# Blind Cable Taste Test RESULTS!



## Edwood

Two years ago, a man's fantasty became reality in a form never seen before.







 Blind Cable Taste Test, a giant testing arena.

 The motivation for spending his fortune to create Blind Cable Taste Test was to encounter true results for everyone to discover in the comforts of their own home. To realize his dream he secretly started choosing cables of various types of materials. And he hid the materials inside the same exterior.






 And he named his cables the Blind Cable Taste Test. The indistinquishable cables of sonic mystery.


*Triangle Cable is Solid Silver*





*Circle Cable is Canare*





*Square Cable is Rat Shack*






 Blind Cable Taste Test is the arena where Head-Fiers await the challenge in their own home. The Head-fiers have one week to tackle the sonic mystery of the cables. Using all their senses, skills, creativity, they are to discover for themselves what the true mystery beholds.






 And if ever a challenger wins over the Blind Cable Taste Test, he or she will gain the people's ovation and fame forever.

 The heat will be on!


----------



## Edwood

*The Results:*
   

   
  Here's the real kicker.

*[size=medium]Only ONE Head-Fier that participated guessed ALL THREE correctly.[/size]*
 And the best part, this person did the test and turned the cables around to send to the next person in the shortest amount of time of all the participants.

 Thanks to all that participated, and putting up with the continual delays due to business, vacations, illnesses, etc.

 -Ed


----------



## mbriant

Congratulations and thanks, Edwood. This was quite a project.

 When's the next one?


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* 
_
 When's the next one? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahaha...

 <deep breath>

 Hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahaha...

_Gotta lay off the Tussin_

 -Ed


----------



## Sovkiller

I'm somewhat skeptic about cables and IMO is good to know that in truly blind test, and in the comfort of their own homes with the system that they were really familiar with and used to, the huge majority of the participants failed miserably, nothing against them, and I know that this would be a really hard test for them, if differences are so subtle as I believe them to be, what lead us to the sad but true conclusion about cables, one more time, then: *Snake oil*

 Now I know that the cable believers will argue that the ones who participate, had not really good ears, or that there are flaws in the test, or that the systems were not revealing enough, or that this or that was not asked, or should be asked instead, or maybe even flaws in the statistical system, and blah, blah, blah, and that these results don't mean a thing for them, as those cables maybe did not made the difference, but the ones they own will do, in their systems, and to their ears, etc, etc...

 But unfortunately for them, none of these that will argue probably were part of the participants on the test, wondering why? So their credibility is here at risk if you ask me...

 IMO the reality is now a more unarguable fact than it was before, same as that test with speaker cables, done by some manufacturer some time ago, in which all those golden ears were all the time hearing a cheap zip cord, and they still insisted in hearing the differences, and even wrote about them describing differences, that at that time, they were told which cable they supposedly were listening to, so the placebo is in the equation, now it was a really blind test, so placebo out.

 Kudos for the participants, and Edwood for making this test happen!!!


----------



## Zorander

I like the irony that the Ratshack was largely guessed as a solid silver cable.


----------



## Holybanana

Awesome!
 Who gussed them all correctly?


----------



## clarke68

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Holybanana* 
_Awesome!
 Who gussed them all correctly?_

 

I think it was ayt999...who (it should be noted) may well have had the most revealing _gear_ of anyone who participated in the test.


----------



## taoster

interesting, it would seem most people heard differences between the cable but were not able to ascertain which is which. I wonder if it was quantified with which cable has the highest treble? which cable has the best bass? which cable has the largest soundstage? etc etc the result would of been consensual.


----------



## mbriant

Were there any comments given about each cable, or were the participants simply asked to identify which cable they thought was which?

  Quote:


 Only ONE Head-Fier that participated guessed ALL THREE correctly. 
 

 And let's not forget that that could have very well been luck or random chance.


----------



## Todd R

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* 
_Here's the real kicker.

*[size=medium]Only ONE Head-Fier that participated guessed ALL THREE correctly.[/size]*
 And the best part, this person did the test and turned the cables around to send to the next person in the shortest amount of time of all the participants. 

 Thanks to all that participated, and putting up with the continual delays due to business, vacations, illnesses, etc.

 -Ed_

 

Thanks Ed, 
 So who's our golden ear boy (or girl?)

 I have a comment/question about the test...
 The guesses were assuming that we had some sort of preconceived idea of what a particular cable material was supposed to sound like, right? 
 Mine: 
 Silver=bright/detailed
 Starquad=balanced/mellow
 Rat Shack=harsh/unrefined

 My assumptions may be different than someone else's, so I'm not sure what this chart really tells us. 

 What I would like to know is which cable did we all like the best? Will there be more graphs?


----------



## taoster

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Todd R* 
_Thanks Ed, 
 So who's our golden ear boy (or girl?)

 I have a comment/question about the test...
 The guesses were assuming that we had some sort of preconceived idea of what a particular cable material was supposed to sound like, right? 
 Mine: 
 Silver=bright/detailed
 Starquad=balanced/mellow
 Rat Shack=harsh/unrefined

 My assumptions may be different than someone else's, so I'm not sure what this chart really tells us. 

 What I would like to know is which cable did we all like the best? Will there be more graphs?_

 

that's the problem. In my mind it would be more like:

 Silver=extended/detailed/harsh/airy
 Starquad=balanced/refined
 Rat Shack=mellow/slightly muddy/pleasantly boring


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 interesting, it would seem most people heard differences between the cable but were not able to ascertain which is which. 
 

 Again, with such a small sample base, this could also just be random chance.

 Now if the same people were to once again do the same test with the same 3 cables .... and came up with the exact same results .... that would help eliminate random chance and indicate they *were* hearing an identifiable difference.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *taoster* 
_interesting, it would seem most people heard differences between the cable_

 

You can't draw that conclusion from this test.


----------



## clarke68

Here's a copy of the PM I sent Edwood after I completed the test:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Clarke68* 
_I didn't get involved in this test to try and guess which cable was which, but rather to find out which cable I prefer. I figured my favorite would be the silver, since they're (I assume) the most expensive, but I've also heard that silver cables can be bright, so perhaps I'd prefer the star-quad, or not be able to tell any difference at all?

 When I first got the cables I did a quick run through...my first impressions were that the triangle were my favorite (silver?), the square was a close second (star-quad?), and the circle was junk. I had a difficult time shaking my first impressions for subsequent tests, so I ran the rest of the tests blind. I'd pull one cable out of the box and install them (the way you did the 'band' around the middle made it easy to conceal the cables identity with a finger while still being able to read the directional arrow on the side). Listen to one track off McCoy Tyner's 'New York Reunion', install the next cable, repeat. When I was done, I "shuffled" the cables and put them back in the box for the next test.

 I started out rating the cables as I went along, as my goal was to find my favorite. What I found, however, was that I almost always preferred the last cable in the test, and it didn't matter which cable it was. Clearly there's some other factors at play here besides the conductor material! So I abandoned the "rating" system and just wrote my listening impressions of each cable. There's some inconsistency in my impressions from session to session, but a few patterns did emerge:

*square:* consistently the most neutral, didn't add anything to the music, but (more importantly) didn't take anything away.
*triangle:* possibly a bit more extended in the high frequencies than the square cable, with a little congestion/muddiness in the lower midrange/mid-bass region
*circle:* my impressions were all over the map: at times overly bright, at other times neutral but a tad laid back (although my DAC is a tad laid back, so these could be the most revealing)

 So that's how I want 'em. If I must guess which is which, then guess I will:

*square*: silver
*triangle*: star-quad
*circle*: cheapo

 Note that the differences between cables were extremely subtle, and in fact impossible to differentiate at times. All this has taught me that for my ears, in my current system, cables are not a significant contributor to sound quality, and I'll be sticking with my "inexpensive, reasonably well shielded/constructed is fine" theory on cables until I have reason to think otherwise. Very interesting and valuable experiment...thanks for setting it up!_

 

Want to reiterate the part about thanking Ed for organizing the test...valuable, fun, just the type of thing that makes Head-fi an awesome audiophile community! 

 As for the results, draw your own conclusions. For me, I won't be spending another dime on interconnects as long as I live.


----------



## TheMarchingMule

.


----------



## Ferbose

Good job, Edwood.
 It interesting that only 12 out of 42 total guesses are correct, which is even worse than chance. 
 This ascertains my believe that anything beyond a reasoanbly constructed cable is only placebo.

 Oh, I was recently informed that a certain "V" brand of expensive cable very hyped up around here actually uses Home Depot wires. The friend opened up the cable and saw--very familiar wires. Good luck if you dropped a few grands for their crap.


----------



## taoster

while the sample data may be too small. it would seem more than half thought the starquad was triangle. And only 2 thought the starquad was square. this seems to indicate that the 3 cables were not similar sounding.


----------



## TheMarchingMule

.


----------



## Todd R

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *taoster* 
_that's the problem. In my mind it would be more like:

 Silver=extended/detailed/harsh/airy
 Starquad=balanced/refined
 Rat Shack=mellow/slightly muddy/pleasantly boring_

 

Exactly! 
 I had nothing to base my guess on. For example, I have never used silver cables so I can only assume what they sound like based on what I have read. 
 But...they all sounded different from each other, and there was no doubt about that (attn: Sovkiller)

 I think there should be another test for the cable skeptics out there. 
 Make 2 identical cables with the same wire, and one with different wire.
 Pass those around and see how many people can pick out the different one!
 That should settle it once & for all. 
 TR


----------



## markl

Edwood, I don't understand the test (I didn't really follow the original thread). Can you explain the methodology and what you hoped to prove/disprove?

 If I interpret it correctly, you are not trying to test if fancy cables make a difference over cheap ones, which is probably the test most people would find most relevant. Instead, it seems your test only measures whether people's pre-conceived ideas of what each cable type *should* sound like, matches with how they *actually* sound (or at least the individual samples under review). I'm not sure how useful this is.

 I always say this in my reviews of cables-- having heard dozens and dozens of them, I've concluded that knowing the materials used (copper/silver), guage, connectors, etc. provides you with zero insight into how and given cable will actually sound. IMO, there is no "silver sound", no "copper sound" etc. 

 So, in this test, we seem to be measuring whether an undefined concept/perception (everyone has a different idea of what a silver cable is "supposed" to sound like, what a copper cable cable is "supposed" to sound like, what a cheap cable is "supposed" to sound like, but no two people define these things the same) matches with reality, or at least a reality composed of a universe containing only a sample size of one cable to represent each type of sound ("silver sound", "copper sound", "cheap sound"). What if none of the cables provided typify even the worst stereotype of what these metals are supposed to sound like? 


 I know you put in a lot of work, and I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure what it proves? To me, it starts from a false premise/hypothesis (each cable material/metal type has its own, easily-identifiable and widely understood sound) and examines whether this can be accurately judged by people relying on a single example of each type of cable, assuming that these samples match 100% perfectly with the widely-understood pre-conception of how they *should* sound.


----------



## taoster

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Todd R* 
_I think there should be another test for the cable skeptics out there. 
 Make 2 identical cables with the same wire, and one with different wire.
 Pass those around and see how many people can pick out the different one!
 That should settle it once & for all. 
 TR_

 

brilliant!


----------



## mbd

Thanks for posting the results Ed. It certainly proves that people can't easily tell from the sound their hearing what the cables are made of. I'd be curious to know whether all the people suggesting that the radio-shack cable was the silver believed the sound to be 'better' than those of their other two guesses. Or, at least, that the 'worst' sounding cable in their listening was deemed to be the radioshack one.


----------



## clarke68

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* 
_I'm not sure how useful this is._

 

Very useful, for those who participated in the test. We were able to test the value of cables to our ears, in our systems, unhindered by the biases associated with product cost, materials, aesthetics, or brand name.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* 
_I know you put in a lot of work, and I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure what it proves?_

 

I think there are misconceptions by people on both sides of the DBT debate, that listening tests are supposed to be "scientific" and provide "proof" of something. 

 In reality, all that's required is to establish our _preference_. There's nothing scientific about that, and there doesn't need to be anything scientific about the process, although the elimination of non-sq-related biases is extremely helpful. 

 I learned from this test that I _prefer_ the sound of cheap Rat Shack ICs. That _fact_ doesn't have to mean anything to anybody else. It could be helpful, I suppose, to someone who has similar gear to mine and similar taste, but hey...if you want to go on buying 4-figure cables and writing reviews about them, be my guest.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Todd R* 
_That should settle it once & for all._

 

LOL...that would be nice, but it's not gonna happen in our lifetime...there will always be people who believe in cables and people who don't. I'd like to propose a new group: the people who don't care! There's a lot more interesting things than cables in audio (not to mention in life), and I am now officially on to bigger/better things.


----------



## anastassios

Ed could you create a text file with all the replies you received from the participants? 
 The comments that must have been made are significant, yet hard to put on a chart.


----------



## mbriant

Quote:


 Ed could you create a text file with all the replies you received from the participants? 
 The comments that must have been made are significant, yet hard to put on a chart. 
 

 Agreed. We don't need to know the identities of those who made the comments, but it would be nice to know which cables were preferred as well as any other comments on each cable.


----------



## hciman77

A few things seem to come out from the results.

 1) 9/14 (64%) thought the RadioShack cable was a higher end cable.
 By chance 66% would think this - so pretty much on target for random.


 2) 9/14 (64%) thought that one of the higher end cables was a radioShack cable
 Again 66% would be chance - 33% would think the Silver was RS and 33% would think the Canare was RS


 3) More people thought that the radioshack cable was a higer end cable than thouight that the Canare cable was a higher end cable. But this is so far from significant as to be meaningless.

 4) Though far from significant more (11) thought that the silver cable was a higher end cable than thought that the other two were higher end cables 8 (canare) and 9 (radioshack). Though this is so close to chance anyway - chance would be a 4 5 5 split so 9 or 10 so means nothing as such.

 Conclusion -?


----------



## Ferbose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* 
_So, in this test, we seem to be measuring whether an undefined concept/perception (everyone has a different idea of what a silver cable is "supposed" to sound like, what a copper cable cable is "supposed" to sound like, what a cheap cable is "supposed" to sound like, but no two people define these things the same) matches with reality, or at least a reality composed of a universe containing only a sample size of one cable to represent each type of sound ("silver sound", "copper sound", "cheap sound"). What if none of the cables provided typify even the worst stereotype of what these metals are supposed to sound like? 

 I know you put in a lot of work, and I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure what it proves? To me, it starts from a false premise/hypothesis (each cable material/metal type has its own, easily-identifiable and widely understood sound) and examines whether this can be accurately judged by people relying on a single example of each type of cable, assuming that these samples match 100% perfectly with the widely-understood pre-conception of how they *should* sound._

 

I don't agree.
 People's preconception with "cheap" sound is that it sounds bad. 
 If thge cheap generic cable really sounds worse than fancier cables, we would expect many people correctly identifying Radio Shack cable because of its bad sound. On the contrary, half of the people thought RS cable was silver cable, supposedly the best cable according to audiophile preconception.


----------



## SunByrne

And for those of you who are statistically inclined, this produces chi-square(4) = 6.86, p = .14. Cannot reject the null hypothesis of no association.

 This suggests, but does *not* prove, that responses were effectively random. We'd need a bigger sample to have more confidence either way, but on the other hand, if the Rat Shack cable was _obviously_ much worse than the other two, it should have been picked up. I wouldn't term this "proof," but the results are more consistent with a skeptical position than a believer position.

 Everybody update your subjective priors accordingly. (Sorry, statistics joke.)


----------



## 003

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* 
_A few things seem to come out from the results.

 1) 9/14 (64%) thought the RadioShack cable was a higher end cable.
 By chance 66% would think this - so pretty much on target for random.


 2) 9/14 (64%) thought that one of the higher end cables was a radioShack cable
 Again 66% would be chance - 33% would think the Silver was RS and 33% would think the Canare was RS


 3) More people thought that the radioshack cable was a higer end cable than thouight that the Canare cable was a higher end cable. But this is so far from significant as to be meaningless.

 4) Though far from significant more (11) thought that the silver cable was a higher end cable than thought that the other two were higher end cables 8 (canare) and 9 (radioshack). Though this is so close to chance anyway - chance would be a 4 5 5 split so 9 or 10 so means nothing as such.

 Conclusion -?_

 

Thanks for doing the math for me! Since there were flaws in this test, and not a large number of people participated, I do not KNOW the conclusion, but I've got a pretty good idea


----------



## philodox

No offense intended, but who cares if people guessed the cables correctly? What I care about is which was the overall preferred cable sonically! Do we have any results for that?


----------



## Jeff Wong

I remember reading about this experiment awhile ago and was happy to see some results finally posted. But, I'm with markl on this... without a reference, or control, I don't quite see the point of this. If there had been a 4th cable, perhaps, designated by a rhomboid or something, that was the same cable as one of the first three, and listeners were asked to ID which shape it matched, we might glean something from all of this. I don't remember the goal of this project. Somebody care to recap?


----------



## tkam

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_No offense intended, but who cares if people guessed the cables correctly? What I care about is which was the overall preferred cable sonically! Do we have any results for that?_

 

Yeah I think thats a pretty valid point, I don't think it's really about who guessed correctly. The more important thing is did people hear differences between the cables??


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tkam* 
_Yeah I think thats a pretty valid point, I don't think it's really about who guessed correctly. The more important thing is did people hear differences between the cables??_

 

Well the results would seem to _imply_ that people thought that they heard differences, enough to make a judgment - if not they would not have proferred an opinion - though we dont know who/how many made a subjective judgment and who just made a blind guess.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* 
_Well the results would seem to imply that people thought that they heard differences, enough to make a judgment - if not they would not have proferred an opinion - though we dont know who/how many made a subjective judgment and who just made a blind guess._

 

Yep, but taken in the context that those judgements were given the information in useless to us consumers.


----------



## Samgotit

Everyone should read this. It's from Edwood's original thread:


  Quote:


 So here's a chance to prove whether or not you can hear the difference between cables.
 This is my current method for this "test" I'm open to suggestions. I think this will be [size=large]fun[/size]. 
 


 I took the liberty to highlight one important word.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tkam* 
_Yeah I think thats a pretty valid point, I don't think it's really about who guessed correctly. The more important thing is did people hear differences between the cables??_

 

B/c they switched the cables themselves.


----------



## Samgotit

Whoops


----------



## markl

But this is a forced choice. You are required by the test to hear differences because you have to assign each cable to one of the categories-- silver, copper, or cheap. So being able to detect differences in this test is assumed. What was measured was can you guess which one is silver, copper or cheap.

 I think that whomever suggested a a test where two cables were identical while the third was different, and you were asked to identify the different cable would yield a more relevant to result to answering the question: "are all cables the same?".

 i don't want to belabor the ppoint, so I'll just quit here. Cheers.


----------



## Audiofiler

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tkam* 
_ The more important thing is did people hear differences between the cables??_

 

We have a bingo people


----------



## 003

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* 
_But this is a forced choice. You are required by the test to hear differences because you have to assign each cable to one of the categories-- silver, copper, or cheap. So being able to detect differences in this test is assumed. What was measured was can you guess which one is silver, copper or cheap.

 I think that whomever suggested a a test where two cables were identical while the third was different, and you were asked to identify the different cable would yield a more relevant to result to answering the question: "are all cables the same?".

 i don't want to belabor the ppoint, so I'll just quit here. Cheers._

 

That does sound like a better test.


----------



## PhilS

As was discussed in the original thread regarding the test, the test was supposed to be fun, and to give people a chance to see what they thought about different cables, under certain conditions and parameters. It was always recognized, by Edwood and others, that the test would not really establish whether people could hear differences in cables. And the comments by markl and others re the limitations of the test and the need to be careful about drawing certain conclusions from it are spot on. Nevertheless, it seems like the test was fun for those who participated, and it does seem like it yields _some _information regarding the fact that people did not always prefer a certain type of cable. Kudos to Ed for taking on and supervising such a project. 

 Knowledge is good. -Faber College (Animal House)


----------



## bigshot

My system is wired with Radio Shack cables. Never had any reason to complain about them. Their speaker wire is great too.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## milkpowder

Thanks for the results. We've been waiting for absolutely ages, but I guess it was well worth it! I must admit that I often fail to hear the differences between different interconnects on the same headphone system. For some reason, it's completely different with speaker systems: I can tell between different interconnects and speaker cable!

 Again, thanks for everyone who was involved for making this possible!


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TKAM* 
_ The more important thing is did people hear differences between the cables??_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Audiofiler* 
_We have a bingo people
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sunburn* 
_And for those of you who are statistically inclined, this produces chi-square(4) = 6.86, p = .14. Cannot reject the null hypothesis of no association.
 This suggests, but does not prove, that responses were effectively random. We'd need a bigger sample to have more confidence either way, but on the other hand, if the Rat Shack cable was obviously much worse than the other two, it should have been picked up. I wouldn't term this "proof," but the results are more consistent with a skeptical position than a believer position.

 Everybody update your subjective priors accordingly. (Sorry, statistics joke.)_

 

Just looking at the distribution, I would agree with Sunspot.
 So now we have a new market, re-packaging Rat-Shack to look like high-end. Cables have been much more of a style issue for me anyway.


----------



## JahJahBinks

It provides relief to people who don't have "golden ears".

 How about a blind power cord test next?


----------



## JahJahBinks

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Todd R* 
_I think there should be another test for the cable skeptics out there. 
 Make 2 identical cables with the same wire, and one with different wire.
 Pass those around and see how many people can pick out the different one!
 That should settle it once & for all. 
 TR_

 


 Or make 2 identical cables with identical wires but paint one of them red and the other blue. Then Pass those around and see how many people do NOT think they are identical.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JahJahBinks* 
_How about a blind power cord test next?_

 

Talk about starting a war.......


----------



## Oliver :)

Hmm, neat setup, but... somehow it all doesn't make much sense due to the connectors. It looks as though there were quality connectors used here, so all I would read from this is "quality connectors & good soldering help making cheap wire sound good". And let's face it, all cable is relatively cheap wire that becomes more expensive due to what is done with it... and it is this refining process that makes for a good or bad cable. Maybe this Rat Shack should be on sale as the RS-Miracle or something along that line...


----------



## Patrick82

This test shows that cables are *PLACEBO* for 99% of the people. Save some cash and sell the high-end cables and buy stock cables instead!

 Also sell the high-end amp and source because they are placebo as well: _"Oooh this pretty $20k box sounds amazing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ". "Haargh, this big box must give monster bass 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 "._

 I always got disappointed from an amp or source upgrade because they didn't do anything to fix the sound, they just gave a different flavor. To me they are more placebo than cables. Someone should make a blind test of sources with different exterior!

 To me a non-shielded stock cable sounds better than a well shielded one, because the harshness emphasizes detail. Too much shielding makes it muddy for my ears no matter how much the cable costs, all the subtle details are gone. But with Nordost Valhalla I have no problem because it is smoother and has more detail than stock cable, so with me it's either stock or Valhalla. 

 Edit: I also liked Nordost Vishnu which was little better than stock, the only major difference was that it sounded smoother. Everything else was about the same.


----------



## Oliver :)

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_so with me it's either stock or Valhalla._

 

Word!


----------



## eyeteeth

Bravo Ed & Co. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That was cool.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* 
_I think that whomever suggested a a test where two cables were identical while the third was different, and you were asked to identify the different cable would yield a more relevant to result to answering the question: "are all cables the same?"._

 

That would also be informative. I'm not sure if "are all cables the same?" is the question. "Is there much difference?" is closer.

 In either type of test I'd wish one cable would be a behemoth of ego, a "reference" like Valhalla.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_This test shows that cables are *PLACEBO* for 99% of the people._

 

Where did you get that from? The test shows nothing of the sort. Are you being facetious?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_I always got disappointed from an amp or source upgrade because they didn't do anything to fix the sound, they just gave a different flavor. To me they are more placebo than cables._

 

 If it sounds different, how is it placebo? Perhaps by placebo, you mean something different that how people on this forum typically use the word, i.e, that there is no difference in sound, but one believes he or she hears a difference based on an expectation?


----------



## markl

Quote:


 This test shows that cables are PLACEBO for 99% of the people. Save some cash and sell the high-end cables and buy stock cables instead!

 To me a non-shielded stock cable sounds better than a well shielded one, because the harshness emphasizes detail. Too much shielding makes it muddy for my ears no matter how much the cable costs, all the subtle details are gone. But with Nordost Valhalla I have no problem because it is smoother and has more detail than stock cable, so with me it's either stock or Valhalla. 

 Edit: I also liked Nordost Vishnu which was little better than stock, the only major difference was that it sounded smoother. Everything else was about the same. 
 






 So, IYHO all cables are placebo but you can hear differences between shielded and unshielded? So that's not placebo? Which is it? And why stop at shielded or unshielded? Either any factor of a cable's design impacts performance/sound, or none of them do. Monk or heretic, no in-between!


----------



## Patrick82

Someone can have placebo even if there's a measured difference, because that's what they expect when they plug it in. It doesn't mean they really hear the improvement themselves.

 Everything in a cable design matters, the conductor material isn't really _that_ important. That's why so many manufacturers use cheap copper. I believe the connector makes the biggest difference between most cheap cables. In the high-end it's all about the dielectric.

 You can make a DIY cable sound as good as an expensive cable if you know how it all works. Nobody knows it, that's why there are so many different designs that just give different flavors.


----------



## Jeff E

Let me voice my appreciation to Edwood for the effort and patience that this experiment demanded. The following in no way detracts from that appreciation.

 In the original discussion thread  Edwood lays out this study's objective and predicts that it will be enjoyable. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* 
_So here's a chance to prove whether or not you can hear the difference between cables. This is my current method for this "test" I'm open to suggestions. I think this will be fun._

 

In the subsequent sign up thread he reiterated his objective:
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* 
_The object of this test is to see for yourself if you can hear the difference between different analog interconnect cables' conductors._

 

It seems pretty clear that Edwood's objective was to assess whether the subjects could discriminate among the sound of the three cables. This question has been hotly debated and is certainly worthwhile. A clear answer would be a significant contribution to audio and would be referenced frequently.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* 
_... it seems your test only measures whether people's pre-conceived ideas of what each cable type *should* sound like, matches with how they *actually* sound (or at least the individual samples under review). ... What if none of the cables provided typify even the worst stereotype of what these metals are supposed to sound like? _

 

Markl's point, that we could attribute poor performance in identification to either failure to preceptually discriminate the sound of the cables or to failure to share a common concept of their sound (stereotype) seems to be a valid one.

 This ambiguous outcome is not unusual inasmuch as a single research study is rarely definitive. Typically, each piece of research builds on previous work and has different shortcomings. The identify the odd of three cables suggestion seems to be a sound [sic] approach. Anyone game to take it on? If you are reading this and thinking "that sounds like too much work" then increase your admiration for what Ed has done by a couple of units.

 Am I glad Edwood undertook this research? _Yes_. As a participant, I believe I have gotten a better understanding of the role that cables can play for me. 

 Once again, my thanks to Ed.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Someone can have placebo even if there's a measured difference, because that's what they expect when they plug it in. It doesn't mean they really hear the improvement themselves.
_

 

 I suppose so, but that's not really a placebo effect we are concerned about, IMO. I mean, the issue that occupies many of us on this board, _ad nauseum_, is whether, due to a placebo effect, people are hearing differences that are not measurable and/or that are not really there in terms of an audible effect. IMO, we don't need to worry too much about whether people claim to hear differences that actually correspond to measured differences, but that they really can't hear even though they say they can.


----------



## Danamr

I just wanted to add my thanks to Edwood for all the hard work on this.


----------



## aznsensazian

Good stuff Edwood, how did i do?


----------



## bigshot

I think this shows more about how convoluted some people's logic is than it does how cables sound!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I think this shows more about how convoluted some people's logic is than it does how cables sound!
_

 

Absolutely. This is a phenomenon observed in virtually every cable thread.


----------



## markl

Quote:


 I think this shows more about how convoluted some people's logic is than it does how cables sound! 
 

 Funny, to me, it shows how cable nay-sayers/agnostics will knee-jerk jump on anything that appears to "prove" them right (as seen in this thread, there's been some, let's say, "pre-mature" celebration going on), without fully examining what was actually measured by this test, and whether what was measured is at all relevant to the cable debate. I'm sorry if it requires the actual turning on of one's brain to do some evaluation of the test's merit, but it does. If that's too complex for some minds to encompass, oh well.


----------



## SunByrne

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_So now we have a new market, re-packaging Rat-Shack to look like high-end._

 

I believe a great deal of the religious war-style debate seen on cable-oriented forums is that there's a segment of the crowd claiming that this is exactly what many manufacturers are already doing. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I certainly don't think this test is conclusive on a variety of questions--several of the points made by folks like markl are germane--but it is kind of fun to see how it turned out, and I give Edwood a hearty salute for doing it. I like some of the other ideas, too, but I think Ed's already done enough work. Thanks, Edwood!


----------



## Danamr

Funny
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_What indeed is really funny (and sad for them at the same time) IMHO, is how people try to justify the investments they made, at all costs, even while, if it is true that this is not the optimal test to prove them wrong, at least they do not have anything better in their hands to show, that prove them right, other that what they say they hear...What leads me to the conclusion that the called "naysayers" at least are on a better position here regarding the credibility..._

 

Better said than mine.


----------



## crazychimp132

One variable is left unaccounted for in this experiment: the subject's perception of what each material is supposed to sound like. Because of this, it is possible that all the subjects heard actual differences, but associated these differences with the wrong material. This experiement just shows the differences percieved between real cables and their stereotypes. This experiment would have been more valid if a second cable of each type were included, labelled to show its material. Then subjects could specifically tell, for example, if cable X sounded like a silver cable, not just the stereotype of silver.


----------



## Jahn

i admit it.

 when i had the cables i swapped the tags


----------



## Sovkiller

I'm not 100% a cable naysayer, but this test at least *should show* that if different cables sounds different, as many of our "golden ears members" believe, there *must* be a marked difference between the Rat Shack one, and at least the solid silver cable, *at least between those two*, and none of them should miss that the Rat Shack should sound worst than the silver one, and most of the participants mixed their emotions *precisely* on those two...is that an evidence? For me it is sort of, for the rest well that is up to them...

 What indeed is really funny (and sad for them at the same time) IMHO, is how people try to justify the investments they made, at all costs, even while, if it is true that this is not the optimal test to prove them wrong, at least they do not have anything better in their hands to show, that prove them right, other that what they say they hear...What leads me to the conclusion that the called "naysayers" at least are on a better position here regarding the credibility...


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_Funny, to me, how "some people" just cannot help themselves, and have to belittle views that don't agree with their own._

 

Nothing wrong with constructive critcism of viewpoints that are flat wrong or just illogical, and as markl correctly points out, some of the comments on this thread about what the test proves or disproves are not founded on an understanding of what the test actually involved, or are indeed illogical, which is the point I was trying to make in my previous post. You may consider certain comments to constitute "belittling," but pointing out an obvious flaw in an argument or point of view is what civilized discussion is all about. Avoiding name calling or insults would seem to take the "belittling" aspect out of it, and I haven't see much of that on this thread, which has been pretty civilized -- thus far.


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *crazychimp132* 
_One variable is left unaccounted for in this experiment: the subject's perception of what each material is supposed to sound like. Because of this, it is possible that all the subjects heard actual differences, but associated these differences with the wrong material. This experiement just shows the differences percieved between real cables and their stereotypes._

 

That's exactly right. The test was a good idea, but I think the wrong questions got asked. There's no way to tell what, if anything, the results really mean.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *crazychimp132* 
_This experiment would have been more valid if a second cable of each type were included, labelled to show its material. Then subjects could specifically tell, for example, if cable X sounded like a silver cable, not just the stereotype of silver._

 

Well, that depends on exactly what you hope the test might enlighten us about. If it's what sounds best, that's one thing. If it's about whether people can ID kinds of metal inside of cables, that's something else. Personally, I care about the former, not the latter. But other people might have different priorities. 

 This shows how important it is to be clear about what the testing is supposed to test *before* it happens. It's also why researchers always do small pilot studies, to work out bugs like this. I really appreciate the trouble people went to in order to do this. I wish it could be repeated after some discussion about exactly what the test is for.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jahn* 
_i admit it.

 when i had the cables i swapped the tags
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Except that you never had the cables, since you weren't on the sign up thread. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Nothing wrong with constructive critcism of viewpoints that are flat wrong or just illogical, and as markl correctly points out, some of the comments on this thread about what the test proves or disproves are not founded on an understanding of what the test actually involved, or are indeed illogical, which is the point I was trying to make in my previous post. You may consider certain comments to constitute "belittling," but pointing out an obvious flaw in an argument or point of view is what civilized discussion is all about. Avoiding name calling or insults would seem to take the "belittling" aspect out of it, and I haven't see much of that on this thread, which has been pretty civilized -- thus far. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I agree, and enjoy a constructive discussion. I did not say you were belittling anyone.


----------



## SunByrne

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Avoiding name calling or insults would seem to take the "belittling" aspect out of it, and I haven't see much of that on this thread, which has been pretty civilized -- thus far. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yeah, I mean, how could anyone take this:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* 
_I'm sorry if it requires the actual turning on of one's brain to do some evaluation of the test's merit, but it does. If that's too complex for some minds to encompass, oh well._

 

as belittling? I mean, who doesn't talk that that to their spouse/parents/co-workers/friends all the time?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_I'm not 100% a cable naysayer, but this test at least *should show* that if different cables sounds different, as many of our "golden ears members" believe, there *must* be a marked difference between the Rat Shack one, and at least the solid silver cable, *at least between those two*, and none of them should miss that the Rat Shack should sound worst than the silver one, and most of the participants mixed their emotions *precisely* on those two...is that an evidence? For me it is sort of, for the rest well that is up to them...

 What indeed is really funny (and sad for them at the same time) IMHO, is how people try to justify the investments they made, at all costs, even while, if it is true that this is not the optimal test to prove them wrong, at least they do not have anything better in their hands to show, that prove them right, other that what they say they hear...What leads me to the conclusion that the called "naysayers" at least are on a better position here regarding the credibility... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








_

 

I think Spock used to refer to this a "resulting torrential flow of illogic." Perhaps that it is an overstatement in this case, but it does seem that you are jumping to conclusions that are unfounded. Among other things, your argument assumes that silver cables sound better than RS cables in ALL systems, which I don't think any cable "believer" would contend. You also ignore the fact, as noted by others above, that participants were basically forced into identifying a cable, which skews the results.

 It is true that people with a bias will tend to discount test results that don't support a result they would like to see. But a person pointing out that a test result does or does not support a certain theroy does not _necessarily _mean the person is biased. The test and the results should be evaluated on their own merits, and it is clear that the "agendas" on both sides are starting to surface here and hinder a rationale discussion.


----------



## Edwood

I guess people prefer to see pretty pictures rather than read, or prefer to argue over semantics and endless hypotheticals.

 So nobody actually read through the text of my Original Post in this thread?

 Surprised no one caught on to the narrative... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## Jahn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* 
_Except that you never had the cables, since you weren't on the sign up thread. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed_

 


 Look under the name "Alex"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 "How could you!"


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jahn* 
_Look under the name "Alex"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 "How could you!"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Oh yeah.

 I forgot about your mind tunneling possession ability. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Careful when you talk to Jahn. He can possess your mind! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## Jahn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* 
_Surprised no one caught on to the narrative... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 -Ed_

 

I expected you to bite into a big ass bell pepper and grin afterwards, but i admit to being thrown off when you didn't


----------



## PhilS

SunByrne, you may be right in that instance. Perhaps that could be construed as belittling. But then again, perhaps it was deserved, based on some of the early comments on this thread. Anyway, let's not get off track regarding who said what to whom.


----------



## Oliver :)

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* 
_Oh yeah.

 I forgot about your mind tunneling possession ability. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Careful when you talk to Jahn. He can possess your mind! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed_

 

I think that due to the immense mass of Jahn's rig and the amount of energy it is able to absorb he has gained the power to bend space & time to his liking. Therefore the switching of the tags would not have been noticed. 

 But where are we, really? People heard differences, or at least believed they heard them, and attributed what they heard to what they thought it represented. Correct? 

 I would also suggest not to bash the idea of placebo. The good thing about placebos is: They work. You could likely do as some here asked for and make the test with three identical cables with different markers and people might still hear differences. People are subjective and open to suggestion in their perception, there is no way around that. Uhoh, I start sounding like a naysayer...


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_ Among other things, your argument assumes that silver cables sound better than RS cables in ALL systems, which I don't think any cable "believer" would contend. You also ignore the fact, as noted by others above, that participants were basically forced into identifying a cable, which skews the results._

 

Sorry, but I do not ignore any fact of the test, I was following it since the first day, and honestly I could anticipate this results a year ago if you would asked me.....Well now, according to what we have read here, for years and years, a silver cable should sound better in any decent system than any of the RS ones, at least, and I do not agree on that with you, unless the believers are trying to change now what they have supported for years...you may not like the way silver sounds in a given setup, as they will sound bright or whatever you feel and call it, but by coincidence in all of them??? Also a RS will sound simply horrible........that is according to what is said here for years...and we may ask Edwood, but there should be a reason on why he chose the RS and silver one...*they simply should sound different* and they did, just that the called "golden ears" misplaced them by coincidence in the majority of the cases, that is simply funny to me, sorry...


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_Sorry, but I do not ignore any fact of the test, I was following it since the first day, and honestly I could anticipate this results a year ago if you would asked me.....Well now, according to what we have read here, for years and years, a silver cable should sound better in any decent system than any of the RS ones, at least, and I do not agree on that with you, unless the believers are trying to change now what they have supported for years...you may not like the way silver sounds in a given setup, as they will sound bright or whatever you feel and call it, but by coincidence in all of them??? Also a RS will sound simply horrible........that is according to what is said here for years...and we may ask Edwood, but there should be a reason on why he chose the RS and silver one...*they simply should sound different* and they did, just that the called "golden ears" misplaced them by coincidence in the majority of the cases, that is simply funny to me, sorry... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








_

 

 The result was exactly what I would have predicted also, but probably for different reasons than you. Forcing people to say whether a certain cable is brand x or brand y is a vastly different test than asking them if one cable sounds different than another in their system. 

 And I have also stated on numerous occasions that a silver cable in my system sounded much worse than a cheapo copper cable I had, so I disagree that every proponent of cables on this forum has said that silver cables always sound better than copper. markl has made the same points in his threads reviewing cables. (Also, note that the test did not ask what cable sounded better, but what cable was what, which further undermines any conclusion about the RS vs. silver issue, since some might pick the cable that sounds worse as the RS, assuming (incorrectly) that cheap cables always sound worse, while others might pick the silver if they knew, for example, that silver did not fare will in their system.)

 In any event, you will take from the study, and others like it, what you want. Indeed, there is support for both of the "classic" positions in this test. But for either side to say it conclusively demonstrates anything about whether different cables sound different is without basis. The test was not designed to do that, and the parameters and guidelines of the test do not permit one to make a reasoned, conclusive judgment on that issue.


----------



## Hi-Finthen

I can draw my own conclusions, which is no matter the cost of cables although differences may be audiable, those differences would not be enough to be able to tell which is which by any clear majority of listeners to justify the cost difference. IMHO this is my conclusion which is all that matters to my ears and wallet.

 Again, thanx all~


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_In any event, you will take from the study, and others like it, what you want. Indeed, there is support for both of the "classic" positions in this test. But for either side to say it conclusively demonstrates anything about whether different cables sound different is without basis. The test was not designed to do that, and the parameters and guidelines of the test do not permit one to make a reasoned, conclusive judgment on that issue._

 

IMO they do demostrate that people were not able to perceived any of the differences between them and were all guessing, they sounded different to all of them, in a way that every single participant would like them to, not a general concesus than this cable sounded thin and bright, that one sounded warm and mellow, or neutral, etc...as those results were all mixed up, nobody knew for sure what they were listening at...so please no more that silver is bright, and that the RS cables are horrible here OK?....


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_IMO they do demostrate that people were not able to perceived any of the differences between them and were all guessing, they sounded different to all of them, in a way that every single participant would like them to, not a general concesus than this cable sounded thin and bright, that one sounded warm and mellow, or neutral, etc...as those results were all mixed up, nobody knew for sure what they were listening at...so please no more that silver is bright, and that the RS cables are horrible here OK?....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








_

 

As I said, you will take from the study what you want, regardless of whether you have any basis to do so. Whatever.


----------



## peelax

I think a reasonable conclusion from this test would be that it would *not* be a good idea to spend a lot of money on a cable without listening to it first because it will not always sound better. But then I'm sure everyone knew that already


----------



## Xanadu777

Nice job on the setup Ed! Here's what I deduct as the most prominent finding in my study of the graph...

 I may be wrong, but my personal logic tells me that each of the 14 asked themselves which cable sounds the worst, as their first finding and choice. 

 We can probably mostly all agree that would be the Radio Shack in theory.

 They make their guesses or finding and 11 of the 14 (roughly 78%), pick either of the stranded copper cables as the "Rat Shack" sound. Only 3 pick the actual silver cable as the lesser sound (by labeling it Rat Shack). 

 My deduction from the graph is that aprox 78% or 11 of 14 found the silver to be the least non desirable, since they didn't choose it as the Radio Shack. To me, the two stranded copper cables are very similar (and very hard to tell apart for anyone) as compared to solid silver, so I will lump them together since that is my opinion and right 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I would also like to see a test where two cables are exactly alike and one totally different, then have the peeps choose which is different...


----------



## anastassios

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Xanadu777* 
_Nice job on the setup Ed! Here's what I deduct as the most prominent finding in my study of the graph...

 I may be wrong, but my personal logic tells me that each of the 14 asked themselves which cable sounds the worst, as their first finding and choice. 

 We can probably mostly all agree that would be the Radio Shack in theory.

 They make their guesses or finding and 11 of the 14 (roughly 78%), pick either of the stranded copper cables as the "Rat Shack" sound. Only 3 pick the actual silver cable as the lesser sound (by labeling it Rat Shack). 

 My deduction from the graph is that aprox 78% or 11 of 14 found the silver to be the least non desirable, since they didn't choose it as the Radio Shack. To me, the two stranded copper cables are very similar (and very hard to tell apart for anyone) as compared to solid silver, so I will lump them together since that is my opinion and right 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I would also like to see a test where two cables are exactly alike and one totally different, then have the peeps choose which is different..._

 

I think you got confused with what is the triangle and what is the square.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_In any event, you will take from the study, and others like it, what you want. Indeed, there is support for both of the "classic" positions in this test. But for either side to say it conclusively demonstrates anything about whether different cables sound different is without basis. The test was not designed to do that, and the parameters and guidelines of the test do not permit one to make a reasoned, conclusive judgment on that issue._

 

There is a quite reasoned conclusion based on the results. See post #29. The real problem is the small number of respondents, but given the amount of time it took to do that number, some of us are not young enough to still be around for a more extensive sampling.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *crazychimp132* 
_One variable is left unaccounted for in this experiment: the subject's perception of what each material is supposed to sound like. Because of this, it is possible that all the subjects heard actual differences, but associated these differences with the wrong material. This experiement just shows the differences percieved between real cables and their stereotypes. This experiment would have been more valid if a second cable of each type were included, labelled to show its material. Then subjects could specifically tell, for example, if cable X sounded like a silver cable, not just the stereotype of silver._

 

QFT


----------



## Hi-Finthen

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *anastassios* 
_I think you got confused with what is the triangle and what is the square._

 

If he did, perhaps that is what he WANTED to conclude and subconsciously fixed the facts to suit the premeditated policy.


----------



## Patrick82

I wonder if circle sounded round, smooth and warm. Triangle sounded sharp and detailed. Square sounded harsh and jittery with some emphasized detail?


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_I wonder if circle sounded round, smooth and warm. Triangle sounded sharp and detailed. Square sounded harsh and jittery with some emphasized detail?_

 

Which shape are you Patrick?

 which...shape...are...you???


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SunByrne* 
_And for those of you who are statistically inclined, this produces chi-square(4) = 6.86, p = .14. Cannot reject the null hypothesis of no association.

 This suggests, but does *not* prove, that responses were effectively random. We'd need a bigger sample to have more confidence..._

 

The absence of significance never proves that responses were random. The absence of significance only means that you can't assume they were not random.

 You can get significant results with small sample sizes, but to do that you need to use non-parametrics. The answering scheme here supports non-parametrics, but chi-square ain't gonna help. The non-parametric stats tend to be obscure, but you can find them. 

 The problem here is that, even if we got significance, we still wouldn't know what the results mean. It's not as easy to come up with a well designed test as you might think, and this one is just an example of that.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_Which shape are you Patrick?

 which...shape...are...you??? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I am neutral shape, what else? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The Canare has thicker wire so it should sound smoother. Silver should sound detailed. Rat Shack should sound harsh. It fits well with the shapes.


----------



## Xanadu777

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *anastassios* 
_I think you got confused with what is the triangle and what is the square._

 

The triangle is solid silver, according to the pic. In actuality the solid silver was chosen the least as being Rat Shack by what I consider a substantial margin to two cables I consider fairly equal. 

 So the question to ask to back this theory up, did the 14 start by picking the least desirable, which I think would be the natural thing to do (and equate it to Rat Shack). 

 I would be curious to hear from the participants which they tried to decipher first, silver, Rat Shack or star quad (or was it random). If it was anything but Rat Shack first, my theory is nullified. Other than that theory, it seems to be a jumble to me...


----------



## jpr703

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Xanadu777* 
_I would also like to see a test where two cables are exactly alike and one totally different, then have the peeps choose which is different..._

 

That sounds like an interesting test to me since it eliminates a lot of the opinions and concentrates on sound differences. If you could conduct a test like this using a standard set of equipment, it would show you something.


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_with Nordost Valhalla I have no problem because it is smoother and has more detail than stock cable, so with me it's either stock or Valhalla._

 

That's based on sighted or blind listening? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* 
_Funny, to me, it shows how cable nay-sayers/agnostics will knee-jerk jump on anything that appears to "prove" them right (as seen in this thread, there's been some, let's say, "pre-mature" celebration going on),_

 

The "nay-sayers/agnostics" seem well behaved. Somewhat blase' actually, in a "tell us something we don't know" kind of way. I've always thought 'believers' should do more blind listening for the purpose of self-education. It can be a threatening exercise though as well as a humbling one.

 It isn't that blind listening is THE answer...but why or how is it the wrong way to listen?


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* 
_It isn't that blind listening is THE answer...but why or how is it the wrong way to listen?_

 

That reminds me of the last meeting in NYC, before the national one. I was with Ray Samuels talking and discussing about his amps, Ray is a very nice fellow and I like very much to talk with him, his conversation is really nice and instructive, most of the times, for the ones not familiar with him...I was always curious about them, markl always suggested me to try the HR-2 which he absolutelly loves, and following his advice, I did it....just to satisfy my curiosity...

 Ray provided a quick blind test among three of his amps, as while listening them by separate I felt the HR-2 a little brighter, than the stealth and the hornet. He called me for that purpose, as soon as he got ready the setup, to prove me wrong, so he hooked there the Hornet, the HR-2, and the Stealth, honestly none of the members in the meeting that participate in that test, about 3 or 4 besides me, were able to discern between the three of his amps, hooked in his Meridian...after we finished I was totally honest with him, and I accepted that to my ears, or my ears were misleading me, or the 3 amps sounded identical, that was precisely what he wants to prove, and what he wants to hear, that the sonic signature of all his amps, is the neutrality, and all of them sound alike, just being really accurate in offering you, just what is feed in them, that were his words, not mine, and nor the ones from the members there, Ray himself stated that, that was regardless of what I may or not think as my personal opinion, which I do not consider relevant now.

 Well later on while stated this here, some called me crazy and that this was not the optimal conditions to perform the test and that they hear this and that and differences and blah blah blah,...guys the manufacturer himself accepted that all his amps sounded alike, he set the test, conducted, and concluded it, and they still insisted in saying that the test was not good enough....

 If I told that long story was just as a way of stating that people will never accept what they consider that proves them wrong, not even is this is said and stated by God...they will still believe what they want and period!!!!


----------



## K2Grey

I haven't studied this closely, but it seems to me that this does not show that cables make no difference. For that, you would want a test with 2 sets of cables. One set has 2 identical cables, the other set has 2 different cables. And then you would ask people to determine which set is which (i.e. which 2 cables are the same, and which 2 cables are different).

 However, this test does show that there is nothing wrong with Rat Shack cables. So while this does not necessarily show that cables do not differ from each other in quality, it does show that if they do, there is no particular relation to price or material. So the cable naysayers are better off.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *K2Grey* 
_However, this test does show that there is nothing wrong with Rat Shack cables. So while this does not necessarily show that cables do not differ from each other in quality, it does show that if they do, there is no particular relation to price or material. So the cable naysayers are better off._

 

But the curious thing was that the Radio Shack cables were considered among the worst sounding cables, with a muddy and dark sound, and later on during the test they were taken as if they were the solid silver ones, or at least what they consider that a silver one should sound like, that according to what have been said here many times are supposed to sound all the opposite, clean, detailed and a little on the bright side, what an irony, eh?


