Why "testing" for cable differences is ridiculous. (1 Viewer)

[Jim A. Banville]

And do it for under $20? Right! But what's the point of making some complex cable/filter setup to emulate silver sound, when you can do the same thing with a silver wire?

You may very well be able to "treat" a copper cable in some inexpensive way to make it perform like silver, but then you couldn't put the word "silver" on the box that makes people feel like they are getting something or real value - like "gold"

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Jim,

HAH!

I'm a cable believer and I have a recommendation. Audioquest F-4 or F-18 is under $20 for reasonable runs or thereabout.

It sounds great!

Lee

 

[AjayM]

You may very well be able to "treat" a copper cable in some inexpensive way to make it perform like silver, but then you couldn't put the word "silver" on the box that makes people feel like they are getting something or real value - like "gold"

Ahhhh, "you may very well....", that's important part of your statement there. So you as a company are going to have to spend thousands of hours researching some magical treatment that is going to make copper have the same electrical properties as silver, and then you are going to be able to sell if for $20 retail? I've dealt with a lot of investors in the past, and with that kind of plan, not a single one would give you a call back.
And the comments about not putting "silver" on the package, while is semi-true, but you are thinking marketing on a very rudimentary scale. Kimber sells a $15k speaker cable, and they've sold a few of them, it's made from copper. MIT sells a fairly pricey speaker cable as well (somewhere in that same range), it's made from copper as well. Monster makes a multi-thousand $$ speaker cable, made from copper. Obviously we don't have to put silver on the package to make it sell.
Andrew

 

[Chu Gai]

there's gold in them thar copper

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Quote:

"Treating" the copper based cable could simply mean coating it in a "silver" bath. "Treeating" is could mean adding a compound to the raw copper during its production. "Treating" it could mean using a specific gauge wire conductor in relation the shield. "Treating" it could mean a different material as the dielectric. I'm confident a group of metalurgists (sp?) or electrical engineers could mimic the electrical properties of silver in one afternoon, wether it means "treating" the copper and/or adding a few cents worth of parts in a passive network built into the cable.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I've stayed out of this thread until this statement:

If I pulled up to you in a clean new car that had a $100K sticker on the window, but had a European name brand you had never heard of, would you assume it was a piece of junk or a "good" car? Any "normal" person would assume it was a "good" car.

If I'd never heard of the make, I would DRIVE the car for a month or so before I determined just what kind of car it is; even if I had heard of the manufacturer, I would still drive the car myself before passing judgement. Same thing for audio/video cables: they should be listened to - at length - in the system of the potential purchaser. If that person likes the way they sound, they should buy them if they can afford it. If they don't like the sound, they shouldn't buy them. It's really that simple.

 

[Jim A. Banville]

If I'd never heard of the make, I would DRIVE the car for a month or so before I determined just what kind of car it is;

No one is saying that you should pass a final judgement on a car based only on its price. That would be totally ridiculous. We're talking about first assumptions. Are you saying that your first assumption upon seeing a nice, clean new car with a $100K sticker in the window is, "What a piece of junk!"? If you saw a clean cut man wearing a suit that appeared to be tailored would you assume (a) he is probably well off or (b) he is homeless? Point is, "people" assume things based on prices and appearances. Are you going to contend that this isn't true?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

No one is saying that you should pass a final judgement on a car based only on its price. That would be totally ridiculous. We're talking about first assumptions. Are you saying that your first assumption upon seeing a nice, clean new car with a $100K sticker in the window is, "What a piece of junk!"? If you saw a clean cut man wearing a suit that appeared to be tailored would you assume (a) he is probably well off or (b) he is homeless? Point is, "people" assume things based on prices and appearances. Are you going to contend that this isn't true?

