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

[Lee Scoggins]

Chu,

I am just saying that science can't measure everything that is audible so measurements do not capture all of the audible truth.

We know that certain cables sound different. If you work in recording studios and mastering suites, you know that some even have very distinct sonic signatures.

For that reason alone, detecting certain cables is not a problem.

Perhaps one day we can meet my friends at Chesky Records and play back tracks using different cables while everything else in the chain remains equal.

You will hear the difference!

Lee

 

[Mike Knapp]

Several things you will not hear at a recording studio....
Bill, I need to wire these speakers up will you run get me some lamp cord from the closet?
Fred, I just broke that interconnect, would you go over to Radio Shack and pick up one of those blister paks with 4 in it? Heres a 10, that should cover it.

Mike

 

[Kevin Coleman]

Here is something else you won't here in a recording studio.
Hey Bill why don't you go get me some of those ceramic blocks to get our speaker wire off of the floor.
Or if the CD doesn't sound good enough why don't we try some of that special marking pen to make it sound better.
HAHAHAHA
I have never been one to say that cables don't make a difference becuase they do, but I do say once you have well designed well built cables then there is no difference from brand to brand.
Kevin C.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Kevin,

Very funny. Unfortunately not exactly true. I have heard at an audiophile session, people argue over how the microphone tree should be mated to the floor. Really, like should we use tiptoes or Navcom or other coupling devices.

Also, I have heard people talk about raising speaker cable off the floor. I'm personally not sure if that one works, but you know what does? Having cables that overlay intersect at 90 degree angles. No kidding!

At one studio session, we used aluminum foil to eliminate RFI from New York City to keep from our sensitive tube mic...

Lee

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Second of all...it's impossible for someone to prove they hear a difference.

Bovine feces! Set a golden eared audiophile, who claims to hear differences in cables, down in front of his/her system. Allow him to listen to any piece of music he wishes for as long as he wishes. Then tell him that you may or may not change a cable. If you do change the cable, I'd use either a "freebie" or if I really want to challenge him (since the freebie has worse odds for being constructed properly, i.e., loose internal solder connection) I'd use either a bottom of the line Monster Cable or a "Gold plated" Radio Shack cable that Mike Knapp seems to like so much. Now let him again listen to the same piece of music as long as he likes until he can either say "same" or "different", whether it takes 1 minute or 1 hour. Once he makes a decision, again tell him you may or may not switch the cable and allow him to listen again for as long as he wishes until he makes the statement "same" or "different". Do this about 10 times. If he was able to correctly tell 100% of the time if the cable was switched in each of the 10 tests then I would say, "This person has the ability to hear differences between these cables". If the person missed a single time (he said "same" when the cable was actually switched or he said "different" when the cable was not switched) then I would have to say the person does not have the ability to tell differences between cables in his own system and with his own music, and any guesses he got correct were just that, GUESSES

 

[Bill Catherall]

PLEASE show me where any cable-believer has EVER said that in this forum?

I'll do better then that and give you a few names from this very thread:

Mike Knapp - I've seen many of his reviews where he's actually done blind testing. If I'm wrong on this then I'm sure Mike will correct me.

John Beavers - He certainly seems open to blind tests.

The others, while they didn't directly go out and say they have definitely done comparison tests, they don't really seem opposed to it.

Did you not read my entire post where I stated that there are other factors involved in a test where we are relying on human senses instead of electronic equipment? We must take into account those variables. If you were to sit an audiophile down and perform the experiment you propose, how do you plan to ensure there is no difference in his hearing from test to test. Wouldn't fatigue, long term noise exposure, hunger, bathroom breaks, etc. have some kind of effect on their perceptions and could possibly dull their senses, making it impossible to create accurate results in repeated tests? When using electronic equipment in testing it is important to know that the instruments are calibrated and remain calibrated so there is no variation from test to test. You can't do the same with human senses.

I think a test like that would be fun...just to see what happens. But like I said, the results don't really mean anything unless you can account for all variables.

Now...why do you really care about this and why are you making such a big stink? What's it hurting anybody? If I were to go buy a $10,000 cable because I thought I could hear a difference...what do you care? I've told you this before in other threads, if you don't like what you're reading, don't read it. Nobody's forcing you to.