----------



## jbloudg20

Very interesting, Ed! Nice job.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Kudos to Ed for conducting this test, even if he lost my data! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (but then again so did I, it's just so hard to remember which cable sounded like what, two years ago! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## SunByrne

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_The absence of significance never proves that responses were random. The absence of significance only means that you can't assume they were not random._

 

In a strictly Fisherian sense, no, of course not. But if you have large sample sizes and a minimum meaningful effect size, with power analysis you can make highly-informed statements.

  Quote:


 You can get significant results with small sample sizes, but to do that you need to use non-parametrics. 
 

You can get significant results with parametrics and small sample sizes, too, if the effects are large enough.

  Quote:


 The answering scheme here supports non-parametrics, but chi-square ain't gonna help. 
 

You have a point, of course--the observations aren't independent, and the expected cell frequencies are a bit low.

  Quote:


 The non-parametric stats tend to be obscure, but you can find them. 
 

Depends on which kinds of nonparametrics you mean. Bootstrap-based methods are hardly obscure these days.

  Quote:


 The problem here is that, even if we got significance, we still wouldn't know what the results mean. 
 

Well, we would in fact know something. For instance, here's a hypothesis which is still tenable in the face of the current data (I'm not saying I agree with this, just that it's still tenable): people can't really tell the difference and are just responding randomly. If we could reject the null on a test of association, we could reject that explanation. 

  Quote:


 It's not as easy to come up with a well designed test as you might think 
 

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I routinely recommend rejection for submissions to the scientific journals for which I review, usually on the basis of flawed experimental methdology/statistics. 

 I just didn't think this was quite the right context for being _quite_ that fastidious.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jahn* 
_I expected you to bite into a big ass bell pepper and grin afterwards, but i admit to being thrown off when you didn't
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






_

 

LOL, yes.

 I figured you or Jason would be the only ones to catch it right away. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## markl

Quote:


 I'm sorry if it requires the actual turning on of one's brain to do some evaluation of the test's merit, but it does. If that's too complex for some minds to encompass, oh well. 
 

 Just wanted to say, that yes, in re-reading this comment, my smirking sarcasm with a wink in my eye doesn't quite translate as intended, does it? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I agree, that statement is utterly unnecessary and should not have been typed by yours truly.

 Carry on!


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_guys the manufacturer himself accepted that all his amps sounded alike, he set the test, conducted, and concluded it, and they still insisted in saying that the test was not good enough...._

 

I don't know the extent and nature of the criticism that was made of the test, but it probably is worth noting that the test was only a single-blind test. Ray had an expectation as to what the results of the test should be, which may have biased the results. 

 Don't get me wrong, I think that it's still an interesting observation, but I wouldn't offer it as scientific proof.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_Ray provided a quick blind test among three of his amps...he hooked there the Hornet, the HR-2, and the Stealth, honestly none of the members in the meeting that participate in that test, about 3 or 4 besides me, were able to discern between the three of his amps, ...I accepted that to my ears the 3 amps sounded identical,_

 

I have had the same experience with several different portable amps - though not blind - and there was a famous (blind) amp test back in the 80s "Do All amplifiers sounds the same?" (Masters and Clark) that showed that people could not reliably distinguish between a $200 Pioneer receiver and a $12000 Futterman combo or between a $2000 Mark Levinson and either a $500 NAD or a $320 Hafler.

 This one had a fairly big sample of participants.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* 
_Ray had an expectation as to what the results of the test should be, which may have biased the results. 
_

 


 Unless the experimenter communicated something to the participants either consciously or _unconsciously_ or there were other cues that allowed the participants to know or guess which amp was which I dont see a problem.

 Did any of the participants have access to the impressions of other participants before they took the test - if so that would be a problem as it could easily alter the findings. 

 Had the experimenter said _these three amps sound the same_ upfront that would be a serious problem but if the experimenter gave no clues or expressed or communicated no expectations then I see no issue here. It is of course too small a smaple to be significant but it is interesting.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* 
_ but if the experimenter gave no clues or expressed or communicated no expectations then I see no issue here._

 

That is true, of course, but we don't know that, which is why I said that the experimenter's expectation _may have_ biased the results. A double-blind test eliminates the possibility of experimenter bias. But like I said, I found the results interesting nevertheless.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* 
_[T]here was a famous (blind) amp test back in the 80s "Do All amplifiers sounds the same?" (Masters and Clark) that showed that people could not reliably distinguish between a $200 Pioneer receiver and a $12000 Futterman combo or between a $2000 Mark Levinson and either a $500 NAD or a $320 Hafler.

 This one had a fairly big sample of participants._

 

 If that is the famous test I am recalling, one of the participants was a serious audiophile who, having observed the results of the test, became absolutely convinced that amps sound the same and therefore purchased one of the cheaper amps and lived with it for a year or so -- and was miserable, ultimately concluding he made the biggest mistake of his life. Basically, he determined that the listening conditions of the test had convinced him that all amps sound the same, but practical experience living with the cheap amp for a long time in his system convinced him that it sounded like krap. 

 Which just goes to show some of the limitations of those types of tests. It doesn't mean, of course, that the results are of no value. But interpreting the results, or applying them to practical real-world listening, is sometimes difficult.


----------



## Sleestack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_If that is the famous test I am recalling, one of the participants was a serious audiophile who, having observed the results of the test, became absolutely convinced that amps sound the same and therefore purchased one of the cheaper amps and lived with it for a year or so -- and was miserable, ultimately concluding he made the biggest mistake of his life. Basically, he determined that the listening conditions of the test had convinced him that all amps sound the same, but practical experience living with the cheap amp for a long time in his system convinced him that it sounded like krap. 
_

 

Or maybe he is like me and can't overcome the negative psychoacoustic impact of looking at gear that looks like crap.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* 
_That's based on sighted or blind listening? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Neither. I use a special unbiased technique. That's why I use $22k cabling with $975 source, who could have believed cables give me most for my money? I have downgraded into a cheaper and smaller source because it sounds better to me.
 When I stop hearing a difference between cables I will sell them all, who can say no to a few grand? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 There's no point in owning expensive gear if they do nothing...


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SunByrne* 
_Well, we would in fact know something. For instance, here's a hypothesis which is still tenable in the face of the current data (I'm not saying I agree with this, just that it's still tenable): people can't really tell the difference and are just responding randomly. If we could reject the null on a test of association, we could reject that explanation. 

 I couldn't agree more. In fact, I routinely recommend rejection for submissions to the scientific journals for which I review, usually on the basis of flawed experimental methdology/statistics. 

 I just didn't think this was quite the right context for being quite that fastidious.



_

 

I've also rejected one or two manuscripts for bad statistics/experimental design. However, I do look at the design before even considering the statistics. In this test, the question appears to have been "which cable is which"? However, the subjects appear to have no control conditions whatsoever. What basis would they have for making an identification? Unless they had outside experience with one or more of the cables in question, they would be making a blind guess. The expected result of a blind guess is of course random.

 If I give a subject an unlabelled headphone, and ask, "Is this a Grado HP-1?" and the subject has never heard a Grado HP-1 (nor seen one) I'd expect a fairly random response. In fact, if I gave the subject three completely unfamiliar headphones, and asked them to identify Sennheiser HD-650, Sony SA-5000 or AKG K-701 (and they have never seen or heard any of them) how could you get anything besides random? And yet, I do suspect that the majority of listeners who have heard those three headphones will agree that they do not sound the same. In fact, I don't even think the "can we detect headphone differences?" question even attracts controversy. The listeners would simply not have had the experience needed to identify the sonic signatures of the headphones, and so results would be random.

 If the analogous experiment to the one reported, using items with known audible differences, would be expected to generate random data, why would we try and draw conclusions from this one? An experiment expected to generate random results yielded random results. I guess you could do the analysis to show the results were truly random, but suppose that you got statistical significance. What scientific hypothesis would be supported by a significant result? If there isn't a clear answer to that question, stats are wasted time.

 Incidentally, the Rat Shack "Fusion" cables, since discontinued, offered very nice sound for the money.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_I've also rejected one or two manuscripts for bad statistics/experimental design. However, I do look at the design before even considering the statistics. In this test, the question appears to have been "which cable is which"? However, the subjects appear to have no control conditions whatsoever. What basis would they have for making an identification? Unless they had outside experience with one or more of the cables in question, they would be making a blind guess. The expected result of a blind guess is of course random.

 If I give a subject an unlabelled headphone, and ask, "Is this a Grado HP-1?" and the subject has never heard a Grado HP-1 (nor seen one) I'd expect a fairly random response. In fact, if I gave the subject three completely unfamiliar headphones, and asked them to identify Sennheiser HD-650, Sony SA-5000 or AKG K-701 (and they have never seen or heard any of them) how could you get anything besides random? And yet, I do suspect that the majority of listeners who have heard those three headphones will agree that they do not sound the same. In fact, I don't even think the "can we detect headphone differences?" question even attracts controversy. The listeners would simply not have had the experience needed to identify the sonic signatures of the headphones, and so results would be random.

 If the analogous experiment to the one reported, using items with known audible differences, would be expected to generate random data, why would we try and draw conclusions from this one? An experiment expected to generate random results yielded random results. I guess you could do the analysis to show the results were truly random, but suppose that you got statistical significance. What scientific hypothesis would be supported by a significant result? If there isn't a clear answer to that question, stats are wasted time._

 

By all means, come up with your own test, build the cables, and organize it.


  Quote:


 Incidentally, the Rat Shack "Fusion" cables, since discontinued, offered very nice sound for the money. 
 

I did not use the Fusion cables. I used those cheapest "white package" ones they had. They didn't even have gold plating on the connectors. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* 
_The "nay-sayers/agnostics" seem well behaved. Somewhat blase' actually, in a "tell us something we don't know" kind of way. I've always thought 'believers' should do more blind listening for the purpose of self-education. It can be a threatening exercise though as well as a humbling one._

 

I read about a test of cables done by a major audio magazine where they took "golden ears" audiophiles and just plain folks and put them in a room and switched between cheap cables and super fancy ones, asking them to figure out which was which. Pretty soon, both groups of people realized that they weren't able to hear any difference. The just plain folks laughed at their inability. The audiophiles got hopping mad and frustrated.

 Some people have their ego invested in the results and some don't.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_If that is the famous test I am recalling, one of the participants was a serious audiophile who, having observed the results of the test, became absolutely convinced that amps sound the same and therefore purchased one of the cheaper amps and lived with it for a year or so -- and was miserable, ultimately concluding he made the biggest mistake of his life. Basically, he determined that the listening conditions of the test had convinced him that all amps sound the same, but practical experience living with the cheap amp for a long time in his system convinced him that it sounded like krap._

 

That would be one of the Stereophile guys, John Atkinson I think. I've come across this phenomenon as well; it's the long term listen that really matters. Thanks for showing the other side of that story.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Neither. I use a special unbiased technique. That's why I use $22k cabling with $975 source, who could have believed cables give me most for my money? I have downgraded into a cheaper and smaller source because it sounds better to me._

 

If there is such a thing, I'd recommend an appointment with an audiophile accountant!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Among other things, your argument assumes that silver cables sound better than RS cables in ALL systems, which I don't think any cable "believer" would contend._

 

How many cable believers use Radio Shack cables because they sound best with their particular system? Aren't most people using Radio Shack cables "cable naysayers"?

 There's something to be logically deduced from that angle... Either Radio Shack cables don't sound better, which this test seems to indicate isn't the case... or cable believers judge certain cables better than Radio Shack for reasons other than how they sound.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_How many cable believers use Radio Shack cables because they sound best with their particular system? Aren't most people using Radio Shack cables "cable naysayers"?

 There's something to be logically deduced from that angle... Either Radio Shack cables don't sound better, which this test seems to indicate isn't the case... or cable believers judge certain cables better than Radio Shack for reasons other than how they sound.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Those people can't believe stock cable sounds good because it's too cheap. Put the same cable into some fancy packaging and people will buy it instead even if it costs more. It's like useless jewelry that makes them feel prettier, the more it costs the better they feel about themselves...
 Those are the same people who think mp3 sounds bad. It's placebo, pure and simple. I listen to 128 kbps mp3 no problem, WAV sounds little better so what.
 What does that jewelry do anyway, give extra weight so it's harder to move? It reminds me of the quote from Simpsons by some egoistic rich guy: _"Look at my watch, it is jammed with so much jewel the hands can't move."_ Same quote can be given to big fat shielded cables...

 In the future there will be only one optimal cable to buy for $10. If people want coloration they can do that with software, why pay more for worse sound than stock cable? I guess people just want to look at their pretty magic cables that give some colored flavor. Like with glowing tubes, it makes them special to have a certain flavored system. They must be bored of how real life sounds like and want to alter it.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* 
_By all means, come up with your own test, build the cables, and organize it.




 I did not use the Fusion cables. I used those cheapest "white package" ones they had. They didn't even have gold plating on the connectors. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed_

 

Hi Ed,

 I was not criticizing what you did, but rather those who started spouting statistics and trying to read more into it than was there. Incidentally, I apologize for not involving myself when this was being set up. You've got a good methodology that I think could be adapted to get at some serious questions.

 Hirsch

 And I still like the Fusions


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_There's something to be logically deduced from that angle... Either Radio Shack cables don't sound better, which this test seems to indicate isn't the case... or cable believers judge certain cables better than Radio Shack for reasons other than how they sound.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Once again, you miss the point. Nobody asked which cable people preferred. The question is which was which. More people judged the Canare to be silver cable than those that guessed Rat Shack or silver itself to be silver combined. That does not mean that people liked the Canare Star Quad better (although they might have). It simply means that they thought it sounded like a silver cable (or whatever they thought a silver cable sounded like). The test says nothing about preference. It does not appear to have even been asked.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Those are the same people who think mp3 sounds bad. It's placebo, pure and simple. I listen to 128 kbps mp3 no problem, WAV sounds little better so what._

 

So I'm guessing a big Vat power cable on your computer magically makes 128kbps mp3's sound great as well, eh?


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* 
_So I'm guessing a big Vat power cable on your computer magically makes 128kbps mp3's sound great as well, eh? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Yes, 128 kbps has sharp transients which can't be heard with muddy cables.

 There are people who only care about specs. If there isn't a measured difference between cables, they become a skeptic and use stock cable. But they still use WAV which is more placebo than cable. There's a measured difference but that doesn't mean they can hear it. It's subtle at best.


----------



## meat01

First of all Thanks to Ed for doing this fun exercise!

 I do understand the comments about the test being "a guess which cable cable is which brand", rather than "which sounds the best and which sounds the worst?", but I think we can draw some conclusions.

 Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but when you ask someone to guess which cable is a Radio Shack cable on this forum, it pretty much is the same as asking them which cable sounds the worst?

 As Bigshot said, I haven't seen too many recommendations for Radio Shack cables from people who believe cables sound different. I wish a Monster Cable had been thrown into the mix, because a lot of people on this site claim that Monster Cables are overpriced and sound worse than other cables. While I hate Monster as much as the next guy, I feel their cables don't sound any worse than any other cable.


----------



## mbriant

I fall into the naysayer camp myself, but the more I think about it, I must concede that as interesting as this test is, the methodology and small sample base make the results inconclusive and unfortunately, pretty much useless as a serious study. No offence intended to Edwood, as I know you and the members who did the testing worked hard on this, and I know it was done for fun.

 While the fact that 6 members thought the Radio Shack cable was Canare seems initially important, 5 did guess the Radio Shack correctly, and with a sample base of only 14, this specific result means very little.....especially without equipment criteria being part of the results. A "believer's" argument I also agree with, is that any noticeable differences between the sound of cables ( if there are any), won't be noticeable on low end systems. The "weakest link" rule, makes that seem logical to me. 

 In hindsight, it's too bad that people weren't simply asked "Which cable sound's best...and why?" .... matched with a list of equipment they used to test with. I too wish I'd given this some thought and made some suggestions when the project first began.


----------



## DrDobs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* 
_I fall into the naysayer camp myself, but the more I think about it, I must concede that as interesting as this test is, the methodology and small sample base make the results inconclusive and unfortunately, pretty much useless as a serious study. No offence intended to Edwood, as I know you and the members who did the testing worked hard on this, and I know it was done for fun.

 While the fact that 6 members thought the Radio Shack cable was Canare seems initially important, 5 did guess the Radio Shack correctly, and with a sample base of only 14, this specific result means very little.....especially without equipment criteria being part of the results. A "believer's" argument I also agree with, is that any noticeable differences between the sound of cables ( if there are any), won't be noticeable on low end systems. The "weakest link" rule, makes that seem logical to me. 

 In hindsight, it's too bad that people weren't simply asked "Which cable sound's best...and why?" .... matched with a list of equipment they used to test with. I too wish I'd given this some thought and made some suggestions when the project first began._

 

I hate to say this but I TOTALY disagree with this post and here is why.

 The test is NOT irrelevant based on the sample size. IF you were going to attempt to draw the concolusion that 6 out of 14 people (42%) of people can't tell the difference between the two cables you'd be basing that judgement on a sample size too small. 

 However, you can clearly draw a conclusion that the difference between the cables may not be as much as it is made up to be. Remember, we are supposedly talking the difference between a Ferarri and a Yugo folks!!@!@ To trump this, the test was done by audiophiles. Which means if you took 14 Nascar drivers and put them in a Corvette and then had them drive a Dodge Neon (no offense to Neon owners!) and 6 of them couldn't tell the difference, you can't tell me that doesn't say something.

 So here you have 6 guys who can't tell the difference between a $5 cable and a $100 cable. Forget about the fact they didn't rate which one they thought sounded best, CLEARLY they knew there was an elite cable, a mediocre cable, and a crappy cable to choose from so in there minds they were saying "Hey, this one is best it must be X, and this one sucks it must be Y, etc".

 I'm glad I don't dump my life savings into cables and just stick with "decent" stuff from bluejeanscables.com and Belkin's PureAV stuff. Pretty damn sure this stuff is plenty good enough.

 Jon


----------



## taoster

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_So here you have 6 guys who can't tell the difference between a $5 cable and a $100 cable._

 

Unless you know of 6 people from the test that stated exactly that, I dont know how you draw that conclusion. Just because what they heard did not match their expectation with their setup does not mean there is no difference.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_I'm glad I don't dump my life savings into cables and just stick with "decent" stuff from bluejeanscables.com and Belkin's PureAV stuff. Pretty damn sure this stuff is plenty good enough.

 Jon_

 

That's funny. You clearly believe cable makes little or no difference yet "just in case" spend 5X the price of RShack for cables.


----------



## K2Grey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *taoster* 
_That's funny. You clearly believe cable makes little or no difference yet "just in case" spend 5X the price of RShack for cables. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That may very well have to do with things like reliability and looks, if the difference in $ is small.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_Hi Ed,

 I was not criticizing what you did, but rather those who started spouting statistics and trying to read more into it than was there. Incidentally, I apologize for not involving myself when this was being set up. You've got a good methodology that I think could be adapted to get at some serious questions._

 

I'm sure the test could've been alot more comprehensive and scientific, but the goal was to keep it as short and simple as possible, while keeping an emphasis on the fun aspect. And the whole "mystery" element to keep up an air of suspense with a pay off at the end of the test. Also, this test walks a fine line on the no DBT rule. I purposely designed it to keep it away from DBT. Technically, the test is a Single Blind Test, as the Tester and Test subject are one in the same person.

 As it stands, I could've organized the test a lot better, but between everyone's hectic schedule and mine, the test took twice as long as I had first estimated. I'm sure we could come up with a far more If there is a another test in the future, there will have to be a better distribution model, and someone more on the ball wrangling the shipping and audition schedule better than I.


  Quote:


 And I still like the Fusions 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 

Did you get in on the fire sale that Rat Shack had awhile ago? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## DrDobs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *taoster* 
_Unless you know of 6 people from the test that stated exactly that, I dont know how you draw that conclusion. Just because what they heard did not match their expectation with their setup does not mean there is no difference.



 That's funny. You clearly believe cable makes little or no difference yet "just in case" spend 5X the price of RShack for cables. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 No no... Don't get me wrong. I didn't say there wasn't a difference at all. I simply stated that the differences are not all that they are typically hyped up to be. I mean, if they were, you would think audiophiles could tell the difference EASILY between a cable that costs $100+ and one that costs $3.99. Who here could possibly deny this??!?!? 

 That's not to say that you still aren't getting a better product in the $100 item because I'm sure you are. It makes me think that the difference between the $20 cable and the $100 cable are probably REALLY small and maybe non-existant. The fact these guys couldn't tell the difference in almost 50% of the cases between the two cables is actually quite shocking.

 Everybody's ego here aside......... What does this tell us? You can't say the experiment isn't valid because again.. the FACT of the matter is that 6 out of 14 guys guessed completely wrong!!


----------



## Edwood

If I had a lot of money to throw away, a version of this test I considered was to take a few well known audiophile cables, and put their guts into identical cable coverings. But some cables (like Cardas) have such a large dialectic that it would not be feasible to cram it into another cable. Removing the guts from the outer dialectic would cause argument from those that believe the dialectic contributes significantly to the SQ.

 Also, in going with more generic types of cables, I wanted to avoid Brand loyalty/fanboy arguments that would inevitably erupt. (a la Amp forum).

 So from a personal standpoint, I have heard so many people comment that they could tell the difference between silver and copper, and that they preferred one over the other, etc. So in a very narrow definition, this was a test objective, and one that has often been debated amongst DIY cable makers.

 -Ed


----------



## DrDobs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *K2Grey* 
_That may very well have to do with things like reliability and looks, if the difference in $ is small._

 

Yes, this was the other point I forgot to make in my post above. In a $4 cable you feel like you're buying something a rat will eat through or will get crimped wrong and screw up your system. In the $25.00 cable, you feel you are getting something that is built to last and offers any POTENTIAL pluses in the sound category.

 Let me make my point. Here is a link sponsored by Head-Fi.org that sells a 2-foot RCA cable at a "BLOWOUT" price of $80.00/foot or $640.00 for an 8-foot cable!!!!!!!!!
http://www.thecablepro.com/cableDetail.php?cID=10&tc=1 

 Here now is a link to a company who produces cables for a living and has developed what it considers to be a top quality cable. The 8-foot version of this cable retails for $49.99 but it's readily available with free delivery for $29.99 at newegg.com
http://catalog.belkin.com/PureAV_det...duct_Id=178506 

 Now... You may want to argue how much better the $640.00 cable is over this $30.00 jobbie... but the fact is that the extra $610.00 left over is DEFINATELY better spent in the area of speakers #1 and amplification or DAC 2nd...

 Jon


----------



## DrDobs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* 
_If I had a lot of money to throw away, a version of this test I considered was to take a few well known audiophile cables, and put their guts into identical cable coverings. But some cables (like Cardas) have such a large dialectic that it would not be feasible to cram it into another cable. Removing the guts from the outer dialectic would cause argument from those that believe the dialectic contributes significantly to the SQ.

 Also, in going with more generic types of cables, I wanted to avoid Brand loyalty/fanboy arguments that would inevitably erupt. (a la Amp forum).

 So from a personal standpoint, I have heard so many people comment that they could tell the difference between silver and copper, and that they preferred one over the other, etc. So in a very narrow definition, this was a test objective, and one that has often been debated amongst DIY cable makers.

 -Ed_

 

Let's run the test again! I'll help coordinate.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Jon


----------



## Aman

I am not going to read all seven pages of this thread, but I just noticed something.

 The test was run under the assumption that everybody knew what the cables were going to sound like. It wasn't "order the three shapes from best to worst", it was "tell me what the trinagle was, the square was, and the circle was".

 This poses a few problems. But before that, let me mention that, for those listening to these cables on a crapty system with 128kbs WMA files and a generic sound card that came out of a Dell computer from 1996, the Radio Shack cables may have sounded the best due to the fact that they revealed the least amount of flaws in the sound file! Then again, people with these systems probably are unreliable to begin with since they don't have as trained ears.

 But more about the actual setup of the experiment: When running this kind of experiment, you cannot assume that everybody is going to think the Radio Shack will end up sounding the worst. Some people here may be inexperienced, and may have thought, say, that the silver cable was not as good as a Radio Shack one because it didn't have a brand name on it. Then he will assign the silver cable to sounding the worst, and the radio shack to sounding the best or second best.

 But then again, these kinds of people also are inexperienced.

 Experience shouldn't even be a problem in this kind of test, as "experience" colors opinions and interpretations. Yes, it's difficult to avoid, but truly, there were just as many flaws in this kind of experiment as in any kind of test aiming to provide the same results. Sadly, I don't believe this proves much of anything in the long run. Yes, it does show some interseting results, but I don't think those are the results that everybody wanted to come out of this.


----------



## DrDobs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Aman* 
_I am not going to read all seven pages of this thread, but I just noticed something.

 The test was run under the assumption that everybody knew what the cables were going to sound like. It wasn't "order the three shapes from best to worst", it was "tell me what the trinagle was, the square was, and the circle was".

 This poses a few problems. But before that, let me mention that, for those listening to these cables on a crapty system with 128kbs WMA files and a generic sound card that came out of a Dell computer from 1996, the Radio Shack cables may have sounded the best due to the fact that they revealed the least amount of flaws in the sound file! Then again, people with these systems probably are unreliable to begin with since they don't have as trained ears.

 But more about the actual setup of the experiment: When running this kind of experiment, you cannot assume that everybody is going to think the Radio Shack will end up sounding the worst. Some people here may be inexperienced, and may have thought, say, that the silver cable was not as good as a Radio Shack one because it didn't have a brand name on it. Then he will assign the silver cable to sounding the worst, and the radio shack to sounding the best or second best.

 But then again, these kinds of people also are inexperienced.

 Experience shouldn't even be a problem in this kind of test, as "experience" colors opinions and interpretations. Yes, it's difficult to avoid, but truly, there were just as many flaws in this kind of experiment as in any kind of test aiming to provide the same results. Sadly, I don't believe this proves much of anything in the long run. Yes, it does show some interseting results, but I don't think those are the results that everybody wanted to come out of this._

 

The question is... Are people reacting to the results because it runs counter to their beliefs or do they not like the results because the test was truly at fault. From what I can tell, you can critize the test all you want but the plain and simple fact is that EXPERIENCED audiophiles could NOT tell the difference reliably between a rat shack cable and a better cable. Remember, we are talking about a group of people here who make it a personal hobby to do this kind of thing. This isn't my grandmother making the opinion here.

 Sad is it may be, the reality is that people are more stuck onto what they WANT to believe rather than seperate themselves from their beliefs to be objective. Politics is a classic example. People pick their party and spend the rest of their lives defending it regardless of right and wrong. Lack of objectivity is NOT a good trait.

 Let's face it, there are people here who've spent a GREAT deal of time and money on cables and for them to not only admit all that energy was a waste is not going to be easy. Not to mention the personal embarassement associated with the ego behind saying "this cable is better than that one, etc" 

 Somebody needs to do a scientific study to determine what amount electrons flowing through copper/silver wire has an effect on physically moving a cone to produce sound. There has to be some physical limitations here that exist regardless of how "fat" that pipe is.

 Jon


----------



## Danamr

Is not the goal of designers of cable to make them as neutral as possible? That is, add nothing to the sound of the hardware that you spent your big bucks on. And one would assume the better the cable the less there is to hear. Which could explain why the Rat Shack cable was both the most correctly picked, and why it was also the one most chosen as silver.
 The other more expensive cables basicly not having any sound.


----------



## zachary80

This test effectively proves beyond a doubt that only the connectors matter


----------



## K2Grey

It is, of course, possible to claim that anyone who fails the test, failed it due to insufficient system / experience / ears. However, this then turns into a somewhat circular argument, not to mention it becomes an unfalsifiable hypothesis as well, and thus it's rather a shaky claim.


----------



## ayt999

haven't been checking this part of the forums much so I'm a bit late to come in, but this is amazing. Ed finally posted results. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* 
_And if ever a challenger wins over the Blind Cable Taste Test, he or she will gain the people's ovation and fame forever._

 

lol


 I may post a few thoughts on my approach to this whole thing later on....


----------



## Aman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_The question is... Are people reacting to the results because it runs counter to their beliefs or do they not like the results because the test was truly at fault. From what I can tell, you can critize the test all you want but the plain and simple fact is that EXPERIENCED audiophiles could NOT tell the difference reliably between a rat shack cable and a better cable. Remember, we are talking about a group of people here who make it a personal hobby to do this kind of thing. This isn't my grandmother making the opinion here.
 Jon_

 

I truly have no opinion in the matter. I am looking at this from as scientific of a point of view as I possibly can. You are making claims that are baseless and you have no evidence to prove it otherwise. These kinds of tests are so easily misinterpreted - it's not really the information itself that is important, but instead, how that information is interpreted. There are far too many variables here which are unable to be controlled and spin this experiment far off track. The experiment also suffers from a design flaw which I mentioned in my previous post.

 Believe me, some of these peoples' systems are far from transparent enough to make a good decision. Some people were running systems with clip-on headphones running through CMOY amplifiers into portable MP3 players, if I recall correctly. I originally volunteered for this experiment, but signed myself off of it when I realized that I would simply be contributing to a faulty experiment, and I didn't want to add to the already uncontrolled results.

 There are very few Head-Fi members here who are truly "experienced" audiophiles. Very few of them have anything even resembling a true "low-end" setup. I myself fall into about a low-end (or possibly mid-level) setup. The people taking these tests should be experienced audiophiles with well-matched and optimally-built stereo speaker equipment; not a bunch of headphone geeks with portable music devices. Yes, the number of these Head-Fiers may be substantial by just looking at plain numbers, but how about the ratio of experienced audiophiles to all the people participating in this experiment?

 Again, I have no bias here. I have 100 dollar interconnects, but would be just as willing to not have them (with my money back, of course 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




). I bought them for mere security reasons early on when I was just getting started with my first system. I am just examining this experiment and believe there are several major flaws which do not allow it to accurately represent the results desired.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *K2Grey* 
_It is, of course, possible to claim that anyone who fails the test, failed it due to insufficient system / experience / ears. However, this then turns into a somewhat circular argument, not to mention it becomes an unfalsifiable hypothesis as well, and thus it's rather a shaky claim._

 

I don't believe that anyone has failed this test.

 (well, only the people that took more than two weeks with their turn, cough cough.)

 -Ed


----------



## granodemostasa

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ayt999* 
_haven't been checking this part of the forums much so I'm a bit late to come in, but this is amazing. Ed finally posted results. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 lol


 I may post a few thoughts on my approach to this whole thing later on...._

 

Respect, Fame, Glory... you deserve it! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Edwood... may i take the test, (I'll be at LA meet).. you can switch the symbols around so i won't know... please? (just for personal reference).


----------



## fewtch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sleestack* 
_Or maybe he is like me and can't overcome the negative psychoacoustic impact of looking at gear that looks like crap._

 

Don't forget the negative psychoacoustic impact of merely *thinking about* gear that was inexpensive to purchase, e.g. "this amp just couldn't sound great, because it was cheap" and such. I'm convinced there's also an opposite effect -- an expensive piece will tend to sound good purely because of its price tag. Unfortunately, I feel that this effect is exceedingly strong among audiophiles (some more than others), and even tends to reflect badly on us and our hobby.

 Edit -- I'm not entirely immune to such effects, so I'm not excluding myself.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mbriant* 
_A "believer's" argument I also agree with, is that any noticeable differences between the sound of cables ( if there are any), won't be noticeable on low end systems._

 

I've never really understood that argument. Don't you think one could at least hear hum/noise, grunge or grain from a crappy system more acutely using "better" cables? Stands to reason that if one can hear "quality" better with a given pair of cables, one could hear "crap" more clearly as well... thus not requiring a high end system to detect cable differences. Maybe there's something I'm missing, though (?).


----------



## Sleestack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fewtch* 
_Don't forget the negative psychoacoustic impact of merely *thinking about* gear that was inexpensive to purchase, e.g. "this amp just couldn't sound great, because it was cheap" and such. I'm convinced there's also an opposite effect -- an expensive piece will tend to sound good purely because of its price tag. Unfortunately, I feel that this effect is exceedingly strong among audiophiles (some more than others), and even tends to reflect badly on us and our hobby.

 Edit -- I'm not entirely immune to such effects, so I'm not excluding myself._

 

I think many misperceptions are simply a result of the failure to level match. 

 As for psychoacoustics, it definitely works both ways. I'm just honest with myself about which pieces I buy purely based on performance and which have a heavy dose of eye candy. You rarely hear me talk about night and day differences unless I'm talking about speakers, room correction or music. I gave up on cables after owning a complete set of Cardas GR and hearing no difference from basic Cobalt cables. It made no sense for me given that room equalization and correction would have a far greater effect than a cable possibly could. I only kept one set of Cardas for my SDS-XLR, and purely because it looks great with the amp. 

 If psychoacoustics actually affect my perceptions and enable me to enjoy things more, I don't fight it, however, I am fortunate enough to be in a position not to care. When people ask for recommendations, I try to keep the psychoacoustics out of it. 

 I'm not surprised at all by the results or the reactions of Edwood's test. (Great effort by the way.) Nevertheless, I don't discount other people's perceptions and certainly don't have golden ears. If anything, maybe the results will get someone to reconsider the necessity of that $1,500 interconnect or power cord purchase and think about the dramatic changes in sound that can be achieved by picking different headphones or music.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_However, you can clearly draw a conclusion that the difference between the cables may not be as much as it is made up to be._

 

No you cant!

 I hate to sound like a broken record here, but people were asked to guess which cable they thought each was... not which was better!

 It is like lining up 14 people and asking them to guess someones name and given three choices. Hmmm, he looks like a Chris... I'll go with that.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_No you cant!

 I hate to sound like a broken record here, but people were asked to guess which cable they thought was which... not which was better!

 It is like lining up 14 people and asking them to guess someones name and given three choices. Hmmm, he looks like a Chris... I'll go with that. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

With the difference that those three cables *should have a completelly different sonic signature*, and we know those signatures, and they *must not sound alike *if we go by what the golden ears, and the believers, had stated for years and years, and they missed miserably in the majority of the cases...

 In other words and using your same analogy, they know that Peter should be a black guy and 300 pounds, John 150 and white, and Chris an asiatic of 96 pounds, and they missed in guessing all the time, with the three guys in front of them...


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_and we know those signatures_

 

We do? There was absolutely no indication given that the participants were familiar with any of the three cables they tested. Were they given another set of cables with proper labels in order to familiarize themselves with the sound first? If so, the test may have *some* value... but I don't think this was done.

 Personally, I am confident that I could pick the silver cable out of the bunch as all silver cables I've heard have a distinct sound [which I don’t like], but I am unfamiliar with the other two. Also, what if one of those others is a bright cable as well? Then I might call it the silver one in error. Does this prove anything? No. It just means I guessed wrong.

 Another thing to consider: Even if they did the test in the format of 'rank these cables' it would be pretty much meaningless since everyone would have different systems. The main reason that cables sound different is based on the output impedance of the device driving the cable, the input impedance of the destination device and the capacitance of the cable itself. Therefore, the cables will not sound the same in different systems.

 Listen, I'm no advocate of spending $1000 on an IC, but cables do sound different depending on the circumstances. I suppose if everyone was using audio equipment that was perfectly designed and we had rigid standards for various devices then we could all use the same cables... but such is not the case. Personally, I like the variety anyways. Standards just enforce complacency and destroy creativity.


----------



## NotoriousBIG_PJ

Any chance of a canadian leg of this test happening. ^^

 Biggie.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_We do? There was absolutely no indication given that the participants were familiar with any of the three cables they tested. Were they given another set of cables with proper labels in order to familiarize themselves with the sound first? If so, the test may have *some* value... but I don't think this was done.

 Personally, I am confident that I could pick the silver cable out of the bunch as all silver cables I've heard have a distinct sound [which I don’t like], but I am unfamiliar with the other two. Also, what if one of those others is a bright cable as well? Then I might call it the silver one in error. Does this prove anything? No. It just means I guessed wrong.

 Another thing to consider: Even if they did the test in the format of 'rank these cables' it would be pretty much meaningless since everyone would have different systems. The main reason that cables sound different is based on the output impedance of the device driving the cable, the input impedance of the destination device and the capacitance of the cable itself. Therefore, the cables will not sound the same in different systems.
_

 


 So in other words there will be no test in this round green planet that can prove that someone is wrong, when you do not want to admit it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 All of the tests that you could posibly think off, will be done in different systems, with different ears, and with differet impedances, that was a good one!!!! So I render my case, and please feel free to believe what you want, to me case is over, cables one more time have prove to be voodoo and period..

 What about that absurd failure of the test done with speakers cables we know, that they even took notes of the differences among them, and they were all the time listening to a cheap zip cord, what you would say to that? That those speakers were not able to reveal those differences, and the guys there were not in a comfortable sofa that will affect the hearing, and the light was off, or what???


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_All of the tests that you could posibly think off, will be done in different systems, with different ears, and with differet impedances, that was a good one!!!!_

 

That was a good one? I suppose you think all CD players have the same output levels and impedances and all preamp designs are the same?

 As for your issues with the 'different systems/different ears' argument, let me put it this way. I don't like the CD3000. That is an opinion of mine based on my preferences and may be in some way influenced by the setups I have heard them on. Now, if you can accept that opinion which differs from your own, why can't you do the same with cables? Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_So in other words there will be no test in this round green planet that can prove that someone is wrong, when you do not want to admit it._

 

No, that is not what I said at all. Just pointing out what is wrong with this test and what could potentially be an issue in future tests. What exactly is it that I 'do not want to admit'?


----------



## Sovkiller

We all know about the impedances and differences, that is what I said that this will invalidade then *all tests *you can make....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_ What exactly is it that I 'do not want to admit'? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 That people missed because the differences are really subtle, *if any*, and that if a $2.00 cable was considered as a silver one, by certain amount of audiophiles, that has a relevance IMO, that nobody can deny, as they should not be confused that easily by audiophiles...of course a better test could be conducted, and then some others will shime in as well pointing out different flaws...


----------



## Todd R

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_With the difference that those three cables *should have a completelly different sonic signature*,_

 

They did, I took the test. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_and we know those signatures_

 

No, we don't! 
 That was the probelm with this test. 
 Please re-read Hirsch's excellent post #112.


----------



## taoster

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Todd R* 
_They did, I took the test. 
_

 

the flaw being you knew there were 3 different cable.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Todd R* 
_No, we don't! 
 That was the probelm with this test. 
 Please re-read Hirsch's excellent post #112._

 

Do you disagree then, with the commonly held belief that that silver cables sound bright? (For example post 145)


----------



## Todd R

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_Do you disagree then, with the commonly held belief that that silver cables sound bright? (For example post 145)_

 

I can neither agree or disagree since I never owned/used silver cables.
 Therefore I can only _assume_ what a silver cable sounds like based on what I read. 
 I think we've already been down this road....


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Todd R* 
_No, we don't! 
 That was the probelm with this test. 
 Please re-read Hirsch's excellent post #112._

 

Iti s better to say "no I do not" as you don't know about others...BTW nobody can state in this forum in front of me at least, as I had read enough of that crap, many times before, that in any system a Ratshack $2.00 cable will sound more detailed, more extended, and overall better than a silver one, to the point of take one for the other, if you do believe that, then those who state that for years were simply liying...

 BTW Hirsh was assuming "in that excellent post" also, that those RS cables were the fussion ones which those were not...


----------



## philodox

Sov - You obviously don't get the point we are trying to make. Not wasting any more time here.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Aman* 
_When running this kind of experiment, you cannot assume that everybody is going to think the Radio Shack will end up sounding the worst._

 

I think that is the safest assumption you can possibly make about this test. The second safest assumption would be that just about everyone who participated was a cable believer- someone who knows that all cables sound alike wouldn't have wasted their time. The fact that believers picked Radio Shack cables in numbers that correspond to random chance pretty much tells you what you need to know.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## SunByrne

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_In this test, the question appears to have been "which cable is which"? What basis would they have for making an identification?_

 

Depends. I think many of the people went in with at least some expectations, along the lines of "the cheapo Radio Shack cables sound worst" or "silver cables sound bright" as per *Clarke68* back in post #15. This is a pretty sophisticated audience--I'd be unsurprised if some of them have, in fact, heard silver and starquad (or something similar) before. I suspect a majority of Head-Fiers who would participate in such a test don't use stock interconnencts, so they probably have some ideas what "stock, cheap" sounds like relative to something pricier.

  Quote:


 If I give a subject an unlabelled headphone, and ask, "Is this a Grado HP-1?" and the subject has never heard a Grado HP-1 (nor seen one) I'd expect a fairly random response. 
 

I've never heard a Grado HP-1. But I've owned a pair of Grados and I've heard other Grados at meets. Thus, I would expect me to be able to pick it out in an A/B vs. something with a markedly different sound signature, such as HD580s--which I've also never heard, but I'm pretty sure I could discriminate those two purely on the basis of what I've read about how they sound and my direct experience with headphones in the same family.

  Quote:


 In fact, if I gave the subject three completely unfamiliar headphones, and asked them to identify Sennheiser HD-650, Sony SA-5000 or AKG K-701 (and they have never seen or heard any of them) how could you get anything besides random? 
 

I don't think this is an appropriate analogy, or at the very least, there's an alternative analogy which some might feel is more appropriate. To wit:

 Let's say you gave three Head-Fi'ers Sony V600DJ, HD600s, and Stax Omega 2s and told them the different price points of the phones, but they had never seen or heard any of these three before. I bet you'd get responses that were systematically far from random. People have pretty strong expectations that more expensive headphones sound better. I bet if you ran my example here you'd get a significant chi-square statistic, and nobody would be surprised.

  Quote:


 And yet, I do suspect that the majority of listeners who have heard those three headphones will agree that they do not sound the same. In fact, I don't even think the "can we detect headphone differences?" question even attracts controversy. 
 

Nope, not even among the most skeptical. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 If the analogous experiment to the one reported, using items with known audible differences, would be expected to generate random data, why would we try and draw conclusions from this one? 
 

I don't think that it's necessarily the case that one was guaranteed random results. In fact, I think a lot of people would have been very happy with non-random results if they had come out a particular way. Do you really think that if most of the people had correctly identified all three cables, all the "true believers" wouldn't be in here declaring victory? Of course they would be, and somehow all the methodological issues would be conveniently not discussed. 

 So I don't think it's necessarily clear-cut that we'd get random data on the back end (though I agree that it isn't very surprising), and similarly, I think it would be meaningful if we didn't. 

  Quote:


 I was not criticizing what you [Ed] did, but rather those who started spouting statistics and trying to read more into it than was there. 
 

I think I've been clear in saying that I don't think these results are conclusive--I'm not suggesting there aren't issues in the design, depending on what question you think is important. However, I do think I the results are interesting (as someone said, this is a nice pilot study), but by no means definitive.

 Obviously, we need a follow-up!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Aman* 
_There are very few Head-Fi members here who are truly "experienced" audiophiles. Very few of them have anything even resembling a true "low-end" setup. I myself fall into about a low-end (or possibly mid-level) setup._

 

They did a poll of people asking them if they were going to heaven. 80 someodd percent of people said they were. Then they asked the same people what percentage of other people were going to heaven. The response was around 25 percent. Everyone likes to be just a little better than the rabble!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Aman* 
_But more about the actual setup of the experiment: When running this kind of experiment, you cannot assume that everybody is going to think the Radio Shack will end up sounding the worst. Some people here may be inexperienced, and may have thought, say, that the silver cable was not as good as a Radio Shack one because it didn't have a brand name on it. Then he will assign the silver cable to sounding the worst, and the radio shack to sounding the best or second best.

 But then again, these kinds of people also are inexperienced.
_

 

This guys have some experience, and it should sound the worst accourding to the believers....it should, it is a far worst done cable....


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_Sov - You obviously don't get the point we are trying to make. Not wasting any more time here. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The point you guys are trying to make, or better, to try to make others believe is, if I understand correctly, that this test means absolutely nothing to you, and has to be dismissed as it has the flaws you want to see in them, to keep on believing in what you do, and consider it a waste of time, as it was based on wrong assumptions, or questions, or oriented in a wrong direction, right??? Sorry but to me it was not, and it proved to me one more time, exactly what I was expecting from it, and what I do believe...I think that this makes me happier...and will keep my wallet on the safe side...


----------



## DrDobs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_No you cant!

 I hate to sound like a broken record here, but people were asked to guess which cable they thought each was... not which was better!

 It is like lining up 14 people and asking them to guess someones name and given three choices. Hmmm, he looks like a Chris... I'll go with that. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

NO... This analogy is HORRIBLE because people were given the three names and they are NOT arbitrary! They represented three distinct levels of quality. The name Sallie, John, & Sue are all "equal". It was clear to all those who took the test that they KNEW there was a Rat Shak cable and that's the one that is supposed to sound tiny and weak. They also knew there was a really good one there and that of course would represent the cable that should sound the best. So your analogy here is absolutely wrong.

 Jon


----------



## DrDobs

This is a great thread on quite frankly a very good and important topic. I'm trying to determine what kind of common ground exists among all posters and the only thing that seems to rings true almost 100% of the time is that most all believe..

 #1) The test had at least some flaws that could have been corrected.

 #2) The test didn't have a sample size large enough to give good results.

 Seems there are enough people in or around this issue that getting to some more common bottom line understanding would have some value. Enough value to justify setting up a new test and pooling together whatever resources necessary to accomplish this, including cash.

 Does anybody else have some ideas on this subject? I'd be willing to participate in an equal share....

 Jon


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_NO... This analogy is HORRIBLE because people were given the three names and they are NOT arbitrary! They represented three distinct levels of quality.

 So your analogy here is absolutely wrong._

 

I've already answered this earlier, but I'll give it another go. Your stance on this assumes that everyone who took the test was familiar with the cables. Even if they had preconceptions as to what the cables would sound like, there would be no continuity between these perceptions... everyone could have a different 'idea' of what they should sound like. So all that was being tested was how people's preconceptions weighed against reality. Now, if they all had identical preconceptions, this would be an interesting study in psychology, but still tells us basically nothing about the cables.

 Let me expand on my analogy.

 The test group is given the following information:

 Fred is smart. Pat is sweet. John is mean.

 They are then asked to pick them out with three people lined up.

 1. A big guy wearing gothic punk clothing with a grimace on his face.
 2. A petite girl in a catholic school girl uniform.
 3. A man wearing glasses in a business suit.

 Personally I think the most obvious choice here would be Fred#3, Pat#2, John#1.

 Turns out, Fred is short for Frederica, Pat is the misunderstood street kid with a heart of gold and John works a deskjob during the day and reads the entrails of stray cats in the evening.

 Now if you *knew *all of these people personally, the questions would be much easier to answer accurately.


----------



## Denim

This has been an extremely informative thread. I expected some conflict would arise, and hopefully some agreement on how to proceed. I believe this test could be conducted several times and still not have everyones blessings on the results. Changes / improvements could be done on another series of test and possibly get a higher percentage of acceptance on the results. I like the idea of a known reference cable, even if it's the Radio Shack cable. A larger participation would also help. Any problem with posting a monthly update of the results? (If the tests were run again). 

 Any plans do do it again? Great idea!


----------



## SunByrne

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_I'm trying to determine what kind of common ground exists among all posters_

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 gasp... breathe... common ground... hahaha... all posters... hahahaha...

 on a cable thread? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 OK, more seriously, I think it's safe to say that there's unlikely to be a test which will satisfy everyone. I think there are people on both sides of the issue who will *always* find something to object to if the test doesn't go "their way." I mean, can you really imagine any test that would get, say, sovkiller and markl to agree about cables? (Just for example's sake, nothing personal to either one of you.)

 Now, if we accept that (and assume some people will be unswayed no matter what) but still believe there are enough people who only lean one way or another but aren't quite religious about it, then yes, there's probably common ground in the middle somewhere.

 One problem is that we'd all have to agree what the right question is in the first place, and I think even there we might have some dissent.

 Furthermore, I think an important part of the process would be for people to state clearly what they think the results would mean given certain outcomes _before_ they know which way the data comes out. Hindsight bias is potentially enormous here.

 But in principle, I think it's a fun idea to discuss what could be done to be more definitive. And I'd like to reiterate that no matter what, we owe Ed a huge debt for getting the ball rolling...


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Todd R* 
_They did, I took the test. 



 No, we don't! 
 That was the probelm with this test. 
 Please re-read Hirsch's excellent post #112._

 

Not really a problem, it was part of the test. Many people have preconceptions about certain sonic characteristics that different materials like silver and copper have. 

 The problem was with the data collection. I suppose I made it a little too simple, I should've had a standardized "form" or even better an automated "web form" for people to fill out. And it would include a comments section, like what their thoughts of each cable was, and why they thought it was silver, starquad, or rat shack.

 -Ed


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_#2) The test didn't have a sample size large enough to give good results._

 

Edwood's test is more than enough to indicate that cheap cables are just as good as expensive ones. There's no reason to test any further, because the people who refuse to acknowledge that obvious fact aren't going to accept it no matter what test you use.