I would have assumed it was an EXPENSIVE car. I'd be in no position to assume anything else. Same goes for cables - if I have no experience with a pair, my only assumption about them comes from appearance and price; i.e. "Those are expensive but they look nice. These ones are expensive but that purple jacket is ugly. These are cheap, but they look cool with that black heat shrink tubing." I certainly wouldn't assume ANYTHING about whether they sound good or bad based only on those factors. Would you?

 

[AjayM]

"Treating" the copper based cable could simply mean coating it in a "silver" bath. "Treeating" is could mean adding a compound to the raw copper during its production. "Treating" it could mean using a specific gauge wire conductor in relation the shield. "Treating" it could mean a different material as the dielectric. I'm confident a group of metalurgists (sp?) or electrical engineers could mimic the electrical properties of silver in one afternoon.

Silver coted copper is already out there, doesn't work. As for compounds while in production, shielding and gauge size, etc. I'm pretty sure they have all been tried, imagine the marketing you could pull out of that one. Get Silver-sound for copper prices! You'd corner the market, Monster Cable would pay millions for that kind of information, get cracking on it. Shouldn't cost you more than a couple thousand or so to hire some metalurgists and EE's for an afternoon to do it. After that maybe you could get some of those guys to turn some aluminum into gold for me as well.

Andrew

 

[Chu Gai]

well no need to turn aluminum into gold, head on over to audioasylum.com where there's an active group of aluminum cable makers. they too have wondrous claims.

 

[AjayM]

well no need to turn aluminum into gold, head on over to audioasylum.com where there's an active group of aluminum cable makers. they too have wondrous claims.

Well, I have no doubts that aluminum can sound different than copper or from silver. Although the electrical properties of aluminum from what I can remember aren't all that great, but hey, maybe the combination makes for good sound.

Andrew

 

[Angelo_Petralba]

Chicken wings served by large breasted, scantily clad attractive females taste better. An entire restaurant chain has been based on this very concept.

Mike is correct. The chicken wings at HOOTERS DOES taste better than Toppers Pizza.

Good job MIke

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Since bias and perception seem to be far more influential than the actual merits of the cables, why don't you just save the money and tell yourself the cheap ones are better until you believe it?
Along the same lines, it used to be the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable were the exact same cars with a different nameplate (not sure if that's the same today, or if they even still make a Sable), but the Mercury sold for $1000 more. They sold plenty of Sables. Why? People feel better spending more money. Car manufacturers and cable manufacturers are more than happy to comply.
Remember, delusional people have perceptions too.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Since bias and perception seem to be far more influential than the actual merits of the cables, why don't you just save the money and tell yourself the cheap ones are better until you believe it?

That works fine for me.

BTW, the Sable had a higher list price but it was not unusual for it to sell for a lower price due to the fact that Taurus' were much stronger sellers.

 

[Jim A. Banville]

I certainly wouldn't assume ANYTHING about whether they sound good or bad based only on those factors. Would you?

Well, since I think all properly constructed cables sound the same (unless they are designed to act as "tone controls"), then no, I would not and DO NOT think expensive cables would sound better. Now, would I ASSUME that the more expenesive cable is constructed better? Yep, but diminishing returns kick in once you get above $50/pair or so. Guilty as charged. If I had two TV's setting in front of me, neither of which had a nameplate or was even plugged up. One was marked $500 and the other $2000. Yes, I would ASSUME that the $2000 TV had a better picture. Does that mean I would be correct? Who knows? We're not talking about reality. We're talking about assumptions. If I had two cars setting in front of me, neither of which I knew the manufacturer of, and one was priced $10K and the other was marked $50K. YES, I would assume the $50K car was "better". "Better" performing, more comfortable, more equipped, etc. I consider these assumptions normal, don't you?

 

[Kiet_H]

unless you are blind or have someone put your system together for you and never look at the interconnects, you MUST see and know what wires are being tested to determine which one will sound better to you in a real world useage situation.