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Quote:

Not to sound too juvenile, but I could say the same thing about your participation in this thread, but I won't since it was intended to start a discussion, not quash it
Although I was hoping that by now that one of our HTF cable-believers would have said, "Bring it on!", and invited some skeptics over to his house this weekend to showcase his ability to identify differences in cables in his system without knowing which cables he was listening to :frowning:
Oh well, I can still dream

 

[Bill Catherall]

...it was intended to start a discussion, not quash it.

Actually you started the thread complaining about such discussions. It looks to me like you're trying to quash them.

 

[Jason Watson]

I have put forth this bit of reasoning before with out comment but here it goes again. There are measurable differences in cables. Speaker cables for instance. Different types/brands of cables may use different geometry, different dielectric materials different ga.conductors and so on that cause differences in resistance,capacitance, and inductance. This is fact.

Now, you put a complex device, say an amplifier, at one end of a cable and feed current into that cable.Do you think that amplifier will react EXACTLY the same to one set of values of inductance, capacitance, and resistance as it will another? If you think so, hook up a Sony reciever to a set of Chris VH's cat5 DIY cables and watch it oscillate and shut down. Or even better, hook up a set of BEL s24 cables to an Acurus or NAD amp(not knocking these amps, they just can not drive the BEL cables) and listen to them get grainy and spitty and distort. Then hook up those same cables to a BEL 1001MKV and listen to natural sounding music.If these drastic things can be done and proven to anyone, why is it so hard to believe that more subtle changes can occur and make the music sound different?

Jason

 

[Chu Gai]

Now that's an interesting observation Jason regarding Sony receivers that could certainly be duplicated. There are certainly poorly designed amps that can go into occillation (Naim). as to why they should be designed so poorly or have a following remains to be seen. much like the old british mgs that had poorly assembled engines...i guess people like tweaking defective products.

lee: while science is an evolving beast that hopefully learns from its mistakes and seeks to find the truth, to ignore what is presently known is counterproductive in this hobby. while our sound systems have aspects that are not quantifiable there is much that can be quantified. a body of published research, and in the context of audio, a great deal by the Audio Engineering Society, exists as to what is reasonable to measure and of equal importance, what is not reasonable to measure (perhaps never...perhaps not at this present time). i don't look at the results from one single person as gospel regardless of their outcome, but if the test were done reasonably, then it should be able to be verified by independent means. if not, then the test was perhaps flawed or falsified (cold fusion ring a bell?).

The work that has been published in this field, and understand, I'm not talking the reviewers in publications such as Stereophile (add your own favorite magazine or website here), is vast and much of it is based upon large and statistically valid sample sizes. It has a large amount of validity and significance for the hobby of audio. When one performs evaluations that run contrary to what is known to be dubious, those evaluations themselves become dubious. When one knows their evaluations are based upon concepts that have been rejected as being without merit, one then must question what was the motive for doing so. Was it that they believe they know better? The body of work states otherwise. An inability to admit they were wrong? Fraud? Acting as a spokesperson for the company that gives them their bread and butter (tobacco industry comes to mind)?

When the science exists, and it does, on proven methods for establishing differences in audibility and one chooses an approach this is in opposition, why give credence to that by saying its a belief or its only a hobby? Crop circles have been shown, in many cases by direct admission by the participants, to be created easily by people. Yet people, when faced with this direct confession by those who made them, still persist in attributing their creation to aliens. That's their pet belief.

Again, i place the responsibility for justifying statements of a better cable square upon the shoulders of the manufacturer. Any manufacturer. The amount of mileage they'd get out of proving their superiority (difference) in controlled, scientifically valid, listening tests, and having these results accepted for publication in something like AES would be enormous. They could then be independently verified and if that showed consistency and reproducibility, it'd be worth a bundle.

 

[Mike Knapp]

Although I was hoping that by now that one of our HTF cable-believers would have said, "Bring it on!", and invited some skeptics over to his house this weekend to showcase his ability to identify differences in cables in his system without knowing which cables he was listening to

I did this (with a large group of people) long before you were participating here. I didnt get it right 100% of the time....I only got 80% correct. (most others got 50%)

I have no need to do it again, with or without skeptics.

Mike

 

[Chu Gai]

That's wonderful Mike, perhaps if you've previously documented the results, you can share them with us. Sounds like you're a candidate for the $1,000,000 prize offered by www.randi.org. That'd buy a lot of DVD's not to mention the acclaim you'd receive. Of course repeating the test would lend some credence to your statement, after all remember Pons and Fleischmann.