 For myself, I did this sort of testing myself years ago and came to the same conclusion. For myself, the sample size of one (me) was sufficient to know what kind of cables to buy. My system is wired with Radio Shack cables and I have never had a problem or reason to replace them. I expend my energy and money on things that make a difference.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## DrDobs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_I've already answered this earlier, but I'll give it another go. Your stance on this assumes that everyone who took the test was familiar with the cables. Even if they had preconceptions as to what the cables would sound like, there would be no continuity between these perceptions... everyone could have a different 'idea' of what they should sound like. So all that was being tested was how people's preconceptions weighed against reality. Now, if they all had identical preconceptions, this would be an interesting study in psychology, but still tells us basically nothing about the cables.

 Let me expand on my analogy.

 The test group is given the following information:

 Fred is smart. Pat is sweet. John is mean.

 They are then asked to pick them out with three people lined up.

 1. A big guy wearing gothic punk clothing with a grimace on his face.
 2. A petite girl in a catholic school girl uniform.
 3. A man wearing glasses in a business suit.

 Personally I think the most obvious choice here would be Fred#3, Pat#2, John#1.

 Turns out, Fred is short for Frederica, Pat is the misunderstood street kid with a heart of gold and John works a deskjob during the day and reads the entrails of stray cats in the evening.

 Now if you *knew *all of these people personally, the questions would be much easier to answer accurately. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Still a bad analogy!!

 It's a good response and I accept your point of view on this but I still insist the test revealed much more. After all the test wasn't to just "guess" based on the personal appearence of the cables (people). It was actually to put them to the VERY USE THEY ARE DESIGNED TO DO! So back to your analogy, it would be not by looking at them and guessing, it would be making these people do things that would reveal their character. Oh, and by the way, cables don't lie or cheat or pretend. They simply are what they are... they are cables..

 Does anybody else see it differently?


----------



## DrDobs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SunByrne* 
_hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 gasp... breathe... common ground... hahaha... all posters... hahahaha...

 on a cable thread? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 OK, more seriously, I think it's safe to say that there's unlikely to be a test which will satisfy everyone. I think there are people on both sides of the issue who will *always* find something to object to if the test doesn't go "their way." I mean, can you really imagine any test that would get, say, sovkiller and markl to agree about cables? (Just for example's sake, nothing personal to either one of you.)

 Now, if we accept that (and assume some people will be unswayed no matter what) but still believe there are enough people who only lean one way or another but aren't quite religious about it, then yes, there's probably common ground in the middle somewhere.

 One problem is that we'd all have to agree what the right question is in the first place, and I think even there we might have some dissent.

 Furthermore, I think an important part of the process would be for people to state clearly what they think the results would mean given certain outcomes before they know which way the data comes out. Hindsight bias is potentially enormous here.

 But in principle, I think it's a fun idea to discuss what could be done to be more definitive. And I'd like to reiterate that no matter what, we owe Ed a huge debt for getting the ball rolling...



_

 

I agree, we owe Ed a huge thank you for taking his time and energy to put this together!

 I think quite honestly it's pretty sad that we can't be objective about the subject and open enough to allow our minds to be turned if necessary. Why a guy who thinks Radio Shack cables are as good as $1000 IC's can't be shown data to change his mind and vice versa is pretty pathetic really. There is a truth beyond certain things we choose to believe based on our pride and ego. Marching forward to help better define the reality beyond our perceptions could prove quite valuable to ALL of us here.

 With that said, we should field some more ideas on how this could be done. Like any other study, I think the first part is to determine what questions need to be answered and work backwards to design a test that can adequeately answer those questions. I'm sure you are right that not EVERYBODY is going to agree 100% with whatever test is determined to be done, but don't we think we could all throw the ideas and thoughts into the hat, pull out the good ones, tweak them a little to accomodate the widest audience and then have everybody support the combined effort? I wouldn't think this should be too unreasonable.

 Jon


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_After all the test wasn't to just "guess" based on the personal appearence of the cables (people)._

 

No, it was just a guess based on personal preconceptions of how the cables would sound. This is better somehow?


----------



## wirbeltier

Wow! Thanks Ed! I find this a most interesting thread and this is a sticky one 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 - with some very informed arguments involved. 

 My x-cents: I believe in cables, but I also think, the differences are rather subtle. But there are differences. But these could be soaked up (statistically) by the different systems (read: varying boundary conditions). So: a cheap stock cable can sound ok on some setups! But you could find (by incident or by careful and systematic research) a cable that delivers sonic benefits. The conclusion that cables are totally insignificant can not be drawn, though. A test on *one* system so this boundary condition is controlled may be helpful. Maybe at a meet ? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Thanks again Ed for your engagement and effort for the community.

 Kudos,
 Klaus


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_Turns out, Fred is short for Frederica_

 

If you have trouble determining gender in a blind test, you better make love with the lights on.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_If you have trouble determining gender in a blind test, you better make love with the lights on.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

LMAO.


----------



## Aman

Quote:


 In other words and using your same analogy, they know that Peter should be a black guy and 300 pounds, John 150 and white, and Chris an asiatic of 96 pounds, and they missed in guessing all the time, with the three guys in front of them... 
 

Exactly!

 But you're still wrong. This does not prove that your hypothesis is correct; it simply states that the experiment cannot draw any valid conclusions which you can use to back up your point of view.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_NO... This analogy is HORRIBLE because people were given the three names and they are NOT arbitrary! They represented three distinct levels of quality._

 

Well, they represent three distinct levels of *price.* If you are going to conduct this type of experiment, you can't assume that there is any perceptible difference in quality.


----------



## DrDobs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* 
_Well, they represent three distinct levels of *price.* If you are going to conduct this type of experiment, you can't assume that there is any perceptible difference in quality._

 

Okay, well I suppose we better get this off the table right now. Are others here seriously going to suggest that just because a cable costs $100.00+ does not mean it was meant to sound better than the one that is $3.00? Excuse me for making the assumption that when somebody says "Here's a cable to connect your stereo that costs $500.00 and here's one that costs $3.00" I'm going to assume the $500 cable is supposedly of higher build and construction. Am I wrong here?


----------



## PeeeMeS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_Okay, well I suppose we better get this off the table right now. Are others here seriously going to suggest that just because a cable costs $100.00+ does not mean it was meant to sound better than the one that is $3.00? Excuse me for making the assumption that when somebody says "Here's a cable to connect your stereo that costs $500.00 and here's one that costs $3.00" I'm going to assume the $500 cable is supposedly of higher build and construction. Am I wrong here?_

 

Raises hand


 Just because one headphone costs 5000$ more than another headphone[Orpheus vs HD580/600] doesn't mean it will sound better
 No one here would dispute the sonic differences between the Orpheus and the HD58/600, however there are quite a few head-fi senior members who prefer the HD580/600 to the Orpheus


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_If you have trouble determining gender in a blind test, you better make love with the lights on._

 

Funny joke, but my point is that with limited second hand information with which to make your decision it usually turns out to be faulty.


----------



## DrDobs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PeeeMeS* 
_Raises hand


 Just because one headphone costs 5000$ more than another headphone[Orpheus vs HD580/600] doesn't mean it will sound better
 No one here would dispute the sonic differences between the Orpheus and the HD58/600, however there are quite a few head-fi senior members who prefer the HD580/600 to the Orpheus_

 

Okay...

 #1) I wasn't talking headphones.. I was talking cables...

 #2) I wasn't talking the difference between a $500 cable and a $100 cable. I was referring to the difference between a $100 cable and the cheapest one made to man from Rat Shack. We're talking a cable where even in China they would probably look at this sprig of a cable and say "damn, that thing is cheap".


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PeeeMeS* 
_Raises hand


 Just because one headphone costs 5000$ more than another headphone[Orpheus vs HD580/600] doesn't mean it will sound better
 No one here would dispute the sonic differences between the Orpheus and the HD58/600, however there are quite a few head-fi senior members who prefer the HD580/600 to the Orpheus_

 

Uh. I would much prefer the HE90 over the HD580/600 any day.

 -Ed


----------



## Steve999

Hey, Edwood. Very nice test. I'm sure it isn't scientifically rigorous in terms of design, but it was a real nice effort, and the results are very interesting. Well worth the effort and time, IMHO.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You could run the results by the people over at hydrogenaudio.org and some of the more technically minded guys over there could probably analyze the data and summarize the significance of the results for you. They live and die for stuff like this. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Anyway, thanks to everyone who participated.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_Are others here seriously going to suggest that just because a cable costs $100.00+ does not mean it was meant to sound better than the one that is $3.00?_

 

The car industry isn't selling cars per se... It's selling objects that make people feel better about themselves. High end cables are like that too... They help obsessive/compulsive people stop worrying about tiny insignificant factors that might be affecting the quality of their sound system. If a salesman can convince someone that a little piece of wire will make them satisfied with themselves, perhaps it's worth it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## DrDobs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_The car industry isn't selling cars per se... It's selling objects that make people feel better about themselves. High end cables are like that too... They help obsessive/compulsive people stop worrying about tiny insignificant factors that might be affecting the quality of their sound system. If a salesman can convince someone that a little piece of wire will make them satisfied with themselves, perhaps it's worth it.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Well now Steve, this is a pretty good point. But if what you're saying is true, then we've all just relegated ourselves to ignorant car purchasers who buy a vehicle based on how many cup holders it has.

 Quite frankly, I'd like to think I'm a little more progressive than this and can actually make sound logical decisions. My guess is the most of you would be the same.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_Okay, well I suppose we better get this off the table right now. Are others here seriously going to suggest that just because a cable costs $100.00+ does not mean it was meant to sound better than the one that is $3.00? Excuse me for making the assumption that when somebody says "Here's a cable to connect your stereo that costs $500.00 and here's one that costs $3.00" I'm going to assume the $500 cable is supposedly of higher build and construction. Am I wrong here?_

 

If you are trying to construct a scientific or even quasi-scientific test to determine which cable people prefer, then yes, I think that it is wrong to assume that one cable is different from the other. There are others who have participated in this thread who are obviously far more experienced than I in designing experiments, and perhaps they can comment further, but it seems to me that before you can validly test to determine what the differences between the cables are, then it is absolutely necessary to determine first that a difference exists.

 To make it clear: I am not asserting that the $100+ cable is equal to the $3 cable. What I am saying is that if you are designing an experiment, you cannot assume that differences exist.


----------



## Ferbose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_ Excuse me for making the assumption that when somebody says "Here's a cable to connect your stereo that costs $500.00 and here's one that costs $3.00" I'm going to assume the $500 cable is supposedly of higher build and construction. Am I wrong here?_

 

Yes, you are wrong. 

 I had a freind who knew cable manufacturers in Taiwan. He was told stories of many hi-end cable companies repackaging Asian cables and raise the price 20 fold. 

 Another friend opened up some hi-end cables only to see cheap material/bad construction. In one case, the cable company did make their cables in North America, using HOME DEPOT WIRES, and sell them for hundreds or thoudands of dollars. I just did a Google search on this brand of cables, and found so many glaring comments--hail to the Home Depot wires. Audiphiles and audio reviewer must be the funniest people on earth. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Don't laugh too quickly, because this brand of cable is very popular on head-fi due to some super heavy-weight head-fiers' recommendations. 

 If someone decides to write a book to investigate all the shady business practices of the hi-end cable industry, the result would be hilarious. Fortunately, these cables are so expensive that no one can afford to open enough of them to write a book. You don't want to know the truth, and you can't handle the truth. 

 Let's face it, without the super-profitable cable industry, hi-end would collapse. Cable is the money maker in hi-end retail and cable companies are major advertisers in magazines. Unless you want hi-end to vanish, we can't declare a war against dishonest cable companies. People paying for expensive cables are in fact generously donating to the entire industry, making the audio hobby sustainable for the rest of us. We should applaud their efforts and encourage them to try even more exotic products. 

 Don't label me a cable nay-sayer just because I am sarcastic. I am not trying to tell jokes but just to describe the reality. The reality is often harder to accept than fiction. Of course wires can make a difference. Otherwise why would many top studios use made-in-Japan Mogami wires instead of Home Depot wires? Points of contact, like crimped joints, solder points and those between connectors, can really make significant differences. Why do you think audio professionals like nickel-plated connectors instead of gold? Gold coating is so thin that it wears off easily. 

 Cable designs are complicated and involve quite a few compromises. Reading Pro-co's white papers is a good place to start. Audio professional have looked into the matter very closely and came up with affordable and reasonably good solutions. The solutions are so reasonable and affordable that almost the entire industry has settled on similar products--that's why you don't see audio professionals fuzzing over cables. I believe it is possible to make better cables than what Mogami and Pro-Co has to offer, but it will be commercially expensive (DIY is a great alternative). But how do you verify your expensive cable is better made? If you assume it is uber-expensive, so it must be very well made, then I must thank you for your kind and unconditional support of my favorite hobby.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_Well now Steve, this is a pretty good point. But if what you're saying is true, then we've all just relegated ourselves to ignorant car purchasers who buy a vehicle based on how many cup holders it has._

 

"New car smell" has no practical purpose, but I doubt if anyone would buy a car if it didn't have it. Style is important for those to whom style is important. It's pretty obvious that good sound quality isn't the only objective of a lot of the people on this forum. To some, it isn't even the primary objective.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

I've worked with dozens of recording studios, mixing stages and video edit suites over the years, and I've spoken with a lot of engineers. Every single one I spoke with laughed at the concept of "high end cables". Most studios make their own cables, not for quality reasons, but because the cost of buying a spindle and a case of connectors is much less than buying ready made cables.

 The guys who set up recording studios are electrical engineers and technical types. They know how a cable works. No amount of hoodoo will fool them.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Snake

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I've worked with dozens of recording studios, mixing stages and video edit suites over the years, and I've spoken with a lot of engineers. Every single one I spoke with laughed at the concept of "high end cables". Most studios make their own cables, not for quality reasons, but because the cost of buying a spindle and a case of connectors is much less than buying ready made cables.

 The guys who set up recording studios are electrical engineers and technical types. They know how a cable works. No amount of hoodoo will fool them.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Yes; long ago, while I was starting in high end sales, high-end cable was just coming into being. The cables were barely available premade - 1m only. For almost everything else, including speaker wires, we bought by the roll spindle and terminated in house.

 Back then there was nothing to hide, when the dealer is terminating for you. Heck, the MIT's IC's I used to use in my own system I did indeed terminate myself, using the proper solder pot, terminations and parts. I knew that MIT made nice cables for I could see the unusual design and quality construction myself (larger, individually insulated wires cross-wound within very fine gauge wires, and the good insulation (that was a bear to deal with properly).

 Now? Who know was Houdini crap they are pulling off. And there is very little chance that a 1m pair of cables could possibly have $3000 worth of materials or man-hours construction time in them. 

 It's all become smoke and mirrors.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_Quite frankly, I'd like to think I'm a little more progressive than this and can actually make sound logical decisions._

 

 You can and do, and most others do too. Certain people continually spout off about what everybody else's motivations are for doing certain things, what is or is not best for others, why all sorts of purchasing decisions made by the average consumer, and audiophiles in general reflect some sort deficiency in character, lack of intelligence, various neuroses, etc. It's a load of baloney just designed to bait folks.


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_It's a load of baloney just designed to bait folks._

 

That baloney is a 2-way street. I've heard people here say things that indicate that they don't even understand that a CD player *is* a computer, and that you need to good *analog HiFi* CD player to hear CD's properly. 

 Some people insult audiophiles because they think they overpay in return for nothing, while some audiophiles don't know what they are talking about and proceed to insult people who do. AFAIK, there's some truth and plenty of arrogant BS in both camps.

 For myself, I think things sound better if I epoxy green M&M's to my CD's. But only if I use *organic* epoxy, none of that crappy synthetic stuff


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_That baloney is a 2-way street._

 

 Well, I would agree with you that both "camps" are populated by folks who may lack knowledge on certain subjects, just like both camps have folks who are biased one way or another. But not knowing something or not understanding something, in my view, is much less of a fault than repeatedly making efforts to support your point by insulting others' intelligence. There are valid points to be made by both sides, and the repeated insults and dogmatic statements that are found in the posts of certain folks are annoying and obscure many of the valid points made by other folks on both sides of the debate.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ferbose* 
_Yes, you are wrong. 

 I had a friend who knew cable manufacturers in Taiwan. He was told stories of many hi-end cable companies repackaging Asian cables and raise the price 20 fold. 

 Another friend opened up some hi-end cables only to see cheap material/bad construction. In one case, the cable company did make their cables in North America, using HOME DEPOT WIRES, and sell them for hundreds or thousands of dollars. I just did a Goggle search on this brand of cables, and found so many glaring comments--hail to the Home Depot wires. Audiophiles and audio reviewer must be the funniest people on earth. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Don't laugh too quickly, because this brand of cable is very popular on head-fi due to some super heavy-weight head-fiers' recommendations. 

 If someone decides to write a book to investigate all the shady business practices of the hi-end cable industry, the result would be hilarious. Fortunately, these cables are so expensive that no one can afford to open enough of them to write a book. You don't want to know the truth, and you can't handle the truth. 

 Let's face it, without the super-profitable cable industry, hi-end would collapse. Cable is the money maker in hi-end retail and cable companies are major advertisers in magazines. Unless you want hi-end to vanish, we can't declare a war against dishonest cable companies. People paying for expensive cables are in fact generously donating to the entire industry, making the audio hobby sustainable for the rest of us. We should applaud their efforts and encourage them to try even more exotic products. 

 Don't label me a cable nay-sayer just because I am sarcastic. I am not trying to tell jokes but just to describe the reality. The reality is often harder to accept than fiction. Of course wires can make a difference. Otherwise why would many top studios use made-in-Japan Mogami wires instead of Home Depot wires? Points of contact, like crimped joints, solder points and those between connectors, can really make significant differences. Why do you think audio professionals like nickel-plated connectors instead of gold? Gold coating is so thin that it wears off easily. 

 Cable designs are complicated and involve quite a few compromises. Reading Pro-co's white papers is a good place to start. Audio professional have looked into the matter very closely and came up with affordable and reasonably good solutions. The solutions are so reasonable and affordable that almost the entire industry has settled on similar products--that's why you don't see audio professionals fuzzing over cables. I believe it is possible to make better cables than what Mogami and Pro-Co has to offer, but it will be commercially expensive (DIY is a great alternative). But how do you verify your expensive cable is better made? If you assume it is uber-expensive, so it must be very well made, then I must thank you for your kind and unconditional support of my favorite hobby. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Well he is not that wrong, and IMO that is supposed to be like that, but what happen all the time, is what you say. And see that I said most of the times, even with good and well regarded and known brand names, which names I will not mention, to avoid any further hassle, flame wars, an people getting offended, and chime in with stupid arguments, but most of the times the manufacturers of high end cables, use expressions like: "proprietary materials", "proprietary alloys", "proprietary geometry", "proprietary braided", "proprietary dielectrics" etc...but never specify nor go in details of which, or how, or whose, just to hide that indeed they are using proprietary materials, and even intellectual properties from other manufacturers, and hide these identities behind a fancy jacket and labels, and sometimes far worst than Belden, Canare and Mogami, and in the best cases just done by them OEM...at least while buying Blue Jeans Cables, and similar companies we know and expect what to get, for what we paid, very clear and explicit...for good or bad, and I like honesty sorry...a fancy jacket, with a $2.00 cable inside, as we have seen many time here, will not make it sound better...nor will make me more happier...


----------



## TheSloth

What a great test. It is a shame that you didn't include an extra one that was identical to one of the other three. That would have made an excellent control regarding people's ability to actually even tell the difference accurately in the first place.


----------



## DrDobs

Well, nothing here seems to really change the opinion (unfortunately) I've held for qutie some time that when dealing with audio interconnects, there is probably some differences between the very low end and the mid range type of cable but the differences between mid-range and thes upposed "high end" are nearly non-existant. 

 In other words, I wouldn't dare hook up my $1,000 speakers with a $3.00 set of speaker cable. But on the other hand, when you can buy what appears to be some pretty solid speaker cable for about $0.60-$1.00/foot, spending $25.00-$30.00/foot seems like a complete waste of $$.


----------



## DrDobs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheSloth* 
_What a great test. It is a shame that you didn't include an extra one that was identical to one of the other three. That would have made an excellent control regarding people's ability to actually even tell the difference accurately in the first place._

 

We simply have to put together another test. Who cares how long it takes. With a little bit of effort and $$ we could go a long way to answer a great many deal of questions out there. The REAL question is, are we all humble enough to accept a new test and the results that come from it?


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_We simply have to put together another test. Who cares how long it takes. With a little bit of effort and $$ we could go a long way to answer a great many deal of questions out there. The REAL question is, are we all humble enough to accept a new test and the results that come from it?_

 

If we are going to do a new test, definitely to avoid any more detractors to interfere, an bash the results, and make it more accepted, it *must be* done in a more "scientific" base, and with a large number of samples, *according to their suggestions, based in logical requests,* nothing like we need a Linn and a B-52 or a balanced Maestro, to perform the test, otherwise it is not valid...for which I suggest also to open a thread to receive and get as many suggestions and inputs as we can get, *from them*, to make it more universal, and more accepted among those "statistic geniuses"...

 Another suggestion, those detractors should be invited to participate in such test as well, this will avoid later on them to go and bash, a test which they contributed, and if they refuse to participate....well we all know what to think of those in that case...just to see if the results will be any different, of if we again will see how they will fail miserably as well...


----------



## bigshot

Is someone trying to argue that audiophiles *aren't* crazy?! Because I don't know many audiophiles who would go so far as to say that!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_ The REAL question is, are we all humble enough to accept a new test and the results that come from it?_

 

Depends. Depends on how good the test is, i.e., whether it is designed in such a way to address the concerns of those who often have difficulty with such tests. Obviously, the test needs to be different from the test at issue in this thread, as the obvious shortcomings of that test have been pointed out, in terms of providing proof of whether there are audible differences between cables.

 You also just have to accept that fact that no test is going to be perfect, and there are going to be shortcomings in any test. For example, let's say Fred says he can hear a difference between brand X cable and brand Y cable in his system, based on an extended period of listening with each cable. If Fred does not participate in the test, you will not convince Fred, no matter how good the test is, that he doesn't hear differences in his system between the aforementioned cables. Fred will undoubtedly not accept the test results, as he knows what he hears.

 Even if Fred does participate, and the test involves whether Fred and others can hear the difference between cable Z and cable T, the fact that Fred and others can't distinguish these cables does not mean that Fred cannot hear the difference between cable X and Y in his system. Of course, the fact that nobody can distinguish between cable Z and T may be relevant and highly probative on the ultimate question (do diffferent cables sound different), but it doesn't conclusively establish that there are no audible differences between _any _cables in _any _system. To put it another way, a properly designed test can be very useful in advancing the discussion, but it is probably impossible to design a perfect test that nobody on either side could not take some issue with. That doesn't mean we should not do it; it just means that we should have realistic expectations, and that we should listen to suggestions regarding possible limitations of any proposed design.

 IMO, we also need to design the test so that participants have a long enough time to make proper evaluations. Many believe that differences among cables, amps, etc. are revealed only after an extended period of listening and familiarity (perhaps encompassing a week or more of time) with each item being tested. before switching to the other item. The test needs to account for this phenomenon. 

 Finally, I would suggest a comparison among several different cables, which would include duplicates of the same cable perhaps, to make the results more meaningful.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Depends. Depends on how good the test is, i.e., whether it is designed in such a way to address the concerns of those who often have difficulty with such tests. Obviously, the test needs to be different from the test at issue in this thread, as the obvious shortcomings of that test have been pointed out, in terms of providing proof of whether there are audible differences between cables.

 Finally, I would suggest a comparison among several different cables, which would include duplicates of the same cable perhaps, to make the results more meaningful._

 

I suggest you have listed the reasons why a test acceptable to you will never be done. The cost would be considerable, and looking at the time it took Edwoods much simpler test to be done, we could be looking at 4-5 years. And even then there is no guarantee that the results would be accepted. There is the problem of the old fallback of it does not matter what the cables sound like in his system, because mine is different (better, what-ever).
 Who would sponser such a test? Cable companies? HiFi mags? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Fat chance, two of the three have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.
 On a positive note, this thread has not nearly as nasty as I expected it to be.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_I suggest you have listed the reasons why a test acceptable to you will never be done. The cost would be considerable, and looking at the time it took Edwoods much simpler test to be done, we could be looking at 4-5 years. And even then there is no guarantee that the results would be accepted. There is the problem of the old fallback of it does not matter what the cables sound like in his system, because mine is different (better, what-ever).
 Who would sponser such a test? Cable companies? HiFi mags? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Fat chance, two of the three have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.
 On a positive note, this thread has not nearly as nasty as I expected it to be._

 

Same here, I was expecting far more mud battle, but it was very civvilized, if you ask me, or the cables believers gave up, or they are not very argumentative nowadays...

 But honestly I don't know how this test took so long, IIRC the data is from only 14 persons, unless far more had participated and the data was lost, or not reported...IIRC each person was asked to have the cables for a week, now add another week for shipping turnaround, and you are facing about 28 weeks. To be on the conservative side, let's add another 28 weeks, that is around a year IIRC, so I don't know how the other year came into the equation...


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_the data is from only 14 persons,_

 

Wow, I had the impression that it was around 100.


----------



## ooheadsoo

n/m


----------



## bigshot

The only way to detect differences between two very similar sounds is direct A/B switching at precisely matched volume levels. Ears become accustomed to sounds and after a minute or two of listening to one sample, there's no way to know what the other sample sounded like any more. "Allowing ears to burn in" is just another way of saying, "waiting for the placebo effect to cut in". If you can't hear a difference with balanced A/B switching in five minutes, you aren't going to be able to hear it after two weeks either.

 What kind of test do we need to construct to prove that the sky is blue and the grass is green? Some things in this world actually are self-evident. The question of whether high end cables can improve sound quality has been answered a thousand times with a thousand different tests. Every time the results are questioned with the same non-specific, anecdotal testimonials and circular logical arguments about testing methods.

 If you look at this simple informal test and still think that hundred dollar cables sound better than Radio Shack cables, Sir Isaac Newton, Alexander Graham Bell, Albert Einstein and the entire staff of NASA couldn't convince you otherwise. Enjoy how your cables make you happy, and the rest of us will enjoy how we spend our money on our own chosen variety of extravagence. For me, I would rather spend too much money on a sweet little parlor guitar or a ukulele than to spend it on wires. But to each his own.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_<Snip>
 But to each his own.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Steve, I don't disagree with this at all, but was this really necessary? We all know where each side stands, there is no reason to provoke a flaming contest.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_The only way to detect differences between two very similar sounds is direct A/B switching at precisely matched volume levels. Ears become accustomed to sounds and after a minute or two of listening to one sample, there's no way to know what the other sample sounded like any more. "Allowing ears to burn in" is just another way of saying, "waiting for the placebo effect to cut in". If you can't hear a difference with balanced A/B switching in five minutes, you aren't going to be able to hear it after two weeks either.
_

 

 I just love these kind of ipse dixits and absolute pronouncements you make. Here's one back at ya. You are just flat wrong on this point. Familiarity with a certain sound or series of sounds as a result of long term exposure to the sound is something that can enable someone to determine the sound is different when something is changed. It is the A/B switching every 5 minutes that may fail to reveal differences that exist, especially when the test is conducted under the type of stressful conditions that are almost destined to produce failure.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_We all know where each side stands, there is no reason to provoke a flaming contest._

 

Unless that is what his purpose is.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I just love these kind of ipse dixits and absolute pronouncements you make. Here's one back at ya. You are just flat wrong on this point. Familiarity with a certain sound or series of sounds as a result of long term exposure to the sound is something that can enable someone to determine the sound is different when something is changed. It is the A/B switching every 5 minutes that may fail to reveal differences that exist, especially when the test is conducted under the type of stress conditions maximized to produce failure._

 

Just FYI, and do a serach if you like, and as a side note but you are wrong on that, the memory spam for audio is just relativelly brief, IIRC just a few seconds, after that, you WILL NOT REMEMBER how a system sounded before, with accuracy at least...


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_Just FYI, and do a serach if you like, and as a side note but you are wrong on that, the memory spam for audio is just relativelly brief, IIRC just a few seconds, after that, you WILL NOT REMEMBER how a system sounded before, with accuracy at least..._

 

 I'm sorry, Sov, but YOU are just wrong (although perhaps you just misunderstand what others have said). There are many examples to prove the point, but one that comes to mind from my own experience is the changing of one brand of tubes to another in my tube amp. I know the sound of my favorite recordings very well in my system with my current tubes. If I change those tubes, I can hear the difference on these recordings, and on virtually every recording, as I play them in series over the next few weeks. I don't have to "remember" the sound, as if I have to have it memorized. My mind can quite clealy hear that the sound is different in various respects. If I keep the new tubes in for a lengthy period of time and then switch back, the sound difference is again quite obvious. I'm sure many, many others on this forum have had this experience. So to say that the mind can't tell that the sound is different in this instance is hogwash. I would also venture to say that, if you were able to switch back and forth between the tubes every 2 to 5 minutes, I and others might have a harder time discerning the differences. 

 To be fair, I would not say that a rapid switching back and forth has no value whatsover. (I just said that above to mimic bigshot's absolutism.) But to say that you can't hear a difference if you haven't listened to the item being compared for several days, or that ONLY A/B switching every 5 minutes has any value is not correct.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_To be fair, I would not say that a rapid switching back and forth has no value whatsover. (I just said that above to mimic bigshot's absolutism.) But to say that you can't hear a difference if you haven't listened to the item being compared for several days, or that ONLY A/B switching every 5 minutes has any value is not correct._

 

I think that part of the reason that the so-called skeptics have trouble accepting this point is that many so-called believers make claims to the effect of, "the difference is night and day," which implies that they *should* be able to hear a difference in a test that involves switching every 5 minutes.

 With that said, it seems to me that we could design an experiment that addressed this concern in a manner that both sides could accept. For example, a test could be conducted to determine whether a participant can hear a difference between cable brand 1 and cable brand 2. The cables would be prepared using the same sort of method that Ed used, except that there would be 11 cables, one labeled X, and the others labeled A through J. Each of the eleven cables would be constructed from cable brand 1 or cable brand 2, with the decision made randomly (maybe based on a coin flip) as to whether each sample is cable brand 1 or cable brand 2. For each cable A through J, the participants in the test would be required to identify whether the cable is X or not X. The participant would be able to listen to each sample for as long a time as he required in order to make that determination.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I'm sorry, Sov, but YOU are just wrong. There are many examples to prove the point, but one that comes to mind from my own experience is the changing of one brand of tubes to another in my tube amp. I know the sound of my favorite recordings very well in my system with my current tubes. If I change those tubes, I can hear the difference on these recordings, and on virtually every recording as I play them in series over the next few weeks. I don't have to "remember" the sound, as if I have to have it memorized. My mind can quite clearly hear that the sound is different in various respects. If I keep the new tubes in for a lengthy period of time and then switch back, the sound difference is again quite obvious. I'm sure many, many others on this forum have had this experience. So to say that the mind can't tell that the sound is different in this instance is hogwash. I would also venture to say that, if you were able to switch back and forth between the tubes every 2 to 5 minutes, I and others would have a harder time discerning any difference. 

 To be fair, I would not say that a rapid switching back and forth has no value whatsover. (I just said that above to mimic bigshot's absolutism.) But to say that you can't hear a difference if you haven't listened to the item being compared for several days, or that ONLY A/B switching every 5 minutes has any value is not correct._

 


 Just because you believe that, that doesn't make it a universal truth, I agree that in the case of very obvious changes, that could be possible, I have experienced that myself, but for subtle changes like those introduced by cables, there is no way you can remember with accuracy after a few minutes (or seconds)...Sorry...

 BTW you can say and believe what you want, based in your personal opinions, and tests, and experience. But the spam memory for audio have been tested analyzed, and discussed by audiologists, and science in general, over the years, this is not my opinion, based in my experience, this is based in the experience and tests and statistical evidence of them, and proved and backed with scientific work...I'm not saying that this is my opinion, this has been proved by science, not by me...

 If you want to change that now, just go ahead and prove it, but till then, to me, and to them, the spam memory for audio just lasts for a few seconds, as we have no evidence of the contrary...the rest could be under the influence of placebo, and voodoo (that is not bad neither if that make you feel better) but I will not jump on that wagon, that over the years audiophiles had moved around with those beliefs...

 BTW I still have the Cable Comparator CD, in which WireWorld compared 15 different cables by recording through them the same material using the same track and equipment, if any difference exists, those should be there, of course in every system, those will be heard diferently, depending on the setup, and sound signature, *but there should be differences*...if any member want a copy, just PM me, I could try to make it, as there is no longer avaialable, and it was offered free by them...


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_. I know the sound of my favorite recordings very well in my system with my current tubes. If I change those tubes, I can hear the difference on these recordings, and on virtually every recording, as I play them in series over the next few weeks._

 

You are a very unusual person. I assume that you can in fact do this, but, most people cannot. I can't. It's harder to prove in audio, but the same adaptive mechanism exists for color, and I can prove it there. Most people cannot remember color. It's just the way most peoples minds work.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Danamr - Yes, most people simply refuse to admit that their senses may be fooled. There's no argument that will convince them, at least in the realm of hearing.

 I've said before, it's an old perception that's been handed down for hundreds of years - the eyes penetrate, the ears are receptacles or orifices.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* 
_I think that part of the reason that the so-called skeptics have trouble accepting this point is that many so-called believers make claims to the effect of, "the difference is night and day," which implies that they *should* be able to hear a difference in a test that involves switching every 5 minutes._

 

This is I think a major part of the problem. Cables can create problems with some components. You can find speaker wires that will in fact freak out some amps to the point that they shut down. But those are unusual cases.
 Cables are not active components. They are not adding anything to a system, only taking away. The best cables should in fact be the least visible. I spent a lot of time figuring out I liked the sound of the Cary. Why would I want a cable to screw with that. Same with the CDP, I like the Planet, I suspect I will like the Saturn even more, but if I don't I do not expect that a cable will fix anything. And if I don't like it will not take me a week to know that.
 Most cannot even quantify how much change a cable makes in their system, when I asked in earlier threads to give us a number, say 1-10 or 1-100, no one had a answer. Not even Phil.


----------



## Ferbose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Snake* 
_Back then there was nothing to hide, when the dealer is terminating for you. Heck, the MIT's IC's I used to use in my own system I did indeed terminate myself, using the proper solder pot, terminations and parts. I knew that MIT made nice cables for I could see the unusual design and quality construction myself (larger, individually insulated wires cross-wound within very fine gauge wires, and the good insulation (that was a bear to deal with properly)._

 

MIT _made_ nice cables? 
 Do you really know who _made_ them? (one of my friends could answer that for you)
 The equipment required to make wires are very expensive, so go figure...


----------



## Blueiz

Geeeeezzzzz..... after reading this thread my Monster Cable interconnects sound sooooo..... much better....


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ferbose* 
_MIT made nice cables? 
 Do you really know who made them? (one of my friends could answer that for you)
 The equipment required to make wires are very expensive, so go figure... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It is not hard to figure that most of the audio cables done nowadays are OEM, done by these same manufacturers, Belden, Canare, Mogami, etc...and there is nothing else out there, but a few more...It is hard for me to believe that if those offer exceptionally good cables, any of those expensive manufacturers custom order, or manufacture themselves the cables (of course that will be a few exceptions, specially those exotic geometries, but the majority is a huge rip off)


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blueiz* 
_Geeeeezzzzz..... after reading this thread my Monster Cable interconnects sound sooooo..... much better....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Monster make nice cables, just that they are overpriced as well...but not more than others...


----------



## Blueiz

Yeah.... I've always felt that folks are a little harsh on Monster.... I've picked up all my Monster cables (1M coax, 1M RCA/RCA pair, 20Ft terminated speaker cables) for $9.87 each... just have to keep your eyes open at RatShack... they put them on "clearance" all the time. Just had Monster spade terminations on "clearance" for under $5.00. Such a deal.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_The only way to detect differences between two very similar sounds is direct A/B switching at precisely matched volume levels. Ears become accustomed to sounds and after a minute or two of listening to one sample, there's no way to know what the other sample sounded like any more. "Allowing ears to burn in" is just another way of saying, "waiting for the placebo effect to cut in". If you can't hear a difference with balanced A/B switching in five minutes, you aren't going to be able to hear it after two weeks either._

 

Wow, I used to joke about skeptics suggesting this, and then I see this. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 Is this really where skeptics come from? Fast switching, blind tests with different system, hours of fatiguing testing, data measurements, "bits are bits", "vibration causes 1 bit error once per album" (yeah like that matters!)... It seems like they don't even know what jitter or resonance is.
 I used to be open-minded and try to understand what skeptics say, but now their credibility is almost completely gone. I understand them, and finally I know the truth.

 In my upsampling blind test (99.99%) it was only accurate when I did the switch once per hour. 5 minutes is a joke, 15 minutes is the absolute minimum for cables.
 Saying that music is short-term memory is ridiculous, it is long-term!

 I can't hear a difference at all between 96 kbps mp3 and WAV with fast switching!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_You are a very unusual person. I assume that you can in fact do this, but, most people cannot. I can't. It's harder to prove in audio, but the same adaptive mechanism exists for color, and I can prove it there. Most people cannot remember color. It's just the way most peoples minds work._

 

My daughter called me from the UK today where she is visiting. We spoke over a long distance connection, one that clearly is of much lower fidelity than my audio system. Notwithstanding that I had not spoken to her _in a week_, and only with the use of my magical and unusual powers, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was able to discern that it was in fact her voice, and also that there was a slight change in her voice suggesting that she was beginning to get a cold. 

 You can argue all you want about "spam memory for audio" (whatever the hell that is), etc., but if you guys really think that the ability to recall what something sounds like _that you are intimately familiar with _after more than 5 minutes is basically lost, then almost every judgment that we accept on this forum regarding differences between headphones, amps, tubes, sources, etc. is called into question if you don't do an A/B comparison with 5 minute intervals. The next time someone says they found the bass in the AKG 701 to be weaker than the HD-650 or whatever, are we going to say they are full of it unless they did an A/B test? Are we going to say that all tubes sound the same, because none of the folks commenting on tubes have yet stated that they did a blind A/B test with very short intervals? Give me a break.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_Most cannot even quantify how much change a cable makes in their system, when I asked in earlier threads to give us a number, say 1-10 or 1-100, no one had a answer. Not even Phil._

 

 Because there is no uniform standard of measurement that we all can use. Surely you can grasp that concept. I can tell you it reduced or eliminated sibilance, for example, but tell me how I am supposed to apply a number to that.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_You can argue all you want about "spam memory for audio" (whatever the hell that is), etc., but if you guys really think that the ability to recall what something sounds like that you are intimately familiar with after more than 5 minutes is basically lost, then almost every judgment that we accept on this forum regarding differences between headphones, amps, tubes, sources, etc. is called into question if you don't do an A/B comparison with 5 minute intervals. The next time someone says they found the bass in the AKG 701 to be weaker than the HD-650 or whatever, are we going to say they are full of it unless they did an A/B test? Give me a break._

 

We are talking cables Phil, not headphones, peoples voices, CPDs. We are not talking hearing a C and being able to tell it's C. We are talking very subtitle differences. It's easy to demonstrate with color, I can hand you a Pantone color patch, then take it away for say 15 minutes. Then hand you a Pantone color book and ask you to tell me what color you had. Now maybe if you were a printer, who works with this stuff all day you could pick it out, maybe. But for the average person to pick the correct shade exactly? Does not work that way.
 And frankly if you ask most people if they can hear the difference between two audio components, they will tell you no they do not.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Because there is no uniform standard of measurement that we all can use. Surely you can grasp that concept. I can tell you it reduced or eliminated sibilance, for example, but tell me how I am supposed to apply a number to that. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Not asking for a uniform standard. Asking how much of a change it makes to you. Big change? Little change?
 Simple enough?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_Not asking for a uniform standard. Asking how much of a change it makes to you. Big change? Little change?
 Simple enough?_

 

That's different than asking for a number. So I will answer. Certain cables I changed in my system reduced or bascially eliminated some sibilance I was experiencing. I hate sibilance. It is like fingernails on a blackboard. Therefore, to me, the reduction in sibilance was a significant change. Measured on some type of measuring device, it might not show as a big change at all; I don't know. To others, it might not be a big change in audbile terms, if they are used to, or are not much bothered by, sibilance. This is why we have to be careful when criticizing folks for saying cables or something else in their system made a "huge" change. To them, it may have indeed been huge. To others, the difference may be subtle. Nobody is necessarily right or wrong, as different people have different standards in this area, different preferences, and people describe things differently.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_We are talking cables Phil, not headphones, peoples voices, CPDs. We are not talking hearing a C and being able to tell it's C. We are talking very subtitle differences. It's easy to demonstrate with color, I can hand you a Pantone color patch, then take it away for say 15 minutes. Then hand you a Pantone color book and ask you to tell me what color you had. Now maybe if you were a printer, who works with this stuff all day you could pick it out, maybe. But for the average person to pick the correct shade exactly? Does not work that way._

 

 I understand, but we are not talking about color. Should we say that there is no proof that tubes sound different? Has anyone on this forum done a A/B comparison with tubes? What about headphones? Should we say that anybody who didn't A/B with short intervals their Grado headpphones with the Sennheiser's is in no position to dispute the notion that Grado's and Senn's sound exactly the same? And the logic is the same in terms of cables, headphones, etc. You can't just dispose of the question by saying, well, cable differences are subtle. That begs the question.

 EDIT: BTW, the music I listen to has "people's voices" all throughout.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_The only way to detect differences between two very similar sounds is direct A/B switching at precisely matched volume levels. Ears become accustomed to sounds and after a minute or two of listening to one sample, there's no way to know what the other sample sounded like any more. "Allowing ears to burn in" is just another way of saying, "waiting for the placebo effect to cut in". If you can't hear a difference with balanced A/B switching in five minutes, you aren't going to be able to hear it after two weeks either._

 

If you pick up the phone and a woman's voice says "hello", can you tell whether or not it's your wife? If so, you've just demonstrated that memory for audio cues lasts a whole lot longer than a minute or two. If you haven't spoken to her all day, would you still recognize her voice? 

 If an old friend who you hadn't spoken to in over a year called, could you still recognize the voice?

 Is it easier to recognize your wife's voice as opposed to a client who you spoke to once for five minutes that morning? You wife's voice is going to be easier to identify, even if a longer time period has passed since exposure to her voice. What's going on here? Perhaps living with certain stimuli makes them easier to identify? 

 If you can only tell your wife's voice from another woman's voice in a short-term A/B test, and cannot identify her voice correctly if you've been listening to another woman's voice for a minute or two, I predict a short marriage and a painful divorce.

 Some aspects of auditory memory can be short-lived. Some can last a very long time. The assumption that all auditory memory is necessarily short-term is false. So is the premise that you can differentiate stimuli in a short-term exposure if they're different. There are many dimensions to sound, and if you're attending to the wrong part of the sound, you may miss some rather large differences.


----------



## Patrick82

If there are problems in the system (sibilance), it will always be a huge improvement if that problem gets fixed! But if there aren't any problems in the system to begin with, then how can it make an improvement?

 My system has always been too bright because I don't like to sacrifice detail. Cables made the biggest difference in my system, upgrading source and amp was just a sidestep, they didn't do anything to fix the problems. Valhalla cables transformed my system, it wasn't anything subtle because it fixed loads of problems.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_If you pick up the phone and a woman's voice says "hello", can you tell whether or not it's your wife? If so, you've just demonstrated that memory for audio cues lasts a whole lot longer than a minute or two. If you haven't spoken to her all day, would you still recognize her voice? _

 

It reminds me of the movie Memento.

 I think skeptics have memory loss but can't remember it!


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_If you pick up the phone and a woman's voice says "hello", can you tell whether or not it's your wife? If so, you've just demonstrated that memory for audio cues lasts a whole lot longer than a minute or two. If you haven't spoken to her all day, would you still recognize her voice? 

 If an old friend who you hadn't spoken to in over a year called, could you still recognize the voice?

 Is it easier to recognize your wife's voice as opposed to a client who you spoke to once for five minutes that morning? You wife's voice is going to be easier to identify, even if a longer time period has passed since exposure to her voice. What's going on here? Perhaps living with certain stimuli makes them easier to identify? 

 If you can only tell your wife's voice from another woman's voice in a short-term A/B test, and cannot identify her voice correctly if you've been listening to another woman's voice for a minute or two, I predict a short marriage and a painful divorce.

 Some aspects of auditory memory can be short-lived. Some can last a very long time. The assumption that all auditory memory is necessarily short-term is false. So is the premise that you can differentiate stimuli in a short-term exposure if they're different. There are many dimensions to sound, and if you're attending to the wrong part of the sound, you may miss some rather large differences._

 

Nobody is saying that *all auditory memory* is short-term, just the one for very subtle differences as in the case of cables. If you go back to colors, and using that analogy of course you can say which is red and which is blue, but we are talking of very subtle differences, what we call "shades" in colors...

 BTW I strongly doubt that you could tell if we use 3 different different phones, similar in audio, from which phone your wife is calling you, if she repeat the call 10 minutes after...


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_That's different than asking for a number. So I will answer. Certain cables I changed in my system reduced or bascially eliminated some sibilance I was experiencing. I hate sibilance. It is like fingernails on a blackboard. Therefore, to me, the reduction in sibilance was a significant change. Measured on some type of measuring device, it might not show as a big change at all; I don't know. To others, it might not be a big change in audbile terms, if they are used to, or are not much bothered by, sibilance. This is why we have to be careful when criticizing folks for saying cables or something else in their system made a "huge" change. To them, it may have indeed been huge. To others, the difference may be subtle. Nobody is necessarily right or wrong, as different people have different standards in this area, different preferences, and people describe things differently._

 

Thank you. That helps me see where you are coming from. It raises some other questions, such as where is the sibilance coming from? Would it be a better solution to find that and fix it? Given the cost of high end cables, it might not be more expensive to sell the offending item, and replace it. Do you want your cables to be a filter?


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_If there are problems in the system (sibilance), it will always be a huge improvement if that problem gets fixed! But if there aren't any problems in the system to begin with, then how can it make an improvement?

 My system has always been too bright because I don't like to sacrifice detail. Cables made the biggest difference in my system, upgrading source and amp was just a sidestep, they didn't do anything to fix the problems. Valhalla cables transformed my system, it wasn't anything subtle because it fixed loads of problems._

 

Patrick if a cable changed your system sound that way, and is able to eliminate for example the sibilance (let's take that example, given that you mentioned it) for sure you have these problems there in the material played, or in any of the pieces in the system, a cable can not "add" the sibilance (usually a recording deffect, due ot the use of poor mics or poor placement of them) than could be removed by another after...In that hypothetical case, the sibilance was there, and is still there, the cable is just masking it, so you have the problem in the system, or in the material, but it is not in the cables....


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_Nobody is saying that *all auditory memory* is short-term, just the one for very subtle differences as in the case of cables. If you go back to colors, and using that analogy of course you can say which is red and which is blue, but we are talking of very subtle differences, what we call "shades" in colors...
_

 

But YOU, a non-believer, are the one saying they are subtle. Don't you see the irony, and also how that begs the question? The believers (at least some of them) basically are saying that the differences are not so subtle that they could not be discerned in a longer duration test involving longer listening times between changes of cables, and they are also saying that they would prefer a longer term test. So why won't you let them have what they want, so you can then prove what idiots they are? And you're the one who in the beginning of the discussion of the proposals for a new test stated that if the test does not yield results believers like, they will criticize the test. And now you're fighting about the test they want. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Basically, here's the thread for the last page or so:

 Bobby Believer: I can hear differences between cables and the test is this thread doesn't prove or disprove squat.

 Sammy Skeptic: No you can't, and the test in this thread proves that cables make no difference.

 Nate Neutral: Maybe we ought to design a new test.

 Sammy Skeptic: Ok, but it has to be designed so believers can't weasel out of it when they fail the test. I just know they are going to say the test was no good.

 Bobby Believer: Ok, but then the test should be designed so that we believers have a long enough time to discern whether we can hear differences. No 2 to 3 minute switcheroos, because you can't hear anything that way. We'll be comfortable with a longer term test.

 Sammy Skeptic: No, you can't have that test. You will only be able to hear the differences with really short switching. I can tell you as someone who doesn't believe in cables at all that the differences you claim to hear (which don't exist) are only subtle to you and you won't be able to hear them in a longer duration test because of auditory memory issues. So we're not going to do the test the way you want and the way you say you might be able to hear differences; we're going to do it our way. And don't forget, no bitching about the results of the test and saying it wasn't a good test when we design it the way we want.












 This thread started out with some useful information and insight. It is now example thread number 137 of why there's no point in really discussing these things. Some of the arguments and discussions are completely devoid of logic and common sense.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I understand, but we are not talking about color. Should we say that there is no proof that tubes sound different? Has anyone on this forum done a A/B comparison with tubes? What about headphones? Should we say that anybody who didn't A/B with short intervals their Grado headpphones with the Sennheiser's is in no position to dispute the notion that Grado's and Senn's sound exactly the same? And the logic is the same in terms of cables, headphones, etc. You can't just dispose of the question by saying, well, cable differences are subtle. That begs the question.



