones or speakers with high-end cables or participated in any blind tests involving them) but how could you not believe in high end gear and hi-res audio? Again I don't mean to be rude I'm just curious.
Perhaps you misunderstand my use of those terms. By "High End", I refer to things such as the subject of this thread, ie expensive cables and speaker wire, along with extremely expensive amplifiers (especially tube amplifiers with measurably inferior performance compared with solid state amps), multi-kilobuck CD players and the like. Your linked article also points to a study questioning the superiority of "hi-res" audio, which is a common term used to describe SACD. But that is NOT the same thing as saying there are NO differences or high and low strata with ANY audio or video gear. For example, I own a front projector which is clearly superior to, and has a much larger picture than, a run of the mill flat screen. Sites like this are invaluable for finding out about such projectors. My subwoofer is a custom built IB sub that uses eight 15 inch drivers with measurable and audible performance far superior to a conventional commercial sub, and which would be considered "high end" by any measure. Again, I would never have known about such a design without visiting sites like this. This site also extensively discusses which Blu Rays have the best picture quality. That should answer your question about why I'm registered here.
Oh, and I also have $9000 ribbon front speakers, which should tell you I don't consider expensive speakers to be a waste of money.
There are really 2 questions posed in this thread:
Are expensive cables a waste of money? and
Do you think that you could hear noticeable differences between a cheap cable and an expensive one in a blind test?
I voted "no" because I don't think I could tell a difference.
Personally, I want well-made cables (like Blue Jeans Cables) that don't go "crackle-crackle" when you wiggle them.
Oh alright I guess I did misunderstand you then.
I know exactly what you mean.
Seems like I am the only one that voted yes so far. Here's why.
About ten years ago I was given, for trial, 2 sets of speaker cables by my local dealer. I had been using a name brand (Starts with the M) speaker cable off of a spool. I had cut off lengths, equal for each side and soldered on ends from Radio Shack. I think I bought a 30' spool for $19.
Anyway, the dealer gave me pair of speaker cables that sold for $99, and another set that costs $999. I took them home and my brother switched all three sets of cables over and over while I listened and had no idea what cable was which. we did about ten switches, first random between all three, then between the spooled wire and the $99 set, then than between the $99 set and the $999 set.
I was able to pick the spooled speaker cables everytime. The $99 cables sounded better, mostly by more clarity in the treble is what I remember, but I got it right everytime.
Between the $99 set and the $999 set, I was about 50/50. I went back and bought the $99 set, which are still in use today. Straightwire Quartet. Since then I have added another matching pair of the same cables and the same from two speakers are bi amped now. While some people may feel that $99 for a pair of speaker cables is wasted money, I am pleased that they have been trouble free for over ten years and $99 is a bargain for a well made, good performing product.
Onthe other hand, I have three HDMI cables in use.
1 Audio Quest
1 from Monoprice, was about $7
From a video performance standpoint, I cannot tell one from another, even using various BluRay sources, I could not find anything in the picture quality between the Audio Quest cable and the one I got from Mono Price. HOWEVER...... The construction quality is different. The Audio Quest cable is much sturdier, has a heavy protective jacket over the whole cable, and the ends are beefy and snap into the connectors with a solid feel, won't fall out. The Mono price cable is thinner and if I move the processor out to connect something, may come out of the HDMI port.
The Tarten cable seems to have nice, solid connectors, but without the protective jackets over the cable.
The procedure you describe does not fit the criteria for a double blind test, in which neither the listener nor the tester knows what's being listened to. The distinction between a single blind and a double blind test is important.
My brother, who was changing cables knew which was which. Me, while listening, did not. I simply used my ears to guess which cable I was listening to
Yes so that would be a single blind test . . . not a double blind one.
This is another great article written by John F. Allen of High Performance Stereo. Although the article is written for commercial movie theatres, it is very much valid for home use as well.
I guess I never knew what a double-blind test is. So how would it be executed? And why is it of greater value than the single-blind test described above?
A double blind test can be executed a number of ways. For example, both the tester and the listener can be kept completely separate from the person doing the switching, who is not present during the listening. The reason why it's of greater value than a single blind test is because it eliminates the possibility of the tester communicating the identity of what's being listened to to the listener. It is a known fact that such a communication can be made REGARDLESS of the "best intentions" of the people involved (the communication need not be verbal or intentional).