 

[Mike Knapp]

It was documented in a thread here, on this very board several years ago. That thread has since fallen from the site or perhaps lost in a server crash. Many here should remember it though.

Also, as to the re-creation of the test...your requesting it just enforces what I have known all along. That no matter what level of proof is provided, there will be more required. This is a no win situation. I have seen it time and time again.

I mentioned that I was wrong 20% of the time. From what I know, that would make my results in-conclusive at best and pure hokum at worse. I have no need to go to the trouble of re-doing the test (or any test) just to be told I need to do it again or that an 80% success rate is in-conclusive.

Thanks anyway though.

Mike

 

[Jim A. Banville]

I did this (with a large group of people) long before you were participating here. I didnt get it right 100% of the time....I only got 80% correct. (most others got 50%)

Well then, as far as I'm concerned, not that you care what I think in the least, but you can NOT hear differences in cables
Anyone else care to prove they can TRUELY hear differences in cables, which means you can do it every time (not guessing it right 80% of the time)? I can guarantee you that I can tell the difference between beer and water 100% of the time

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Chu,
I understand where you are coming from (however misguided ) but you made an incorrect statement. You stated that I was ignoring what came before in terms of measurements.
NOT TRUE!
I would never do that. A true audiophile is always looking for better and more clear explanations of what he/she heard/observed. I think we can use science as a base and build from there.
Also, you speak of manufacturing listening tests. Goertz, a well regarded cable manufacturer has actually done this. The problem is that any mfr tests are dismissed as marketing propaganda by the science crowd no matter how controlled or valid the test was.
As for the AES, they have an inherent bias against many audiophile phenomena. As a result even respected Sony engineers take a lot of their academic work with a grain of salt. Many paper writers do not have a practitioners viewpoint. Again, those is the field know of the differences, even if they can't fill a chapter of your electrical engineering textbook!
Lee

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Jim,

Your post is flawed. One does not have to hear the difference EVERY single time to prove they heard a difference. That is statistically invalid.

Lee

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Your post is flawed. One does not have to hear the difference EVERY single time to prove they heard a difference.

And why not? Screw statistics and all the other things cable-beleivers hide behind. Either you CAN hear a difference or you CAN NOT. Period. Do you need statistical evidence in order to correctly tell the difference between a hotdog and a Hershey bar every time you compared them (blind-folded)?

 

[Mike Knapp]

I can guarantee you that I can tell the difference between beer and water 100% of the time

I will take you up on that bet as long as I can remove one of your senses....smell would do nicely.

So, we pin your nose together, make the sparkling water to look just lke beer and let you have a go.

You lose.

That is why you need all your senses to judge something my friend....you are not a bunch of independent senses acting randomly, you are a system of senses that work in concert as a team.

Mike

 

[Mike Knapp]

Do you need statistical evidence in order to correctly tell the difference between a hotdog and a Hershey bar every time you compared them (blind-folded)?

No, nor would I need any evidence to tell a pile of cow shit from a t-bone steak. BUT....we are talking about two things that are the same here, not chocolate and meat.
Take your hot dog and make one green....both the same dog but one is green, looking like it is rancid.
I promise you that if you see the green dog while tasting it WILL taste different to you than the pink one.....I guarantee it. Try some of the green ketchup available at your supermarket if you dont believe me.
The mind is a terrible thing but we have to live with it I suppose.
Mike

 

[Bill Catherall]

if the test subject "misses" the first cable change/no change in the test.

And what if he "hits" it the first time? You wouldn't accept it, saying it's just a lucky guess. So you'd want a second test. Now we're playing with variables. You can't document that there hasn't been a change in the instruments. How many tests is it going to take to convince you that it isn't lucky guessing? Keep going until he gets it wrong? So maybe the second test he "misses." You then jump up and down so happy that you're right, while science takes a big punch to the stomach. Or what if he gets it right the second, third, fiftieth?
When Mike says he had an 80% accuracy that could mean he missed 1 out 5 or 20 out of 100. There's a big difference to me. If it was 1 out of 5 was it the first or the last test that was missed. There's a big difference there too. You're way too quick to jump to conclusions just to prove your point without even questioning the validity of the tests themselves.