_

 

I don't think it does beg the question, Phil. The difference between a Grado RS1 and a Senn HD650 can be measured and graphed. That will not tell you which one you will like, and we may not agree what the difference means, but you and I can see there is a difference. (And likely agree we don't like the Grado). Cables do not measure, and where they do it's in a range that my dog might hear but not me. So you cannot show me why a certain cable does what you say it does, we have no common ground. Even worse, I have never been able to hear a difference in my systems. The throw away cables that were in the box with the Planet, have no more of less affect on the sound than the Monster's or the what-ever-it-was $100/half meter pair (20 years ago) high end cable that I got talked into buying.
 Which for me is good, it means I just have to worry about how the hardware sounds.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_Thank you. That helps me see where you are coming from. It raises some other questions, such as where is the sibilance coming from? Would it be a better solution to find that and fix it? Given the cost of high end cables, it might not be more expensive to sell the offending item, and replace it. Do you want your cables to be a filter?_

 

You make a valid point, but it really turns the discussion to a different issue. In other words, the cable change (1) did fix the problem, for about $200, and (2) did make a change in the sound. Saying "cables can't make any audible difference" is a vastly different propostion from saying "cables generally ought not to be used as tone controls or to correct other problems in a system."


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_I don't think it does beg the question, Phil. The difference between a Grado RS1 and a Senn HD650 can be measured and graphed. That will not tell you which one you will like, and we may not agree what the difference means, but you and I can see there is a difference. (And likely agree we don't like the Grado). Cables do not measure, and where they do it's in a range that my dog might hear but not me._

 

 That is a good point, and I concede that. But I still think that it is not correct to assume that auditory memory is just good enough to hear the difference between the Grado and the Senn when one hasn't been listened to for weeks, or the differences between tubes (some of which differences are fairly subtle), but not good enough to hear differences between cables. For example, if a person's system is sibilant, and they listen to it for a week, and then they change a cable and the sibilance goes away, I think they will "remember" the sibilance and notice its absence or reduction. Some other changes (e.g., a change in bass) might be harder to "remember." Other changes might be, on a recording the person knows like the back of their hand (or knows like their daughter's voice), just as "memorable" as the sibilance reduction.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_But YOU, a non-believer, are the one saying they are subtle. Don't you see the irony, and also how that begs the question? The believers (at least some of them) basically are saying that the differences are not so subtle that they could not be discerned in a longer duration test involving longer listening times between changes of cables, and they are also saying that they would prefer a longer term test. So why won't you let them have what they want, so you can then prove what idiots they are? And you're the one who in the beginning of the discussion of the proposals for a new test stated that if the test does not yield results believers like, they will criticize the test. And now you're fighting about the test they want. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Basically, here's the thread for the last page or so:

 Bobby Believer: I can hear differences between cables and the test is this thread doesn't prove or disprove squat.

 Sammy Skeptic: No you can't, and the test in this thread proves that cables make no difference.

 Nate Neutral: Maybe we ought to design a new test.

 Sammy Skeptic: Ok, but it has to be designed so believers can't weasel out of it when they fail the test. I just know they are going to say the test was no good.

 Bobby Believer: Ok, but then the test should be designed so that we believers have a long enough time to discern whether we can hear differences. No 2 to 3 minute switcheroos, because you can't hear anything that way. We'll be comfortable with a longer term test.

 Sammy Skeptic: No, you can't have that test. You will only be able to hear the differences with really short switching. I can tell you as someone who doesn't believe in cables at all that the differences you claim to hear (which don't exist) are only subtle to you and you won't be able to hear them in a longer duration test because of auditory memory issues. So we're not going to do the test the way you want and the way you say you might be able to hear differences; we're going to do it our way. And don't forget, no bitching about the results of the test and saying it wasn't a good test when we design it the way we want.






 :roll eyes: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This thread started out with some useful information and insight. It is now example thread number 137 of why there's no point in really discussing these things. Some of the arguments and discussions are completely devoid of logic and common sense._

 


 I have never stated that I'm a non believer, who told you that? The fact that *there are not very good evidences, if any,* to believe, don't make me a non beleiver...Non having an agreement with the die hard fan believers in many aspects of this discussion, and what the test proves or not, or was intended to demonstrate or not, don't make me a non believer neither, knowing that we could perform better double blind tests, than this one, that was made basically for fun, and even though showed some significant results IMO, doesn't make me a non believer neither...
 BTW the test provided the listeners a week to try the cables in which they could use and test the cables the way they felt better suited for the case, and not even this change the results a bit...Longer, shorter is not the point, the point is that indeed they are very very subtle, if any in some cases, and really hard to determine and to point them out, to the point of making them really confusing sometimes...When you know what cable you are listening to, you have an strong influence of placebo and bias on you, that modify your believes, for good or bad...


 If you do a search over time, about my posts regarding the cables, what I indeed had stated about my position, is that I believe to some extent, in which the cable market becomes a voodoo, and a rip off, and the differences are harder to point, or simply none...but I know that for sure will be differences between some cables...but not between all of them, and all the time, as I do believe also that those differences are also sometimes system dependent, in a less revealing and transparent system your chances are less as well...


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_Patrick if a cable changed your system sound that way, and is able to eliminate for example the sibilance (let's take that example, given that you mentioned it) for sure you have these problems there in the material played, or in any of the pieces in the system, a cable can not "add" the sibilance (usually a recording deffect, due ot the use of poor mics or poor placement of them) than could be removed by another after...In that hypothetical case, the sibilance was there, and is still there, the cable is just masking it, so you have the problem in the system, or in the material, but it is not in the cables...._

 

The problem is poor resolution. You get more detail with a blacker background and you need to block external interference to get that. The bright block of brightness will get replaced with transients of different shades, and that is how the recording should sound like. 
 When there's blackness in between beats it sounds faster, there's higher resolution. With all the Valhalla cabling I can hear 50-60 "hairy transients" per second with blackness and shimmering in between. With heavy shielded cables those transients blend together and it sounds muddy, and with stock cables it's just bright without any transients.


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ferbose* 
_I was recently informed that a certain "V" brand of expensive cable very hyped up around here actually uses Home Depot wires. The friend opened up the cable and saw--very familiar wires._

 

What brand is this?


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Todd R* 
_I think there should be another test for the cable skeptics out there. 
 Make 2 identical cables with the same wire, and one with different wire.
 Pass those around and see how many people can pick out the different one!
 That should settle it once & for all. 
 TR_

 

Naaaah... 

 Not three, but just two cables.

 And then we'll see who will be able to discern the different one!


----------



## Karlosak

To end this debate about "spam memory for audio", a point must be taken that a proper ABX/blind-test should never restrict the listener in time for each sample or number of switches. Whether he or she succeeds with a rapid switching or long listening periods is irrelevant in this context.
 Here stems one thing I like about the test Edwood conducted. The so called blind tests at meets and other different locations force the listener to undergo a test, whose conditions (kind of music, length of samples, etc.) often cannot be influenced to his/her liking. Moreover the test is conducted mostly in an unfamiliar setting. The listener must feel comfortable, familiar and be the master of situation. Future tests should go in the same line and respect this.

 There is one flaw that IIRC wasn't mentioned yet. It's the labeling of the cables. Though a great care was taken to make all the cables look and feel the same, the use of symbols wasn't the best idea. Each of the used symbols carry some hidden attribute, which could alter the listener's mind. For example, the circle represents roundness, some polite or mellow quality. Triangle or square with their edges embody something sharp, detailed or fast.
 If you look at the table with the test outcome, it doesn't surprise me that the "circle" was guessed as a Rat Shack cable and the "square" as a solid silver. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This is probably only a coincidence though, since the triangle would be IMHO a better candidate for silver characteristics. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 However, neutral and unbiased labeling is really tricky. Letters or numbers would be better, but they suggest some listening order or hierarchy, which is also not good. Different colors are out of question too. The best solution would be IMHO some very simple bar code, consisting e.g. of six bars of two distinct widths.

 I like the idea of a new test which would include a reference cable (a duplicate). I'm sure original participants or new people would gladly take part. The number of cables must remain low though (3+1 enough) for this test to remain feasible.


----------



## Ferbose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* 
_What brand is this?_

 

I'll get my ass kicked if I post full brand names, if not sued.
 Is it even OK to PM such info?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_Just FYI, and do a serach if you like, and as a side note but you are wrong on that, the memory spam for audio is just relativelly brief, IIRC just a few seconds, after that, you WILL NOT REMEMBER how a system sounded before, with accuracy at least..._

 

That is absolutely true. The color analogy another poster mentioned is absolutely correct too. Human beings perceive things as being *relative*. We don't have any sort of an absolute memory to use in comparisons. That's why direct A/B comparisons are the best way to detect subtle differences.

 If you want to compare colors, you lay swatches down right next to each other. If you want to compare sounds, you flick the input back and forth on your preamp to hear them side by side.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_I can't hear a difference at all between 96 kbps mp3 and WAV with fast switching!_

 

Obvious differences are even more obvious with direct A/B comparison. Perhaps this has more to do with your ability to focus on the task than it does on your ability to hear differences.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_If you pick up the phone and a woman's voice says "hello", can you tell whether or not it's your wife? If so, you've just demonstrated that memory for audio cues lasts a whole lot longer than a minute or two._

 

The difference between one person's voice and another's is several orders of magnitude above the difference between the sound of one cable and another. I can tell the difference between red and blue without comparing them too, but if you show me one swatch of vermillion and then ten minutes later, show me a slightly different swatch of vermillion, I won't be able to tell you which one was yellower and which was redder. Put one right next to the other, and I'll point to the yellower one in a flash.

 We are talking about how a person can discern very slight differences between two sounds, not whether there is any memory for sound at all.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_You make a valid point, but it really turns the discussion to a different issue. In other words, the cable change (1) did fix the problem, for about $200, and (2) did make a change in the sound. Saying "cables can't make any audible difference" is a vastly different propostion from saying "cables generally ought not to be used as tone controls or to correct other problems in a system."_

 

It's more like, "Cables are an extremely inaccurate way of performing tone controls." I have no doubt that a cable could be constructed that would be resistant enough to certain frequencies that it might act as a filter. But I don't believe that a high end cable is going to pass more information than a regular old Radio Shack. They did a test of Monster Cable and found that the reason it sounded slightly different was because the Monsters were a little more inefficient as conductors than stock cables.

 Softening sibiliance in a recording is a good candidate for being the sort of thing an inefficient cable might do... But I would rather do that sort of thing with an equalizer or tone pots where I can precisely control the level of damping of the annoying frequency.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Human beings perceive things as being *relative*. We don't have any sort of an absolute memory to use in comparisons._

 

That is simply false, and patently ridiculous. Surely you mean something different that what you say here? Perhaps you mean that differences are _best _perceived by comparisons, as absolute memory can be faulty or is not entirely dependable. But to say that human beings don't have _any _absolute memory of what something sounds like is absurd.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Softening sibiliance in a recording is a good candidate for being the sort of thing an inefficient cable might do... But I would rather do that sort of thing with an equalizer or tone pots where I can precisely control the level of damping of the annoying frequency.
_

 

 Good point . . . that misses the point entirely.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_The believers (at least some of them) basically are saying that the differences are not so subtle that they could not be discerned in a longer duration test involving longer listening times between changes of cables, and they are also saying that they would prefer a longer term test. So why won't you let them have what they want, so you can then prove what idiots they are?_

 

This isn't about proving anyone an idiot. It's about accurately reporting what we hear so the info is applicable to other people too.

 If the difference wasn't subtle, everyone would hear it, like the difference between the telephone and good headphones. So obviously, the difference, if it exists, is subtle. If the difference can't be discerned in direct A/B testing, odds are it can't be heard. Longer duration of listening just allows time for the brain and ears to get used to a sound signature and mentally filter out its flaws. It's only natural that the longer you listen to something, the better it sounds to you. Or perhaps, the longer you listen, the more a person's low level OCD cuts in, making them more critical of the sound. But those are *perceptual things* not an aspect of the sound that actually exists.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_ If the difference can't be discerned in direct A/B testing, odds are it can't be heard. Longer duration of listening just allows time for the brain and ears to get used to a sound signature and mentally filter out its flaws. It's only natural that the longer you listen to something, the better it sounds to you._

 

 But, again, you're missing the fundamental point. Why can't the test allow the participants to test as long as they want, within reason. If Participant A wants to use direct A/B testing, he can do that, but if Participant B (a believer) wants to test by listening to different cables over long intervals, why can't he do that? You guys are the ones saying the differences can't be heard under any circumstances (to over-simplify the argument). Why can't you allow us to use the intervals that we want? Then if we can't hear the differnces, you win! And we won't be able to explain away the result based on not being given enough time to listen! Why do you insist on putting parameters on the test that many don't like and won't accept? This makes no sense, and we will end up with just another argument.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_This isn't about proving anyone an idiot. It's about accurately reporting what we hear so the info is applicable to other people too.
_

 

 I was being facetious to make a point. In any event, we need to deal with basics and not get too ambitious at this stage. The first question we need answered is whether anyone can hear differences under any appropriate test circumstances. That is the core issue that people have been fighting about. Once we get some kind of an answer to that question, we can get more ambitious and work on "accurately reporting what we hear so the info is applicable to other people."


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_But, again, you're missing the fundamental point. Why can't the test allow the participants to test as long as they want, within reason. If Participant A wants to use direct A/B testing, he can do that, but if Participant B (a believer) wants to test by listening to different cables over long intervals, why can't he do that? You guys are the ones saying the differences can't be heard under any circumstances (to over-simplify the argument). Why can't you allow us to use the intervals that we want? Then if we can't hear the differnces, you win! And we won't be able to explain away the result based on not being given enough time to listen! Why do you insist on putting parameters on the test that many don't like and won't accept? This makes no sense, and we will end up with just another argument. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It's funny we are getting into a argument about a test that nobody is going to do, but, here is my idea for a hypothetical test:
 You keep the cables as long as you want, but, as part of the test, you record you first impressions, in a way you cannot alter. Let's see how your views change with time. For me, my interest would be the first impressions, and how your feelings about the cable changed would be academic.


----------



## Danamr

OPPS!
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_ Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Bigshot* 
Softening sibiliance in a recording is a good candidate for being the sort of thing an inefficient cable might do... But I would rather do that sort of thing with an equalizer or tone pots where I can precisely control the level of damping of the annoying frequency.

 

Good point . . . that misses the point entirely._

 

Well, except that your perfect cable is not neutral at all, and in fact the opposite. And things like that make it very hard to even think about a valid test because of the lens you view what a good cable is.


----------



## russdog

Why not do this by devising the optimal test for, say, different kinds of ketchup. I know it's taste buds vs. ears, but still. Then, once we agree about what's fair and reasonable, then just substitute different brands of wire for the ketchup. What's wrong with that? We'd end up with a good test without out all these tangents about people's belief systems about wires...


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_Well, except that your perfect cable is not neutral at all, and in fact the opposite. And things like that make it very hard to even think about a valid test because of the lens you view what a good cable is._

 

 I thought the issue was whether people can hear differences between cables, not about what is a good cable or a bad cable, or what cables are neutral. This is starting to remind me a little bit of this thread - http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showt...90#post2124790 - which was another thread where we started arguing about what the issue or question is. I don't disagree with you that there are certain things that would be interesting to learn about cables and what people hear, and why. I just think we need to define the issue as simply as possible.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Why do you insist on putting parameters on the test that many don't like and won't accept? This makes no sense, and we will end up with just another argument. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I don't think that BigShot has suggested any parameters on the test at all. You and he just keep arguing about a point that neither one of you will ever resolve with the other. So far, there have been two of us so far that have suggested a methodology for actually conducting the test that should be acceptable to either camp. Why not skip the pointless argument and comment on the proposed methodology instead?


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I thought the issue was whether people can hear differences between cables, not about what is a good cable or a bad cable, or what cables are neutral._

 

It's hard to find a problem that's any more basic than this. We need to know what the hell we're trying to accomplish before we do anything else. One way to describe the results of the first test is that it blurred these 2 issue together in such a way that it was impossible to untangle them.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_But, again, you're missing the fundamental point. *Why can't the test allow the participants to test as long as they want*, within reason. *If Participant A wants to use direct A/B testing, he can do that, but if Participant B (a believer) wants to test by listening to different cables over long intervals, why can't he do that?* You guys are the ones saying the differences can't be heard under any circumstances (to over-simplify the argument). Why can't you allow us to use the intervals that we want? Then if we can't hear the differences, you win! And we won't be able to explain away the result based on not being given enough time to listen! Why do you insist on putting parameters on the test that many don't like and won't accept? This makes no sense, and we will end up with just another argument. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Who said that they were not allowed to do the test that way? They did it that way, but inside a week, of course otherwise the test would have been 10 years long instead of two....Nobody stated that they should do quick A/B comparisons, nor long term auditions, the good thing in that test is that you were using a system that you are familiar with, in the comfort of your home, with the headphones you like, and the way you like to do it...Do you want also fries with that??? 
 Do you really believe that more than a week will make them hear more, or guess better, of what they indeed did, I do not think so, and if you need more time then you are indirectly admitting that the differences were so subtle that you need long time and several A/B comparisons, and six months of work in the way you choose, to determine then...


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Perhaps you mean that differences are best perceived by comparisons, as absolute memory can be faulty or is not entirely dependable. But to say that human beings don't have any absolute memory of what something sounds like is absurd._

 

You're interpreting a generalized comment in an absolute way. Here's a more specific explanation for you...

 There are two types of auditory memory: short term and long term. Studies have shown that difference between aspects of sound (ie: pitch, tone, etc.) start to fade from the memory in as short as ten seconds. You can take two slightly different sounds and the longer the space of time between auditioning them, the less likely the subject is going to discern the difference. It doesn't matter how long they hear the sound samples. The important thing is the space of time between them.

 Long term memory is generalized rather than specific. It's based on conclusions we make rather than direct comparison. For instance, we remember that a sound was "harsh and grating", but after a certain amount of time passes, we're unable to remember exactly what frequency spectrum the harshness resided in. A significantly different type of harshness might sound to us the same.

 Short term memory is specific, rather than generalized. It's based on direct comparison of stimuli. For instance, if you take two sounds that have a very slightly different equalization, it's possible to discern with immediate direct comparison which one is "muffled" and which one sounds "sharper".

 There have been studies that have found that there is a direct correlation between short and long term auditory memory and short and long term visual memory. The example posted earlier about the two slightly different shades of vermillion illustrate this exact same point.

 Here's a practical example of how short term auditory memory works... When you go out to buy loudspeakers for your system, it doesn't work to compare speakers you hear at one store to speakers you hear at another store. Comparisons between models at the same store are much easier, because of the way our memory for sound fades over time. You might be able to compare speakers that are radically different that way, but not ones that are at all similar in sound.

 There are studies that indicate that context can extend auditory memory of some specific details. For instance, it might be possible to discern smaller differences between samples if the subject is very familiar with the the sound. (ie: a recording or piece of music) But this doesn't mean that long term memory is more accurate than short term for slight differences, it just means that long term memory isn't always quite so bad for details.

 The ideal way to compare cables would be to do direct A/B switching using music that you are very familiar with.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_Do you really believe that more than a week will make them hear more, or guess better, of what they indeed did, I do not think so, and if you need more time then you are indirectly admitting that the differences were so subtle that you need long time and several A/B comparisons, and six months of work in the way you choose, to determine then..._

 

 I don't agree with what you say, as I think the point that is counter to this has already been discussed before, and it seems to me that you are ignoring the points as to how people might hear differences . . . do you do this just to continue the argument or are you really interested in conducting a fair test, as I don't understand the reference with fries, but possibly you think some cables are similar to fries, or maybe that was a joke, I don't know, but I can't follow half of what you say, and you just seem to want to make the same points over and over, and I am getting tired of typing this . . . so I give up. Whew!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_You're interpreting a generalized comment in an absolute way. Here's a more specific explanation for you...

 There are two types of auditory memory: short term and long term. Studies have shown that difference between aspects of sound (ie: pitch, tone, etc.) start to fade from the memory in as short as ten seconds. You can take two slightly different sounds and the longer the space of time between auditioning them, the less likely the subject is going to discern the difference. It doesn't matter how long they hear the sound samples. The important thing is the space of time between them.

 Long term memory is generalized rather than specific. It's based on conclusions we make rather than direct comparison. For instance, we remember that a sound was "harsh and grating", but after a certain amount of time passes, we're unable to remember exactly what frequency spectrum the harshness resided in. A significantly different type of harshness might sound to us the same.

 Short term memory is specific, rather than generalized. It's based on direct comparison of stimuli. For instance, if you take two sounds that have a very slightly different equalization, it's possible to discern with immediate direct comparison which one is "muffled" and which one sounds "sharper".

 There have been studies that have found that there is a direct correlation between short and long term auditory memory and short and long term visual memory. The example posted earlier about the two slightly different shades of vermillion illustrate this exact same point.

 Here's a practical example of how short term auditory memory works... When you go out to buy loudspeakers for your system, it doesn't work to compare speakers you hear at one store to speakers you hear at another store. Comparisons between models at the same store are much easier, because of the way our memory for sound fades over time. You might be able to compare speakers that are radically different that way, but not ones that are at all similar in sound.

 There are studies that indicate that context can extend auditory memory of some specific details. For instance, it might be possible to discern smaller differences between samples if the subject is very familiar with the the sound. (ie: a recording or piece of music) But this doesn't mean that long term memory is more accurate than short term for slight differences, it just means that long term memory isn't always quite so bad for details.

 The ideal way to compare cables would be to do direct A/B switching using music that you are very familiar with.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Thank you for that explanation. It makes sense, although I may disagree with application of the principles you set forth to the issue at hand. But the explanation is very good, in contrast to the statement you made earlier, which was so general as to be incorrect or misleading, IMO.

 In any event, as indicated in my previous post, I have to retire from this thread for awhile. It is just going around in circles, and there is more than one of them.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_Well, except that your perfect cable is not neutral at all, and in fact the opposite. And things like that make it very hard to even think about a valid test because of the lens you view what a good cable is._

 

Here's an idea... Assuming that a cable that colors the sound is bad... (I think we can assume that since everyone seems to agree that cables shouldn't be used as tone controls) ...theoretically, that coloration should be additive by generation. If you have an excellent DAC, it would be possible to set up a loop that takes a sound sample and runs it through the cable to the DAC then back out to analogue through the cable and back through again.

 I've done generation tests on CD rips, cassettes, reel to reel tapes, etc. and after 5 or 10 generations, the differences become pronounced. It seems to me that if you did 30 or 40 generations with a Radio Shack cable and a couple of high end cables, if there is a difference between them, those 40th generation sound files should be significantly different. I realize the conversion from digital to analogue and back to digital would introduce error too, but if all the cables used the same DA converter, the noise introduced by the conversion should be consistent throughout them, and the one that sounds the closest to the source would be the cable that conducts the sound the best.

 Does this make sense?

 It seems to me that this would be the best sort of test, because it would concentrate and amplify any differences, and completely remove subjectivity. We could all listen to the files and hear the results.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* 
_Why not skip the pointless argument and comment on the proposed methodology instead?_

 

I really don't see why another test would be any better. This one didn't give us any info on the specific differences between the different types of cables, but it clearly indicated that people can't discern that Radio Shack cables are any worse sounding than the other two types tested. Isn't that enough?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I don't agree with what you say, as I think the point that is counter to this has already been discussed before, and it seems to me that you are ignoring the points as to how people might hear differences . . . *do you do this just to continue the argument or are you really interested in conducting a fair test,* as I don't understand the reference with fries, but possibly you think some cables are similar to fries, or maybe that was a joke, I don't know, but I can't follow half of what you say, and you just seem to want to make the same points over and over, and I am getting tired of typing this . . . so I give up. Whew!_

 

I could ask the same of you, since you simply perpetuate the argument and don't respond to any of the posts that actually discuss conducting a fair test.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_I really don't see why another test would be any better. This one didn't give us any info on the specific differences between the different types of cables, but it clearly indicated that people can't discern that Radio Shack cables are any worse sounding than the other two types tested. Isn't that enough?_

 

No. This test didn't "clearly indicate" anything about what people can or can't discern. However, a test could be designed that would actually confirm to a measurable degree of probability that people can hear a difference between two cables. The existing test did not test whether or not people can hear a difference between/among the cables they were testing. If we don't know whether people could actually hear a difference, then it is futile to speculate as to whether they heard something that was "better" or "worse" than something else.

 We're dozens of posts into this thread, and no one can decide what, if anything, this test showed. What I am proposing is a test that will test one thing and one thing only: whether the participants can discern a difference between two cables. If the test fails to establish that people can tell the difference, then there is no point in testing any futher. If the test does establish that people can tell the difference, then it is worth doing further testing.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* 
_No. This test didn't "clearly indicate" anything about what people can or can't discern. However, a test could be designed that would actually confirm to a measurable degree of probability that people can hear a difference between two cables. The existing test did not test whether or not people can hear a difference between/among the cables they were testing. If we don't know whether people could actually hear a difference, then it is futile to speculate as to whether they heard something that was "better" or "worse" than something else.

 We're dozens of posts into this thread, and no one can decide what, if anything, this test showed. What I am proposing is a test that will test one thing and one thing only: whether the participants can discern a difference between two cables. If the test fails to establish that people can tell the difference, then there is no point in testing any futher. If the test does establish that people can tell the difference, then it is worth doing further testing._

 

Well maybe not to you, but to me it did, and to me is crystal clear, that the participants were not able to discern the differences between the sound in those 3 cables, and failed to indentify them properly, and failed in the majority of the cases taking one for another, even missed taking the best as the worst, and vice, so IMO it is crystal clear, that or those differences were really, really subtle (which I do believe), or there was absolutely none among them...So if you guys want to continue the argument, and try to do an ideal test, that later on the die hard cable believers will find unsuitable as well, that is up to you, to me the chapter is over....my money will not go into cables, well indeed that was my belief a long time ago, just now I feel more confident about my prior desicion...


----------



## bigshot

Well, we can't know what each person thought the two "good" cables should sound like. Perhaps some thought one would be brighter, and some thought the other would be brighter... But we can get real results on the Radio Shack cables. This test showed that the cables thought of by all participants as "the worst" were picked as being one or the other of "the best" at a rate corresponding with random chance. Even though people think they're clearly inferior, they can't identify them as such in a blind test. That tells me what I need to know- if the least expensive cables aren't inferior, I don't need to go further and find out how the expensive ones compared to each other.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## russdog

I'm telling ya, we're not gonna get *anywhere* with this until we adopt my ketchup-tasting idea 

 There's just too much intense and passionate certitude-about-intangibles here for people to get along or agree about much. But nobody gets this intense about ketchup. So, let's pretend we're testing ketchup. There is one question that must be answered before any other: What about ketchup is the most important thing to know? Whether people can identify which brand of ketchup is which? How people describe their experience of tasting samples of different kinds of ketchup? Or whether people rank their tasting experience of Actual Food better when it includes one brand of ketchup vs. another? Or must we design a study that accomplishes two of them? Or all three?


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I don't agree with what you say, as I think the point that is counter to this has already been discussed before, and it seems to me that you are ignoring the points as to how people might hear differences . . . do you do this just to continue the argument or are you really interested in conducting a fair test, as I don't understand the reference with fries, but possibly you think some cables are similar to fries, or maybe that was a joke, I don't know, but I can't follow half of what you say, and you just seem to want to make the same points over and over, and I am getting tired of typing this . . . so I give up. Whew!_

 


 The fries was an American joke...not sure if you have heard it before, but as I'm not a native American, and I have, I was assuming that others as well will know what it is about... 

 The fair test you are suggesting and trying to implement, I can tell from now, in advance, that you will never see it materialized unless you are willing to pay for it from your own pocket. Nobdy will invest (not even a cable manufacturer) in letting a bunch of people borrow some cables, including some expensive ones, and wait for 10 years to get the results (as this simple one took almost two years) sorry to disagree one more time....IMO that is not a* fair test*, that is an imposible to do test, with which you are trying maybe to fool, and keep the rest fo the called audiophiles in the darkness regarding this issue for life...
 But what indded i find really funny or curious, is how the cable manufactueres and cable die hard believers had claimed over the years, that they hear the differecnes just hooking the cables in their respective systems
 "...Just hooked this cable and the system shows this and that, or the life comes back..." or whatever terminology they used for the ocassion, and suddenly now they need a lot of time for a test, that is ridiculous and absurd IMO, whom are they trying to fool??? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 BTW I still have the Cable Comparator CD, an studio recording with an objective evidence of the called differences between 15 different cables, if you want a sample I could send you one, to see how big those differences could be perceived in your system, by your ears, in the term you want, a whole life if you like...no rush on that case....

Here is some more information:


 Wireworld Inc. has released information their Cable Comparator Disc. Wireworld believes wholeheartedly in the scientific and analytical approach instead of snake oil and marketing hype. The Cable Comparator Disc CD has seventeen tracks of the same song. Fifteen of these tracks were made by feeding the analog audio signal through a selection of 1 meter interconnects. Six of the cables are Wireworld's brand new Series 5 models and the others are well-known competitors. Another track is made with a 10-meter long pair of the same type of cable that was used in a 1-meter length to make one of the other tracks. The 17th track is made with a direct connection to serve as a benchmark of comparison. The disc is claimed by Wireworld to "demonstrate objectively that most cables cause substantial amounts of audible distortion, and that Wireworld Series 5 cables effectively minimize this distortion to provide greatly improved sound quality." The Cable Comparator Disc also contains a CD-ROM section with background information on the testing, product literature, and technical discussions on the issues of cable performance. It is a promotional product and is free of charge while supplies last.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* 
_I could ask the same of you, since you simply perpetuate the argument and don't respond to any of the posts that actually discuss conducting a fair test._

 

I don't know what you want me to respond to. I think you and I are basically in agreement as to how the test should be done. What am I missing?

 P.S. My last post to Sovkiller was in jest. It was intended to be mimicry. I was having a little fun.


----------



## clarke68

We should do another test. I'd say the first one was a huge success, but there's a few things that could be improved upon and there definitely seems to be enough interest. I suggest a "team" approach:

 1.) Have one of the more statistics-minded guys design a worthwhile test. Note that I didn't say a _perfect_ test, just one that a lot of people would be interested in participating. It should be clearly stated what the test is designed to prove, and also what the test is _not_ designed to prove.

 2.) Get someone to foot the bill. Maybe a couple guys. C'mon...you _know_ there's some surplus cash floating around Head-Fi...

 3.) See if Edwood would be willing to build the cables for us again. He did a great job last time! Materials would be delivered to him by #2 (above), and #1 (above) should try and keep it to as few cables as possible.

 4.) Need someone to coordinate delivery/schedule/etc. This is far and away the suckiest job. I might, repeat _might_, be willing to do it as long as you guys drag your feet on steps 1-3 long enough that this thing doesn't get going until after the International meet next April. I'm a little booked until then...

 5.) Need someone to gather/process data. Probably the same person as #1 (above). Maybe if #2 (above) has _particularly_ deep pockets, we can hire PriceWaterhouseCoopers or KPMG to do this for us... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Yeah, it might take 10 years to complete. So what? I don't think the state of the cable industry has changed all that much in the last 10 years. I bet if Edwood knew that _this_ test would take 2 years he never would have got it off the ground. But here we are, 2 years later, debating the silly thing like it was yesterday. 

 Do we have any volunteers?


----------



## wirbeltier

Hey! My biggest concerns lie in point #3: As shielding, soldering, non-soldering etc. are announced as 'key features' by almost every cable manufacturer, the sole transfer of the innards would not be appropriate and will be a central point of criticism. The cables should be tested 'as are', i.e. how they are sold.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wirbeltier* 
_Hey! My biggest concerns lie in point #3: As shielding, soldering, non-soldering etc. are announced as 'key features' by almost every cable manufacturer, the sole transfer of the innards would not be appropriate and will be a central point of criticism. *The cables should be tested 'as are', i.e. how they are sold.*_

 

Yeah. I'm sure no one would be able to guess what they are by looking at them then. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 But I could include blindfolds and a helper hamster in the package to conduct the test.

 But that would violate the DBT rule.

 And some kind of animal cruelty law along with USPS rules.

 -Ed


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ferbose* 
_I was recently informed that a certain "V" brand of expensive cable very hyped up around here actually uses Home Depot wires. The friend opened up the cable and saw--very familiar wires. Good luck if you dropped a few grands for their crap._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* 
_What brand is this?_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ferbose* 
_I'll get my ass kicked if I post full brand names, if not sued.
 Is it even OK to PM such info?_

 

Why not revealing the name of a brand which repackages low quality stuff only to sell as high quality stuff?

 I mean, saying something like "the inside of <insert name> cables looks very similar to Home Depot cables" should be allowed on the forums and I personally don't see any reason for you to worry of being sued or whatever, since you won't do anything more but showing a visual similarity. 

 Up to the 'very hyped up" manufacturer then to come and explain that it's nothing more than a visual similarity and that actually it's the super duper soldering technology used which increases the price by 1000.


----------



## wirbeltier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* 
_Yeah. I'm sure no one would be able to guess what they are by looking at them then. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But I could include blindfolds and a helper hamster in the package to conduct the test.

 But that would violate the DBT rule.

 And some kind of animal cruelty law along with USPS rules.

 -Ed_

 

Save them hamsters 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But maybe some kind of enclosure thats the same for each cable.

 Cheers
 Klaus


----------



## clarke68

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_My system has always been too bright because I don't like to sacrifice detail. Cables made the biggest difference in my system, upgrading source and amp was just a sidestep, they didn't do anything to fix the problems. Valhalla cables transformed my system, it wasn't anything subtle because it fixed loads of problems._

 

Inductance on the Nordost Valhallas is well over 400uF/foot...easily enough to start attenuating high frequencies (Belden 1694 has less than .11uF/foot). _That's_ likely what's "fixing" the problems in your system.

 You could get the same effect by adding a couple of (or maybe a lot of) ferrite chokes to your stock cables. If it works, and you end up selling your Valhallas, remember me when you have an extra few thousand $$$ in your pocket.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *clarke68* 
_Inductance on the Nordost Valhallas is well over 400uF/foot...easily enough to start attenuating high frequencies (Belden 1694 has less than .11uF/foot). That's likely what's "fixing" the problems in your system.

 You could get the same effect by adding a couple of (or maybe a lot of) ferrite chokes to your stock cables. If it works, and you end up selling your Valhallas, remember me when you have an extra few thousand $$$ in your pocket._

 

If I wanted to choke the highs and dynamics I could do that with cheap cables instead. I tried a few triple shielded cables and they made sibilance more apparent because of less transparency in the mid-range. I got the same sibilance from tubes. When lowering the resolution (hiding the problem) enough you reach a point where the sibilance isn't annoying anymore, but I don't like to hide the problems.

 The only way to fix the sibilance problem is to increase the speed and make the rest of the frequencies more realistic so that the sibilance doesn't stand out anymore. Even though the sibilance has increased it doesn't sound annoying because the realism VS sibilance contrast is different. And then if you make the background blacker without sacrificing transparency the sibilance is gone and there is more detail. There is no sibilance whatsoever with my Benchmark DAC-1 anymore.

 Solid-tech Feet Of Silence made the background blacker without sacrificing anything. It gave different shades of sibilance between different vocalists. After that I quit using the fat Mullard tubes which were hiding the sibilance problem, because the problem was reduced! When I downgraded from Cary 303/300 to Benchmark DAC-1 I got less sibilance because the contrast had changed again. Big high-end boxes have sibilance and it is hidden with upsampling or tubes which reduce detail and transparency. The shortest signal path had the least sibilance in my system after all the problems were fixed with tweaks. So that's why I'm using a $975 source.

 So it's either hide or boost up the resolution until the sibilance becomes listenable. Veiled music is unlistenable to me so I didn't have a choice.


----------



## bigshot

"Increase the speed"? You aren't seriously suggesting that electricity passes faster through some cables than other ones... I honestly can't make head nor tail of this post. Are you trolling?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *clarke68* 
_We should do another test. I'd say the first one was a huge success, but there's a few things that could be improved upon and there definitely seems to be enough interest. I suggest a "team" approach..._

 

The first one was either a big success or a failure, depending largely on how you look at it. As an "Actual Test" that provided answers to "Useful Questions", it was clearly a failure. Which is not to diss all the work that went into it, because it was quite successful at being exactly what it should have been: a pre-real-test "Pilot Study". When people do real research, especially research that involves people, it is standard practice to do prelim pilot studies. This is because people are complicated, and it routinely happens that studies involving human perception always throws you a curve ball somehow. So, you cobble up your best guess, do a little study with it, then use the results for 2 purposes:
 Looking at the unfortunately-flawed results, and seeing what the findings suggest to you. How might those prelim findings suggest better questions or methods for the subsequent Real Study?
 Looking at the particulars and seeing exactliy how the first one was "unfortunately flawed", and then refining the design to get rid of (or control for) those evident flaws.
So, as a "Real Study" the first one is bogus, but as a "Pilot Study" the first one is almost but not quite perfect. Here is the chain:

 1. Cool Idea -> 
 2. Specific questions -> 
 3. Prelim Design -> 
 4. Pilot Study -> -> 
 5. Flawed Results -> 
 6. Redesign -> 
 7. Real Study -> 
 8. Real Results

 We have progressed to inbetween Step 5 and Step 6. Except that we never really got clear about Step 2. So, we need to do Step 6 based on Step 5, but we need to repair the confusion about Step 2. Meanwhile, some people wanted us to be at Step 8. But we're just not there, it's a fact, and everybody should just accept that. Where we are is entirely consistent with how Actual Research really works. But we shouldn't be stupid about it. If we are stupid about it, then there are 2 outcomes, each of which is fairly likely:

 Outcome 1: Everybody argues about what Step 5 suggests to us. Which is useful input to Step 6. But maybe everybody just argues and makes speeches, and we never quite *do* Steps 6 thru 8.

 Outcome 2: Everybody argues about what Step 5 suggests to us. But rather than working for consensus about how to best use that in Step 6, it becomes an argument that doesn't help. The danger is that One Camp would just do Step 6 its way (for example, "Let's invade Iraq!") without using the Other Camp to help make a better design (for example, "Um, maybe we better not invade Iraq.") If One Camp does the redesign without the Other Camp, then it's likely to be another flawed design (for example, "Let's bomb Iran!"). Which means you get stuck in a loop in which you just repeat Steps 4, 5, and 6 again and again. Until everybody gives up.

 So, the bottom line is that *if* people want to do a good test, here's the status:
 The first study was a valuable "pilot study".
 To do a "real study", we need the various camps to dialogue until we have a redesigned study that Most Everybody is happy with, and that can Actually Be Done. This includes fixing the problem back at Step 2.
 At this point in time, discussion about cables is entirely 100% beside the point of this thread.
Given the main point of this thread, the focus should be on what you want the real study to find out. That's first, before methodology. Once we know what we're trying to find out, then we can argue about methodology. But we shouldn't put the cart before the horse. (Really. No kidding.)


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_"Increase the speed"? You aren't seriously suggesting that electricity passes faster through some cables than other ones... I honestly can't make head nor tail of this post. Are you trolling?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Are cables magic teleportation devices? Even air slows down electricity which distorts the signal.
 It isn't all about 1-20 kHz signals passing through the cable, it's about the timing. The faster the signal can go the more accurate it will be because of less distortion. Just because a cable can pass through a 20 kHz signal doesn't mean it's working properly.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_The first one was either a big success or a failure, depending largely on how you look at it. As an "Actual Test" that provided answers to "Useful Questions", it was clearly a failure. Which is not to diss all the work that went into it, because it was quite successful at being exactly what it should have been: a pre-real-test "Pilot Study". When people do real research, especially research that involves people, it is standard practice to do prelim pilot studies. This is because people are complicated, and it routinely happens that studies involving human perception always throws you a curve ball somehow. So, you cobble up your best guess, do a little study with it, then use the results for 2 purposes:
 Looking at the unfortunately-flawed results, and seeing what the findings suggest to you. How might those prelim findings suggest better questions or methods for the subsequent Real Study?
 Looking at the particulars and seeing exactliy how the first one was "unfortunately flawed", and then refining the design to get rid of (or control for) those evident flaws.
So, as a "Real Study" the first one is bogus, but as a "Pilot Study" the first one is almost but not quite perfect. Here is the chain:

 1. Cool Idea -> 
 2. Specific questions -> 
 3. Prelim Design -> 
 4. Pilot Study -> -> 
 5. Flawed Results -> 
 6. Redesign -> 
 7. Real Study -> 
 8. Real Results

 We have progressed to inbetween Step 5 and Step 6. Except that we never really got clear about Step 2. So, we need to do Step 6 based on Step 5, but we need to repair the confusion about Step 2. Meanwhile, some people wanted us to be at Step 8. But we're just not there, it's a fact, and everybody should just accept that. Where we are is entirely consistent with how Actual Research really works. But we shouldn't be stupid about it. If we are stupid about it, then there are 2 outcomes, each of which is fairly likely:

 Outcome 1: Everybody argues about what Step 5 suggests to us. Which is useful input to Step 6. But maybe everybody just argues and makes speeches, and we never quite *do* Steps 6 thru 8.

 Outcome 2: Everybody argues about what Step 5 suggests to us. But rather than working for consensus about how to best use that in Step 6, it becomes an argument that doesn't help. The danger is that One Camp would just do Step 6 its way (for example, "Let's invade Iraq!") without using the Other Camp to help make a better design (for example, "Um, maybe we better not invade Iraq.") If One Camp does the redesign without the Other Camp, then it's likely to be another flawed design (for example, "Let's bomb Iran!"). Which means you get stuck in a loop in which you just repeat Steps 4, 5, and 6 again and again. Until everybody gives up.

 So, the bottom line is that *if* people want to do a good test, here's the status:
 The first study was a valuable "pilot study".
 To do a "real study", we need the various camps to dialogue until we have a redesigned study that Most Everybody is happy with, and that can Actually Be Done. This includes fixing the problem back at Step 2.
 At this point in time, discussion about cables is entirely 100% beside the point of this thread.
Given the main point of this thread, the focus should be on what you want the real study to find out. That's first, before methodology. Once we know what we're trying to find out, then we can argue about methodology. But we shouldn't put the cart before the horse. (Really. No kidding.)_

 

 Excellent post, russdog. Probably doomed to be ignored due its logical approach and coherent discussion of the issues. But nice try anyway.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I don't know what you want me to respond to. I think you and I are basically in agreement as to how the test should be done. What am I missing?_

 

Sorry, I guess I was missing something. I didn't realize that you agreed with what I had written.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* 
_Are cables magic teleportation devices? Even air slows down electricity which distorts the signal.
 It isn't all about 1-20 kHz signals passing through the cable, it's about the timing. The faster the signal can go the more accurate it will be because of less distortion. Just because a cable can pass through a 20 kHz signal doesn't mean it's working properly._

 

Sorry, but what you're saying doesn't jibe with electrical science. Electricity in cables isn't like pigs swimming through molassas. An inefficient conductor reduces the strength of the signal, not its speed. Electricity does have a speed, but for the lengths of cables in the average stereo system, you don't have to worry about the cables affecting the timing of the phase. Whoever told you that it does is feeding you a line of hoodoo.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_The first one was either a big success or a failure, depending largely on how you look at it. 
 <snip>
 Given the main point of this thread, the focus should be on what you want the real study to find out. That's first, before methodology. Once we know what we're trying to find out, then we can argue about methodology. But we shouldn't put the cart before the horse. (Really. No kidding.)_

 

You write grant proposals for a living, right? If you don't you should consider doing that, because this is a very well thought out proposal.
 Now the BIG question. How do we fund this?
 I think it is safe to assume nobody in the industry would be willing to, a wire manufacture, for example, has everything to lose, and little to gain. So we can assume if we were to do this, we fund this.
 -- 
 Dana


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_Now the BIG question. How do we fund this?
 I think it is safe to assume nobody in the industry would be willing to, a wire manufacture, for example, has everything to lose, and little to gain. So we can assume if we were to do this, we fund this._

 

 I think it should be funded by The Danamr Foundation.


----------



## bigshot

If listening tests were sufficient to convince people that high end cables are hoodoo, everyone around here would be wired with Radio Shack by now. This test clearly rated Radio Shack cables just as high as two different expensive cables. There's your smoking gun. Why go to a lot of time and trouble to prove it even more clearly to people who refuse to acknowledge the obvious? All you're going to get is the old anecdotal testimonials and circular arguments about testing methods. These people have hundreds of dollars and hours of tweaking invested in believing that their cables make a difference. They see evidence to the contrary as a personal insult- a challenge to their ego. You aren't going to get through to them with statistics.

 I want to see who's the first brave soul to add this to their sig file...

_TEAM RADIO SHACK: RS Cables Rated As High As Canare StarQuad and Solid Silver Cables on HeadFi!_

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_You write grant proposals for a living, right? If you don't you should consider doing that, because this is a very well thought out proposal._

 

 Once upon a time I did. I battted about .600, which is good in that business. But I didn't enjoy it much. Teaching and actually working with people was better for me.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_Now the BIG question. How do we fund this?_

 

No, that is *not* the big question. It is a big *distraction*. (Understandable, but a distraction nonetheless.) You can't cost something out until you know what it is. Despite some parallel blather to the contrary, we have no good idea about what a real study looks like. The only thing you will do by costing it out now is get it wrong.

 The big question is the next question, as I described before. The next question is always the big question if you harbor *any* delusions about getting anything done.

 Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of taking big insightful leaps. But only when appropriate, like when discussing ideas. For actually getting something done, not so much...


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_This test clearly rated Radio Shack cables just as high as two different expensive cables._

 

You clearly do not understand this test at all. At no point was the test group asked which cable they prefered. Let me put it this way: If people thought the Radio Shack cables were the silver cables, that just means they are bright. If people thought the Radio Shack cables were the Cardas cables, theat just means they are warm. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 At least those are the conclusions I would draw based upon the 'information' they had going into the test and the choices they made when tested. How are you coming to the decision that this test somehow rates the Radio Shack cables as highly as Cardas or the 'silver cables'?

 See ya
 Jay


----------



## clarke68

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_2. Specific questions -> 

 we never really got clear about Step 2. So, we need to do Step 6 based on Step 5, but we need to repair the confusion about Step 2._

 

Okay, let's do it. Possible questions include:
Can people reliably hear differences between different cable conductor materials?
Do inexpensive conductor materials sound as good as expensive/exotic cable materials?

 Pick one. Change one. Add your own. Whatever. When we have a few good ones we can vote, or let Russdog pick one and run with it (since he, though perhaps he doesn't realise it, has volunteered to design the next test for us!).


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_How are you coming to the decision that this test somehow rates the Radio Shack cables as highly as Cardas or the 'silver cables'?_

 

1) This group consisted of people to whom the concept of cables making a difference was in the realm of the possible. (People who know there is no difference wouldn't waste their time.)

 2) Although we don't know what the expectations were for the sound of the two high end cables, we do know that the Radio Shack cables were looked upon as "cheap" and "bad sounding" compared to high end cables among the participants. The person administering the test even reinforced this belief by derisively referring to the cables as "Rat Shack".

 3) In blind tests, the subjects were clearly unable to identify any cable as being "the worst". The Radio Shack cables were chosen as one or the other of the high end (read "good") cables in a proportion equal to random chance.

 Conclusion: Radio Shack cables do not sound any worse than the two high end cables tested.

 Let's all have a high five for Radio Shack!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Patrick82

A good test is one where you don't tell what cables are used, and you let the participants post their impressions of each cable. If everyone says that cable A is bright and cable B is warm, then there's the proof!


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I think it should be funded by The Danamr Foundation. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That foundation is dedicated to research on finding out why people hear things that aren't there. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I was more thinking of the PhilS Cable Study Group™ (For the preservation cable manufactures everywhere)





 -- 
 Dana


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_Conclusion: Radio Shack cables do not sound any worse than the two high end cables tested.

 Let's all have a high five for Radio Shack!
_

 

Great. High five for Radio Shack! You win, or whatever you want us to say. Now can we get back to the progress we've been making, as initiated by the post by russdog? Jeez.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Bigshot, I wanted to point out that Canare 4s11 starquad is roughly $1.25 a foot or cheaper, and each segment of wire has enough conductors for a pair of L and R cables, if you forgo the starquad 4 wire twist. Radio shack wires aren't much cheaper, if at all. The silver wire purchased from a spool of the stuff was still probably under $3-5 a foot maximum depending on bulk and gauge. The raw materials for boutique cables just aren't all that expensive unless you believe all the proprietary stuff they claim they do has a high cost, if it were in fact true. 

 I hope that next time, we don't state what kind of cables there are at all.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_You clearly do not understand this test at all. At no point was the test group asked which cable they prefered. Let me put it this way: If people thought the Radio Shack cables were the silver cables, that just means they are bright. If people thought the Radio Shack cables were the Cardas cables, theat just means they are warm. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 But the RS cables must not be confused with the silver ones, as they were supposed to be dull sounding, and not bright at all....if they sounded bright then they are not that bad...


----------



## philodox

bigshot - That reasoning works fine for you perhaps, but if I imagine how I would handle the test my answers would give no indication that the Radio Shack cables were comparible.

 It would go something like this. Pick out the brightest cable, thats silver. Pick out the warmest cable, thats Canare. Whatever is leftover is Radio Shack. So if I picked the Radio Shack as the brightest cable it is not an indication that it is good, but that it has similar failings to silver. If I picked it as the warmest cable it just means it is warmer than Canare, again no indication that it is in any way better or even comparible.

