Why posting threads that you can hear differences in cables is ridiculous. (1 Viewer)

[Jim A. Banville]

Because unless you plan on putting you money where your mouth is and doing something to prove your assertion other than talking about it, you're accomplishing nothing but filling up space on an internet forum (just like this thread is doing).

 

[Phil A]

Jim - didn't we have enough of this on the prior thread? I posted a couple of replies. One to explain that a digital cable does not transmit bits and the other to indicate that was not going to accomplish anything. As I recall, the original thread started with the premise that there are no differences. I stay out of such debates even though to me it is totally silly to make a statement that cables won't make a difference. Everything will make a difference, although all of it won't be audible or measurable. Certain components and speakers are more sensitive to changes than others. How would one go about measuring sound stage depth and height given all the variables in different systems and different rooms (which can have a huge impact on the sound). If one were to go to your local Walmart and get the specs off a cd player it would be substantially the same as a $20,000 Linn CD-12 or other high end CD player. The same can be true of amplifier ratings. Due to FTC measuring guidelines a mid-priced receiver make be rated at 120W per channel into 8 ohms from 20-20,00HZ with an unmeasurable amt. of THD. So is a Bryston 3B-ST. Without making this a book, can't we just discuss equipment, tweaks, etc. pros and cons and if someone wants to say something does or does not make a difference not feel the need to be right or wrong and let them have their say and opinion.

 

[Mike Knapp]

No, what would be ridiculous would be posting a thread that said everyone else would hear a difference. Saying I can hear a difference is not only acceptable, but would also be true!
Mike

 

[Kevin Coleman]

I have to agree with Jim,
It would be like me posting that since I prefer a Whopper over a Big Mac it is a better product and anything else is not up to it's standard. It is way too subjective for that. Once a cable is up to a certain quality standard then any preferences for one cable over another are only subjective and not valid at all for other people. So why post them?
Kevin C.

 

[Adil M]

I smell bait.

 

[Jim A. Banville]

I stay out of such debates even though to me it is totally silly to make a statement that cables won't make a difference.

Since I have never seen nor heard a difference in the cables I've used (from in-the-box freebie's to Kimber PBJ and Canare/Belden custom made), and until someone is able to prove that they can hear/see differences between two perfectly adequate cables without knowing which they are listening/watching, I consider claims that cables make audible/visible differences to be silly. It's easy to CLAIM that they can hear/see a difference. All I ask is that they either prove it or spare us the wasted time in empty claims.

 

[Jim A. Banville]

The Whopper/BigMac analogy doesn't work. The taste of the burger is the "signal". A wire is a tool. You shouldn't be able to "taste" the tool. Should a fork from Wendy's make KFC's mashed potatoes taste diffeent than KFC's own famous "spork"? Actually a BigMac is WAY more complicated to construct than a perfectly adequate audio/video cable

 

[Phil A]

Jim - I totally respect the fact that you have an opinion based on your experience. I am not looking or an argument. I am totally happy to be considered a few fries short of a Happy Meal or whatever anyone wants to think. I too have experiences based on over 30 years and too many pieces of equipment and types cable to count. So leave me to my straight jacket.

 

[Bill Catherall]

First of all, and I really have to get this off my chest, did I miss an announcement that made Jim the "bandwidth police?" Sheesh! So many posts about people wasting bandwidth. How ironic!
Second of all...it's impossible for someone to prove they hear a difference. How can you expect me to prove to you that I can hear something that you can't? Everybody's ears are different. Same goes for taste, sight, and smell. So if someone perceives a minute detail that you can't then what's to say they aren't hearing (or seeing, smelling, or tasting) what they're hearing (seeing, smelling, or tasting).

 

[Chu Gai]

Bill: audible differences can be and are tested for routinely. Perhaps you're thinking of a particular scenario.

 

[Mike Knapp]

All I ask is that they either prove it or spare us the wasted time in empty claims.

Or you could try the novel approach of ignoring the claims.
Chu,
There are a multitude of things that can be tested for and yet remain un-detected.
Mike

 

[Bill Catherall]

Well, to answer my own question I suppose a blind comparison could be done to test to see if you can hear a difference. But really, would that be proof enough for any of you? Because it's done all the time and people often do make a distinction between the different quality cables.

But, you can't just assume that because you don't hear a difference then noone else can hear a difference ("Since I have never seen nor heard a difference in the cables I've used...I consider claims that cables make audible/visible differences to be silly"). That's a rather arrogant statement to make.

 

[Brian_C]

Bill, that's a very strong statement you've made there.

Well, to answer my own question I suppose a blind comparison could be done to test to see if you can hear a difference. But really, would that be proof enough for any of you? Because it's done all the time and people often do make a distinction between the different quality cables.