Mark, So your argument is that since you know you paid more for the cables, mentally your mind tells you that it sounds better, even though if in the situation where you don't know which cable is used you could not tell the difference. You based your sense of hearing by the influence of your sense of sight and the knowledge that you paid more for the expensive cables. Sounds to me like you are trying to justify your cost for the cables with perception of audible differences that do not exist. I don't know how much you spend on your cables for your system, but I have approximately ~$945 worth of cables in my system. Mainly Audioquest, XLO, IXOS, Tributaries and Monster. Yes I think that paying close to $1000 for cables is alot, but I do not try to justify it by making myself beleive that it makes my system sound better when it actually does not. Rather, I pay alot of money for the cables because visually it makes the system look better. I use the same justification (looks) when I bi-wire/bi-amp my speakers. Do all the expensive cables and bi-wire/bi-amping help my system sound better? perhaps, but I can't tell the difference in sound, but I "CAN" tell the difference visually. My point is that there is logic to spending money on something that is identifiable, but when the result is not identifiabel and is based merely on perception, then its just a waste of money.

 

[Mike Knapp]

My point is that there is logic to spending money on something that is identifiable, but when the result is not identifiabel and is based merely on perception, then its just a waste of money.

As you wish, but most of your purchase decisions in life are based on your perception and using that logic would make them all a waste of money.

Perception is only one piece of the pie here, but it is a very real piece, one the skeptics want to exclude in a test but cannot possible be excluded in real life.

My position is to accept all thing thats may contribute to your perception (your reality really) and factor them into the equation, giving them the weight you feel appropriate. Eliminating them to test and then having them present during use just doesnt make sense to me.

If you look at several products and really like one of them, then you test them and find the one you like performs only as well as the ugly one, but the ugly one is half the price of the one you like....do you buy the ugly one and have your negative perception come into play every time it is used? Or do you buy the one you liked and enjoy it more because of your positive perception?

Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Just my opinion.

Mike (not Mark)

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Jim,

No, I don't think those assumptions are normal for everybody. Since you're not using - seeing, listening, driving - the item under inspection, why would you assume ANYTHING about it other than known facts (in your examples, the price is the only thing known)?

I've never heard cable differences in my system, I don't think it's of sufficient resolution to make differences audible; so I use low-cost, well-made cable. I have no problem with people who do hear differences in cables on their systems and use the products they think are best for them. I don't demand they hear a difference 100% of the time to justify their purchase or "prove" they hear the difference.

Do you think that the "green CD marking pens" can make a difference in the sound of CDs? I didn't think it was possible until I participated in a demo one day on a very well put together system. The owner - who had no vested interest in the outcome - played a track from a CD, then played it again after saying he was switching CDs. He repeated the test with several tracks. I - and many of the other people there - heard a difference every time. What does this prove? Nothing, except that something which - in theory - shouldn't make a bit of difference DID make a difference. Did I LIKE the change in sound? No, which is why I don't use the green pen on my CDs. It's important to keep an open mind about these things. How do we know that we can measure all of the things we can hear?

 

[Jim A. Banville]

Since you're not using - seeing, listening, driving - the item under inspection, why would you assume ANYTHING about it other than known facts (in your examples, the price is the only thing known)?

Perhaps if I just popped out of the womb, but I didn't. So I have a lifetime of experience where more expensive products, more often than not, looked better, performed better, lasted longer, etc., vs. cheaper products. Does this relate to audio/video cables? Yes, but only in terms of looks and longevity, not performance.

 

[AjayM]

Perhaps if I just popped out of the womb, but I didn't. So I have a lifetime of experience where more expensive products, more often than not, looked better, performed better, lasted longer, etc., vs. cheaper products. Does this relate to audio/video cables? Yes, but only in terms of looks and longevity, not performance.

So cables get the magic pass? You have a lifetime of experience where more expensive things are better all around (including performance), except cables? Sounds logical.
Hey Mike, when you switched over to Better Cables new component cables, did you have to re-calibrate your TV?
Andrew