 Besides that, I would not be going into the test with preconceptions that the Radio Shack cables are the worst sounding. I've never heard them and that would be poor judgement. I have heard silver cables and they usually sound bright. I have heard Canare and it is a warmer sounding cable. These are the indicators I would have used.

 Now if you had asked me which I prefer I may have noticed things like differences in soundstage or speed of dynamics or what have you. But this test does not ask that, it asks what brand you think each cable is.

 I really don't give a rats ass if you think that Radio Shack cables are as good or better than the other two cables in this test, but drawing that conclusion from the results of this test makes no sense.

 Patrick82 - The test you propose would be interesting and could have a bit more relevance I think. There are so many ways you could do it though. I think if this ever gets done again we should use multiple testing methods so that everyone is happy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Sov - Not everyone listens to the CD3000 and not everyone thinks that bright is a good thing.


----------



## robm321

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* 
_You can't draw that conclusion from this test._

 


 Agreed

 I hear a major difference in my cables, otherwise I'd just keep my cheapest ones and sell the rest.

 Glad you had fun killing time though.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_Sov - Not everyone listens to the CD3000 and not everyone thinks that bright is a good thing. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Me neither, bright is not a good thing, I agree with you on that, and silver sounds bright *in comparison with other materials* (what about if we consider instead that the silver cable will preserve more the reference sound, and make everything to sound good with silver cables, how they will sound later on with other cables???) But a good silver cable will sound extended in both ends, it will show you also a more clean and deep bass as well...But definitelly Radio Shack cable are anything but bright..sorry to disagree here with whomever stated that...I owned and have tried those for long time, as many of us at the beginning in our journey through the audio valley, and not even the fusion ones are bright at all...I still have a few around if someone wants to try them...

 BTW the CD3000 is a bright headphone in the wrong setup, in mine it sounds absolutelly wonderful, you are invited to my home anyday to listen it, and you will experienced that for yourself. It does not sound bright here, you have to build the system around the headphone you like. AT knows that as well, not in vane they created that headphone amp to match the L3000, there is no one size fits all in audio, unfortunatelly for us....whomever thinks that, is completelly wrong and will never find piece of mind lookig for the nirvana in headphone reproduction...


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_Me neither, bright is not a good thing, I agree with you on that, and silver sounds bright *in comparison with other materials*_

 

Not sure why you bolded your sentence there as that is exactly what I was saying. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_But definitelly Radio Shack cable are anything but bright._

 

As I said, I have absolutely no experience with Radio Shack cables, so I would go into the test without any preconceptions about them. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* 
_you have to build the system around the headphone you like._

 

Most definately.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_Besides that, I would not be going into the test with preconceptions that the Radio Shack cables are the worst sounding._

 



 I thought there was disagreement about how the two high end cables should sound, and that's why the results on the two high end cables were muddled. If most people think of silver as being "bright" and the other being "warm" and the cables actually do sound that way, why did all the results come out in a random spread? It's beginning to sound like they all sounded the same.

 As for doing a test where everyone describes the sound of each cable in words... that's a great way to document a bunch of meaningless poetry. We'll get people describing silver as "petulant" and Radio Shack as "shy and retiring". That sort of test also assumes that there *is* a difference, which I'm not convinced there is based on the results of the present test.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Anyway, getting back to discussions of the proposed test, there have been some concerns expressed about funding. I am wondering if anyone (well, not anyone, but anyone who really wants to have an intelligent discussion), has thoughts on what costs the test might entail. Since participants will presumably be shipping the cables to one another, is the cost primarily the construction or purchase of the cables? Is there some other substantial cost? I'm not sure why it would be as expensive as people suggest, but maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_As for doing a test where everyone describes the sound of each cable in words... that's a great way to document a bunch of meaningless poetry. We'll get people describing silver as "petulant" and Radio Shack as "shy and retiring"._

 

Ummm, couldn't we ask that they rank the cables or assign a numeric value for each percievable quality? Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_That sort of test also assumes that there *is* a difference, which I'm not convinced there is based on the results of the present test._

 

The test does not say anything about the difference between these three cables as each person could have had [and likely did] their own unique preconceptions that they weiged each cable against.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_Ummm, couldn't we ask that they rank the cables or assign a numeric value for each percievable quality?_

 

As long as the words to describe the sound aren't interpreted differently by each person. Try and think of the words you would use in the test, then think of all the ways those words could be interpreted.

 If there is a difference, it should be able to magnify it to an obvious level through a multiple generation loop like I described earlier. That would make the differences plain and would totally remove the subjectivity of trying to describe sounds with words.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_As long as the words to describe the sound aren't interpreted differently by each person. Try and think of the words you would use in the test, then think of all the ways those words could be interpreted._

 

It is not generally accepted that people use the same words to mean different things when the are describing their own subjective experience. It seems possible, but I think it is far less likely to happen when describing direct subjective sensory experience than when discussing "idea issues" (such as politics or religion) where words have such far-reaching implications.

 On the other hand, it is well known that people often say the same thing using different words. There are 2 basic ways to deal with this obvious fact:

 Approach 1. Let subjects choose whatever words they like, so their possible answers are open-ended. Then, have a few trained people go through and decide which people are saying essentially the same thing using different words. The big downside is that this approach is very time consuming, as it requires that some appropriate person or persons go through text responses, break them up into "meaning units", and then tag each meaning unit. Studies have shown that this can be done quite reliably (far better than you might think). However those studies were not using the kind of wine-like vocabulary that people here use to describe the nuances of musical sound. 

 Approach 2. Come up with a closed-ended list of descriptors. This can work just fine, provided that the list is adequately developed. When done poorly, the list includes only the choices that the tester thought of, so many respondents are forced to choose from a list of choices that does not include a choice that fits with their experience. When that happens, people are forced to either lie or say "none of the above", neither of which are good things. But if you develop the list properly, a closed-ended list can work just fine, and the results are then very easy to tabulate via automated means. As a practical matter, for the vocabulary that people use around here, a list would require not only a set of descriptors, but also a list synonyms and definitions for each descriptor in the list.

 For the vocabulary that gets used around here, I would favor the 2nd approach. It means more work up front, but without it the task of characterizing qualitative differences is about impossible. (There are other questions we might be asking that do not involve this problem, but I understand the value of characterizing any qualitative differences that may or may not exist.) The nature of the upfront work required to get an adequate list of qualitative descriptors is compatible with web-based textual communication.

 One huge advantage of getting an adequate list is that it can then be used for various purposes. For example, if we imagine that we had a proper list of descriptors, it could be used whenever a new model of cans, or speakers, or whatever, was reviewed. (I know, I know: the list might be slightly different for cans and speakers. But that can be handled.) I would expect that somebody has done a lot of work on this already. Who wants to do a literature review? (Not me.)

 We now return you to other people making speeches about their personal cable biases and their individual beliefs about sound...


----------



## ComfyCan

First, if the original poster started this for fun, then he achieved his intended result. Interesting thread, but if you want a scientifically valid result you have to use the scientific method. Russdog articulated the issue well, although many have touched on it in one way or another. 

 Study design should be kept simple; remember the K.I.S.S. principle. Any study or test that tries to do "too much" is guaranteed to fall victim to bias and other confounding factors which are lurking around every corner.

 Stay away from any subjective elements that lack a generally accepted objective standard. (e.g., asking participants whether a cable is "bright" or "warm"). The results may be entertaining, but they would provide, at best, very weak evidence of any given proposition.

 I'd start with the "simple" question: can most people even tell *any* difference between a consumer level and audiphile grade cable? I put "simple" in quotes because even this question is not easy to address. You need a clean study design that is as free of bias as possible, and you need a large participant group (half of which is control and half test). Results need to be subject to replication. Any single test result is *evidence* of a conclusion; it will never be definitive. 

 If, however, the same *simple* test using objective criteria can be replicated, confidence grows that the results are, in fact, proof of a conclusion. Variables in the study design can be tweaked in future tests to try and rule out suspected sources of bias. For example, if such a test suggested that people could tell a difference, using a different test track in future generation tests would either reinforce the initial hypothesis or cast doubt upon it, depending on whether you obtained the same results with different test tracks (or equipment, etc.).

 Bias and other confounding factors are sneaky and insidious; the mere act of posting a proposed design could very easily bias the entire headfi community. If the headfi community is to actively participate, i.e., eligible for inclusion in test or control group(s), they should not know the study design in advance. I am not discounting the possibility that somebody smarter than me could come up with a study design that would remain valid if the participants knew its inner workings, but every specific example I can think of would interpose the potential for bias if the participants knew what was going on.

 There are bound to be people here who know a heck of a lot more about this than I do. However, in my profession, I am regularly confronted with junk science and real science. I have to be able to tell the difference between the two. The former is very easy to come by, and can appear very compelling on the surface. See any edition of any newspaper for examples. 

 As a practical matter, to get a meaningul result you need a group to design and administer the test at a venue that is large and cooperative, such as a national headfi meet. I would suggest that you put both "believers" and "nonbelievers" on the study design team. The goal should be to put together an equipment set that the believers think will be likely to reveal subtle differences. The nonbelievers will simply want to make sure the process is fair. Particiapants in the test should have as little information about what they are involved in as possible. If people know what's up, bias will creep in. 

 Have fun, if anyone truly cares enough to take this beyond words and put it into action.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 As an aside, my sixth grade science teacher was quite convinced that the sun was going to implode in a supernova in the 1980's, and presented a pretty convincing argument in support of it. We're still here.


----------



## DrDobs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_You write grant proposals for a living, right? If you don't you should consider doing that, because this is a very well thought out proposal.
 Now the BIG question. How do we fund this?
 I think it is safe to assume nobody in the industry would be willing to, a wire manufacture, for example, has everything to lose, and little to gain. So we can assume if we were to do this, we fund this.
 -- 
 Dana_

 

Yes, I too figured we would be funding this project. I'm not so sure the expense would be as costly as the time and difficulty from a logistical standpoint. If we could develop a method, I would be willing to pitch in on the costs and time though.

 Jon


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_Yes, I too figured we would be funding this project. I'm not so sure the expense would be as costly as the time and difficulty from a logistical standpoint. If we could develop a method, I would be willing to pitch in on the costs and time though.

 Jon_

 

It don't not have to cost a huge amount of money, but that's going to depend on the question that the test is asking. If we are just trying to find out if someone hear hear the difference between, for example silver or copper wire, it would be possible to build some ic's for not a lot of money, that could test that. That however, will do nothing to, for example, tell if a $3k Valhalla sounds better than a $3 Rat Shack. How do you define a "audiphile grade cable"? Where do you draw the line? $50+, $100+, $500+, $∞+?
 Or do we rehash Ed's test with better questions?


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ComfyCan* 
_Study design should be kept simple; remember the K.I.S.S. principle...._

 

Always a good idea. But can the target group maintain interest if their issues are being ignored? So, may have to balance KISS with need for motivation. (People, you know.)

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ComfyCan* 
_Stay away from any subjective elements that lack a generally accepted objective standard. (e.g., asking participants whether a cable is "bright" or "warm"). The results may be entertaining, but they would provide, at best, very weak evidence of any given proposition..._

 

I think you are overstating the problems. They are real, but not necessarily deal-breakers. I also think you are underestimating the desire among significant portions of the Interested Group for qualitative judgments. You may or may not care about qualitative issues, and I may or may not care about them, but a whole lot of people here do. I agree that qualititative elements are messier than quantititative elements. However, I believe that a solid job can be done of obtaining quantitative data about qualitative judgments. If you remove the qualitative elements, I believe that you risk being perceived as implicitly biasing matters in favor of the skeptic/doubters, thus losing credibility among cable-believers, but I could easily be wrong about that.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ComfyCan* 
_I'd start with the "simple" question: can most people even tell *any* difference between a consumer level and audiphile grade cable?_

 

 Obviously much neater and simpler. But will the population accept something that is that limited in scope without crying foul? Maybe OK if presented as "Phase I" rather than "This is all there is, folks".

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ComfyCan* 
_Bias and other confounding factors are sneaky and insidious; the mere act of posting a proposed design could very easily bias the entire headfi community. If the headfi community is to actively participate, i.e., eligible for inclusion in test or control group(s), they should not know the study design in advance._

 

 Depends on the design, and depends on whether issues are discussed "in principle" vs. "in operational detail". Of course, thoughtful care must go into this, but we needn't get as crazy and extreme about distrusting human subjects as the social sciences did for 50 years. There is a reasonable middle ground.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ComfyCan* 
_As a practical matter, to get a meaningul result you need a group to design and administer the test at a venue that is large and cooperative, such as a national headfi meet._

 

 That would be best.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ComfyCan* 
_I would suggest that you put both "believers" and "nonbelievers" on the study design team. The goal should be to put together an equipment set that the believers think will be likely to reveal subtle differences. The nonbelievers will simply want to make sure the process is fair._

 

 I believe this is essential, is absolutely necessary. I expect this may have the practical consequence of confounding the KISS goal.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ComfyCan* 
_Particiapants in the test should have as little information about what they are involved in as possible. If people know what's up, bias will creep in._

 

 Again, depends on the kind of info that is known and its level of resolution. It could be a problem, but it need not be, depending on particulars.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ComfyCan* 
_Have fun, if anyone truly cares enough to take this beyond words and put it into action.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

 We'll see, won't we 

 I have no doubt whatsoever that the most expedient thing is to plan for a testing session in a large-group venue (just as you suggested) where time-constrained double-blind testing can occur in controlled conditions. I agree that the simple test you suggest could produce non-challengeble results (except from those who think you need 3 weeks to tell). I think that main focus could easily be combined with data acquisition about subjective reports re: qualitiative issues without screwing things up. However, doing the latter would require a well developed and well fleshed-out closed-ended selection list of qualitative terms.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_I have no doubt whatsoever that the most expedient thing is to plan for a testing session in a large-group venue (just as you suggested) where time-constrained double-blind testing can occur in controlled conditions. I agree that the simple test you suggest could produce non-challengeble results (except from those who think you need 3 weeks to tell)._

 

 I think, based on results of past DBT's involving cables, amps, etc. that a time-constrained test in a large-group venue (which typically include several listening conditions and circumstances that do not match the conditions under which we normally listen to music and discern what it sounds like) is certain to result in a finding that folks can't distinguish various cables. Indeed, it seems that almost all of the studies reported to date under these conditions result in negative findings. I would also suggest that the test being conducted in this way will virtually guarantee that many "believers" will not accept it, based on the test conditions. Frankly, I think one of the best features of the earlier test designed by Edwood was that the participants could listen to the cables at home, at their leisure, in their own systems, when they wanted to and for as long as they wanted. 

 I think this issue of the time-controlled nature of the test (I would probably even call it "time-limited" if it takes place at a meet) and the setting of the test presents a serious issue that needs to be addressed. For example, we might ask how many believers think that they will be able to successfully distinguish cables under the proposed conditions. If many say they will fail under such conditions (and as a believer I would guess that I would fail), then there is little point to that type of test. 

 Consider this somewhat imperfect analogy. There is wastebasket that sits about 10 feet away from me in my office. Sometimes when I'm idly thinking in the afternoon, looking out my office window at the somewhat pastoral setting nearby, I'll casually toss wads of paper into the basket. I typically hit 9 or 10 out of ten with no trouble. Ask me to come to the national meet, sit in a different room and a different chair, and toss papers at a different wastebasket while 50 people mill around and watch me to see how many I can make, and I can I bet I'll hit 5 out of 10, if that.


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I think, based on results of past DBT's involving cables, amps, etc. that a time-constrained test in a large-group venue (which typically include several listening conditions and circumstances that do not match the conditions under which we normally listen to music and discern what it sounds like) is certain to result in a finding that folks can't distinguish various cables. Indeed, it seems that almost all of the studies reported to date under these conditions result in negative findings. I would also suggest that the test being conducted in this way will virtually guarantee that many "believers" will not accept it, based on the test conditions. Frankly, I think one of the best features of the earlier test designed by Edwood was that the participants could listen to the cables at home, at their leisure, in their own systems, when they wanted to and for as long as they wanted. 

 I think this issue of the time-controlled nature of the test (I would probably even call it "time-limited" if it takes place at a meet) and the setting of the test presents a serious issue that needs to be addressed. For example, we might ask how many believers think that they will be able to successfully distinguish cables under the proposed conditions. If many say they will fail under such conditions (and as a believer I would guess that I would fail), then there is little point to that type of test._

 

You have mentioned some very relevant factors that must somehow be dealt with adequately. However, you have phrased your observations in a way that seems to argue for certain methods. It is important to separate the identification of issues from any rush to specifying ways of addressing those issues, otherwise things get blurred together to the detriment of everything.

 I think everyone who is reasonable will agree that some approximation of feasibility is appropriate, yes? In replying to ComfyCan, I was simply stating my own preliminary views about expediency while also sticking up for the idea of attending to qualitative matters. I was not attempting to dictate procedure or environment. Sorting out what the procedural and environmental conditions should be so that they are acceptable to different cable religions is what requires a team constituted of people from the various cable religions. At some point there will need to be a consensus about whether you wish to satisfy some very basic conditions of research. If there is a consensus that allegience to very personal and idiosyncratic factors makes it necessary to abandon even the most basic requirements of trustworthy research, then I don't think I can be of much help. I think you should consider the fact that rigorous procedures are routinely and successfully employed to study phenomena in which critical perceptual discrimination comes into play at least as much as it does here. 

 However, all of this is premature. It is the trap of considering method first, when method is not the first issue. What's first is identifying what it is we're trying to learn. It is perfectly normal to try to rush over the "what are we doing?" and get straight to the "how should we do it?". Even though it is normal, it is still wrong. We must overcome that tendency, and keep our focus on first identifying exactly what the goals are. Once we know that, we can then worry about how to achieve the goals.


----------



## clarke68

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_ Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ComfyCan* 
As a practical matter, to get a meaningul result you need a group to design and administer the test at a venue that is large and cooperative, such as a national headfi meet.

 

That would be best._

 

Either of you two youngsters ever been to a meet? They are, with the possible exception of a NASCAR race, the worst places on earth to do any kind of critical listening.

 I'm with Phil on this one...the "in your own home/system/time" nature of Edwood's original test is essential. Large group, public listening tests have been done before, typically with null results. Read about a few here, here, and here.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_However, all of this is premature._

 

Indeed. Questions on the table so far are:
Can people reliably hear differences between different cable conductor materials?
Do inexpensive conductor materials sound as good as expensive/exotic cable materials?
Can most people even tell *any* difference between a consumer level and audiphile grade cable?
Any others?


----------



## Karlosak

I agree with clarke68 and PhilS, an "in-home" listening test is absolutely essential. Many public, scientifically controlled tests have been already conducted and yet another similar test would bring IMHO the same results.
 The concept of a blind test in my home / with my equipment, music etc. is something new, which hasn't been done under controlled conditions so far and *exactly* mirrors one's listening habits, which is absolutely important for the cable believers, even me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 However there was a reason for such a test not having materialized in a scientific manner. The reason is, it can't be proclaimed even a single-blind test. We can't be 100% sure that the participants don't make out which cable is which by some unfair methods (bending the cable, weighting, or even opening the outer sleeve).
 But these issues shouldn't discourage such test. Yes, it raises the probability of a positive outcome. But if the participants failed, the cable believers wouldn't have virtually any acceptable argument at their hand (and this scenario is highly probable). If the outcome would be possitive though, then the credibility of the test could be easily shattered.
 Another shortcoming - only different wire materials could be tested, because the connectors must be the same. Since many cable manufacturers and believers put a lot of weight on proper cable termination, this would seriously limit the test and put one hefty argument to the pro-cable camp.

 It's evident that no test is perfect and compromises must be taken. The above test could at least (dis)prove that there are differences between various types of wire. (and I would finally know if it makes sense to wire all my DIY amplifiers with solid silver 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )


----------



## Hirsch

A less obvious need is for a positive control. Perhaps a cable deliberately made with enough capacitance to just barely affect the sound at threshold levels. There needs to be a cable that even the skeptics should be able to detect as different if they have decent hearing, but the difference should also be extremely subtle. If the positive is control is not detected, either the subject's hearing is below threshold, or the absence of a difference is a "placebo" effect...

 The presence of a positive control allows the use of a signal detection type analysis, which can in theory be used to separate out sensory differences from response bias, which IMO is critical to the hypotheses of interest.


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *clarke68* 
_Either of you two youngsters ever been to a meet? They are, with the possible exception of a NASCAR race, the worst places on earth to do any kind of critical listening._

 

Please don't treat me like I'm an idiot. While I have never been to a meet, I have been to conferences of various kinds, and I know they resemble a zoo. I don't think anyone is advocating any procedure in a noisy or distraction-filled environment. It may be plausible to have a nearby environment that is appropriately isolated from noise and other distractions/pressures, and which features suitable equipment. Of course, some might not like that either. These are just ideas. 

 I am troubled that some parties seem to be insisting on certain methods and procedures already. This is not an encouraging sign because it smacks of ideology.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *clark68* 
_Indeed. Questions on the table so far are:
Can people reliably hear differences between different cable conductor materials?
Do inexpensive conductor materials sound as good as expensive/exotic cable materials?
Can most people even tell *any* difference between a consumer level and audiphile grade cable?
Any others?_

 

We must first find out what the basic list is. Your list seems to be a good basic list, perhaps others will either add items or wish to subtract items from your list. Once we have a basic list, we must then flesh out each item on the list in terms of "how many choices", "what are the choices", etc. But that too is premature. Let's stay with the kind of list you have, and see if those 3 bullet points (while appropriately under-specified) are satisfactory to others.


----------



## ComfyCan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *clarke68* 
_Either of you two youngsters ever been to a meet? They are, with the possible exception of a NASCAR race, the worst places on earth to do any kind of critical listening.

 I'm with Phil on this one...the "in your own home/system/time" nature of Edwood's original test is essential. Large group, public listening tests have been done before, typically with null results. Read about a few here, here, and here.

 Indeed. Questions on the table so far are:
Can people reliably hear differences between different cable conductor materials?
Do inexpensive conductor materials sound as good as expensive/exotic cable materials?
Can most people even tell *any* difference between a consumer level and audiphile grade cable?
Any others?_

 

clarke68,
 Thanks for the links and the laugh. That was very interesting reading.I figured this sort of thing must have been tried before, and none of what I read about past testing surprises me. (I have never been to a national meet, and your comparison to NASCAR illustrates the problem quite nicely, although I've never been to a NASCAR event either).

 Conducting scientifically valid testing in this context clearly poses enormous practical difficulties. I suggested a headfi meet only because I couldn't think of any other venue where you would have a large, willing group of participants. I do believe that the number of participants is a very important variable in any study design; the greater the number, the greater the liklihood that the results are not due to chance. 

 I am now convinced that the idea of letting people use the different cables with their own gear in a home setting is much more likely to allow participants to make an intelligent decision about whether they percieve a difference in those cables (a decision that the participants themselves have confidence in). Of the 3 questions mentioned above, I believe 1 and 2 are much more suitable for a "home test" design. Question 3--trying to tell the difference between a given off-the-shelf consumer cable and a custom audiophile grade cable--is problematic because I don't see how you could get past the fact that the 2 cables would invariably have significant differences in connectors, soldering, etc. in "real world" cables. I think the process of making the cables appear uniform--using the same connectors---would likely invalidate any such effort. A pity, because that test, to me, would be the most interesting of the three you listed.

 The biggest problem I see to the "home testing" approach is logistical; how do you get enough cables to enough people to get a decent sample size? I don't think any such study would be significantly confounded by the risk of sneaky participants dismantling cables or otherwise "cheating," although that argument will always exist if testing is performed in a non-structured, unsupervised manner. That would appear to be the price you must pay if you want to give participants the opportunity to give the cables a really good listen before casting their ballots.

 While I agree with Russ that you ordinarily must pick the question before discussing study design, reality kind of gets in the way of that here. Limitations on what is practical seem to require simultaneous analysis.


----------



## ComfyCan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_Please don't treat me like I'm an idiot. While I have never been to a meet, I have been to conferences of various kinds, and I know they resemble a zoo. I don't think anyone is advocating any procedure in a noisy or distraction-filled environment. It may be plausible to have a nearby environment that is appropriately isolated from noise and other distractions/pressures, and which features suitable equipment. Of course, some might not like that either. These are just ideas. 

 I am troubled that some parties seem to be insisting on certain methods and procedures already. This is not an encouraging sign because it smacks of ideology.


 We must first find out what the basic list is. Your list seems to be a good basic list, perhaps others will either add items or wish to subtract items from your list. Once we have a basic list, we must then flesh out each item on the list in terms of "how many choices", "what are the choices", etc. But that too is premature. Let's stay with the kind of list you have, and see if those 3 bullet points (while appropriately under-specified) are satisfactory to others._

 


 Interesting that we read clarke68's post in such different ways; I thought the guy was being amusing and informative. 

 (If he was being smug, I don't really care--it's just the internet--but I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt).

 Carry on...


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_You have mentioned some very relevant factors that must somehow be dealt with adequately. However, you have phrased your observations in a way that seems to argue for certain methods. It is important to separate the identification of issues from any rush to specifying ways of addressing those issues, otherwise things get blurred together to the detriment of everything._

 

 I agree that generally your approach (i.e., separating the identification of issues from the testing method) in most instances would be best, but in this case there are a factors that I think would argue for specifying the testing method at the beginning (or at least very early on) as a key element in the process. First, as noted above, the typical group-type of blind tests using other people's equipment in other settings, with a time limitaiton, have typically failed to yield positive results, so there's little point, IMO, in proceeding with another test of this type. Second, as noted above, I think many cable "believers" truly believe that they will be able to discern differences under proper conditions. (Actually, I was a died-in-the-wool cable skeptic for several years until I heard differences in my own system, in part through an accidental "blind" experience.) Now some may say that allowing the believers' camp to specify the test conditions is akin to "stacking" the test. But, given the discussions we have had on this forum for years on these issues, I think it is safe to say that many skeptics would assert that no believer can tell the difference between any one properly-designed cable and any other properly-designed cable under _any _conditions. If that's the "hypothesis," it seems to me that perhaps we don't need to worry so much about whether specifying the conditions up front is not the ideal method of doing a test. I mean, if I say I can pull a rabbit out of my ass if you allow me to sing Yankee Doodle Dandy while I'm doing it, why would someone insist that they willl believe I can pull a rabbit out of my ass only if I dress in a tuxedo and make no noise. Let's see if I can do it at all first. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_If there is a consensus that allegience to very personal and idiosyncratic factors makes it necessary to abandon even the most basic requirements of trustworthy research, then I don't think I can be of much help._

 

 I disagree. You have some very good thoughts on these issues, and even if you don't like the methodology completely, you could probably point out some pitfalls and some errors we might be making. Also, it appears that you are approaching this in an objective, open-minded, and non-emotional fashion, and we need more of this as it counterbalances some of the other krapola that surfaces in these threads and keeps us focused on the issues.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_A less obvious need is for a positive control. Perhaps a cable deliberately made with enough capacitance to just barely affect the sound at threshold levels. There needs to be a cable that even the skeptics should be able to detect as different if they have decent hearing, but the difference should also be extremely subtle. If the positive is control is not detected, either the subject's hearing is below threshold, or the absence of a difference is a "placebo" effect...

 The presence of a positive control allows the use of a signal detection type analysis, which can in theory be used to separate out sensory differences from response bias, which IMO is critical to the hypotheses of interest._

 

Hirsch, excellent points made, as usual.


----------



## Karlosak

Quote:


 * Can people reliably hear differences between different cable conductor materials?
 * Do inexpensive conductor materials sound as good as expensive/exotic cable materials?
 * Can most people even tell *any* difference between a consumer level and audiphile grade cable? 
 

I concur that the list of things 'what we really want to do' is important and should be discussed thoroughly before anything else. I agree with all the three points taken and think the list is complete.

 The three points are not equal though. They assume tests of different complexity with different predicative value. The third point is IMHO the most important. It deals with the complete cable as is, which is important for the end listener. If any differences should exist, it should be possible to spot them in this category first. However it's very difficult to carry out as an in-home test (in contrast to points one and two).

 The second point suppose some differences were already found out so it's not good as a first test which should settle things. Maybe it should be removed.

 Who knows, maybe this whole thing will turn out to be two different tests... we should settle on the points and then gather all the pros and cons for both test methods, from both camps.


----------



## clarke68

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_Please don't treat me like I'm an idiot._

 

Sorry for my perceived smugness, just thought it would be helpful to remember that we're not trodding on new ground here.

 I completely agree with your "horse before the cart" methodology, however the "in-home, ship 'em when you're done" nature of Edwood's test is a unique value-add, and something that hadn't been done before (that I know of). The fact that we have a group of willing participants who can, over the course of two years, show themselves reliable enough to receive & ship cables around the country without theft or vandalism is something to be celebrated...and taken advantage of.

 Shouldn't be too hard to design a good test using this format, especially since we have people around now (like yourself) who can tell us what a good test is.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ComfyCans* 
_The biggest problem I see to the "home testing" approach is logistical; how do you get enough cables to enough people to get a decent sample size?_

 

Yeah...the reality is it's going to take a long time. Shouldn't discourage us, tho...the Stereophile test at the San Mateo Dunfey Hotel (linked above) was 17 years ago. Not only are people still talking about it, no better test has come along since. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I mean, if I say I can pull a rabbit out of my ass if you allow me to sing Yankee Doodle Dandy while I'm doing it, why would someone insist that they willl believe I can pull a rabbit out of my ass only if I dress in a tuxedo and make no noise._

 

Forget it. The results of this test will be _meaningless_ unless you can identify cables while _simultaneously_ singing Yankee Doodle Dandy _and_ pulling a bunny out of your rear end.


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I agree that generally your approach (i.e., separating the identification of issues from the testing method) in most instances would be best, but in this case there are a factors that I think would argue for specifying the testing method at the beginning (or at least very early on) as a key element in the process. First, as noted above, the typical group-type of blind tests using other people's equipment in other settings, with a time limitaiton, have typically failed to yield positive results, so there's little point, IMO, in proceeding with another test of this type. Second, as noted above, I think many cable "believers" truly believe that they will be able to discern differences under proper conditions._

 

Well, here's the problem: You have defined "proper conditions" in a very "a priori" and (some would say) arbitrary way. You are asserting as fact is that a "proper" test requires that people listen for uncontrolled (i.e., idiosyncratic and inconsistent) amounts of time in whatever uncontrolled (again, idiosyncratic and inconsistent) environment they might choose. On the level of "real life", I have no problem with this whatsoever. On the level of "rigorous and trustworthy research" this creates considerable grounds for being dubious about the trustworthiness of whatever the results may be. (I imagine that you can see the truth in this, yes? ) 

 What you seem to be saying is that the kind of perceptual discrimination that is needed to (perhaps) distinguish among cables requires that we deploy methods that will, in and of themselves, provide solid grounds for discounting the results. (I am not saying the results will necessarily be bogus, but I am saying that you are handing nuclear weapons to doubters and skeptics  I think that the approach you seem to advocate would be more defensible if it was predicated on the stipulation that conventional testing techniques have demonstrated that subjects cannot discriminatie among cables in controlled environments. I don't know if that's really true but, if it is, then stipulating that up front would make the use of alternate approaches to procedure and environment much more credible.


----------



## ComfyCan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Karlosak* 
_I concur that the list of things 'what we really want to do' is important and should be discussed thoroughly before anything else. I agree with all the three points taken and think the list is complete.

 The three points are not equal though. They assume tests of different complexity with different predicative value. The third point is IMHO the most important. It deals with the complete cable as is, which is important for the end listener. If any differences should exist, it should be possible to spot them in this category first. However it's very difficult to carry out as an in-home test (in contrast to points one and two).

 The second point suppose some differences were already found out so it's not good as a first test which should settle things. Maybe it should be removed.

 Who knows, maybe this whole thing will turn out to be two different tests... we should settle on the points and then gather all the pros and cons for both test methods, from both camps._

 

Accepting for purposes of discussion that a study design that allows home listening would be of greater interest, I offer the following:

 I think proposed questions 1 and 2 are really just different ways of asking the same kind of question, e.g., can people reliably tell that there is/is not a difference between a silver cable and a copper cable, where all other aspects of cable construction are identical. Given enough home test participants & cables, that is relatively simple to design---it's really just an altered version of Edwood's test. But: is that really sufficiently interesting to go to all of the trouble? Perhaps.

 Again, for purposes of discussion, question 3 seems to be the "ultimate question." Cable disguise is not a huge problem if done in a controlled environment, but it is a very real problem in a home environment. Accepting that a design team could agree on an appropriate consumer grade cable and an audiophile grade cable to use, how can the two be disguised without altering them in any material way? 

 I think I could produce a rabbit from my backside with greater ease, but I'm no Einstein. 

 Einstein, if you're out there, please give us a hand.


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ComfyCan* 
_I think proposed questions 1 and 2 are really just different ways of asking the same kind of question, e.g., can people reliably tell that there is/is not a difference between a silver cable and a copper cable, where all other aspects of cable construction are identical._

 

Different but similar questions. They are not just 2 ways of asking the same question. They are two different flavors of the same kind of question. Answering the second one does not necessarily answer the first one, and vice versa. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ComfyCan* 
_Again, for purposes of discussion, question 3 seems to be the "ultimate question." Cable disguise is not a huge problem if done in a controlled environment, but it is a very real problem in a home environment. Accepting that a design team could agree on an appropriate consumer grade cable and an audiophile grade cable to use, how can the two be disguised without altering them in any material way?_

 

This is the hard one. For the results to be trustworthy, the cables would need to be (at least):
 Indistinguishable in all perceivable ways (other than sound), including physical appearance, weight, rigidity, temperature absorbtion properties, etc.
 Sealed, so that nobody could undo a connector and peek inside.
 Assigned labels that change from one subject to the next, in order to confound any (hypothetical) efforts among subjects to compare notes about "Cable-A".
At first glance, this seems impossible. But maybe somebody's got a really good idea. 

 If you can't solve this problem, then the at-home testing protocol requires that a research assistant move in with each subject for whatever length of time the subject chooses to have as his or her testing window, and rearrange the subject's environment as may be necessary to hide the cables from the subject at all times. And, even if that was doable, it would invite claims that the test methods disrupted the subjects' "normal listening environment".


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_Well, here's the problem: You have defined "proper conditions" in a very "a priori" and (some would say) arbitrary way. You are asserting as fact is that a "proper" test requires that people listen for uncontrolled (i.e., idiosyncratic and inconsistent) amounts of time in whatever uncontrolled (again, idiosyncratic and inconsistent) environment they might choose. On the level of "real life", I have no problem with this whatsoever. On the level of "rigorous and trustworthy research" this creates considerable grounds for being dubious about the trustworthiness of whatever the results may be. (I imagine that you can see the truth in this, yes? ) 

 What you seem to be saying is that the kind of perceptual discrimination that is needed to (perhaps) distinguish among cables requires that we deploy methods that will, in and of themselves, provide solid grounds for discounting the results. (I am not saying the results will necessarily be bogus, but I am saying that you are handing nuclear weapons to doubters and skeptics  I think that the approach you seem to advocate would be more defensible if it was predicated on the stipulation that conventional testing techniques have demonstrated that subjects cannot discriminatie among cables in controlled environments. I don't know if that's really true but, if it is, then stipulating that up front would make the use of alternate approaches to procedure and environment much more credible._

 

 I'm not sure I agree, based on what I understand the skeptics' position to be, or perhaps I am not following you. Or maybe I'm just too practical or "real life." In any event, the skeptics basic position, as I understand it, is that cable A and cable B ( assuming they are of decent quality) will sound the same and a sufficient number of believers will not be able to tell the difference by listening to establish that there are, in fact, audible differences. Assuming for the moment we can resolve the cheating issue (e.g., someone rips apart the cable and reconstructs it), and the test is conducted by allowing the particpants to control the timing and the setting issue, what objections could the skeptics have (exlcuding the irrational ones who will discount any result that does not support their position) to a result that shows that a statiscally significant number of participants were able to distinguish between the various cables? What flaws could they say existed in the test method?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_For the results to be trustworthy, the cables would need to be (at least):
 Indistinguishable in all perceivable ways (other than sound), including physical appearance, weight, rigidity, temperature absorbtion properties, etc.
 Sealed, so that nobody could undo a connector and peek inside.
 Assigned labels that change from one subject to the next, in order to confound any (hypothetical) efforts among subjects to compare notes about "Cable-A".
At first glance, this seems impossible. But maybe somebody's got a really good idea. 

 If you can't solve this problem, then the at-home testing protocol requires that a research assistant move in with each subject for whatever length of time the subject chooses to have as his or her testing window, and rearrange the subject's environment as may be necessary to hide the cables from the subject at all times. And, even if that was doable, it would invite claims that the test methods disrupted the subjects' "normal listening environment"._

 

 You're probably correct, but we have to be realistic. The test won't be perfect, and may be open to some criticism, but I think we need to do the best we can with the practical limitations we will have to deal with. Maybe the first test should just involve a determination of whether a copper and silver cable can be distinguished period. Didn't Edwood's test have all the cables basically look the same?


----------



## TheGhostWhoWalks

If I didn't live in the middle of nowhere I'd gladly invite everyone over. Someone could bring a balanced Radioshack cable, then perhaps a cable that's considered to be really good (maybe something like an Audioquest Cheetah?), and then I'll loan my Virtual Dynamic Revelations.

 I would be willing to place a LARGE wager that close to 100% of the people in a blind test would be able to guess all 3 right. The leap in sonics would not be subtle. If you think you could mistake the Radioshack cable from the Virtual Dynamics Revelation... well, there's just no way. And I'd be willing to stake maybe a week's paycheck on it.


----------



## Karlosak

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheGhostWhoWalks* 
_I would be willing to place a LARGE wager that close to 100% of the people in a blind test would be able to guess all 3 right. The leap in sonics would not be subtle. If you think you could mistake the Radioshack cable from the Virtual Dynamics Revelation... well, there's just no way. And I'd be willing to stake maybe a week's paycheck on it._

 

TheGhostWhoWalks, mind your words, you could regret it... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 PhilS, the problem is, at-home test with full-blown commercial cables would be far far from perfect, making it impossible to mask the cables properly. The cables would have to be enclosed in a very stiff hose, ending with identical RCA adapters internally plugged to the hidden cable. This would introduce another metal contact and the cable believers would say that it masks the differences. Otherwise you would be forced to test commercial cables utilising the same RCA connectors, which basically reduce the test to different conductor materials.


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I'm not sure I agree, based on what I understand the skeptics' position to be, or perhaps I am not following you. Or maybe I'm just too practical or "real life." In any event, the skeptics basic position, as I understand it, is that cable A and cable B ( assuming they are of decent quality) will sound the same and a sufficient number of believers will not be able to tell the difference by listening to establish that there are, in fact, audible differences. Assuming for the moment we can resolve the cheating issue (e.g., someone rips apart the cable and reconstructs it), and the test is conducted by allowing the particpants to control the timing and the setting issue, what objections could the skeptics have (exlcuding the irrational ones who will discount any result that does not support their position) to a result that shows that a statiscally significant number of participants were able to distinguish between the various cables? What flaws could they say existed in the test method?_

 

I basically agree with you, but you need to realize how many people do and will behave *whenever* test results clash with their beliefs. As one example of this tendency, I could site the example of tests under controlled conditions that indicate that people can't tell any difference (if such tests really exist, which I am not asserting because I don't really know; I'm just going on what people here say about it). What happened? People whose experience/opinion/belief is not consistent with the results respond by saying, "Those results don't count because of [insert rationale here]." 

 If we do it your way and learn that people can indeed tell (to a statistically significant degree), then we have learned something (provided we can overcome the obstacles discussed previously). But stop and ask yourself what will likely happen if the results do not show that people can hear the cables? We are virtually certain to have results showing that some people gave correct answers while other people did not. Then what will people say?
 I know I could tell, and other people who have hearing as superior as mine could tell too, if only they had listened as long as I did.
 I know I could tell, and other people who have hearing as superior as mine could tell too, if only they had listened through my rig.
 I know I could tell, and other people who have hearing as superior as mine could tell too, if only they had listened in a listening room that is as sonically perfect as mine.
In short, we'd have pretty much the same kind of rationales that we already have for dismissing controlled tests. There is nothing about the alternate procedure that disarms these claims. There is nothing about the alternate procedure that permits us to distinguish between people actually hearing differences in a way that others can trust vs. people making lucky guesses. (Is there?) At first glance, I think the most you could say is that:
 People might be less inclined to generate anti-test arguments if the procedures were to their liking.
 People who answered incorrectly could be told to shut up and get over it.
 People who answered correctly (either by hearing or by lucky guesses) would have exactly the same argument that you now make to dismiss the results of controlled testing.
In short, the only results that would be acceptable would be those that show either (a) statistically significant evidence that people can indeed tell the difference, or (b) strong evidence that nobody can tell. Results that show that some people answered correctly and other people failed to answer correctly will leave us pretty much exactly where we are right now. While I have no extensive personal knowledge or strong beliefs about cables, I think we're sorta stacking the deck so that cable-believers are always in a position to shoot-down results that fail to affirm their beliefs... unless they *each* provide incorrect answers.


----------



## ComfyCan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_For the results to be trustworthy, the cables would need to be (at least):
 Indistinguishable in all perceivable ways (other than sound), including physical appearance, weight, rigidity, temperature absorbtion properties, etc.
 Sealed, so that nobody could undo a connector and peek inside.
 Assigned labels that change from one subject to the next, in order to confound any (hypothetical) efforts among subjects to compare notes about "Cable-A".
_

 

Again assuming Einstein can come up with the necessary disguise:

 Your third point never occurred to me; and it's a very real issue (differences in temperature absorption properties didn't either, but that probably has less potential to be a true confounder). It's bigger than that though. If participants interracted at all before turning in their "ballots," it could easily invalidate the results. Such interraction would not necessarily be seen by participants as "cheating," and is therefore much more likely to ocurr. Merely rotating the "cable-labels" wouldn't work unless participants knew in advance that they were going to be rotated (thus knowing that comparing notes would be fruitless).

 We're talking not only about actual study validity, but the *perception* of study validity down the road, after the results come in. If we had a hypothetical study group of 500 participants, would we perceive it likely that more than a handful *intentionally* circumvented the instructions and did things like take the cable apart or conducted temperature conduction studies? My guess would be no; the potential for such a confounder would be accepted as a possibility, but not a probability. If you had 1,000 participants, the problem all but disappears. (I'm using these numbers to illustrate a point; the actual numbers are not intended as indicative of what is required for a valid study design)

 Of course, if the results were extremely close, such issues would be much more likely to become "hanging chads," destroying the perception of study validity. Then again, if the results are extremely close (e.g., statistically significant but just barely so), naysayers will find a myriad of potential confounders to latch onto.

 Realistically, if a home test protocol is utilized, I think that some level of potential "cheating" is going to have to be accepted as a potential confounder. It would seem to me that the best way to minimize the potential impact on both actual and perceived study validity is to have a very large group of participants--the larger the number, the less potential for the results to be explained by any potential confounder, of which cheating will be one. There will, of course, be others--there always are.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_If you can't solve this problem, then the at-home testing protocol requires that a research assistant move in with each subject for whatever length of time the subject chooses to have as his or her testing window, and rearrange the subject's environment as may be necessary to hide the cables from the subject at all times. And, even if that was doable, it would invite claims that the test methods disrupted the subjects' "normal listening environment"._

 

True, but I trust we can all agree that this is not practical.

 The bottom line in my view is that if a home testing protocol is adopted, the study will have potential confounders. So would a controlled environment study, but they would be easier to identify. All that can be done is to minimize the potential for potential confounders to become actual confounders, and maximize reliability by increasing the size of the study group.

 Oh, and we still need Einstein, The Cable Guy...


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_ There is nothing about the alternate procedure that permits us to distinguish between people actually hearing differences in a way that others can trust vs. people making lucky guesses. (Is there?)_

 

 Isn't his just a matter of having a large enough sample size so that you can rule out statistically the possibility of lucky guesses?
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_While I have no extensive personal knowledge or strong beliefs about cables, I think we're sorta stacking the deck so that cable-believers are always in a position to shoot-down results that fail to affirm their beliefs... unless they *each* provide incorrect answers._

 

I think it is safe to say that we will never design a test that will not be criticized in some fashion by the group that does not like the result. Some (or many) of those who believe that science says it is an impossibility that cables make audible differences will never agree that people heard differences. They just won't. They are a stubborn lot -- with some justification. Those who hear differences in cables, especially those who heard such differences by "accident" (i.e., were not looking for them) believe that they know what their ears hear, and they will never agree that there is _no one_ who can hear a difference under the right circumstances. They just won't. They are a stubborn lot -- with some justification.

 But if we do a decent test, we will advance the ball somewhat. The extremists at both ends will not be convinced, depending on how it comes out. But those with an open mind will at least be able to consider the results of the test in making up their mind about cables. And it will advance the discussion and possibly lay the groundwork for more testing that will be informative. In other words, if our goal is to design a test that will not allow anybody to have a reasonable doubt about the validity of the results, we are certain to fail. We can't do it, or it won't be practical to do it, either because of cost or logistical issues (how to disguise the cables) etc. So let's just do the best we can.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Karlosak* 
_PhilS, the problem is, at-home test with full-blown commercial cables would be far far from perfect, making it impossible to mask the cables properly._

 

 I agree. That's why I think the test would have to involve cables that someone constructs to look identical to one another, with different conductors. It will not yield definitive results, but it should be easy to do, and it's a start. There will still be the criticism that audiophile cables with various types of construction do make a difference, and that the conductor alone is not the sole determinant or even the primary one, etc. but we have to start somewhere. 

 I mean, I did not participate in the "Edwood test," but a number of folks who did said they could clearly hear the differences between the three cables. Some folks (e.g., bigfoot, Sovkiller) say this is poppycock. Let's see who's right on this issue, and then go from there.


----------



## clarke68

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_This is the hard one. For the results to be trustworthy, the cables would need to be (at least):
 Indistinguishable in all perceivable ways (other than sound), including physical appearance, weight, rigidity, temperature absorbtion properties, etc.
 Sealed, so that nobody could undo a connector and peek inside.
 Assigned labels that change from one subject to the next, in order to confound any (hypothetical) efforts among subjects to compare notes about "Cable-A".
At first glance, this seems impossible. But maybe somebody's got a really good idea._

 

Not impossible at all...we _just did this_. The test ran for two years, no one peeked, no one cheated (I assume, based on the results) and no one posted anything about their results until this thread was started. This was all laid out in the rules back when the test began, along with "do not put the cables in an x-ray machine to determine their construction" and other improbables.

 Despite how inflammatory the posting gets around here at times, I believe that the vast majority of people are intestested in a real answer, rather than skewing the results to support their position.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ComfyCan* 
_
 Oh, and we still need Einstein, The Cable Guy...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

E=mc²

 Everyone = more cable craziness


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_ Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
There is nothing about the alternate procedure that permits us to distinguish between people actually hearing differences in a way that others can trust vs. people making lucky guesses. (Is there?)

 

Isn't his just a matter of having a large enough sample size so that you can rule out statistically the possibility of lucky guesses?_

 

Not in your design. This is *exactly* why you want the same protocol for everybody. If you have everybody doing different things in different environments for different lengths of time, etc., then you do *not* have a large sample size _for those conditions_ and therefore lose the ability to conclude that. If some guy gives correct answers, it might be that he's perceiving real things or it might be that he's a lucky guesser. If everybody has a different environment, how are you gonna tell? If somebody claims that his environment permitted perception that others couldn't access because of their different envronment, how can you assert he's wrong? You can't. It's only when everybody is doing the same thing that you can say that sample size trumps idiosyncratic correctness. 

 Here's what your design does:
 For _affirmative_ results, it provide a large sample to support the findings' validity. (I expect it also will make overall affirmative results *harder* to come by, even though believers think the opposite, but that's another story.)
 For _negative_ results, it make every person's environment a different sample (of size 1), which confounds the the ability to support the findings' validity in the face of some number of accurate responses.
 For _borderline_ results, it invites further analysis of data about testee's listening environment (or time window, or whatever) to see if some particular attribute might matter.
I'm not against you on the basic idea, but you have to realize the implications of the design you are pushing for. Your design permits validity claims only for positive outcomes, but denies them for negative outcomes. Which is replicating the history of such tests. I'm not saying that it's not worth doing, but I am saying that you need to recognize the grave you are digging for certain kinds of outcomes (but not for other kinds of outcomes). This is a place where it's approrpiate to ponder the plain-English meaning of the term "design bias". Again, I'm not down on you, I'm just trying to point out some things that are legit issues.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I agree. That's why I think the test would have to involve cables that someone constructs to look identical to one another, with different conductors. It will not yield definitive results, but it should be easy to do, and it's a start. There will still be the criticism that audiophile cables with various types of construction do make a difference, and that the conductor alone is not the sole determinant or even the primary one, etc. but we have to start somewhere. 