Blind tests are done all the time, however, they usually come to the conclusion that cables don't make an audible difference. The debate, as I understand it, is whether or not blind tests are valid or not in determining cable differences. Apparently, you don't stand with the rest of the cables-make-a-difference crowd.

 

[Bill Catherall]

Brian - Strong statement? What would you call it if I said "Since I have never smelled nor tasted a difference between a porterhouse stake and liver...I consider claims that there's a differences to be silly." Since we are relying on our own senses to detect a difference, it is arrogant to think that one's hearing is so superior as to render all other claims to be "silly."
It would be just as arrogant to say "Since I have heard a difference in the cables I've used...I consider claims that cables don't make audible/visible differences to be silly."
My stance? I think it is possible for cables to make a difference. But cables are just one link in the chain. If you are using a 27" TV, a $75 DVD player, and a $180 A/V receiver, then buying a set of $200 cables is going to be a waste of money. But if someone has such equipment, and can in fact see and hear a difference with the $200 cables then who am I to say he's wrong? And really, what would I care?

 

[John Beavers]

What I find interesting is that those that say cables can't make a difference usually back down when I ask what cables they have compared. I usually get the "based on engineering principles" and "you weren't blindfolded so it's an invalid perception on your part" line at that point. For those that base their "cables can't make a difference" with personal listening experiences with mid-fi wire, well, you can only do so much in the mid-fi arena.
For high end cable, which I have experimented with, from Straightwire, Tara Labs, Audioquest and Harmonic Technologies, there have been significant sonic differences that literally shaped the character of my audio output. Could the sight of those expensive cables have put all those sonic changes into my mind You betcha! Though how my mind knew to make up the perception that the Tara Labs cable produced silky lows and mids but rolled off the highs, and Straightwire opened up the transparency on all the frequency levels, and Harmonic Tech simply took my speakers to the next level I'll never know. Funny thing the mind, give it an inch and it'll take you a mile, you think?

 

[Ted Lee]

But, you can't just assume that because you don't hear a difference then noone else can hear a difference

amen to that!
unfortunately, if more people thought that way, we'd have a lot less stuff to talk about!
my golden rule of audio: "if you hear it, then it exists!"

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Chu,
To rework what Mike Knapp stated in his post.
"Just because you cannot measure it, does not mean it was not detected."

Lee

 

[Brian_C]

Bill, by strong statement I was saying that you supported the notion of double blind tests while most cable-believers DO NOT. It has nothing to do with what you are saying.
John, everyone has a different perception of what a high end cable is. We tested XLO Pro 100 Interconnects, does that qualify as high end? If so, I could repost my cable test (I do have a copy) although it may bring back a few memories...

 

[Bill Catherall]

Well I didn't really say I supported the notion. I was just guessing what a possible response to my question would be. I'm still not sure whether I support the notion or not.

If all "cable believers" reject blind testing then I guess I don't stand with them. But my experience so far with the "believers" is they often say "bring it on." Blind testing can have some value. But even blind tests can have their own problems and can skew the results...providing no absolute proof either way.

Would you believe me if I told you I can taste a difference between red M&Ms and the other colors? Green, blue, brown, yellow, etc. all taste the same to me, but not the red. Believe me? Neither did my brother when I told him. So we did a blind taste test just to prove it. He randomly selected 2 colors and a red out of a bowl of M&Ms. I was blind folded. He then gave me each M&M individually in random order. I would eat it, swallow, rinse my mouth out, and repeat with the next one. He would note which one was the red, the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. After all 3 were eaten I would tell him which one was the red one. The first test I got it right. We repeated the test a second time just to make sure it wasn't a fluke. The second time I got it wrong.

So does that prove or disprove I can taste a difference with the red M&Ms? I say neither. I got it right the first time...well that's a 1/3 possibility of guessing right. I got it wrong the second time...well, my pallet could have been "corrupted" from all that chocolate and dulled my senses. I could have been tired the second time. The delay between tasting each M&M could have dulled my memory making accurate comparisons impossible.

In testing audio or video cables you'll have similar problems. But I still say red M&Ms taste different.

 

[Chu Gai]

Is there any chance that Better Cables, a sponsor of this forum, will take the opportunity to weigh in with their methodology?

Mike you are quite correct that there are many things that can be measured and remain undetected. S/N of 100 vs 103 db can be measured. both are inaudible. that simply indicates that the human ear has limitations.

If i understand you correctly, Lee, you've flipped Mike's statement around yes? The measurement in the thread in question would rest upon your ability to successfully repeat your ability to detect. No problem, just do it without knowing which cable is under examination.