 I mean, I did not participate in the "Edwood test," but a number of folks who did said they could clearly hear the differences between the three cables. Some folks (e.g., bigfoot, Sovkiller) say this is poppycock. Let's see who's right on this issue, and then go from there._

 

I agree. You could in fact expand on Ed's test, say adding stranded copper or coax to the mix. I would suggest that one of the things that Ed's test lacked that would have really made a difference in that test was a control cable. That is one cable that was exactly the same as one of the other cables. That alone could help in telling if results were a lucky guess or not.
 I would not worry too much about cheating, just take a look on the DIY forum at how much work is involved in building these things. If you use adhesive heat shrink, you are not going to be able to take these things apart with out it showing. 
 Also if there were enough people it would not matter anyway.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_Not in your design. This is *exactly* why you want the same protocol for everybody. If you have everybody doing different things in different environments for different lengths of time, etc., then you do *not* have a large sample size for those conditions and therefore lose the ability to conclude that. If some guy gives correct answers, it might be that he's perceiving real things or it might be that he's a lucky guesser. If everybody has a different environment, how are you gonna tell? If somebody claims that his environment permitted perception that others couldn't access because of their different envronment, how can you assert he's wrong? You can't. It's only when everybody is doing the same thing that you can say that sample size trumps idiosyncratic correctness. 
 have to realize the implications of the design you are pushing for. Your design permits validity claims only for positive outcomes, but denies them for negative outcomes. Which is replicating the history of such tests. I'm not saying that it's not worth doing, but I am saying that you need to recognize the grave you are digging for certain kinds of outcomes (but not for other kinds of outcomes). This is a place where it's approrpiate to ponder the plain-English meaning of the term "design bias". Again, I'm not down on you, I'm just trying to point out some things that are legit issues._

 

I am not sure I understand the issue. Assuming we are testing if x conductor sounds different from y conductor. If it does, it should not matter what system it's connected to. Allowing someone to take their time to form their opinion again really does not matter one way or the other. If there is no difference in the sound between x and y the results should be either "no difference" or a random guess. The amount of time, and the equipment involved is not going to change.
 The main issue is top get enough people that if you are getting random responses you have enough of them to be statistically meaningful.


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *clarke68* 
_Not impossible at all...we just did this. _

 

Maybe. I can imagine that you did it for different different kinds of metal inside the cable. I cannot imagine that you did it for different brands of finished product.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *clarke68* 
_no one peeked, no one cheated_

 

Maybe. For any significant number of people, I would be astounded if *nobody* peeked. I am not suggesting that participants are inherently dishonest. But I am saying that some participants would find curiosity getting the better of them, which they would then rationalize by saying to themselves, "Oh, it's OK, it won't effect *my* answers." Some significant number of people will do this, and it doesn't mean they are bad people. It's just how many basically-good people are: they think it won't hurt anything, so they do it "just to see". Especially when they are at home alone with the cables. Count on it.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *clarke68* 
_Despite how inflammatory the posting gets around here at times, I believe that the vast majority of people are intestested in a real answer, rather than skewing the results to support their position._

 

I am not suggesting some mass conspiracy to skew results. (I can very easily imagine a minor conspiracy, but large sample size can beat that.) The main issue is not cheating. The main issues are curiosity ("it won't hurt anything", as mentioned above) and expectation. Expectation is huge. If there is *any* way for people to perceive (or think they perceive) which cable is which, that *will* affect results. Even though everybody thinks, "For somebody else, maybe... but not for *me* it won't". People are funny this way. We all think we're fair, we all think we're honest, and we all tend to underestimate how vulnerable and imperfect our perception is. Everybody. Including me, including you.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_ If everybody has a different environment, how are you gonna tell? If somebody claims that his environment permitted perception that others couldn't access because of their different environment, how can you assert he's wrong? You can't. It's only when everybody is doing the same thing that you can say that sample size trumps idiosyncratic correctness. 
_

 

I think I understand now, but am not certain. Are you saying we could have a situation in which X number of people can tell the difference, and Y number can't, and the numbers overall are not statistically significant, but the result was nevertheless "positive" (but we would not know it) because only the X people listened under the "right" conditions? But wouldn't a large enough sample size "cure" this problem? In other words, if enough people listen under the "right" conditions, and they "pass" the test (or enough of them pass to beat random chance), won't their results be enough to lead to a statistically significant result overall, notwithstanding that the others did not use the right conditions, and therefore their results only matched what one would get by random chance? In other words, if a 50% result overall was pure chance, and 100% meant everybody got it right, and only 50% of the participants chose the right conditions to listen, wouldn't this still put the result above 50%, if indeed those folks could hear the difference under the right conditions (because the other 50% would just hit 50%). Does this make sense?

 Do we have to worry about the problem you identify being compounded by the participation of "skeptics," who might choose a set of conditions that many believers would think would virtually guarantee failure?

 Do we solve this problem to some extent if we limit the test to those who (1) claim to be believers and say they have heard differences among cables in their system, and (2) think they will be able to "pass" the test under the conditions they intend to utilize. If this group as a whole cannot "pass," does that give us some guidance?


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_I am not sure I understand the issue. Assuming we are testing if x connector sounds different from y connector. If it does, it should not matter what system it's connected to. Allowing someone to take their time to form their opinion again really does not matter one way or the other. If there is no difference in the sound between x and y the results should be either "no difference" or a random guess. The amount of time, and the equipment involved is not going to change.
 The main issue is top get enough people that if you are getting random responses you have enough of them to be statistically meaningful._

 

If you are correct, then we should test everybody under the same conditions. That makes a whole world of problems go away. However, as I understand it, the cable-believers find this unacceptable because they disagree with one or more of the points you have claimed.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_ However, as I understand it, the cable-believers find this unacceptable because they disagree with one or more of the points you have claimed._

 

You understand correctly, Obi-wan.


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Are you saying we could have a situation in which X number of people can tell the difference, and Y number can't, and the numbers overall are not statistically significant, but the result was nevertheless "positive" (but we would not know it) because only the X people listened under the "right" conditions?_

 

 You have described why I think the "at home" method will make it harder for results to support the cable-believer's belief if their belief is correct. That's one problem. The other problem is that the "at home" method makes it harder to expect cable-believers to accept the findings if their belief is incorrect, simply because they can site the argument you have made to argue that the design prevented their correct perception from being legitimized.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_But wouldn't a large enough sample size "cure" this problem? In other words, if enough people listen under the "right" conditions, and they "pass" the test (or enough of them pass to beat random chance), won't their results be enough to lead to a statistically significant result overall, notwithstanding that the others did not use the right conditions, and therefore their results only matched what one would get by random chance?_

 

That will happen only if the ability to perceive differences is prevalent enough to overcome the fact that the design requires a much higher "hit rate" to establish this statistically. In effect, you'd be raising the bar for those who could hear a difference because their hit rate would not only have to trump randomness, it would also have to trump responses from people who "could" hear it but can't because of their home systems. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Do we have to worry about the problem you identify being compounded by the participation of "skeptics," who might choose a set of conditions that many believers would think would virtually guarantee failure?_

 

 A true cable-skeptic will not feel the need to pick crappy systems. A true cable-skeptic will mainly be wondering what in the world will it take for cable-believers to accept that the world is round, not flat, and let go of their irrational bias. By and large, it's the cable-believers who have something to prove, not the cable-skeptics.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_ Do we solve this problem to some extent if we limit the test to those who (1) claim to be believers and say they have heard differences among cables in their system, and (2) think they will be able to "pass" the test under the conditions they intend to utilize. If this group as a whole cannot "pass," does that give us some guidance?_

 

But is the individual who claims to be a Truthful Whitefoot really a Truthful Whitefoot or a Lying Blackfoot? No way to tell. 

 Which is another reason researchers like controlled conditions. It's not because they're unreasonable control freaks, it's because it's the only known method for getting past 99% of these problems.


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_ Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
Do we solve this problem to some extent if we limit the test to those who (1) claim to be believers and say they have heard differences among cables in their system, and (2) think they will be able to "pass" the test under the conditions they intend to utilize. If this group as a whole cannot "pass," does that give us some guidance?

 

But is the individual who claims to be a Truthful Whitefoot really a Truthful Whitefoot or a Lying Blackfoot? No way to tell.

 Which is another reason researchers like controlled conditions. It's not because they're unreasonable control freaks, it's because it's the only known method for getting past 99% of these problems._

 

The first part of my response, above, was a bit flip. To respond to what I think you are asking, it might indeed be a useful thing to try to focus testing on those people who claim/expect/believe that they can hear a cable difference. It will make it easier to demonstrate their ability if they do indeed have the ability, and it will also make it harder for them to pooh-pooh the results if the results demonstrate that they don't have the ability. (I think this is right.)


----------



## PhilS

russdog, I understand everything you're saying now, and you raise some real issues we have to think about. I'm not sure what the answer is, but to me, it is not to dispense with the "home testing," because, as I have said and others have said, I think that is critical. But I'll have to think about what to do to deal with some of the issues you raise.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_If you are correct, then we should test everybody under the same conditions. That makes a whole world of problems go away. However, as I understand it, the cable-believers find this unacceptable because they disagree with one or more of the points you have claimed._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_You understand correctly, Obi-wan._

 





 With this I give up.
 It is very clear there is no way to reach a common ground to even talk about a test.
 Bye.
 It's been fun.


----------



## Riboge

First I want to say before being misunderstood that I am truly impressed by the intelligence, ingenuity, knowledgeability and sincere truth seeking manifest in this thread. However, I am supposing that many reading this thread are experiencing the dismay I too am feeling: it is quite unclear whether anyone really knows or understands what he or she believes or claims about cables. The exercise of trying to specify and operationalize conditions for testing elicits a bewildering number of semantic issues, qualifications, settings, parameters, conceptual dilemmas, 'political' influences, etc, about which we differ additionally to differing just as to hearing and listening. More than anything else rehearsing these makes me think we don't even know what any of us means or is claiming about cables--with regard to others or even oneself. What is included in the domain of consideration is so large and multifaceted and ill-defined that the issues approach meaninglessness. I am reminded of Ludwig Wittgenstein's discussions of the semantics and conceptualization of common abstract nouns like freedom or even simpler ones. The betterness or even differentness among cables like these other abstracts involves a set of ranging things not internally coherent, consistent or all sharing the same defining characteristics. Some are like others which are like third ones which however are not like the first. Here it has to do with listening alone, with others, with believer bias, with non-believer bias, at home, at a meeting, for a short time, a long time, blindly, clued-in, with the same standard equipment, with each of our differings setups, etc. This is not primarily a problem with the testing but the ideas and beliefs themselves, though we tend to divide into two groups of believers and non-believers despite not being able to define about what. To me this is one of the larger underlying causes of the passion with which we hold one or the other of these positions. It beats admitting and experiencing how lost and confused about what we mean, hear and say to others we are about these issues.

 Clearly, this overall subject would have to be broken down into smaller, simpler pieces (which still may be ill-defined) for anything to be made at all clear much less proveable. I realize many have made suggestions similar and others have found them wanting but...Say for instance we ask about a part of this domain thus: Can each of us at home with our own familiar setup tell a difference between any two cables in altenation or not. Suppose we each pair with another headfier in our vicinity. My local headfi buddy would change (or not) ics from my usual to ones he brings a predefined number of times such that I cannot see what he is doing (literally blind as with a blindfold) and notes my responses in juxtaposition to his listing of each change or non-change. What percentage of the time do I correctly determine change or no change? Then I go to his place and switch ics on him and determine his percentage. With a reasonably large number of pairs doing this, we can make a useful but imperfect finding about the simplest question (though all possiblity of subtle cueing between buddies has not been eliminated it will tend to be dilluted out): Can we hear differences between ics--abstracted from with what ics, what equipment, in what place, what kind of differences, etc. We just can say whether--for the most part or not-- we can or cannot detect difference among ics.

 Then we build on that, if difference detection is affirmed, to address next issues like what difference, what conditions are required to do so, what might make for the difference like conductor material or connectors, etc.

 What would the audiophile equivalent be to blind men trying to describe an elephant?


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_russdog, I understand everything you're saying now, and you raise some real issues we have to think about. I'm not sure what the answer is, but to me, it is not to dispense with the "home testing," because, as I have said and others have said, I think that is critical. But I'll have to think about what to do to deal with some of the issues you raise._

 

I understand your concern about, and rationale for, in-home testing. I'm not asserting that you are full of crap. I don't believe you are full of crap. I believe you are sincere. I don't know if you are correct or incorrect. I don't know what the truth is.

 I do believe that I was correct in focusing on the need to get our questions straight first. In this case, I think the discussion about methodology has helped me get clarity that I did not have before about what the core question is. Based on where we seem to be now, I think we (in this recent discussion, I'm not trying to speak for everybody else) are trying to investigate an issue that is very different from how the issue was originally portrayed.
 At first I thought we were trying to answer the question, "Can people hear cable-effects as they listen to their music." For that purpose, I am still in favor of a test that features many people tested via a shared protocol in a controlled environment. For that purpose, I do not think the in-home argument holds water. For that purpose, I think it causes many, many more problems than it solves. However, I no longer think that matters because I no longer think that we're trying to answer the question we started with.

 I now think the real (i.e., undisguised) question is: "Can cable believers demonstrate in a convincing way that their beliefs about cable effects are true?" This is a very different question. For this question, the in-home argument makes some sense. The main reason it makes sense is because cable-believers apparently believe that "listening properly" requires various attributes that most people don't believe in or care about. So, what we're really doing is trying to come up with a methology that will satisfy cable-believers, so that they can happily participate in good faith and have confidence in the results. (To cable-skeptics who might think I'm kissing butt here, I could say the same thing as follows: We're trying to find a method that the cable-believers can live with, so that they can then either put-up or shut-up.)
Does this make sense to you? 
 Do you agree with it?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_First I want to say before being misunderstood that I am truly impressed by the intelligence, ingenuity, knowledgeability and sincere truth seeking manifest in this thread. However, I am supposing that many reading this thread are experiencing the dismay I too am feeling: it is quite unclear whether anyone really knows or understands what he or she believes or claims about cables. The exercise of trying to specify and operationalize conditions for testing elicits a bewildering number of semantic issues, qualifications, settings, parameters, conceptual dilemmas, 'political' influences, etc, about which we differ additionally to differing just as to hearing and listening. More than anything else rehearsing these makes me think we don't even know what any of us means or is claiming about cables--with regard to others or even oneself. What is included in the domain of consideration is so large and multifaceted and ill-defined that the issues approach meaninglessness. I am reminded of Ludwig Wittgenstein's discussions of the semantics and conceptualization of common abstract nouns like freedom or even simpler ones. The betterness or even differentness among cables like these other abstracts involves a set of ranging things not internally coherent, consistent or all sharing the same defining characteristics. Some are like others which are like third ones which however are not like the first. Here it has to do with listening alone, with others, with believer bias, with non-believer bias, at home, at a meeting, for a short time, a long time, blindly, clued-in, with the same standard equipment, with each of our differings setups, etc. This is not primarily a problem with the testing but the ideas and beliefs themselves, though we tend to divide into two groups of believers and non-believers despite not being able to define about what. To me this is one of the larger underlying causes of the passion with which we hold one or the other of these positions. It beats admitting and experiencing how lost and confused about what we mean, hear and say to others we are about these issues.
_

 

I really find many of the things in your post to be interesting and challenging, and I think I agree with a lot of what you say, but I do disagree that for the most part "it is quite unclear whether anyone really knows or understands what he or she believes or claims about cables." I think that most "believers" would say that they have found that, in general, different cables sound differently in their system. And I think most believers know what _they _believe. From there, different people may "believe" different things, because they have different experiences with different types of cables under different circumstances. Your point could also be made just as well about headphone amps. People believe a lot of different things about them, and have different experiences with different amps, and all of the information reported on this forum about headphone amps and how they sound would probably be just as difficult to assimilate into a coherent body of thought.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_I understand your concern about, and rationale for, in-home testing. I'm not asserting that you are full of crap. I don't believe you are full of crap. I believe you are sincere. I don't know if you are correct or incorrect. I don't know what the truth is.

 I do believe that I was correct in focusing on the need to get our questions straight first. In this case, I think the discussion about methodology has helped me get clarity that I did not have before about what the core question is. Based on where we seem to be now, I think we (in this recent discussion, I'm not trying to speak for everybody else) are trying to investigate an issue that is very different from how the issue was originally portrayed.
 At first I thought we were trying to answer the question, "Can people hear cable-effects as they listen to their music." For that purpose, I am still in favor of a test that features many people tested via a shared protocol in a controlled environment. For that purpose, I do not think the in-home argument holds water. For that purpose, I think it causes many, many more problems than it solves. However, I no longer think that matters because I no longer think that we're trying to answer the question we started with.

 I now think the real (i.e., undisguised) question is: "Can cable believers demonstrate in a convincing way that their beliefs about cable effects are true?" This is a very different question. For this question, the in-home argument makes some sense. The main reason it makes sense is because cable-believers apparently believe that "listening properly" requires various attributes that most people don't believe in or care about. So, what we're really doing is trying to come up with a methology that will satisfy cable-believers, so that they can happily participate in good faith and have confidence in the results. (To cable-skeptics who might think I'm kissing butt here, I could say the same thing as follows: We're trying to find a method that the cable-believers can live with it so that they can then either put-up or shut-up.)
Does this make sense to you? Do you agree with it?_

 

 I have to run out now, but based on a quick review of your post, I think I do agree. I'll get back to the thread later this evening.

 P.S. I am heartened to hear you believe I am not full of crap, and may call you on short notice to testify to this fact to my wife, various friends, certain business acquaintances, etc.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I really find many of the things in your post to be interesting and challenging, and I think I agree with a lot of what you say, but I do disagree that for the most part "it is quite unclear whether anyone really knows or understands what he or she believes or claims about cables." I think that most "believers" would say that they have found that, in general, different cables sound differently in their system. And I think most believers know what they believe. From there, different people may "believe" different things, because they have different experiences with different types of cables under different circumstances. Your point could also be made just as well about headphone amps. People believe a lot of different things about them, and have different experiences with different amps, and all of the information reported on this forum about headphone amps and how they sound would probably be just as difficult to assimilate into a coherent body of thought. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yes, indeed. Lucky such beatiful music eminates from this mess.

 That is why i suggested the initial 'experiment' I did. Let's at least establish that "different cables sound different(ly) in their systems", which would mean that in that buddy experiment the results would be clearly well above 50% identification of cable changes.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_[*] I now think the real (i.e., undisguised) question is: "Can cable believers demonstrate in a convincing way that their beliefs about cable effects are true?" This is a very different question. For this question, the in-home argument makes some sense. The main reason it makes sense is because cable-believers apparently believe that "listening properly" requires various attributes that most people don't believe in or care about. So, what we're really doing is trying to come up with a methology that will satisfy cable-believers, so that they can happily participate in good faith and have confidence in the results. (To cable-skeptics who might think I'm kissing butt here, I could say the same thing as follows: We're trying to find a method that the cable-believers can live with, so that they can then either put-up or shut-up.)[/list]Does this make sense to you? 
 Do you agree with it?_

 

russdog, looking at this question further, I think I do agree with you, although perhaps I would say it somewhat differently. I think I would say that what we're trying to do is come up with a methodology that will mirror to the extent possible the real-world conditions under which believers claim to be able to hear cable differences, so that they will participate and have confidence in the results (to the maximum extent possible). At the same time, cable skeptics should not have a problem with this methodolgy if it clearly reveals that believers can hear differences, because their claim is basically that believers cannot hear such differences and it is all placebo.

 It seems to me that the primary objection believers could have to the test is that, due to the varying "conidtions" (including different equipment, etc.) under which the participants will listen to the cables, it is possible that a "positive" result will be hidden because of the problems you and I discussed earlier (some folks can't hear it because they don't listen under the right conditions). This could lead to believers trying to discount an unsuccessful test, which in turn provides a basis for skeptics to object to the test at the outset (on the ground that the test won't force believers to accept a "failure" result without questioning the methodology). My thinking is that there is nothing we can do about that; we can only do the best we can. In addition, I think that, in any event, a test that involves rapid switching between cables in a test involving someone else's equipment in a group setting will never be accepted by believers.

 My other concern is the type of cables we will use. We probably ought to discuss that a bit more, and the possibility that there will be some way we could include some type of audiophile grade cable in the test. Maybe there is no way we can do that, but I think we do need to talk about it, as I see that as being an issue that could lead some to argue about the result.


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_It seems to me that the primary objection believers could have to the test is that, due to the varying "conidtions" (including different equipment, etc.) under which the participants will listen to the cables, it is possible that a "positive" result will be hidden because of the problems you and I discussed earlier (some folks can't hear it because they don't listen under the right conditions). This could lead to believers trying to discount an unsuccessful test..._

 

Well, at some point the cable-believers should either crap or get off the pot 

 For me personally, the idea that nothing will be acceptable to them is getting old. My personal vote is for designing a method that is least-objectionable to the cable-believers, based on input from them about what they think is important, then do a test that focuses on that population. 

 You can't keep cable-skeptics out because there is no breathalyzer test for who's a believer vs. who's a skeptic, but I don't think you'd have to worry about a lot of skeptics crashing the party. Some may wish to participate, just to see, but my hunch is that they will be happy to ID themselves as skeptics. (It's not like the Army-McCarthy Hearings 

 The more heavily populated the test group is by cable-believers, the fewer obstacles to affirmative results, and fewer grounds for believers to discount any negative results. I'd opt for focusing on this group, giving them their way about as many of the methodological issues as can be reasonable, and then doing it, just to see.

 (I'm gonna be travelling for the next few days and will have limited access. If I don't respond to you for a while, it's not for any reason other than that...)


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_Well, at some point the cable-believers should either crap or get off the pot 

 For me personally, the idea that nothing will be acceptable to them is getting old._

 

 It's not that nothing is acceptable. The problem is that sometimes it is very difficult to design a sceintific test with the appropriate paramters, and that would be economical to conduct, that can mirror the real-world conditions that result in certain phenomenon being reported by certain people. That's just the way it is. You can't really blame cable believers for that. I suppose one could say that we are all crazy, but there are just too many reports of people who have heard differences, including too many reports from converted skeptics, to suggest, for example, that the phenomenon is equivalent to people who claim to have experienced alien abductions.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_It's not that nothing is acceptable. The problem is that sometimes it is very difficult to design a sceintific test with the appropriate paramters, and that would be economical to conduct, that can mirror the real-world conditions that result in certain phenomenon being reported by certain people. That's just the way it is. You can't really blame cable believers for that. I suppose one could say that we are all crazy, but there are just too many reports of people who have heard differences, including too many reports from converted skeptics, to suggest, for example, that the phenomenon is equivalent to people who claim to have experienced alien abductions._

 

I am wondering what in the buddy experiment I proposed you (and others who have not taken note of it or commented about it) find lacking in "appropriate parameters" or uneconomical or that doesn't "mirror the real-world conditions". I'm puzzled given that it would use cables people already have= no cost, that it would be in the 'realest' circumstances, namely, where one really hears what differences one believes in hearing or doesn't hear them when not believeing, etc. I realize you take the outcome as a foregone conclusion given your last sentence, but skeptics don't but would find it challenging to dismiss statistically significant demonstration of detection of a difference in cables and success in saying when there's been no change. Believers would have an equally hard time dismissing negative results, that is, evidence that even in their own chosen conditions and with their own familiar other equipment they fail to reliably identify when a different cable is substituted and when it is the same cable again.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_I am wondering what in the buddy experiment I proposed you (and others who have not taken note of it or commented about it) find lacking in "appropriate parameters" or uneconomical or that doesn't "mirror the real-world conditions"._

 

 I may need to understand the details of it better, but one concern I have is practicality. Everyone participating has to get a "Head-Fi buddy" to come over to their house to do the test. That means there may be some travel issues involved, unless a lot of folks on this forum who would participate happen to have a Head-Fi buddy who lives close to them.

 Also, I'm not sure I understand what the duration of each listening test would be. If all the switches are to happen in a matter of minutes or hours, I'm not sure that satsifies the duration requirement , i.e., the real world conditions. On the other hand, if the buddy comes one day and puts in cable A, and then returns two weeks later (just to arbitrarily pick a duration of time) and puts in cable B, it seems the possibility of the participant "peeking" at the cable could undermine the test results, or the acceptance of any conclusions reached by those who don't like the results. 

 Perhaps you could elaborate more on how your idea would work, particularly in terms of how many switches there would be (which impacts the practicality issue) and what the duration of each listening period would be (which may impact the "validity" of the test).


----------



## Karlosak

Riboge,
 finding head-fi partners in our vicinity could be a real struggle for many of the potential testers and would severely limit the amount of participants. Not everyone has a fellow head-fier in their neighborhood.
 Moreover, how would you provide practically unlimited listening time? Would you stand there guarding your partner that he is not peeking at the cable maybe for couple of hours (or even days!) before he is ready for a change of the cable?
 It would be also very difficult to control the correctness of the protocol. I'm sure great disparity would arise even with some cheating or biased/distorted data.
 At this point the home testing of different wires (maybe even cables) properly sealed against any kind of dismantling seems as the best option. It should be feasible, at least from the 'hardware' side. However, as russdog already mentioned, reasonable interpretation of the collected data is unsure. It all depends on the outcome.

 EDIT: PhilS was faster.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I may need to understand the details of it better, but one concern I have is practicality. Everyone participating has to get a "Head-Fi buddy" to come over to their house to do the test. That means there may be some travel issues involved, unless a lot of folks on this forum who would participate happen to have a Head-Fi buddy who lives close to them.

 Also, I'm not sure I understand what the duration of each listening test would be. If all the switches are to happen in a matter of minutes or hours, I'm not sure that satsifies the duration requirement , i.e., the real world conditions. On the other hand, if the buddy comes one day and puts in cable A, and then returns two weeks later (just to arbitrarily pick a duration of time) and puts in cable B, it seems the possibility of the participant "peeking" at the cable could undermine the test results, or the acceptance of any conclusions reached by those who don't like the results. 

 Perhaps you could elaborate more on how your idea would work, particularly in terms of how many switches there would be (which impacts the practicality issue) and what the duration of each listening period would be (which may impact the "validity" of the test)._

 

Here's more of how I would envision it now that you press me to think further into it. Recall that we are only testing for a judgment of same or different so the time for each trial can be fairly brief, say 1-2min. The buddy thing is not critical. I just thought it would 1) be an easy source of a second type of ic, 2) create more results and 3) be more fun. If finding pairs who live near enough to eachother is too much of a limitation, which I myself wouldn't expect (based on not much, I realize), then it could be designed to have any other person in the subjects life who is willing do the switching and recording of, say, 10 'trials'. The subject would have to obtain another ic in some way in this case instead of the buddy bringing his. I don't believe it matters which or how. While the subject is turned away or blindfolded this person would disconnect the ic at both ends and then reconnect an ic either the same one or a different one and after 1-2min request and record the guess of same or different ic alongside what he did. The key to this is the narrowness of the question and therefore the simplicity of the test--a first, critical step. I would consider a score of 7 out of 10 or higher matches of action and guess to be a positive result off hand, but someone more statistically versed could figure what is significant when the total number of such testings is considered.

 This is pretty much off the cuff. What do you think?


----------



## Sovkiller

Guys I think that any condition you will offer for an ideal test will be accepted for both parties, you will never get an agreement with the opposite belief, why? very simple, both are convinced of the theory they are hugging, and non of them are willing to admit that they were wrong or not, in public...Human nature...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Edwood organized this test which took two years to offer any results, and the believers do not agree on that it showed any relevant arguments, OTOH for the non believers it was completely relevant, and demonstrate the difficult task of picking differences on cables, to the point of confusing them in the majority of the cases, using a system they are used to listen everyday, and in the comfort of their homes...

 After re reading the thread again, all those arguments of the long or short term auditions reminds me of another thread some time ago, in which a headfier Welly Wu, post his disbelief in some of the audio topics, specially cables, 

http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=182666

 BTW he is not an skeptic, but he at least admitted, and show us all what he had spent in what can be considered for some in vane, in what others called voodoo, and in subtle changes that others considered as day and night while using cable power conditioners, etc...

 In this same thread, now modified by the mods, and with some posts deleted (due some violations of the TOS), but I remember it very well, right after some recos, about Blue Jeans cables, one of the trusty and old members here, that also is a Cardas dealer (ToddR), pick some Blue Jeans cables, just to try them out. I do not recall exactly but it was far less than a week, a few days IIRC, in which he also posted some opinions on both cables (post that now was deleted by the moderators as he was a Cardas dealer) but that showed me something funny, in less than a week he had time to burn the cables in, listen to them, and formulate some opinions which he also wrote, we crossed a few emails and PMs at that time as well, and I'm sure that he is positively convinced of what he listened, and that he was not lying, and honestly I have nothing against that belief, but the funny part is that if he, an audiophile, with some experience in cables, and in picking and determine the subtle differences among cables, was able in less than a week, of posting even some impressions on both sounds, now my question is why others try to make the test so difficult, as to ask for those unrealistic long term auditions, which will lead to a non doable test, or to an extremely long term test, and in both cases with no warranties that both parties will accept the test as valid at the end...

 Guys don't waste more time on that, if this simple test is not satisfying for one of the parties, and some of other more scientific and controlled as that Wire World CD, and other many tests we know off neither, and in all these years nobody had been able to formulate such an optimal test that will demonstrate either fact, and all the believers had in their hands is that they believe, and that they hear this and that, IMO you are looking for a miracle...


----------



## Karlosak

Riboge,
 I couldn't agree with such test.
 Should this test bear some empirical value, both of the partners (listener/cable manipulator) must obey some strict rules, between others:
Any noises during the cable changes must be eliminated, otherwise the guy under the test must leave the room (then the cables must be hidden when he or she returns)
Any of the cable shouldn't attenuate the signal (think Audiogeek Nitrogens)
The cables must be switched randomly, maybe ABX protocol?
If the same cable follows, the same amount of time and movements must be taken as with two different cables
The amp should be attenuated between switches, therefore no strange clicks when the cable is plugged in are possible
Both participants aren't allowed to speak with each other during the test or exchange mimic gestures 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


and more..

 From the above it's apparent, that great demands are posed on both the listener and the cable manipulator. I'm not saying it's impossible though. Your proposed test is only a bit impractical and could introduce more false data.

 I also don't see much difference between your test and an organised mass listening test at one place. Long listening periods aren't possible and the listener could have stage fright from the other person presence. These are the same conditions one could expect during some centralised attempt for the test.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Karlosak* 
_Riboge,
 I couldn't agree with such test.
 Should this test bear some empirical value, both of the partners (listener/cable manipulator) must obey some strict rules, between others:
Any noises during the cable changes must be eliminated, otherwise the guy under the test must leave the room (then the cables must be hidden when he or she returns)
Any of the cable shouldn't attenuate the signal (think Audiogeek Nitrogens)
The cables must be switched randomly, maybe ABX protocol?
If the same cable follows, the same amount of time and movements must be taken as with two different cables
The amp should be attenuated between switches, therefore no strange clicks when the cable is plugged in are possible
Both participants aren't allowed to speak with each other during the test or exchange mimic gestures 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


and more..

 From the above it's apparent, that great demands are posed on both the listener and the cable manipulator. I'm not saying it's impossible though. Your proposed test is only a bit impractical and could introduce more false data.

 I also don't see much difference between your test and an organised mass listening test at one place. Long listening periods aren't possible and the listener could have stage fright from the other person presence. These are the same conditions one could expect during some centralised attempt for the test._

 

Most of your requirements could easily be met since a clear protocol should indeed be followed and clearly an at home brief test is much lesser in the stress/stage fright aspect you point out since testing is in ones own environment with no other audience than partner one chooses onself. And, I have to keep repeating, this is a narrow thing, just different or not different, no explanation, articulation, supporting evidence required.
 I am actually encouraged by how hard you are trying to find flaws since it implies, to me at least, your feeling threatened by the actual possibility of it. For instance, what's the problem with strange clicks, etc, upon changes as long as the same procedure is followed whether the next cable is the same or different? If the amp pops, it does so for any newly connected cable.
 It is a well known thing from the anals of human testing, that humans are much better at discriminating same or different than determining specific characteristics like silver vs copper, that is, we are much better at relative than absolute, e.g., the rarity of absolute pitch versus the greater prevalence of relative pitch.


----------



## Edwood

How much blood can you guys squeeze from a stone? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The only way you guys would be happy with the "best" scientific test is if it were a true DOUBLE BLIND TEST (DBT).

 That would be great. 

 But we wouldn't be able to chat about it in this forum, now could we?

 So perhaps re-read what I and others posted in the very original Blind Cable Test thread about the proposal of a test and how it could be fun.

 But I guess not all people are interested in having fun...

 -Ed


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* 
_But I guess not all people are interested in having fun..._

 

Girls just wanna have fun!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Here's more of how I would envision it now that you press me to think further into it. Recall that we are only testing for a judgment of same or different so the time for each trial can be fairly brief, say 1-2min._

 

I don't think that's nearly enough time. In my understanding there have been other tests of cables where the time for each trial is that short, and the results are generally not "positive." There have also been tests of other items or components using such short trials, and many of the results in those instances have not been "positive," even though with respect to some of those items or components (amps, for e.g.), most of the folks on this forum would agree they do not sound the same.

 Maybe there are folks here who can distinguish between cables with one to two minute trials, and are prepared to accept the challenge of doing this. If so, perhaps the test could be conducted as you propose. I don't think I could easily distinguish cable differences that are somewhat "subtle" with such short trials. I think I might be able to distinguish the cables we use in the test with longer trials, based on my past experience (although I admit I could be wrong). I suspect that, based on previous comments, there are others who believe the longer trial period is also critical.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_There have also been tests of other items or components using such short trials, and many of the results in those instances have not been "positive," even though with respect to some of those items or components (amps, for e.g.), most of the folks on this forum would agree they do not sound the same._

 

On what do they base this, then? It can't be a longer comparative trial, since we know that hasn't been done acceptably yet. Thus this appears to invalidate the non-positive based on the very belief being put to the test. On that basis of course no test will be found acceptable. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_ I don't think I could easily distinguish cable differences that are somewhat "subtle" with such short trials. I think I might be able to distinguish the cables we use in the test with longer trials, based on my past experience (although I admit I could be wrong). I suspect that, based on previous comments, there are others who believe the longer trial period is also critical._

 

The only palliative to this I can think of is to establish lists of possible ics to use in two groups deemed enough different that they should be 'distinguishable' in a shorter amount of time if distinguishable at all. To belabor it again, it is only different that must be distinguished not what or how much less which is better, etc. Also, I think it would be at least something to establish whether cables are distinguishable only with long careful evaluation in special circumstances (or not at all) or whether many if not all can be differentiated in minutes by most.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_On what do they base this, then? It can't be a longer comparative trial, since we know that hasn't been done acceptably yet. Thus this appears to invalidate the non-positive based on the very belief being put to the test. On that basis of course no test will be found acceptable. _

 

It may indeed be longer comparative trials, which could include the in-home experience we all have and that others have had, but the "comparative" listening no doubt did not involve "blind" comparisons or blind comparisons in public venues. Yes, I suppose one could say that, if the test wasn't blind, we can't "prove" the components sound different. But as I said, most folks would agree, I think, that amps sound different, and/or that sources sound different (even though the spec differences are alleged to be of such a magnitude as to be indistinguishable audibly), and they would generally agree with the proposition even though the blind tests that have been conducted might not have yielded statistically significant proof that the test group was hearing differences.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_The only palliative to this I can think of is to establish lists of possible ics to use in two groups deemed enough different that they should be 'distinguishable' in a shorter amount of time if distinguishable at all._

 

 I don't know how you would do this. How does one determine that something "should" be distinguishable in a test invovling short time trials without doing the test itself?


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I don't think that's nearly enough time. In my understanding there have been other tests of cables where the time for each trial is that short, and the results are generally not "positive." There have also been tests of other items or components using such short trials, and many of the results in those instances have not been "positive," even though with respect to some of those items or components (amps, for e.g.), most of the folks on this forum would agree they do not sound the same._

 

Just a quick note while traveling...

 Phil, go back and read what you just said. In effect, you said that "the test that produced negative results must be flawed because many of us expected positive results". I am a curious party with no agenda. If longer listening times might be a factor, then testing should accommodate that concern (especially in light of our new undisguised question). However, I would want to ensure that *if* a new test fails to produce positive results, there won't be more grounds for people saying the test is a bad test just because they don't like the results. This is a reasonable expectation to have among reasonable people, yes?

 So, if we accept the need for testee-chosen listening times, and if we design the test to feature different kinds of metal inside of identical cable housings, will this be acceptable to believers? Or will we then have arguments that those testees who only listened for X hours "missed the truth" because they didn't listen for X+Y hours, or because their amp wasn't the right kind (or whatever)? We could control for those factors, but you find a controlled test unacceptable too. 

 I am prepared to seek a methodology that addresses the concerns that cable-believers have but, at some point, we need to reach a consensus about when it's a bogus argument to say that "negative results indicate the test was bad because it didn't produce the positive results we expected".


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_Phil, go back and read what you just said. In effect, you said that "the test that produced negative results must be flawed because many of us expected positive results"._

 

 No, that's not really what I am saying. In brief, and somewhat simplified for purposes of brevity, what I am saying is that many thousands of people report hearing audible differences between various amps, cables, components, etc., yet it appears that there are very few if any blind tests that confirm statistically that people are hearing differences. That could mean that nobody is hearing a difference between any of these components. In the alternative, it could mean the tests that have been used have been flawed. (Any test that is set up to test a relatively complex scientific issue and that fails to produce a "positive" result may have failed because (1) the observations or asserted facts being tested are not, in fact, accurate or true, or (2) the testing methodology was flawed.)

 As it turns out, virtually all of these tests are the short-duration listening-time tests involving other people's systems, other people's music, in a public setting. It also turns out that some of us, including me (again, formerly a committed skeptic), have found that the differences between various cables, components, etc. have become more acute once one has had an opportunity over a longer-duration listening period to become very familiar with the sound that is being used as the baseline. In addtion, there is at least one published report of a well-kwown audiophile type who failed a blind test on amps, became convinced that amps sound the same, bought the cheap amp from the test for his own system, and ended up hating it after he had time to really live with it. Thus, there is some basis, i.e., a rational basis, to suspect that the failure to discern differences in previous tests may be due to the problem with the testing procedure. We don't know for sure, but my belief is that we should change the testing procedure from the tests that have failed before to see if a different testing procedure yields different results.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_I am a curious party with no agenda. If longer listening times might be a factor, then testing should accommodate that concern (especially in light of our new undisguised question). However, I would want to ensure that *if* a new test fails to produce positive results, there won't be more grounds for people saying the test is a bad test just because they don't like the results. This is a reasonable expectation to have among reasonable people, yes?_

 

I am probably repeating myself, but I don't think it is possible to do a perfect test in this area, at least at this point, in an economical and practical way. We can only do the best we can. There is always going to be a basis to question the results of any test, however, because we are dealing with human perception and other issues about which we don't have perfect knowledge. So I would say the purpose is to eliminate as many bases for criticism of the testing methodology as possible. Some that we may be able to eliminate through use of the home trial are criticisms like (1) the listening time was too short, (2) it's not my system, (3) I'm not familiar with this music, for example. 

 On the other hand, if we use simple DIY cables with the only difference being the type of conductor, we will not be able to elminate the criticism or speculation that some people could hear the difference between one of the DIY cables and a super-duper helix configuration titanium shielded cable manufactured by Vadawadahalla, or whatever. But that doesn't mean it is not worth doing the test. Just because we cannnot dispose of every basis for criticism doesn't mean we should not dispose of some and advance the state of the knowledge. 

 There are many, many scientific and medical tests conducted every day that yield results that are useful and suggestive of a conclusion regarding a particular scientific or medical proposition, yet we frequently hear that more testing or trials are needed, etc., before any definitive conclusions can be drawn about real-world applications. And these tests involve hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars of research and testing, etc. We're just a bunch of dudes who enjoy this audio hobby (most of us anyway, although I'm not sure about some) trying to come up with a simple and practical test to find out some additional things about cables (and I agree with Edwood; it's all in fun). I don't think it's realistic to think that we will be able to conclusively end the cable debate with one test. If the skeptics or "neutral" camps aren't satisfied with that, then maybe there is no point in proceeding further.


----------



## DrDobs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_No, that's not really what I am saying. In brief, and somewhat simplified for purposes of brevity, what I am saying is that many thousands of people report hearing audible differences between various amps, cables, components, etc., yet it appears that there are very few if any blind tests that confirm statistically that people are hearing differences. That could mean that nobody is hearing a difference between any of these components. In the alternative, it could mean the tests that have been used have been flawed. (Any test that is set up to test a relatively complex scientific issue and that fails to produce a "positive" result may have failed because (1) the observations or asserted facts being tested are not, in fact, accurate or true, or (2) the testing methodology was flawed.)

 As it turns out, virtually all of these tests are the short-duration listening-time tests involving other people's systems, other people's music, in a public setting. It also turns out that some of us, including me (again, formally a committed skeptic), have found that the differences between various cables, components, etc. have become more acute once one has had an opportunity over a longer-duration listening period to become very familiar with the sound that is being used as the baseline. In addtion, there is at least one published report of a well-kwown audiophile type who failed a blind test on amps, became convinced that amps sound the same, bought the cheap amp from the test for his own system, and ended up hating it after he had time to really live with it. Thus, there is some basis, i.e., a rational basis, to suspect that the failure to discern differences in previous tests may be due to the problem with the testing procedure. We don't know for sure, but my belief is that we should change the testing procedure from the tests that have failed before to see if a different testing procedure yields different results.


 I am probably repeating myself, but I don't think it is possible to do a perfect test in this area, at least at this point, in an economical and practical way. We can only do the best we can. There is always going to be a basis to question the results of any test, however, because we are dealing with human perception and other issues about which we don't have perfect knowledge. So I would say the purpose is to eliminate as many bases for criticism of the testing methodology as possible. Some that we may be able to eliminate through use of the home trial are criticisms like (1) the listening time was too short, (2) it's not my system, (3) I'm not familiar with this music, for example. 

 On the other hand, if we use simple DIY cables with the only difference being the type of conductor, we will not be able to elminate the criticism or speculation that some people could hear the difference between one of the DIY cables and a super-duper helix configuration titanium shielded cable manufactured by Vadawadahalla, or whatever. But that doesn't mean it is not worth doing the test. Just because we cannnot dispose of every basis for criticism doesn't mean we should not dispose of some and advance the state of the knowledge. 

 There are many, many scientific and medical tests conducted every day that yield results that are useful and suggestive of a conclusion regarding a particular scientific or medical proposition, yet we frequently hear that more testing or trials are needed, etc., before any definitive conclusions can be drawn about real-world applications. And these tests involve hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars of research and testing, etc. We're just a bunch of dudes who enjoy this audio hobby (most of us anyway, although I'm not sure about some) trying to come up with a simple and practical test to find out some additional things about cables (and I agree with Edwood; it's all in fun). I don't think it's realistic to think that we will be able to conclusively end the cable debate with one test. If the skeptics or "neutral" camps aren't satisfied with that, then maybe there is no point in proceeding further._

 

This is truly an EXCELLENT post and I want to second this thought 100%. I could not have set it better myself. When do we get started?


----------



## Steve999

Okay.. . I think it's that time.

 You walk into the room
 With your pencil in your hand
 You see somebody naked
 And you say, "Who is that man?"
 You try so hard
 But you don't understand
 Just what you'll say
 When you get home

 Because something is happening here
 But you don't know what it is
 Do you, Mister Jones?

 You raise up your head
 And you ask, "Is this where it is?"
 And somebody points to you and says
 "It's his"
 And you say, "What's mine?"
 And somebody else says, "Where what is?"
 And you say, "Oh my God
 Am I here all alone?"

 Because something is happening here
 But you don't know what it is
 Do you, Mister Jones?

 You hand in your ticket
 And you go watch the geek
 Who immediately walks up to you
 When he hears you speak
 And says, "How does it feel
 To be such a freak?"
 And you say, "Impossible"
 As he hands you a bone

 Because something is happening here
 But you don't know what it is
 Do you, Mister Jones?

 You have many contacts
 Among the lumberjacks
 To get you facts
 When someone attacks your imagination
 But nobody has any respect
 Anyway they already expect you
 To just give a check
 To tax-deductible charity organizations

 You've been with the professors
 And they've all liked your looks
 With great lawyers you have
 Discussed lepers and crooks
 You've been through all of
 F. Scott Fitzgerald's books
 You're very well read
 It's well known

 Because something is happening here
 But you don't know what it is
 Do you, Mister Jones?

 Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to you
 And then he kneels
 He crosses himself
 And then he clicks his high heels
 And without further notice
 He asks you how it feels
 And he says, "Here is your throat back
 Thanks for the loan"

 Because something is happening here
 But you don't know what it is
 Do you, Mister Jones?

 Now you see this one-eyed midget
 Shouting the word "NOW"
 And you say, "For what reason?"
 And he says, "How?"
 And you say, "What does this mean?"
 And he screams back, "You're a cow
 Give me some milk
 Or else go home"

 Because something is happening here
 But you don't know what it is
 Do you, Mister Jones?

 Well, you walk into the room
 Like a camel and then you frown
 You put your eyes in your pocket
 And your nose on the ground
 There ought to be a law
 Against you comin' around
 You should be made
 To wear earphones

 Because something is happening here
 But you don't know what it is
 Do you, Mister Jones?

 -- Ballad of a Thin Man, by Bob Dylan
 Copyright © 1965; renewed 1993 Special Rider Music


----------



## Febs

And now back to our regularly scheduled program ...


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DrDobs* 
_This is truly an EXCELLENT post and I want to second this thought 100%. I could not have set it better myself. When do we get started?_

 

I hope it is realized that this is what I have been suggesting thru a series of posts and with the experiment I described. It will show whether or not many of us can differentiate different ics at all in a familiar setting and with ones own music listening for a few minutes or less. Maybe we will not be able to do so every time or with every combination of cables or always within that time frame, but can we mostly do it or not, just tell they're different or not, that is all. That will be useful information though imperfect. It is necessarily imperfect and not fully agreeable to all because as I said at first we really are talking about a very large, fuzzy, multifaceted and internally incoherent 'issue' without being at all sure we know what the other guy or even ouselves exactly mean by what we believe once we try to pin it down at all.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I am probably repeating myself, but I don't think it is possible to do a perfect test in this area, at least at this point, in an economical and practical way. We can only do the best we can. There is always going to be a basis to question the results of any test, however, because we are dealing with human perception and other issues about which we don't have perfect knowledge. So I would say the purpose is to eliminate as many bases for criticism of the testing methodology as possible. Some that we may be able to eliminate through use of the home trial are criticisms like (1) the listening time was too short, (2) it's not my system, (3) I'm not familiar with this music, for example. 

 On the other hand, if we use simple DIY cables with the only difference being the type of conductor, we will not be able to elminate the criticism or speculation that some people could hear the difference between one of the DIY cables and a super-duper helix configuration titanium shielded cable manufactured by Vadawadahalla, or whatever. But that doesn't mean it is not worth doing the test. Just because we cannnot dispose of every basis for criticism doesn't mean we should not dispose of some and advance the state of the knowledge._

 

You know this is what I suggested way back in post 300 and something and both you and russ said: "Oh no, that will not be acceptable".
 Am I missing something?
 Are you suggesting a test involving a series of DIY cables with different conductors?


----------



## bigshot

Has anyone grabbed the brass ring yet?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_You know this is what I suggested way back in post 300 and something and both you and russ said: "Oh no, that will not be acceptable".
 Am I missing something?
 Are you suggesting a test involving a series of DIY cables with different conductors?_

 

I thought you were suggesting in your previous post that the listening-time duration and the equipment used to listen does not matter. I thought that russdog was pointing out some of the "believers" on this thread think this does matter. I was agreeing with him. Perhaps I misunderstood your point . . . or his.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_I hope it is realized that this is what I have been suggesting thru a series of posts and with the experiment I described. It will show whether or not many of us can differentiate different ics at all in a familiar setting and with ones own music listening for a few minutes or less. Maybe we will not be able to do so every time or with every combination of cables or always within that time frame, but can we mostly do it or not, just tell they're different or not, that is all._

 

I just don't agree that listening for "a few minutes or less" is a good way to conduct this test. I don't think it will yield results that are meaningful one way or the other, which I think is confirmed by your suggestion that "[m]aybe we will not be able to do so every time or with every combination of cables or always within that time frame." The results could be all over the map, very hard to interpret, and most likely not resulting in something that statistically will really show anything, and they will also be open to serious criticism.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I thought you were suggesting in your previous post that the listening-time duration and the equipment used to listen does not matter. I thought that russdog was pointing out some of the "believers" on this thread think this does matter. I was agreeing with him. Perhaps I misunderstood your point . . . or his. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I was suggesting: 
 1. That the people doing the test be given as much time as they wnat or need.
 2.That playing the "Oh his gear is not good enough" game should not be part of the test. You do that, and you leave yourself open to being accused of stacking the test. You would also leave many, if not most of the younger HeadFi people out. 
 On the other hand, it might be fun to see what a bunch of cable heads would do in such a test.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_I was suggesting: 
 1. That the people doing the test be given as much time as they wnat or need.
 2.That playing the "Oh his gear is not good enough" game should not be part of the test. You do that, and you leave yourself open to being accused of stacking the test. You would also leave many, if not most of the younger HeadFi people out. 
 On the other hand, it might be fun to see what a bunch of cable heads would do in such a test. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Gotcha. I think we're in agreement. I don't think that the equipment issue can be entirely discounted, since I do believe that some lower quality systems might not be very revealing, but I assume that most of the folks who claim to hear differences and will be willing to take the time and energy to participate will have good enough equipment for the test. I don't think this is a test where we should insist that all participants have a $10,000 system or something like that. I think I would leave out people who want to test on an ipod and cmoy, for example. I'm not sure what you mean by "stacking the test" though.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I just don't agree that listening for "a few minutes or less" is a good way to conduct this test. I don't think it will yield results that are meaningful one way or the other, which I think is confirmed by your suggestion that "[m]aybe we will not be able to do so every time or with every combination of cables or always within that time frame." The results could be all over the map, very hard to interpret, and most likely not resulting in something that statistically will really show anything, and they will also be open to serious criticism._

 

You could be right and you could be wrong about there being a better way to go DEPENDING ON WHAT SPECIFIC QUESTION YOU ARE ASKING/TESTING. I have made the question I would ask clear, I hope, and don't believe you can get a better answer to that question without a much more elaborate, expensive and extended form of testing that would never actually happen. How can how many times you correctly determine whether there is a change of ic in 10 change/no-change events be "all over the place"? Sure some will do 'better' than others, but where is the "hard to interpret"? There would unanavoidably be an answer to the question of whether a significant number of those tested can differentiate a cable difference in a few minutes on their own system. I am wondering whether you don't like the limitedness of the question moreso than you don't like the experimental design. 
 Could you please state the question you would be asking and how the design you recommend would answer it in a way easier to interpret, less open to criticism and with greater statistical significance. Further, it is important to make clear how it will be something motivating and practical enough that it will/could actually get done. If you can do so satisfactorily, I for one will be glad to get on board.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Gotcha. 
 <snip>
 I'm not sure what you mean by "stacking the test" though._

 

I meant if you limited the test to anyone with high end equipment, you could be accused of stacking the test with people who "may" be predisposed to be cable believers.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Could you please state the question you would be asking and how the design you recommend would answer it in a way easier to interpret, less open to criticism and with greater statistical significance. Further, it is important to make clear how it will be something motivating and practical enough that it will/could actually get done. If you can do so satisfactorily, I for one will be glad to get on board._

 

I think the question I would ask is similar to question 2 posed by russdog a few pages ago: "Can believers demonstrate in a blind test that they can distinguish among different interconnects, assuming a reasaonble effort is made to conduct the test in accordance with protocols that mirror the real world conditions under which they claim to hear differences"? 

 To test this, there are a number of options, I suppose, but one that has been suggested by others is to use three cables - two that are the same and one that is different. Let the believer/participants have as long as they want (within reason) to determine which two cables are the same and which one is different. This test has some flaws to be sure and it will be open to some criticism, but it is a start. Others may have better ideas for the test, or additional thoughts, such as how to make the cables different to maxmize the differences (e.g., silver vs. copper, etc.).


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_I meant if you limited the test to anyone with high end equipment, you could be accused of stacking the test with people who "may" be predisposed to be cable believers._

 

Who cares if anyone is "predisposed" if the test is blind? Frankly, I'd probably limit the test to cable believers, but this is not critical to the test (although it might be a good idea, since there are at least one or two people that I could see deliberately trying to sabatoge their results).


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Who cares if anyone is "predisposed" if the test is blind? Frankly, I'd probably limit the test to cable believers, but this is not critical to the test (although it might be a good idea, since there are at least one or two people that I could see deliberately trying to sabatoge their results)._

 

Ah. Now your bias is showing. My point is exactly the same. Although I don't automaticly assume someone would cheat..


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_Ah. Now your bias is showing. My point is exactly the same. Although I don't automaticly assume someone would cheat..
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I think it will be harder for a believer to cheat, since they would have to take the cables apart and then put them back together without anyone knowing what they did. A skeptic could cheat by just not telling the truth about what cable sounds different, and nobody would know. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm not really suggesting that one "camp" is more inclined to cheat than another. But it's like russdog has said in some of his posts. Believers are the ones claiming they can hear differences. It only makes sense to make them be the participants and put them to the test (at least to the limited extent this proposed test could do that).


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I think the question I would ask is similar to question 2 posed by russdog a few pages ago: "Can believers demonstrate in a blind test that they can distinguish among different interconnects, assuming a reasaonble effort is made to conduct the test in accordance with protocols that mirror the real world conditions under which they claim to hear differences"? 

 To test this, there are a number of options, I suppose, but one that has been suggested by others is to use three cables - two that are the same and one that is different. Let the believer/participants have as long as they want (within reason) to determine which two cables are the same and which one is different. This test has some flaws to be sure and it will be open to some criticism, but it is a start. Others may have better ideas for the test, or additional thoughts, such as how to make the cables different to maxmize the differences (e.g., silver vs. copper, etc.)._

 

Your question is broader than what your test addresses since the test can only address whether people can distinguish between 2 particular cables not cables in general. Hence the question possibly answered could be: can participants distinguish between two cables that it would seem would sound different if cables sound different at all. If they prove to be able to do so, it still leaves open whether they could also distinguish any other cable pairs. If they can't, it still leaves open whether they could with different cable pairs. It would be a beginning but also far from an answer to the broad issue we all think we have in common. Still, if we can all agree on it, we would learn/demonstrate *something*.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Your question is broader than what your test addresses since the test can only address whether people can distinguish between 2 particular cables not cables in general. Hence the question possibly answered could be: can participants distinguish between two cables that it would seem would sound different if cables sound different at all. If they prove to be able to do so, it still leaves open whether they could also distinguish any other cable pairs. If they can't, it still leaves open whether they could with different cable pairs. It would be a beginning but also far from an answer to the broad issue we all think we have in common. Still, if we can all agree on it, we would learn/demonstrate *something*._

 

Yes, we're on the same page. There's no way practically to do a test which would establish that, if the result is not positive, nobody can hear a difference between _any _cables. So the test would only be probative of the broader question I set forth above, but not conclusive. But then again, it would tell us something. As I read the first few pages of this thread, a number of participants in the previous test said they could clearly hear differences among the simple cables used. So there is something to test here, i.e., are these folks right?

 Thinking about it further, it seems to me that two other conditions might make sense for the test. First, we might suggest that the participants be those who feel at the outset that they could distinguish between the simple conductors to be used. For example, I'm not sure it would make sense to include someone who says they can never hear any differences, or for that matter someone who says they don't believe they will be able to hear differences between silver and cable conductors, but they did hear a differnce in their system between two after-market cables with fairly complex construction. Let's see if the folks who think they can hear the difference between basic copper and basic silver, for example, can really do so.

 Second, it might make sense for the testing protocol to allow a participant to state that they cannot hear a difference among the cables. In other words, participants would not be forced to choose which cable is different if they could not tell the difference. This might make interpretation of the results a bit easier and more meaningful.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_I meant if you limited the test to anyone with high end equipment, you could be accused of stacking the test with people who "may" be predisposed to be cable believers._

 

If you want someone to be able to tell the differences between two vintages of wine, you're going to want experienced oenophiles. Someone who doesn't drink wine, and has no idea what a particular wine tastes like is going to be fumbling around, and has far less chance of arriving at a correct conclusion. I'm not a wine drinker, so someone could pour me a glass of a treasured vintage, and I'd simply look blank. Waste of expensive wine, because I haven't trained my palate to appreciate it. If I wanted to stack a wine tasting so that it appeared that there were no differences between expensive and cheap wines, I'd make sure that the subjects were people like me, who simply don't know and are unable to perceive the difference because they never learned it. 

 Who are the subjects of your cable experiment going to be?


----------



## Todd R

Wow, 
 This thread is still going on? 

 Phil, I've been thinking about a better way to run a second test. 
 Believers & skeptics can all play. 

 Make 3 cables, with one of them made from a different conductor material. One of the 2 cables that is made from the same conductor will be labeled as the "control" and the other 2 shall be compared to it. It doesn't matter _what_ the conductors are, as long as 2 are the same and one different. 

 Loan them out just like before and give people a week or so to listen to them. 

 Then simply ask:

 A: Does one of these cables sound different than the control?

 No - the test is done, no need to state a preference

 Yes - they go on to question B

 B: Which one is different? 

 That's it! 
 Put the information into an Excel spread sheet an generate some graphs. 

 From those 2 questions you can chart: 

 1> Percentage of those that hear a difference vs. not hearing a difference.
 2> Correct vs. incorrect scores of those that claim to hear a difference.

 Now, if you want to get real interesting you can take some profile information and plug that in too. 

*For example* you could ask retail value of the system.
 Plug that information in, and you could answer the question of whether you need the good stuff to hear differences or not. 

 Ask for the number of years in the hobby. Does experience matter? 
 And so on.... 

 The possibilities are endless, but the point of ANY experiment is to test an unknown against a known. (The scientific method, remember that from school?)

 I found a website where you can make your own survey and have the results e-mailed to you http://www.response-o-matic.com/.
 I made a few test pages, it's very easy. 

 Gather the results and chart them. 
 I think this should satisfy everyone regardless of which side of the debate they're on. 
 TR


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_If you want someone to be able to tell the differences between two vintages of wine, you're going to want experienced oenophiles. 
 Who are the subjects of your cable experiment going to be?_

 

I think both you and Phil have missed my point (which was in the part that you edited out of the quote) I am 56, Phil is 50, you do not list you age, but judging from your inventory of gear you are out of you 30's.
 I see this as a problem (as stacking) for a couple of reasons. 
 1. hearing. At 40 you do not hear as well as at 20, at 50 it is worse yet. Yes you may be chosing people with more experence, but unlike wine tasting, you are chosing people less able to hear the difference between two samples.
 2. You are less likely to be open to change. You can see that in both Phil and my posts.
 Younger testers may not have the bling to impress you, but, they have better ears, and likely, more open minds. That's what I mean when I talked about stacking.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_1. hearing. At 40 you do not hear as well as at 20, at 50 it is worse yet. Yes you may be chosing people with more experence, but unlike wine tasting, you are chosing people less able to hear the difference between two samples.

 2. Younger testers ...likely, more open minds._

 

1. True my hearing at 48 is clearly not as good as it was at 20. However cable manufacturers make huge claims for huge audible differences - almost all people who are not profoundly deaf can hear the difference between 2 notes that are an octave apart. Similarly if the differences are so slight that 40 year old ears cannot detect them I would hazard that the differences are really pretty insignificant for most people.

 2. Open to debate some of the most dognatic people I have met have been youngsters. You just have to read the forums, as many folks who adamantly proclaim X's superiority to Y despite never having heard Y are younglings as are oldsters. Bigotry is not the sole province of the elders.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Todd R* 
_Wow, 
 This thread is still going on? 

 Phil, I've been thinking about a better way to run a second test. 
 Believers & skeptics can all play. 
 <snip>
 Gather the results and chart them. 
 I think this should satisfy everyone regardless of which side of the debate they're on. 
 TR_

 

I would suggest you would need to be very careful in the construction and testing of the cables before you send them out. Qtherwise you may end up with a test of conductance. i.e. can people hear small volume differences.
 Given how close silver and copper are in respect to conductance that should not be too hard, so it's likely a non issue.
 -- 
 Dana


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Todd R* 
_Wow, 
 This thread is still going on? 

 Phil, I've been thinking about a better way to run a second test. 
 Believers & skeptics can all play. 

 Make 3 cables, with one of them made from a different conductor material. One of the 2 cables that is made from the same conductor will be labeled as the "control" and the other 2 shall be compared to it. It doesn't matter what the conductors are, as long as 2 are the same and one different. 

 Loan them out just like before and give people a week or so to listen to them. 

 Then simply ask:

 A: Does one of these cables sound different than the control?

 No - the test is done, no need to state a preference

 Yes - they go on to question B

 B: Which one is different? 

 That's it! 
 Put the information into an Excel spread sheet an generate some graphs. 

 From those 2 questions you can chart: 

 1> Percentage of those that hear a difference vs. not hearing a difference.
 2> Correct vs. incorrect scores of those that claim to hear a difference.

 Now, if you want to get real interesting you can take some profile information and plug that in too. 

*For example* you could ask retail value of the system.
 Plug that information in, and you could answer the question of whether you need the good stuff to hear differences or not. 

 Ask for the number of years in the hobby. Does experience matter? 
 And so on.... 

 The possibilities are endless, but the point of ANY experiment is to test an unknown against a known. (The scientific method, remember that from school?)

 I found a website where you can make your own survey and have the results e-mailed to you http://www.response-o-matic.com/.
 I made a few test pages, it's very easy. 

 Gather the results and chart them. 
 I think this should satisfy everyone regardless of which side of the debate they're on. 
 TR_

 

Sounds good to me! The only change I might make is to give people three weeks to a month to listen to all three cables, if a participant feels they need to take that long.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_I think both you and Phil have missed my point (which was in the part that you edited out of the quote) I am 56, Phil is 50 . . . ._

 

 Excuse me, but I am still only 49, and a spry 49 at that. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_You are less likely to be open to change. You can see that in both Phil and my posts.
 Younger testers may not have the bling to impress you, but, they have better ears, and likely, more open minds. That's what I mean when I talked about stacking._

 

Like hciman77,I disagree with this assumption quite strongly. In my view, some of the most dogmatic posters on this board are the younger folks, especially those of college age or slightly older. Some of it stems from the fact that, when you are youger, you think you will live forever, and you think you know everything. As you get older, you season a bit, you realize all you don't know, you become a bit less strident, and you become somewhat more open minded on areas where reasonable minds can differ. You may become somewhat more close-minded on areas where experience or judgment has taught you that a certain point of view is not valid, but I don't agree that there is any "stacking" of the test to worry about in terms of age of the participants. We will probably get a good cross section anyway.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Todd R* 
_Wow, 


 Make 3 cables, with one of them made from a different conductor material. One of the 2 cables that is made from the same conductor will be labeled as the "control" and the other 2 shall be compared to it. It doesn't matter what the conductors are, as long as 2 are the same and one different. 

 Loan them out just like before and give people a week or so to listen to them. 

 Then simply ask:

 A: Does one of these cables sound different than the control?

 No - the test is done, no need to state a preference

 Yes - they go on to question B

 B: Which one is different? 

 That's it! 
 Put the information into an Excel spread sheet an generate some graphs. 

 From those 2 questions you can chart: 

 1> Percentage of those that hear a difference vs. not hearing a difference.
 2> Correct vs. incorrect scores of those that claim to hear a difference.
_

 

Given that it is we who will be the subjects then since this design would be well known everyone will answer YES to A since it has to be true. In fact, even if one didn't know the design, he should answer yes since otherwise there would be no test since who would send out three identical cables? Answer? Anyone who wanted a meaningful result with this design would have to mix in some number of cases where there is no different cable as a control. But can one person's test serve as a control for others' tests?

 I don't think that anyone has listened about the fact that the issue is not simple and unimodal but complex and inconsistent across the group of audiophiles. Let me list the dimensions that have been brought up:
 1. which cables
 2. which type of cables
 3. length of listening time
 4. equipment used
 a. what quality level
 b. the listener's or unfamiliar setup
 5. the experience/training of the listener
 6. setting of the test
 7. pre-test bias/beliefs of the listener
 8. knowledge of the test design or not
 9. age of the listener
 etc, etc.
 When you want to assert something about your beliefs about cables, you need to think of what value or role you place in each of these areas as part of that idea. Cables, to me, are not different by themselves but as part of a combination of a tuned listener and one cable or another in proper circumstances with sufficient listening practice. How would you deal with all these parameter? When it is said that a given cable is different from another all of this is implicit in the statement and not just the cable, which has no sound signature alone in the forest though it has /could have a certain set of instrument readings taken from it there.

 Hirsch made a point using the oenophile analogy that I have been thinking of making all along. Even that is complex in relation to the 'placebo' issue brought by skeptics about those who find expensive cables better. Traditionally the power of suggestion has been the named cause of the placebo effect generally. And the placebo effect has been named the villain in this topic. But some things cannot readily be perceived without 'suggestion.' In medical school it was damned hard to hear heart murmors to begin with until they were pointed out by an expert who prompted one to listen again and to attend to x, y or z. likewise with many difficult perceptions surely including hearing finer differences in sound like those between cables. This is quite similar to wine-tasting. One reads wine critics like movie critics to alert and focus one on what to 'look' for. In these cases, suggestion is not the bugaboo but a necessary element.

 Only highly trained professionals can do what others scoff at and tend to believe is impossible. Once at a national wine tasting event I witnessed one of the worlds experts taste ten unnamed and unlabeled wines being told only that they came from around the world. In front of a thousand people he identified the country of origin, type of wine, age, etc., of all correctly including picking out one grown on his own vineyards in Australia some years before specifying the exact vineyard, grape content and age. To most of you reading this these wines are not clearly distinguishable. To others given some clues they can get the rest some of the time. So do wines taste different or not? A truncated and therefore meaningless question!

 Oh, and about the age thing. How amusing (I'm 63)! As you age you gradually lose high frequency hearing not all of hearing. Is someone saying that it is how sounds and harmonics above 15k cps are heard that is the key thing in cable difference? All cables? Some cables? Well that may be part of some peoples' set of parameters implicit in their belief about all this, but that only goes to show how strange and varied and incomparable our ideas really are.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Given that it is we who will be the subjects then since this design would be well known everyone will answer YES to A since it has to be true. In fact, even if one didn't know the design, he should answer yes since otherwise there would be no test since who would send out three identical cables? Answer? Anyone who wanted a meaningful result with this design would have to mix in some number of cases where there is no different cable as a control. _

 

You lost me here. Maybe I'm tired tonight, but why does A have to be true? If am in the test and I don't hear a difference between the three cables, I'm going to answer no, the sound is not different. Why would I answer yes, since then I will have to pick which sounds different, and will only screw up the test and/or look a bit foolish?


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Hirsch made a point using the oenophile analogy that I have been thinking of making all along. Even that is complex in relation to the 'placebo' issue brought by skeptics about those who find expensive cables better. Traditionally the power of suggestion has been the named cause of the placebo effect generally. And the placebo effect has been named the villain in this topic. But some things cannot readily be perceived without 'suggestion.' In medical school it was damned hard to hear heart murmors to begin with until they were pointed out by an expert who prompted one to listen again and to attend to x, y or z. likewise with many difficult perceptions surely including hearing finer differences in sound like those between cables. This is quite similar to wine-tasting. One reads wine critics like movie critics to alert and focus one on what to 'look' for. In these cases, suggestion is not the bugaboo but a necessary element._

 

What is going on in both the oenophile and medical school examples is not suggestion, but rather sensory discrimination learning. One way to do this is to have someone experienced point out differences, until you can perceive them. Another way is to start with large, obvious differences, and gradually reduce the size of the differences. Done this way, you can learn to perceive differences that people who have not undergone this particular form of learning simply are not sensitive to. A doctor can hear heart murmers that I cannot detect. A oenophle can perceive wine differences I cannot taste. What's so strange about the same learning occurring in audio?

 Here's one for the statisticians out there: How many people who can reliably distinguish cable differences are needed to establish that there are in fact audible differences between cables?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_At 40 you do not hear as well as at 20, at 50 it is worse yet. Yes you may be chosing people with more experence, but unlike wine tasting, you are chosing people less able to hear the difference between two samples._

 

You also lose taste buds as you grow older and your taste buds become less sensitive. Nevertheless, I'll bet you most of the expert oenphile's who can distinguish various vintages, etc., are not in thier 20's.


----------



## Todd R

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_You lost me here. Maybe I'm tired tonight, but why does A have to be true? If am in the test and I don't hear a difference between the three cables, I'm going to answer no, the sound is not different. Why would I answer yes, since then I will have to pick which sounds different, and will only screw up the test and/or look a bit foolish?_

 

 I think what he is saying is the people who "know" there is no difference are not even going to bother to take the test.

 On the other hand, there will be some taking the test who are unsure if they will hear a difference, those are the ones question A is directed at. 

 Even further, there might be people who are sure they can hear the difference, but can't. 

 Riboge, testing some of the people with 3 identical cables would be interesting (I actually thought about doing that). If there is supposed to be a difference between 2 things, people will try to find that difference because they don't want to fail or look incompetent. 
 It would make the test a little harder to keep track of, probably but worth doing.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_What is going on in both the oenophile and medical school examples is not suggestion, but rather sensory discrimination learning. One way to do this is to have someone experienced point out differences, until you can perceive them. Another way is to start with large, obvious differences, and gradually reduce the size of the differences. Done this way, you can learn to perceive differences that people who have not undergone this particular form of learning simply are not sensitive to. A doctor can hear heart murmers that I cannot detect. A oenophle can perceive wine differences I cannot taste. What's so strange about the same learning occurring in audio?

 Here's one for the statisticians out there: How many people who can reliably distinguish cable differences are needed to establish that there are in fact audible differences between cables?_

 

I hope you are not addressing me in asking what's so strange since I was saying that it is ubiquitous not strange. Yes of course this isn't called suggestion when it is positively regarded. That's why I put it in single quotes. But the first time around, ie, when someone tells you to listen for a particular thing and then you can hear it, it isn't "learning" (yet) but a kind of being tuned in which if retained to the benefit of future listening is then learning. For most people neither wine nor cables are are different in many cases. How do you distinguish or design experiments allowing for tuning in to what is ultimately there and against suggestion in the sense of being led to hear what is 'not there' (and, according to whom?)?

 The answer to your last question doesn't need a statistician depending on what is implicit in your idea of "cable differences" as I keep saying. If one person hears it then it is audible. If two hear it then it is audible repeatedly. If some hear it and some don't, then some are placeboed and/or trained and/or some are untrained and/or dogmatic, etc.

 About always picking A in the design suggested: everyone will know that there IS a different cable before listening, by design. So who will say there isn't? My point is that question A is superfluous and misleading. In this kind of design it should simply be: Pick out and name the different cable. People will try harder to do so because they will feel they ought to be able to. All the better for them to be tuned in a bit. Except of course for those who don't believe there are such differences, what will they do? If you want to include trials with 3 identical cables as 'control', then it would be: pick out and name the different cable if there is one. The question of whether one person can be a control for the others remains. I believe you would have to present each person with a series of cable combinations, some with a different cable and some all the same--four of them: AAB, ABB, AAA, BBB.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_About always picking A in the design suggested: everyone will know that there IS a different cable before listening, by design. So who will say there isn't? My point is that question A is superfluous and misleading._

 

I still don't follow. Sorry. Todd's Question A is not whether the cables "are different," but whether they "sound different." Those are two different things. Are you saying that every person (or perhaps every believer) that listens to the cables and thinks they do NOT sound different is going to say anyway that they DO sound different just because they know at the outset that one has a different design? Why would they do that?

 I think Question A is useful, because if you force someone to choose the different cable when they can't hear a difference, you may skew the test results, unless the sample size is very large -- because people may choose incorrectly (which is part of the problem with the test that started this thread). I think, as suggested by Todd, it would be interesting to separate how many say they cannot hear a difference, and how many -- of those who claim to hear a difference -- get it right. I think the latter question is actually the more important question because, if the sample size is large enough, it should be very probative of whether folks who claim to be able to hear a difference can actually hear it.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I still don't follow. Sorry. Todd's Question A is not whether the cables "are different," but whether they "sound different." Those are two different things. Are you saying that every person (or perhaps every believer) that listens to the cables and thinks they do NOT sound different is going to say anyway that they DO sound different just because they know at the outset that one has a different design? Why would they do that?

 I think Question A is useful, because if you force someone to choose the different cable when they can't hear a difference, you may skew the test results, unless the sample size is very large -- because people may choose incorrectly (which is part of the problem with the test that started this thread). I think, as suggested by Todd, it would be interesting to separate how many say they cannot hear a difference, and how many -- of those who claim to hear a difference -- get it right. I think the latter question is actually the more important question because, if the sample size is large enough, it should be very probative of whether folks who claim to be able to hear a difference can actually hear it._

 

Yes of course their being different and sounding different are different, but not as distinct as you make it sound. If the different cable designs DON'T in fact sound different then you really have a mess, so I assume what will be sent around are two cables that DO sound different (though this hasn't been mentioned) to those doing the design who believe in such differences. Not ALL cables sound different from one another for sure! Hence, all subjects can assume that they DO sound different to (any)one who can hear such differences. So perhaps believers would not lie but act under the influence of suggestion/tuning or bias in reporting a difference not actually 'heard' in the sense that it wouldn't have been heard without that pre-tuning--sometimes that "skews" the results but also sometimes might be an enhancement of accuracy. Non-believers, likewise, have a stake in not hearing it which can play a role in a negative response despite conscientiousness.
 A mistake in B following 'hearing' a difference in A, would be telling, as you say, in showing who didn't ACCURATELY hear a difference but not in showing who heard it only because they were sure in advance it was there. It doesn't apply to the negative influence cases of course.
 Back to what is implicit in the notion of cable difference. In your notion, does it make a difference if the difference appears only when expected/tuned in on or not? To eliminate the expectation factor, I think the more solid design would be to circulate 4 sets of 3 cables with all combinations of having an odd man and of being all the same and then asking your two questions, which are contained in the single direction: pick out the different cable if one is different.
 Otherwise, use your design among only those who are experienced believers. Either they can show they correctly identify the different cable or they don't. That will be something for sure.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Yes of course their being different and sounding different are different, but not as distinct as you make it sound. If the different cable designs DON'T in fact sound different then you really have a mess, so I assume what will be sent around are two cables that DO sound different (though this hasn't been mentioned) to those doing the design who believe in such differences._

 

You've said this before, and I'm not sure about this also. How would the designers determine at the outset that the cables they are sending out actually do sound different? I assume you expect they will listen to them first, but if they themselves don't blind test them how will they really know they sound different? I thought the test would just involve three (or whatever) cables of different construction, and there would be no assumption about whether they sound different (or pre-test listening needed), because I was assuming that's what the test is about (can cable believers estabish that certain differently-constructed cables sound different).


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_You've said this before, and I'm not sure about this also. How would the designers determine at the outset that the cables they are sending out actually do sound different? I assume you expect they will listen to them first, but if they themselves don't blind test them how will they really know they sound different? I thought the test would just involve three (or whatever) cables of different construction, and there would be no assumption about whether they sound different (or pre-test listening needed), because I was assuming that's what the test is about (can cable believers estabish that certain differently-constructed cables sound different)._

 

How are you differing from Ed's test? Just in the questions?


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_that's what the test is about (can cable believers estabish that certain differently-constructed cables sound different)._

 

But no one with any sense would assert this! That is, they wouldn't if "certain" simply refers to the ones built for the test rather than ones known to sound different to believers. Not all differently-constructed cables sound different from one another even to the most ardent believers. Many high end copper and silver cables can sound quite similar, no? Cable makers say so on their websites, at least (e.g. Moon Audio re black dragon cable). And there is no way to substantiate a claim of "all" anyway. You could say some or most, but that still leaves you with the question of whether the ones made for the test are among them.
 What's the problem with pre-screening the test cables for sounding different? You ask what if they aren't really different? Well, that's the whole test. Showing that they aren't is the negative outcome that supports non-believers. It is a keener negative if believers certified that these should sound different and aren't among the few pairings that wouldn't sound different even to a believer.
 See, as I have also said before ad nauseum, you have a different notion of cable difference from me. I think different silver cables often sound different and some cables of different construction sound the same--to someone sufficiently tuned for listening to cables in detail. I thought we were trying to establish something about whether well-constructed cables in general CAN sound different from one another or whether they all sound the same once the placebo effect, etc, is neutralized.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_How are you differing from Ed's test? Just in the questions?_

 

Ed's test, as I recall, involved three different cables and an attempt to identify which was which (i.e. to label each cable essentially). I think the best suggestion for the new test I have heard so far is to have three cables, two of which are the same, one of which is different (perhaps a different conductor that the "believers camp" says should sound different) and the participants are supposed to identify the different cable.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_But no one with any sense would assert this! That is, they wouldn't if "certain" simply refers to the ones built for the test rather than ones known to sound different to believers. Not all differently-constructed cables sound different from one another even to the most ardent believers. Many high end copper and silver cables can sound quite similar, no? Cable makers say so on their websites, at least (e.g. Moon Audio re black dragon cable). And there is no way to substantiate a claim of "all" anyway. You could say some or most, but that still leaves you with the question of whether the ones made for the test are among them.
 What's the problem with pre-screening the test cables for sounding different? You ask what if they aren't really different? Well, that's the whole test. Showing that they aren't is the negative outcome that supports non-believers. It is a keener negative if believers certified that these should sound different and aren't among the few pairings that wouldn't sound different even to a believer.
 See, as I have also said before ad nauseum, you have a different notion of cable difference from me. I think different silver cables often sound different and some cables of different construction sound the same--to someone sufficiently tuned for listening to cables in detail. I thought we were trying to establish something about whether well-constructed cables in general CAN sound different from one another or whether they all sound the same once the placebo effect, etc, is neutralized._

 

In response to this I can only say: "How 'bout them Tigers?" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Seriously, I don't think we disagree on some of the things on which you think we disagree. I am only trying to make the test simple. I think it may be getting too complex, and also that the discussion may be getting too complex and theoretical also. But I don't have a real objection (I don't think) to doing the test the way you want, i.e., using cables that are constructed so that they are supposed to sound different.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_The answer to your last question doesn't need a statistician depending on what is implicit in your idea of "cable differences" as I keep saying. If one person hears it then it is audible. If two hear it then it is audible repeatedly. If some hear it and some don't, then some are placeboed and/or trained and/or some are untrained and/or dogmatic, etc._

 

Perhaps. You're right that it doesn't need a statistician, though. How many people could perform the feat of taste that you cited in the oenophile example? Even if he is the only person in the world that can do it, the fact that he can do it proves that differences are present between wines (assuming no other cues etc.). If only one in a thousand could perform that discrimination, you could draw a statistical conclusion that the wines actually taste the same (which would be false). The real conclusion would be that there are very few people who can make the sensory discrimination.

 Low incidence occurrences present a very real set of methodological issues. I was with a certain US regulatory agency when it rejected a large scale clinical trial proposed by a drug company, on the grounds that the trial could have no other conclusion than that the drug was safe, based on low incidence of dangerous side effects in the general populace (the drug was already marketed).

 You need both positive and negative controls in any cable experiment. A negative control is one that is identical with the test cable. If people keep calling it different, you know that the subjects are biased in favor of responding for differences. Less obvious is that you need a positive control. This is a cable or two with known, but subtle, audible differences from the others. This is needed to disclose a bias against responding when there are real differences, and also serves to insure that the subjects do in fact have the hearing necessary to at least detect the deliberately imposed differences.

 I'd suggest a series of forced-choice experiments. Let's say that you have two test cables, one negative control, and one positive control. You then give a series of two choices (A/B, A/C, A/D, B/C, B/D, C/D, randomized) and simply ask if the two cables in question are the same or different. Repeat as needed. That's it. We know that the answer should be no for the negative controls compared to their twin, and yes for the positive controls compared to anything. If people get those wrong, we pick up the response bias (or hearing issue). It's then just a matter of determining what's up with the rest of the comparisons. Note that if the subject can visually identify the cables, you can only repeat the sequence once. A true blinding, where the subject does not know the pair being tested, would allow for repeating the comparisons, and increase statistical power.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_
 You need both positive and negative controls in any cable experiment. A negative control is one that is identical with the test cable. If people keep calling it different, you know that the subjects are biased in favor of responding for differences. Less obvious is that you need a positive control. This is a cable or two with known, but subtle, audible differences from the others. This is needed to disclose a bias against responding when there are real differences, and also serves to insure that the subjects do in fact have the hearing necessary to at least detect the deliberately imposed differences.

 I'd suggest a series of forced-choice experiments. Let's say that you have two test cables, one negative control, and one positive control. You then give a series of two choices (A/B, A/C, A/D, B/C, B/D, C/D, randomized) and simply ask if the two cables in question are the same or different. Repeat as needed. That's it. We know that the answer should be no for the negative controls compared to their twin, and yes for the positive controls compared to anything. If people get those wrong, we pick up the response bias (or hearing issue). It's then just a matter of determining what's up with the rest of the comparisons. Note that if the subject can visually identify the cables, you can only repeat the sequence once. A true blinding, where the subject does not know the pair being tested, would allow for repeating the comparisons, and increase statistical power._

 

I guess all of us are becoming weary of this discussion. We keep going round and round as we try to satisfy various of the very different ideas about what is the case and what is to be tested and how. Hirsch, your design, for instance, is really best suited to testing the ability of a given person to hear the different sound of cables given that they do sound different. That is not what PhilS seeks to test, which is more about testing whether different cable constructions (meaning different conductors mainly, I think) do sound different. Mine is to test if people by and large really do hear differences in cables generally held to sound different by those who believe regardless of cable makeup. Also, there is wide difference about how much time is needed for listening in such tests, where, with what equipment, etc. Hirsch, your idea and mine call for multiple briefer trials. PhilS and others want extended home sessions thereby limiting testing to one set of cables and essentially one trial.
 This reflects the different notion of the thing itself and about the politics of getting a test done and results heeded. Those may be insuperable obstacles. The only remaining chance, I think, is to have a group discuss this in real time and see if something can be worked out since doing it in this forum is too drawn out, open to miscommunication, open to repetitive introduction along the way of other notions and hence offers no mechanism to keep focus or narrow things progressively toward some resolution/compromise.


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_I guess all of us are becoming weary of this discussion. We keep going round and round as we try to satisfy various of the very different ideas about what is the case and what is to be tested and how. Hirsch, your design, for instance, is really best suited to testing the ability of a given person to hear the different sound of cables given that they do sound different. That is not what PhilS seeks to test, which is more about testing whether different cable constructions (meaning different conductors mainly, I think) do sound different. Mine is to test if people by and large really do hear differences in cables generally held to sound different by those who believe regardless of cable makeup. Also, there is wide difference about how much time is needed for listening in such tests, where, with what equipment, etc. Hirsch, your idea and mine call for multiple briefer trials. PhilS and others want extended home sessions thereby limiting testing to one set of cables and essentially one trial.
 This reflects the different notion of the thing itself and about the politics of getting a test done and results heeded. Those may be insuperable obstacles. The only remaining chance, I think, is to have a group discuss this in real time and see if something can be worked out since doing it in this forum is too drawn out, open to miscommunication, open to repetitive introduction along the way of other notions and hence offers no mechanism to keep focus or narrow things progressively toward some resolution/compromise._

 

Hirsch has some good points. There are annoying requirements to do this right. Part of the annoyance comes from the alleged-complexity of the phenomenon. Part of it comes from the belief system of cable believers. Whatever the source of annoyance, if you want to do something properly, it may not be easy. If cable believers insist on long, idiosyncratic listening times, then they may be willing to do that for different cable combinations, such as the pairings suggested by Hirsch. If they aren't willing (an outcome which I am not predicting), then we will have findings that indicate that they talk big and make special requirements, but then fail to follow-thru when their demands are met.

 To say that the "only remaining chance" is a real-time group discussion is just not true. That assertion is a reflection of your level of personal frustration and impatience, there is no substantive reason for it.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_Hirsch has some good points. There are annoying requirements to do this right. Part of the annoyance comes from the alleged-complexity of the phenomenon. Part of it comes from the belief system of cable believers. Whatever the source of annoyance, if you want to do something properly, it may not be easy. If cable believers insist on long, idiosyncratic listening times, then they may be willing to do that for different cable combinations, such as the pairings suggested by Hirsch. If they aren't willing (an outcome which I am not predicting), then we will have findings that indicate that they talk big and make special requirements, but then fail to follow-thru when their demands are met.

 To say that the "only remaining chance" is a real-time group discussion is just not true. That assertion is a reflection of your level of personal frustration and impatience, there is no substantive reason for it._

 

I said "I think" it is true. That has to be true, unless you think I'm misrepresenting my own thoughts. It is not a matter of reason but experience, such as this thread and others. But I'd be glad to be shown to have been too pessimistic. But, for instance, did you take me to be saying Hirsch didn't make good points? Or, do you really not get that I have been saying that the complexity is in what various of us take to be 'the' phenomenon based on different consideration of materials, conditions, listening times, associated equipment, biases, etc.--not how cables sound unrelated to people?
 What Hirsch and I have proposed as tests are very close--though only his according to you are good ideas. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 He wants to test a series of pairs of two test cables. I suggested circulating triplets of cables comprising all the combinations of two test cables three at a time. We both then would ask about difference. He asks Are they different. I ask If there is a different one, which one. We both, I take it, would be satisfied for this to be done at a meet involving briefer trials but wouldn't object to circulating cables for in home trials though that is harder to arrange, less controlled re regularity of conducting the trials, etc, and takes far longer to get results.
 As for your saying to me after all the time and effort I have put into this thread "Whatever the source of annoyance, if you want to do something properly, it may not be easy.", my response is not printable.


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_I said "I think" it is true. That has to be true, unless you think I'm misrepresenting my own thoughts. It is not a matter of reason but experience, such as this thread and others. But I'd be glad to be shown to have been too pessimistic. But, for instance, did you take me to be saying Hirsch didn't make good points? Or, do you really not get that I have been saying that the complexity is in what various of us take to be 'the' phenomenon based on different consideration of materials, conditions, listening times, associated equipment, biases, etc.--not how cables sound unrelated to people?
 What Hirsch and I have proposed as tests are very close--though only his according to you are good ideas. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 He wants to test a series of pairs of two test cables. I suggested circulating triplets of cables comprising all the combinations of two test cables three at a time. We both then would ask about difference. He asks Are they different. I ask If there is a different one, which one. We both, I take it, would be satisfied for this to be done at a meet involving briefer trials but wouldn't object to circulating cables for in home trials though that is harder to arrange, less controlled re regularity of conducting the trials, etc, and takes far longer to get results.
 As for your saying to me after all the time and effort I have put into this thread "Whatever the source of annoyance, if you want to do something properly, it may not be easy.", my response is not printable._

 

I didn't mean to sound snippy, and I apologize if I did. I flew home on a red-eye, so now I'm a bit dazed and foggy. (Somewhere when I wasn't looking, I became an old fart and can't do all-nighters like I used to 

 It seems clear to me that brief trials at a meet won't do it. Whether you or I think they should be sufficient is irrelevant. The meaninful agenda seems to be one of giving cable-believers what they need to be happy about the adequacy of conditions and, despite the many problems it causes, that seems to indicate home trials. I think we must simply accept this.

 As for trials of cable pairs vs. triplets, we can discuss this for a bit and move towards a consensus. It's mainly a matter of being patient and persistent. I can believe either could work. We need to thoughtful about not only the costs of each approach, but also the relative benefits (if any) of each approach. Given that triplets may have advantages about efficiency of procedure, I'd like to see us flesh out what can be accomplished via multiple pairs that cannot be accomplished by a single-batch test of triplets (or quadruplets, etc.).


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_I didn't mean to sound snippy, and I apologize if I did.
 ...
 Given that triplets may have advantages about efficiency of procedure, I'd like to see us flesh out what can be accomplished via multiple pairs that cannot be accomplished by a single-batch test of triplets (or quadruplets, etc.)._

 

I gladly accept your apology. I was probably too sensitive also.

 About pairs and triplets: I actually had come to think it would have to be four triplets separately and in succession to each subject. That way each person would have to deal with cases with and without a difference and also have to identify which was the different one to control for correct guesses. Originally I suggested a single triplet with one different one, but that I think will give less rich results. I think the results of multiple triplets will be much richer than using pairs, both by better ruling out guesses and by allowing subsequent analysis such as about what type of cable gets correctly distinguished more often, etc. Either would advance the ball in a valuable way.


----------



## russdog

Before we go further, it would be helpful to me to know if we have consensus about what it is that we're trying to test. AFAIK, we have some agreement that:
 Specific brands of finished cable products are excluded from this, simply because we cannot make them indistinguishable to all senses except hearing.
 We are limiting to ourselves to different kinds of metal, which presumes that we can indeed make these indistinguable to all sense except hearing.
 We wish to see if people can tell silver from copper.
Is this correct so far?

 If it is, here's what I don't know:
 Can we really make different cables indistinguishable to all senses except hearing?
 Is it sufficient to pick one kind of silver wire? If so, what?
 Is it sufficient to pick one kind of copper wire? If so, what?
For right now, I just want to get straight about these questions. I know that there are issues that may suggest other wire choices as controls, but that's beyond what I'm asking now.


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_If it is, here's what I don't know:
 Can we really make different cables indistinguishable to all senses except hearing?
 Is it sufficient to pick one kind of silver wire? If so, what?
 Is it sufficient to pick one kind of copper wire? If so, what?
For right now, I just want to get straight about these questions. I know that there are issues that may suggest other wire choices as controls, but that's beyond what I'm asking now._

 

Edwood seemed to be able to do that. 
 I would suggest that if you are going to the trouble of doing this, testing more than two conductors makes since. Stranded copper vs solid copper vs solid silver. Litz vs non-Litz. It would be something to talk to the builder about as you got closer to the test.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *russdog* 
_Before we go further, it would be helpful to me to know if we have consensus about what it is that we're trying to test. AFAIK, we have some agreement that:
 Specific brands of finished cable products are excluded from this, simply because we cannot make them indistinguishable to all senses except hearing.
 We are limiting to ourselves to different kinds of metal, which presumes that we can indeed make these indistinguable to all sense except hearing.
 We wish to see if people can tell silver from copper.
Is this correct so far?

 If it is, here's what I don't know:
 Can we really make different cables indistinguishable to all senses except hearing?
 Is it sufficient to pick one kind of silver wire? If so, what?
 Is it sufficient to pick one kind of copper wire? If so, what?
For right now, I just want to get straight about these questions. I know that there are issues that may suggest other wire choices as controls, but that's beyond what I'm asking now._

 

I guess it's obvious that I don't agree. We have yet to establish that any cable sounds different from any other (assuming both are well enough made). That needs doing first and foremost IMO. Silver vs. copper is of course interesting to many but is just one possible reason for sounding different (or not). Also, making them from different materials doesn't assure that they do sound different, even to those who generally hear a difference between the conductor types used. Is anyone really asserting that copper and silver CANNOT sound the same? So the cables of whatever makeup have to be pre-screened by believers to be different sounding so that if the test shows no significant differentiation we know what believers claim has been disproved or at least has had evidence mounted against their belief.


----------



## bigshot

If you guys can't agree on the parameters for a test, how are you going to agree on the results? Edwood's test tells us that people can't tell any difference between the three cables tested. Why go on to try to refine the test to describe each individual cable when all indications are that there are no detectable differences? What kind of objective test is designed to suit people (cable believers) who by definition reject objective testing over subjective personal impressions? I'll answer that... a skewed one.

 But if you're having fun going around like this, by all means, continue.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_I guess it's obvious that I don't agree. We have yet to establish that any cable sounds different from any other (assuming both are well enough made). That needs doing first and foremost IMO. Silver vs. copper is of course interesting to many but is just one possible reason for sounding different (or not). Also, making them from different materials doesn't assure that they do sound different, even to those who generally hear a difference between the conductor types used. Is anyone really asserting that copper and silver CANNOT sound the same? So the cables of whatever makeup have to be pre-screened by believers to be different sounding so that if the test shows no significant differentiation we know what believers claim has been disproved or at least has had evidence mounted against their belief._

 

One thought that has occurred to me in reference to the wine tasting example. Copper and silvers conductivity is not the same, close but not the same. Assuming that we have such discerning and experienced ears, then it is not likely that they will hear that gain difference?


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_But if you're having fun going around like this, by all means, continue._

 

Well, thank GOD we have your approval.


----------



## luidge

So all in all if someone sold Radio Shack with teckflex and stuff as silver braided DIY cable that would probably work since the guy is supposed to receive better quality cable...wow give me summore placebo mom


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* 
_One thought that has occurred to me in reference to the wine tasting example. Copper and silvers conductivity is not the same, close but not the same. Assuming that we have such discerning and experienced ears, then it is not likely that they will hear that gain difference?_

 

Alas, yet another element of the complexity emerges. What qualifies as a difference? Different sq only or does it include volume difference or any kind of noise or...? If you wish to exclude volume difference then there has to be some compensation like a different volume setting on the amp for one of the cables which precludes in home testing and requires the testers to screen the cables and determine the level of compensation in advance and that a difference remains even compensated.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_But if you're having fun going around like this, by all means, continue._

 

Oh, we are. And your absence has been very much appreciated.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Alas, yet another element of the complexity emerges. What qualifies as a difference? Different sq only or does it include volume difference or any kind of noise or...? If you wish to exclude volume difference then there has to be some compensation like a different volume setting on the amp for one of the cables which precludes in home testing and requires the testers to screen the cables and determine the level of compensation in advance and that a difference remains even compensated._

 

I think we're still making this too complicated, based on an assumption perhaps that we need to have a perfect or almost perfect test that nobody can criticize. If people can't tell any differences between the cables we use, that tells us something. If they can, we can discuss why it is they hear differences and perhaps test further with other parameters.


----------



## bigshot

In Edwood's test, people couldn't tell any differences between the cables. What does that tell you? (Other than, "Let's test again and again until we get the results I want.")

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## russdog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_In Edwood's test, people couldn't tell any differences between the cables. What does that tell you? (Other than, "Let's test again and again until we get the results I want.")_

 

I have no patience with the "test again until our side wins" idea. At the same time, I recognize that there is legitmate grounds for doubting that Edwood's test really showed what you claim it showed, due to its design. 

 Regardless of our views of Edwood's test or of cable-believers (which I am not), why are you posting things like this here? If you would like to contribute constructively, that's great. But it seems that you're adding nothing except partisan snipes aimed at annoying people, and noise like that is not helpful.


----------



## ComfyCan

This certainly is a messy business.

 A time limited study in a controlled environment can be used to obtain data on really interesting questions like whether people can reliably detect that they are listening to a consumer grade cable vs. a ultra-expensive "uber-cable" using only their ears. In such a design, most obvious confounders can be readily controlled through design, except the one that appears to be the most significant: cable believers have the perception that they will not be able to reliably tell the difference in such a controlled environment. Morever, there is some evidence to support this proposition, based on past testing attempts in public venues.

 The opposite approach, designing a blind test for the home enviromnent, is so riddled with potential confounders and logistical problems that the design itself necessarily limits the kinds of questions that can be asked to the point where one must ask: is it really worth doing at all? 

 If you agree with the above, I would suggest we revisit paragraph one--the controlled setting design. If we assume for the sake of discussion that a controlled setting design *could* be developed that would be deemed fair by believers, there would be countless advantages, not the least of which is we would get the results back before we're all dead and gone. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 So, could it be done, and if so, how? Here are a few rough ideas to toss about:

 To me, there would be great persuasive value if a test group was selected which consisted of experienced cable zealots--recruited from the most hardcore believers, and let them participate in the design. Heck, you could even tell them exactly what cables were going to be used so they could practice with them if they wanted to for months before the actual test. The ability to practice would, arguably, reduce test-related anxiety. You could even let them use their own equipment, as long as it was transportable (e.g., transportable system in my sig.). The key would be that the participants were comfortable with the design (including test setting), and confident that they would be able to tell the difference between the cables under these conditions. Could such a test setting be coordinated, and could enough believers be convinced that the design offered them enough freedom that they would be able to distinguish between cables to the same extent as they would at home? If the answer to this rather loaded question is yes, then we could have a rather interesting "put up or shut up" test.

 In this hypothetical test model, there would presumably have to be a smaller than optimal number of test subjects, but hopefully one larger than the number in Edwood's test. If this group of audiophiles could in fact reliably distinguish between cables, I would personally find that persuasive (not conclusive, but persuasive). Likewise, if they could not reliably distinguish between the cables, I would find that persuasive, but not conclusive. 

 To employ an imperfect but illustrative analogy, I would find it persuasive if a bunch of long term employees of coke and pepsi took the "pepsi challenge", and I would suspect that people who worked for such companies would have a relatively high degree of experience and confidence in their ability to distinguish between the two beverages under less than perfect conditions--greater confidence than mere consumers of various carbonated beverages.

 I would further suggest that the chances of finding a controlled setting design that would be deemed fair to believers should seek to address a rather short list of simple questions, e.g., which of these 3 cables is not like the others? The more complex the testing process, the greater the risk of unacceptable test-related anxiety. 

 Just food for thought. It seems that we abandonned the controlled setting design rather quickly based on the perception that it would never be deemed fair by cable believers (I know I did, once presented with information about past testing in public venues). We then turned our attention to the home test model pioneered by Edwood, which exposed a large number of problems that arguably undermine the benefit of conducting the test at all (not necessarily true, but certainly arguable, IMO). It is for this reason, and this reason alone that I suggest going back to square one and examining whether it may in fact be possible to create a structured environment in which believers would have confidence. The answer may be no, it's not possible, but I suspect with a bit of creative thought that it may very well be possible.

 Finally, I fully recognize that some of these suggestions are at variance with opinions I have already expressed in this thread, so there's no need for anyone who may be inclined to do so to point that out-- unless of course you want to.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ComfyCan* 
_Finally, I fully recognize that some of these suggestions are at variance with opinions I have already expressed in this thread, so there's no need for anyone who may be inclined to do so to point that out-- unless of course you want to._

 

That just shows you're open minded. A quality to be admired in the context of the current discussion.


----------



## Riboge

Comfycan, a demonstation of ability to distinguish cables by one or more of the most proficient at it *would* be persuasive much as the wine identification performance I described was. If it is sufficiently so, we could move on to whether mere mortals can do it too to a reasonable degree in a test much as I or Hirsch described. This of course is a different enterprise than seeking proof or persuading passionate disbelievers, as you say. All along the difficulty is to define the question and delimit what is to be examined among the sundry aspects and takes on the issue of cable sound. Here it is Can anyone repeatably differentiate cables suggesting that cables(Some? many? most?) do in fact sound different (however difficult it may be to hear the differences or how few can do it).

 Nominating the golden eared members who might serve this function will be suitably honorific and onerous at once to delight many of us envious baser metal-eared folk. I'll start with Markl.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* 
_In Edwood's test, people couldn't tell any differences between the cables. What does that tell you? (Other than, "Let's test again and again until we get the results I want.")_

 

In the original test, nobody was asked if they could tell a difference between the cables. Consequently, nobody knows whether or not people could hear differences between the cables, since this was not explicitly tested. Go back and read.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* 
_Comfycan, a demonstation of ability to distinguish cables by one or more of the most proficient at it *would* be persuasive much as the wine identification performance I described was. If it is sufficiently so, we could move on to whether mere mortals can do it too to a reasonable degree in a test much as I or Hirsch described. This of course is a different enterprise than seeking proof or persuading passionate disbelievers, as you say. All along the difficulty is to define the question and delimit what is to be examined among the sundry aspects and takes on the issue of cable sound. Here it is Can anyone repeatably differentiate cables suggesting that cables(Some? many? most?) do in fact sound different (however difficult it may be to hear the differences or how few can do it).

 Nominating the golden eared members who might serve this function will be suitably honorific and onerous at once to delight many of us envious baser metal-eared folk. I'll start with Markl._

 

Whle the cable "disbelievers" might not like it, I think a critical aspect of an experiment would be to use cable constructions that people who report hearing cable differences can tell apart in unblinded listening. Further, I think that listening impressions should be posted prior to the actual study in as much detail as possible, perhaps at the level of what to listen for on specific cuts. When the masked cables are sent out, this will give the actual subjects as much infomation as possible on what the purported differences are (but they won't know which cable is which). If people really can't hear a difference, then the posted listening impressions won't matter one way or another. This procedure would also avoid sending out cables that actually do sound alike to the cable "believers", which would be one way to foul the experiment badly.


----------



## Riboge

If we find a way to do the demonstration of distinguishing of cables by expert(s), I'd sure be interested to see tubes done next, say a series of different 'grades' of 6sn7's.


----------



## threepointone

if this has already been suggested, well, i didn't really want to read through 20 pages of posts 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i don't mean to put the pressure on him/her, but if we really wanna kick out or confirm the idea that better equipment might actually create differences among cable types, i say we do another more complex test, just for ayt999


----------



## Herandu

I suppose that as a former interconnect designer with three products in What HIFI that have a 5 star rating, I might be considered qualified enough to say my piece?

 Whilst we sit and argue whether you can or can't hear the difference between cables, there is another method of testing cabes which many would understand. And that is to put a video signal through it and view the results on screen. If you can't pick out the differences in video quality between leads of varying thickness, material, techncial construction, or impedance matching, then you are very unlikely to be able to pick up the difference in sound quality on those cables. 
 I am not saying that an audio cable is also suitable for video signals. Far from it. But that simple video signal test will expose glaring defects in the cable.

 If you are a bit richer, or can borrow two CD players of the same make and model, connect each CD player to different AUX inputs on your amp. Or connect both players to different inputs on your DAC if it is a digital lead you are testing. Now, with a decent set of heaphones on, do some A-B testing. 
 Checking the sound of a lead, unplugging it, and then plugging in another lead to test wil give you false positives and false negatives. Being able to test the leads at the same time is a far better and more reliable method.


----------



## threepointone

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Herandu* 
_I suppose that as a former interconnect designer with three products in What HIFI that have a 5 star rating, I might be considered qualified enough to say my piece?

 Whilst we sit and argue whether you can or can't hear the difference between cables, there is another method of testing cabes which many would understand. And that is to put a video signal through it and view the results on screen. If you can't pick out the differences in video quality between leads of varying thickness, material, techncial construction, or impedance matching, then you are very unlikely to be able to pick up the difference in sound quality on those cables. 
 I am not saying that an audio cable is also suitable for video signals. Far from it. But that simple video signal test will expose glaring defects in the cable.

 If you are a bit richer, or can borrow two CD players of the same make and model, connect each CD player to different AUX inputs on your amp. Or connect both players to different inputs on your DAC if it is a digital lead you are testing. Now, with a decent set of heaphones on, do some A-B testing. 
 Checking the sound of a lead, unplugging it, and then plugging in another lead to test wil give you false positives and false negatives. Being able to test the leads at the same time is a far better and more reliable method._

 

good idea--in fact, one specification of ABX testing is that the tester should have an easy means of switching between the two signals. perhaps in the. . .next round 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . . .a high quality switchbox could be included.


----------



## oicdn

What you need to do, is make a 3 cables the same cable. And see how many people say which is better than the other. Then, that test would prove that it's all placebo. Why? Because you know the cables are different, so you're going into it wanting to hear the differences. make them all the same, and see who says what cable is better.


----------



## zachary80

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oicdn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What you need to do, is make a 3 cables the same cable. And see how many people say which is better than the other. Then, that test would prove that it's all placebo. Why? Because you know the cables are different, so you're going into it wanting to hear the differences. make them all the same, and see who says what cable is better._

 

Why would you ask people to identify which cable is which when all the cables are the same? Of course everyone would still try to sort out what cable was better, because that is what they were asked to do. It would be a worthless test

 Ed's test as conducted was very useful, especially for the people involved. As an individual test taker, I learned that out of the three given cables, I preferred the good copper one, and that to me the differences were pretty subtle with my current equipment. As a group, the numbers are still interesting, but no one should have expected a purely scientific experiment that could have proven anything (which science doesn't do anyway)


----------



## oicdn

It wouldn't be as worthless as you'de think. It'd show _just how much_ psychology affects what you hear.

 You'de see people making claims that one cable is better than the other, and that one has certain properties that the other doesn't have. or one would sound boring, while the other bright. When infact....they sound the same.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oicdn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ You'de see people making claims that one cable is better than the other, and that one has certain properties that the other doesn't have. or one would sound boring, while the other bright. When infact....they sound the same._

 

Thanks for settling that for us, professor. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Geez, I thought this thread was dead. It wasn't worth reviving to make more categorical statements about the placebo effect, as they have been made by many others ad nauseum (in this thread and others) already. But thanks for playing anyway.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for settling that for us, professor. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Geez, I thought this thread was dead. It wasn't worth reviving to make more categorical statements about the placebo effect, as they have been made by many others ad nauseum (in this thread and others) already. But thanks for playing anyway. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

If one thread ever deserved a sticky, it's this one.

 And as long as there are threads like this one:

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209665

 obviously no thought or statement on the subject is too naive or obsolete.

 But hey, sure you didn't spent a penny too much on thaumaturgic cables from manufacturers without halfway serious research departments 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Anyway, testing cables while knowing the results to be expected before the music has even started is the superior testing method, by far. I learned that on Headfi.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If one thread ever deserved a sticky, it's this one.

 And as long as there are threads like this one:

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209665

 obviously no thought or statement on the subject is too naive or obsolete.

 But hey, sure you didn't spent a penny too much on thaumaturgic cables from manufacturers without halfway serious research departments 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Anyway, testing cables while knowing the results to be expected before the music has even started is the superior testing method, by far. I learned that on Headfi. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Darn, why did I open my big mouth?! If I knew it would draw you back into this thread, I would've deferred. Oh well, live and learn. And bye-bye. I'm not going to bait you or allow you to bait me.


----------



## oicdn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for settling that for us, professor. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Geez, I thought this thread was dead. It wasn't worth reviving to make more categorical statements about the placebo effect, as they have been made by many others ad nauseum (in this thread and others) already. But thanks for playing anyway. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hah...and wouldn't cha know...I'm actually a psych major...go figure


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oicdn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It wouldn't be as worthless as you'de think. It'd show just how much psychology affects what you hear.

 You'de see people making claims that one cable is better than the other, and that one has certain properties that the other doesn't have. or one would sound boring, while the other bright. When infact....they sound the same._

 

You're a psych major. OK. We know that perception is an interactive process between receptors and the brain. Just for yucks, which question would you ask the subjects of your "experiment":

 a) Please describe the differences between these three cables?

 b) Are there any differences between these three cables?

 Note that one question tilts the subject toward believing differences exist, and will tend to result in an increase in false positives. Note that the other plants the suggestion that differences might not be present, and may well influence responding in the other direction. We already know this. What novel bit of knowledge does your experiment propose to add?


----------



## oicdn

To see how much of a placebo people hear when subjectively listening to cables.

 The experiment will dispell the fact that the differences people hear in these cables. Also, it eliminates any subjectiveness, as there really is no opinion to be given, as there are no differences.

 It's the same as a blind test, only, you're seeing whose actually paying attention and/or hearing things and/or making stuff up. So technically, either question would suffice, as you're wanting to hear what people have to say sounds different, with the same object.


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ which question would you ask the subjects of your "experiment":

 a) Please describe the differences between these three cables?

 b) Are there any differences between these three cables?
_

 

"Please compare these cables."


----------



## oicdn

^^ Exactly. It's quite an *****hole-ish approach to getting results/proving a point/see who's really listening or making stuff up, or even paying attention for that matter, but somebody's gotta do it, lol.


----------



## maarek99

Psych majors say lol?


----------



## hoosterw

Me for myself I have presently the following theory and opinion about listening and thus the influence of cables and whether or not it can be heard.

 Consider a person for whole his life only used to fastfood.
 Put him in a three star (Michelin star rating is meant here) restaurant to dine and he will probably have a terrible time and it will make him stop at the first McDonalds at hand.

 Getting accustomed to refined tasting and tasting the differences between the one and the other 'star' restaurant requires an evolution in taste. That evolution requires a considerable time and many dining evenings in many restaurants. And in that evolution one will devellop his taste and thus be able to taste subtle differences. If it continues long enough, there will (might) come a day that one will be able to tell the differences between the chef having a bad day at work!

 Always be aware that there are always people around who will never like or get accustomed to dining in 'star' restaurants. That is also a matter of taste.

 But most people claiming that there are no diferences between cables, have simply not yet taken the evolutionary journey of developping their listening experience. And some will never be able to and some other will never want to.

 Hans.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Cool, a culinary alegory.

 So this thread is about people trying to keep apart a tv dinner, moms sunday lunch and a five star dinner, right?

 If you are the five stars rated cook, and your most enthralled debauchees cannot -once bereaved their seeing ability- tell which one is your meal and which is the tv dinner, the next question obviously is if it maybe is the golden plate that makes the difference, isn't it? 
 And, while we're at it, shouldn't it be quite interesting for the consumer willing to spend 250 Bucks on your top-of-the-line-menu how much of the endprice he pays for the plate, and how much for the meal itself?

 But thanks for clumsily trying to caricature the sceptics as philistines. If your meals are made with the same dilligence as your post- well, alright then.


----------



## hoosterw

Hi Vul Kuolun, I am sorry if I have upset you, I was in no way trying to caricature sceptics or offend you by using culinary as an example.

 I was very sincerely trying to point out the evolution of qualities that one can experience and I was using the culinary as an example.
 I, for the same reason, could have used playing golf or whatever.

 If you have fun and take plenty time and exercise your handicap will improve. Some never will take the time, some even hate the game.

 That was all I was trying to point out. 
 And that there is no reason for banging each other at the head for having different tastes. It is a fact of life and one of the nice things is that we can (and should) openly discuss differences of opinion. That was the only point I was trying to make. And as far as some sceptics are concerned, they should understand that because they do not hear the difference it does not mean nobody else can hear it.

 If my lesser control/mastering of the english language (being not native) has added to the bad understanding or the tone of my words, I apologise.

 Rgds

 Hans.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Apology accepted. In fact, i quite liked the culinary example (though with a different perspective...), and your tone was not bad at all. It was the essence of your first posting, making a rather different statement than your second.
 For the last sentence of my first post, well, my apologies too.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're a psych major. OK. We know that perception is an interactive process between receptors and the brain. Just for yucks, which question would you ask the subjects of your "experiment":

 a) Please describe the differences between these three cables?

 b) Are there any differences between these three cables?

 Note that one question tilts the subject toward believing differences exist, and will tend to result in an increase in false positives. Note that the other plants the suggestion that differences might not be present, and may well influence responding in the other direction. We already know this. What novel bit of knowledge does your experiment propose to add?_

 


 c) How do the cables make you feel? 






 -Ed


----------



## mcsamms

Funny that someone used a cooking example here.

 This summer I had the unfortunate task of leaving my job as a waitor in one of the best restaurants in the city and going back home to work in fast food (something I hope no one has to do). At any rate, the people who worked there watched this cooking show. Maybe it was called Hell's Kitchen...not quite sure. But the basicness of one of the episodes was that all these aspiring chefs who are in competition with each other were made a dinner by the head chef on the show (Not sure what his name was so we will call him "Mr. Hell's Kitchen"). So Mr. Hell's Kitchen prepared them a "5 star meal", except all the ingredients were made of things like canned baked beans, or hot dogs, and things or that nature. Basically McDonalds quality food.

 Well when it was all said and done and they had finished their meals. He asked them what they thought about what they just ate. Now these are people who should have great palletes and know exactly what they are eating. Well they didn't have enough great things to say about the food. He of course laughed and told them that they had no palletes because he had cooked them nothing more then hot dog's and beans and the like. 

 I would argue that people will try to make something sound better then it really is to justify that it is "better" food or audio equiptment. That being said, there are differences in foods and differences in audio equiptment. But more then likely I could slap $1000 on some radio shack cables and there would be an appreciation thread about how great those cables were.

 Though even if the difference is a placaebo then its still a difference, and if it takes someone $4000 to enjoy their music, then thats their own perogative. I would rather spend it on more music. I think if you "can't" enjoy your music without $4000 cables then you probably like the fact that you have those cables then you actually like music. Just my opinion though.

 And just to throw something to the other side of the equation. I had been using a 10 foot crappy IC's and then went out and bought some 3 foot sheilded ones and I did feel there was a bit of a difference, certainly was more of a difference in price, but I felt as though there was a small bit of change in the sound. But it was so indisinguishable I wasn't even sure what it was. But none the less a small amount of difference, but I neither appreciated the music or the system any more or less with the new cables. This way it just keeps the idea of crappy cables off my mind.


----------



## maarek99

Very well put mcsamms. Here's a clip that kinda shows the same thing you're talking about.

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...testing-p1.php

 If people want to notice a difference, they will.


----------



## seacard

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *maarek99* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Very well put mcsamms. Here's a clip that kinda shows the same thing you're talking about.

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...testing-p1.php

 If people want to notice a difference, they will._

 

I love that water clip. There are many many famous experiments studying the power of the placebo effect and the power of influence of what one person says on another person. For example, people who thought they were drinking alcohol had significantly slower response times than people who did not think they were drinking alcohol. And my favorite study... people who are told that they are receiving Novacaine after oral surgery reported significantly lowered pain, even though they received a placebo.

 But, here is an important point: in the latter study, the people that received a placebo shot ACTUALLY felt less pain. Sure, there was no medicine in the shot, but their brain convinced themselves that they feel better. In fact (stop me if this is too boring), the same endorphins were released after the placebo shot as after the morphine shot.

 Therefore, people who are convinced that their music sounds better with one piece of wire than with a different piece of wire are actually right!!! It does sound better to them, because their brain tells them it sounds better. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters. There are many people (me included), for whom music sounds worse with high-end cables because their brain tells them that the whole principle is preposterous and that they are wasting their money. When this is all you are thinking about when listening, music just doesn't sound very good.

 And isn't that the goal (better-sounding music, not wasting money). The supporters of cables and power-cords actually get to enjoy music more with higher-end cables, and if they paid $2.50 for the exact same cable at Radio Shack, they would enjoy music less and wonder what they are missing that the $4000 Valhalla can offer.


----------



## Sleestack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *seacard* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Therefore, people who are convinced that their music sounds better with one piece of wire than with a different piece of wire are actually right!!! It does sound better to them, because their brain tells them it sounds better. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters. There are many people (me included), for whom music sounds worse with high-end cables because their brain tells them that the whole principle is preposterous and that they are wasting their money. When this is all you are thinking about when listening, music just doesn't sound very good.

 And isn't that the goal (better-sounding music, not wasting money). The supporters of cables and power-cords actually get to enjoy music more with higher-end cables, and if they paid $2.50 for the exact same cable at Radio Shack, they would enjoy music less and wonder what they are missing that the $4000 Valhalla can offer._

 

I don't doubt what you are saying, but why not convince your brain it doesn't matter and save yourself the $3997.50?


----------



## seacard

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sleestack* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't doubt what you are saying, but why not convince your brain it doesn't matter and save yourself the $3997.50?_

 

Because all of our brains work differently, and it's not that easy. If somebody tells you that a cable makes a difference, and you spend $4000 on a cable, you will without a doubt hear a difference. I forget the scientific name for the principle, but every single one of us justifies purchases in our heads like that. If you don't believe it will make a difference, then you might not hear a difference even though there is one. 

 The only way to actually determine whether there is a difference is to do these scientific studies and double-blind tests. Cables (and actually, much audio equipment) has never passed those tests. But there are many many people here who don't believe in the tests (or in science in general), meaning for those people it all comes down to whether they think it will make a difference. People who spend $4k on a cable to think that it will make a difference (why would they buy that cable anyway if they didn't), so they obviously hear a difference.

 I, on the other hand, annoy my girlfriend to no end to switch out cables and power cords for me. If I can blindly identify the same cable as being better 5 or 10 times in a row, I buy it. So far, hasn't happened to me once, but at least I've saved tons of money (and then proceeded to waste it on other crap).


----------



## seacard

dp


----------



## Sleestack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *seacard* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Because all of our brains work differently, and it's not that easy. If somebody tells you that a cable makes a difference, and you spend $4000 on a cable, you will without a doubt hear a difference. I forget the scientific name for the principle, but every single one of us justifies purchases in our heads like that. If you don't believe it will make a difference, then you might not hear a difference even though there is one. 

 ._

 

I know. I was just being facetious. I just don't think significant differences in cables make much sense, especially when there is no visible effect on the measured output. Perhaps that's why I don't hear a difference, however I'm not sure why I would ignore good science in this area when I don't ignore it in other areas of my life. The funny thing is at one point, I thought it would make a difference, but after listening to various cables, I concluded it didn't.

 I have always believed that the human mind is capable of just about anything when it comes to perception so I fully believe those that hear a difference are actually hearing a difference whether or not it exists in some objective way... not that it doesn't.


----------



## oicdn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *seacard* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Because all of our brains work differently, and it's not that easy. If somebody tells you that a cable makes a difference, and you spend $4000 on a cable, you will without a doubt hear a difference._

 

And thus the benefits of having no head-fiers in your area to sway you as much. You will have just saved yourself $2.50 shy of $4k.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *maarek99* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Very well put mcsamms. Here's a clip that kinda shows the same thing you're talking about.

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...testing-p1.php

 If people want to notice a difference, they will._

 



 I will take the very tasty "Agua de Culo" from them, over any other anyday, specially if it comes from some nice clean female rear ends I know....but that just me...LOL...


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sleestack* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't doubt what you are saying, but why not convince your brain it doesn't matter and save yourself the $3997.50?_

 

I have tried and it's not working. Truth always wins in the end.


 It's pretty obvious that cables make a difference, it's ridiculous to have these threads once you hear it for yourselves. 
 Silver plating depth and thickness makes a bigger difference than connectors.

 I didn't listen to an album (192 kbps mp3) for a month and when I listened to it again it sounded like never before, everything was different, there were loads of subtle detail I never knew was there. It's impossible not to hear it. All I did to my system was a couple interconnect modifications; hardwired XLR + dedicated ground for the shield.

 I have done 3 interconnect modifications and all of them are in my top 4 list of the biggest improvements ever. Source or amp upgrade didn't do much the last time I upgraded, Valhalla cables are the bottlenecks in my system.

 BTW. My biggest improvement didn't cost me anything...


----------



## Sleestack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have tried and it's not working. Truth always wins in the end._

 

I guess truth has little to do with facts in Sweden. 

 Patrick, I 'm sure believers LOVE having you in their camp. You do so much to represent their position in a sensible way.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have tried and it's not working. Truth always wins in the end.

 It's pretty obvious that cables make a difference, it's ridiculous to have these threads once you hear it for yourselves. 
 Silver plating depth and thickness makes a bigger difference than connectors.
_

 

It is not pretty obvious at all that cables make the so call day and night, and the so noticeably difference, otherwise all recording studios should use silver conductors instead of the standard 29 cents a foot Canare, that is one shot investment for life....who say that this is the truth, you? Just because you (or someone else) hear, or "believe to hear" something that doesn't make it a universal truth, at all, otherwise this kind of threads do not exist, and you can find them more frequent everyday...for every single believer, you can find another non believer, (just to be on the conservative side)

 BTW you can find people with excellent hearing, trained hearing, in some cases far better than yours, and mine, even professionals of this field, recording engineers, musicians, record producters, with knowledge, and electronic degrees, professors of colleges, even some manufacturers, Dr's. in Physics, etc...in both fields....believers and non beleivers...

 Why not simply agree to disagree and period...easier, faster, and less trouble....and let who wants to be in the dark in the dark, and period...


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is not pretty obvious at all that cables make the so call day and night, and the so noticeably difference, otherwise all recording studios should use silver conductors instead of the standard 29 cents a foot Canare,_

 

Computer doesn't have ears, that's why they use crappy cables.
 But when outputting the music to human ears you need colored cables to decide how you want it to sound like.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_BTW you can find people with excellent hearing, trained hearing, in some cases far better than yours,_

 

In most cases. 

 My ears are very crappy but it doesn't stop me from hearing the difference. All I need to do is to have a relaxed and neutral state of mind and turn on the music. Then I write down how it sounds like. I don't focus or anything.

 If you are doing "whiskey swirling" and eating food it isn't going to work when comparing cables. The difference isn't that big!


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why not simply agree to disagree and period...easier, faster, and less trouble....and let who wants to be in the dark in the dark, and period..._

 

Forcing someone to believe the truth is evil. If they want to remain ignorant it's their choice.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Forcing someone to believe the truth is evil. If they want to remain ignorant it's their choice._

 

What makes you think that yours is the truth, and not to believe in what you believe and that BTW has not been proved by anyobdy yet (other than saying that I hear this and that, with no scientific evidence at all) is ignorance, why do I have to believe your hearing instead of mine? Why not better accepting that not everyone has the same taste, hearing, and preference, and we all hear diferently...??? Placebo exists, and is indeed a fact proved by science, and considered in all statistics, so why dismissing it???

 Be aware that 2+2=4 nobody discuss that, right? Then why we discuss about cables? Becasue is not that simple, *and is not a fact yet.* Nobody discuss about a fact...


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What makes you think that yours is the truth, and not to believe in what you believe and that BTW has not been proved by anyobdy yet (other than saying that I hear this and that, with no scientific evidence at all) is ignorance, why do I have to believe your hearing instead of mine? Why not better accepting that not everyone has the same taste, hearing, and preference, and we all hear diferently...??? Placebo exists, and is indeed a fact proved by science, and considered in all statistics, so why dismissing it???

 Be aware that 2+2=4 nobody discuss that, right? Then why we discuss about cables? Becasue is not that simple, *and is not a fact yet.* Nobody discuss about a fact..._

 

Everyone has limited knowledge which means that everyone's Truth will be different, but that doesn't make them more wrong than someone else. If a person says someone else is wrong he is wrong himself because he doesn't know that the knowledge of the other person is the Truth for him. But in the end, he isn't wrong anyway because the limited knowledge made him act that way.


----------



## Sleestack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Everyone has limited knowledge which means that everyone's Truth will be different, but that doesn't make them more wrong than someone else. If a person says someone else is wrong he is wrong himself because he doesn't know that the knowledge of the other person is the Truth for him. But in the end, he isn't wrong anyway because the limited knowledge made him act that way._

 


 Did you find that in a Swedish fortune cookie? 

 So, if A says 2+2 is 4, but B insists it is 3 b/c he is a moron, A is wrong to say that B is wrong b/c he doesn't know what knowledge B has that makes him believe that 2+2=3? B isn't wrong because he believes the sum is 3?

 How does that work?


----------



## Danamr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sleestack* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Did you find that in a Swedish fortune cookie? 

 So, if A says 2+2 is 4, but B insists it is 3 b/c he is a moron, A is wrong to say that B is wrong b/c he doesn't know what knowledge B has that makes him believe that 2+2=3? B isn't wrong because he believes the sum is 3?

 How does that work?_

 

You are having a discussion with someone, who as near as I can tell has well over $10k in cables, what's more someone who takes multi-thousand dollar cables and cuts the connectors off them and solders them to the equiptment.
 Even for someone who is a believer he is a bit over the edge.
 Why bother?


----------



## Sleestack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Danamr* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are having a discussion with someone, who as near as I can tell has well over $10k in cables, what's more someone who takes multi-thousand dollar and cuts the connectors off them and solders them to the equiptment.
 Even for someone who is a believer he is a bit over the edge.
 Why bother?_

 


 I'm not sure. I think I'm just perplexed that the same country can produce Patrick, Opeth and the Swedish Bikini Team.


----------



## maarek99

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I didn't listen to an album (192 kbps mp3) for a month and when I listened to it again it sounded like never before, everything was different, there were loads of subtle detail I never knew was there._

 

Haha. That was because you hadn't heard it for awhile. Doesn't have anything to do with changing interconnects.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *maarek99* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Haha. That was because you hadn't heard it for awhile. Doesn't have anything to do with changing interconnects._

 

With other albums I heard a difference on the same day after each interconnect modification. So if it was placebo then why did I hear an improvement after a month with another album? After a month the placebo should have worn off.


----------



## seacard

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_With other albums I heard a difference on the same day after each interconnect modification. So if it was placebo then why did I hear an improvement after a month with another album? After a month the placebo should have worn off._

 

Regardless of whether cables make a difference, you've gotta learn what the word "placebo" means. You've been misusing it for years now. The placebo effect is not something that "wears off"; it's simply a psychological phenomenon. You can not listen to your gear for 50 years, but if you believe that a cable will make a difference, it is likely to make a difference. That's all the placebo effect is; nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *seacard* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Regardless of whether cables make a difference, you've gotta learn what the word "placebo" means. You've been misusing it for years now. The placebo effect is not something that "wears off"; it's simply a psychological phenomenon. You can not listen to your gear for 50 years, but if you believe that a cable will make a difference, it is likely to make a difference. That's all the placebo effect is; nothing more, nothing less._

 

I don't know what placebo is because I have never had it, how do I get it?


----------



## Sleestack

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't know what placebo is because I have never had it, how do I get it?_

 


 It is readily available. Just call a company named Nordost Corporation.


----------



## hoosterw

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't know what placebo is because I have never had it, how do I get it?_

 

Isn't that sometimes called marketing?


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sleestack* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is readily available. Just call a company named Nordost Corporation._

 

It didn't work. I made blind tests and Nordost Valhalla makes huge improvements.

 I also tried a bottle of Brilliant Pebbles but didn't hear a difference. If it was placebo I should have heard an improvement.
 I also tried 1 sheet of ERS Paper and didn't hear a difference, but after I had added 32 sheets it made the biggest improvement I had ever heard. It all adds up!


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It didn't work. I made blind tests and Nordost Valhalla makes huge improvements.

 I also tried a bottle of Brilliant Pebbles but didn't hear a difference. If it was placebo I should have heard an improvement.
 I also tried 1 sheet of ERS Paper and didn't hear a difference, but after I had added 32 sheets it made the biggest improvement I had ever heard. It all adds up!_

 

I really enjoy your craziness, for my entertainment


----------



## maarek99

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_With other albums I heard a difference on the same day after each interconnect modification. So if it was placebo then why did I hear an improvement after a month with another album? After a month the placebo should have worn off._

 

Probably because of your short-term memory. You really need to switch instantaneously. It's pretty weird that it always eliminates these huge differences.

 I mean...I'm a cable believer, they actually do stuff. But higher priced "hifi" interconnects simply color the sound one way or another. Get something recording studios use. Why doesn't the cables used by recording studios matter then?


----------



## hoosterw

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *maarek99* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Why doesn't the cables used by recording studios matter then?_

 

Well.... they Do. Do not know where you would get the idea that studio's don't take an interest in cables?

 The better recordings even mention how they did it, what cables and equipment they used, who was the engineer etc..

 Al lot of the better studio's use carbon cables BTW.

 I heard a sound engineer say one time: "A cable can add nothing to your sound, but it can breakdown a lot". (Bad translation of the original dutch saying 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )
 I fully believe that.

 rgds

 hans


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hoosterw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well.... they Do. Do not know where you would get the idea that studio's don't take an interest in cables?_

 

Yes, they do. Usually they use good quality standard cables from companys like Sommer, Klotz, Canare,... 
 Can you show me a studio that uses the kind of stuff you sell, in the studio-typical quantities? Maybe you can make a good offer for, lets say, 100m IC?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hoosterw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The better recordings even mention how they did it, what cables and equipment they used, who was the engineer etc..

 Al lot of the better studio's use carbon cables BTW._

 

The world is full of wonderfull recordings made with plain simple copper microphone cables. Your sentence "The better recordings mention..." is misleading, as it tries to imply that *every* better recording tells you which cables were used. Which, of course, is bs. Just because some studios try to convey an impression of superiority by telling the believers camp about their cables, doesn't mean cable voodoo is common in the recording branche.
 That beeing said, i can understand that mentioning the used cables gives the guys with 1000$ in cables a good feeling, and therefore, the mentioning may add some kind of marketing (pseudo-)value on the product (the CD).

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hoosterw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I heard a sound engineer say one time: "A cable can add nothing to your sound, but it can breakdown a lot". (Bad translation of the original dutch saying 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )
 I fully believe that._

 

Which means nothing else, than that a good quality (measurable!), appropriate microphone cable will do it. No reason at all to spend hundreds of bucks.

 So which of the cables tested here does breakdown the most? It would be a valid conclusion from this statement, that there should be a clear hierarchy among the tested cables, unattached from the "not-known, and therefore not to be identified sound signature"-argumentation.


----------



## hoosterw

_Please find here my corrected statement of previous post. I hope this satisfies Vul Kuolin. I must say it looks better or expresses better the point I tried to make_

 Well.... It is my opinion that a lot of studio's Do take an interest in cables. I do not know where you would get the idea that studio's in general do not take an interest in cables?

 A lot of what I regard as 'the better recordings' even mention how they did it, what cables and equipment they used, who was the engineer etc..

 Al lot of the what I regard as the better studio's use carbon cables BTW.

 I heard a sound engineer say one time: "A cable can add nothing to your sound, but it can breakdown a lot". (Bad translation of his original dutch saying 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )
 I fully believe that statement to be true for me. And which says or means nothing more then what it says and states no general opinion whatsoever on cables in general.
 I believe it is meant or could be compared to the following statement: If you poured water in you car's tank it will simply not run". AND yes also that can be debated as being a general statement!


 rgds

 hans


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hoosterw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you poured water in you car's tank it will simply not run". !_

 

Unquestionably right; and using holy water instead of mineral water does not make a significant difference for the mentioned application.


----------



## hoosterw

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Unquestionably right; and using holy water instead of mineral water does not make a significant difference for the mentioned application. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Do you know that for sure (own experience) or just general opinion or is it your believe it will no make a difference 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 ?

 Hans.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hoosterw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you know that for sure (own experience) or just general opinion or is it your believe it will no make a difference 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 ?

 Hans._

 

Good one.


----------



## Ferbose

Patrick82 always announces his cable upgrades with a religious fervor. 
 To debate cable's benefit with him seems like debating the existence of God (in any religion) with the faithful believers (of that religion). 
 Things related to religion have been debated for ages and are still being debated. Nothing wrong about that.
 But if we are going to have a religious debate on cables I suggest moving it to Member's Lounge.


----------



## n_maher

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sleestack* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure. I think I'm just perplexed that the same country can produce Patrick, Opeth and the Swedish Bikini Team._

 

Aw, come on man. 2 out 3 ain't bad, right?


----------



## cotdt

This test just proved that cables DO matter, because the results were more negative than even placebo. That means there is statistically significant differences... AND... the Rat Shack cable must have sounded the best, since people associated that one with the exotic silver/teflon.


----------



## 909

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the Rat Shack cable must have sounded the best, since people associated that one with the exotic silver/teflon._

 

This is an incorrect assumption at least for my participation in the experiment. 

 You see I had negative preconceived notions about how silver should sound. I thought silver sounded harsh, thin, bright, fatiguing, and provided hyper detail and copper didn’t have those attributes. 

 So I selected the Radio Shack because it had those attributes (harsh, thin, bright, etc…) that I associated with silver. A big incorrect assumption on my part. The silver sounded better than I expected and because I thought I would always prefer copper even cheap copper over silver I picked the wrong cable.

 When I did the experiment I selected the cable that my ear liked best and that I associated with good quality cooper since I was using that in my system at the time. I got that one right pretty much right off the bat because it wasn’t as detailed as the other two and had more body and warmth. The other two (silver and Radio Shack) were harder to peg down because they had similar attributes, but the Radio Shack was harsher, thinner and more fatiguing. 

 I should note that the differences were noticeable yet not substantial. Though, I did greatly prefer the high quality cooper flavor and would have used that one in my system the other two didn’t suit my tastes.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *909* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is an incorrect assumption at least for my participation in the experiment. 

 You see I had negative preconceived notions about how silver should sound. I thought silver sounded harsh, thin, bright, fatiguing, and provided hyper detail and copper didn’t have those attributes. 

 So I selected the Radio Shack because it had those attributes (harsh, thin, bright, etc…) that I associated with silver. A big incorrect assumption on my part. The silver sounded better than I expected and because I thought I would always prefer copper even cheap copper over silver I picked the wrong cable.

 When I did the experiment I selected the cable that my ear liked best and that I associated with good quality cooper since I was using that in my system at the time. I got that one right pretty much right off the bat because it wasn’t as detailed as the other two and had more body and warmth. The other two (silver and Radio Shack) were harder to peg down because they had similar attributes, but the Radio Shack was harsher, thinner and more fatiguing. 

 I should note that the differences were noticeable yet not substantial. Though, I did greatly prefer the high quality cooper flavor and would have used that one in my system the other two didn’t suit my tastes._

 


 You pretty much hit the head on the nail there.

 One person's positive is another person's negative.

 This test was a test of one's preconceptions as to how certain materials sounded like, and their preference for a certain type of sound.

 -Ed


----------



## 909

Thanks again Ed, for letting me play the cable game. It was fun and I learned from it.

 Another thing I've thought about after this test is how much cable mass (gauge) plays a role in a particular cables' attributes. 

 I theories now that low mass conveys greater detail and sounds thinner and more mass conveys less detail and sounds fuller.

*
 Notice the gauge of the silver and rat copper cable looks very similar.*




 Looks like the silver has a little more mass and the high quality copper obviously the most.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *909* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is an incorrect assumption at least for my participation in the experiment. 

 You see I had negative preconceived notions about how silver should sound. I thought silver sounded harsh, thin, bright, fatiguing, and provided hyper detail and copper didn’t have those attributes. 

 So I selected the Radio Shack because it had those attributes (harsh, thin, bright, etc…) that I associated with silver. A big incorrect assumption on my part. The silver sounded better than I expected and because I thought I would always prefer copper even cheap copper over silver I picked the wrong cable.

 When I did the experiment I selected the cable that my ear liked best and that I associated with good quality cooper since I was using that in my system at the time. I got that one right pretty much right off the bat because it wasn’t as detailed as the other two and had more body and warmth. The other two (silver and Radio Shack) were harder to peg down because they had similar attributes, but the Radio Shack was harsher, thinner and more fatiguing. 

 I should note that the differences were noticeable yet not substantial. Though, I did greatly prefer the high quality cooper flavor and would have used that one in my system the other two didn’t suit my tastes._

 

That was your aprticular case, but in other cases the other listener selected all the opposite, and at least a different choise, all results were mixed up, so what indicates that the differecnes if any where lal in the head of the participant, again, if you conduct other test you will see completelly different result based inthis experience, and people will choose again poorly as they will beleive that the silver will sound now the best, while indeed in could be any of the other two....

 Guys, please give up, after you get a decent cable there is not much you can run after, the rest is a big voodoo marketing theory, again I still have here the cable comparator CD done by WireWorld in which 15 cables were compred. That Cd was done and distributed for free, and a recording was done of those cable for comarison, a physical evidence IMO, is a recording, and later on removed from the offer, as they shoot themselves in the feet with it, the CD proved completelly the oposite of what they were expecting, there is no such a big differences as they claim to be, and nobody was able to prove a **** here. BTW that had been dicussed here time afte time, and in all tests conducted in other places, by other persons, in different conditions, using better equipment that ours, had shown the same exact result, a complete mess of opinions....period!!! Why keep on trying to justify that you or me, missed, we will keep on missing all the time, try to do it yourself again and you will see same results....But if you are happy believing such, just be happy, and do not try to convince others less fortunate....


----------



## 909

I assume you of all Head-Fiers realize that every ones comments here are based upon their system, their ear, their experience and in their opinion. Right? Since this is all subjective stuff for the most part. You are correct that this is just my particular case and thoughts on the subject as to why I selected as I did. There could be many reasons and factors as to why the results turned out they way the did and it’s not just limited to what you suggest.

 To repeat for added emphasis the differences between the cables were noticeable but not substantial. We agree on this. I hypnotize that might change slightly if the cables were designed and constructive differently whereas here the cables were all constructed the same except, of course, the metal. 

 I believe this  Quote:


 But if you are happy believing such, just be happy, and do not try to convince others less fortunate.... 
 

is really applicable to your commentary. I think people should make up their own minds and best if they could use their own ears and learn, if possible, from experience and usually the more the better.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *909* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I assume you of all Head-Fiers realize that every ones comments here are based upon their system, their ear, their experience and in their opinion. Right? Since this is all subjective stuff for the most part. You are correct that this is just my particular case and thoughts on the subject as to why I selected as I did. There could be many reasons and factors as to why the results turned out they way the did and it’s not just limited to what you suggest.

 To repeat for added emphasis the differences between the cables were noticeable but not substantial. We agree on this. I hypnotize that might change slightly if the cables were designed and constructive differently whereas here the cables were all constructed the same except, of course, the metal. 

 I believe this is really applicable to your commentary. I think people should make up their own minds and best if they could use their own ears and learn, if possible, from experience and usually the more the better._

 

Subjective, objective, my only concern is that everytime a DBT is conducted for some reason people seems to fail miserably, I have not read one that had been succesful in a bigger percnetage that maybe a 50%, and all I heard after, is that this or that should be done this or that way instead...of course that could be true, but in all cases the same results??? That is strange that in all of the cases we have faced similar results, and all of the tests have been flawed by one reason or the other...THe conductors are not so stupid to repeat the same mistakes time after time....

 BTW IIRC, nobody objected while Edwood organized and stated the rules before sending the cables. All objections, suggestions, came after, while the results were posted, maybe the believers were expecting a different outcome, a little fishy IMO....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 IIRC one test was even done listening all the time the same speaker cable, and there is evne written evidnece, that they heard the differences between them, how, it was always the same cable, that BTW was a zip cord, not even a fancy one...


----------



## cotdt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That was your aprticular case, but in other cases the other listener selected all the opposite, and at least a different choise, all results were mixed up, so what indicates that the differecnes if any where lal in the head of the participant, again, if you conduct other test you will see completelly different result based inthis experience, and people will choose again poorly as they will beleive that the silver will sound now the best, while indeed in could be any of the other two....
_

 

What are you talking about? This test was a POSITIVE for cable differences. Just look at the statistical data. There is a very significant deviation from placebo, albeit a negative one.


----------



## stewtheking

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What are you talking about? This test was a POSITIVE for cable differences. Just look at the statistical data. There is a very significant deviation from placebo, albeit a negative one._

 

Which statistical test are you running on the data?


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What are you talking about? This test was a POSITIVE for cable differences. Just look at the statistical data. There is a very significant deviation from placebo, albeit a negative one._

 

Honestly who will have the balls to say here in headfi that all cables sounded alike, without being dismiss in the same moment, I will conduct the next test, and will say that one will be silver, the next a Cardas, and the next a Valhalla, all in same black jacket (and indeed will place the same canare in all of them, and you will see the same results as this one...wanna bet???

 Really, all differences were ramdomized, there was only a single right guess on which was which. But that is not even the point, and I do not care how many guys guessed correctly which was silver, cooper or Canare, or guess them right or not, the problem is that for ones the same cable sounded warm, for others sounded brighter. it is not posible, that one cable can sound warm and bright at the same time, not even using differernt setups, which is bright should brighter all the time, different setups, different levels of brightness, but in all brighter than the warmer one...positive??? In my book, all a big placebo, ion which that you have to guess one and period, I'm not saying that anybody is lying, but suggestion is an strong weapon, against us sometimes....in my book, it is a whole negative...

 Anyway, I use Blue Jeans, and unless I can get a far better cable for that price, I will not change them....end of story for me...I still want to hear a better one, that give me a *dramatically change*, not even at ten times that price...


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Subjective, objective, my only concern is that everytime a DBT is conducted for some reason people seems to fail miserably . . . ._

 

 I'm curious, can you point me to some DBT's in the audio realm that people have actually "passed"? I'd be interested in seeing what kinds of tests have had positive results.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_BTW IIRC, nobody objected while Edwood organized and stated the rules before sending the cables. All objections, suggestions, came after, while the results were posted, maybe the believers were expecting a different outcome, a little fishy IMO....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



_

 

That's absolutely 100% incorrect!!! The limitations of this type of test, which are reflected or summarized again in posts 483 and 484 above, were pointed out by me and others _before _the test was conducted. The response was basically that we were testing for certain things, NOT to settle for all time whether cables sounded different. Go back and read the original pre-test posts on this issue before you advance conspiracy theories. The test was worthwhile, IMO, and has some things to teach us, both about cables and testing, but it is far from conclusive on the "audible differences among cables issue," and only those with a specific dogmatic point of view seem unable to keep an open mind regarding the test and what it might or might not demonstrate.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm curious, can you point me to some DBT's in the audio realm that people have actually "passed"? I'd be interested in seeing what kinds of tests have had positive results._

 

AFAIK none of them, IMO mainly all of them have been conducted to prove voodoo, and there is no way you can prove that...

 And they are not too many with positive results, but the positives for the non beleives are the negative for the beleivers, so even this point will be argumentative...but the ones that really offer some input, were done just to demostrate all the opposite, all what I have heard in cables and in other aspects of audio, seems to be always plagued by the same resutls...mixed emotions...or in the last remote cases a total failure...and period...


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's absolutely 100% incorrect!!! The limitations of this type of test, which are reflected or summarized again in posts 483 and 484 above, were pointed out by me and others before the test was conducted. The response was basically that we were testing for certain things, NOT to settle for all time whether cables sounded different. Go back and read the original pre-test posts on this issue before you advance conspiracy theories. The test was worthwhile, IMO, and has some things to teach us, both about cables and testing, but it is far from conclusive on the "audible differences among cables issue," and only those with a specific dogmatic point of view seem unable to keep an open mind regarding the test and what it might or might not demonstrate._

 

I never was aware that anyboody point any limitation before the test was concluded. All what I read, was far after the results were posted. Mainly done by some gurus and even some cables dealers as well, some of those posts were later on edited and deleted by the mods, IIRC, for being out of contest and violating some TOS rules...

 Now if you did your remarks before the test was done, bravo for you! I have an strong admiration for you then, and I apologize with you, even while I'm not talking of your particular case...

 There is no conspiracy here, I never said that. I just found a few fishy comments maybe done just becasue they were expecting different results...and that IMO is true, or otherwise how to justify those guys jumping after the results were posted, and not before as you did, the right and correct way of doing things...??? 

 It is true also as you pointed, that the test was not conducted to demostrate the differences in cables at all, nor to resolve this matter completelly, but to guess among three different ones. IMO no test that you can posible imagine can do that accuratelly (a point in favor of the beleivers) we all know that, but read between the lines, on all of them, and you will draw your conclusions, at least I did...


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_AFAIK none of them, IMO mainly all of them have been conducted to prove voodoo, and there is no way you can prove that...
_

 

Well, I'd be interested in knowing if any one else knows of any "positive-result" DBT's. Certainly it would be nice to know that the methodology works well in the audio realm before we decide that the failure to pass a DBT means something.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I never was aware that anyboody point any limitation before the test was concluded, all what I read, was far after they results were posted...Bu all the gurus and evne some cables dealers as well, many of those posts were later on deleted as well by the mods, for being out of contest and violating some rules. If you did before the test was done, bravo for you, i ahve an strong admiration for you then, and I apologize wiht you, evne while I'm not talking of your particular case...there is no conspiracy, here I never said that, but a few fishy comment maybe, and just becasue maybe they were expecting different results, and that IMO is true, otherwise how to justify those guys jumping after the results were posted and not before as you did, the right and correct way of doing things... 

 It is true also as you pointed, that the test was not conducted to demostrate the differences in cables at all, and not ot resolve this matter, but to guess among three different ones, IMO no test that you can posible imagine can do that, a point in favor of the beleivers, we all know that, but read between the lines on all of them, and you will draw your conclusions, at least I did...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

 No offense, but you're going to have to make your comments a bit more intelligible if you expect me to respond. I have difficulty with these posts that contain a series of run-on sentences and random thoughts and clauses. I know you're trying to respond quickly, but it's really hard to follow.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No offense, but you're going to have to make your comments a bit more intelligible if you expect me to respond. I have difficulty with these posts that contain a series of run-on sentences and random thoughts and clauses. I know you're trying to respond quickly, but it's really hard to follow. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Sorry, my bad, and no offense taken, man, I wish that everybody correct me while I do something not right writting or speaking....Well I tried to do my best given that Spanish is my native language, OK? Sometimes I tried top post a fast as I can. 

 I tried to arrange those "criminal ideas" in a more efficient way, to see if you can understand better, also a few mods done, I hope for better understanding...but anyway do not pay too much attention to them, we are all a little crazy and paranoic here...


----------



## Steve999

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I'd be interested in knowing if any one else knows of any "positive-result" DBT's. Certainly it would be nice to know that the methodology works well in the audio realm before we decide that the failure to pass a DBT means something._

 

Try www.hydrogenaudio.org and you'll find a ton of them.


----------



## Patrick82

Skeptics are trying too hard to justify their purchase of crappy cables. For some reason they don't want better sound.

 It is weird that they tell about cable blind tests that have failed, while all other tests have failed, even speaker tests... Do they actually think the difference is that big? Some skeptics are even measuring frequency response of speakers... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Crazy people, should take them to lab for study...


----------



## gsteinb88

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I'd be interested in knowing if any one else knows of any "positive-result" DBT's. Certainly it would be nice to know that the methodology works well in the audio realm before we decide that the failure to pass a DBT means something._

 

People have run and passed DBT's on different compressions of MP3 on numerous occasions, so it does work with audio, and their ability to pass goes down as compression goes up.
 I just havent seen a DBT that people passed on different _cables_...


----------



## cotdt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Skeptics are trying too hard to justify their purchase of crappy cables. For some reason they don't want better sound.

 It is weird that they tell about cable blind tests that have failed, while all others tests have failed, even speaker tests... Do they actually think the difference is that big? Some skeptics are even measuring frequency response of speakers... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

why don't you just send them your best cables and let them decide for themselves. people have to hear it for themselves.


----------



## Sovkiller

The only problem is that those "crappy cables" *are the standard in the pro audio industry* including multimillionary companies, that could afford even to have silver cables in the AC lines for the air conditioning system (besides for the audio lines). And all the recordings that you can possibly listen and find today, *are done using Belden or Canare*, all along the process, if they are so bad why they still use them?

 Patrick I will put you in time out, and will tell your daddy what you are doing with his money, OK? You will see what's gonna happen....


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_why don't you just send them your best cables and let them decide for themselves. people have to hear it for themselves._

 

I have tried, every skeptic I asked refused to try the cable when I offered it to them. It's too late now, I have given it away to someone who actually wants it. Skeptics won't believe how much they are missing out...They are losing big time.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The only problem is that those "crappy cables" *are the standard in the pro audio industry* including multimillionary companies, that could afford even to have silver cables in the AC lines for the air conditioning system (besides for the audio lines). And all the recordings that you can possibly listen and find today, *are done using Belden or Canare*, all along the process, if they are so bad why they still use them?

 Patrick I will put you in time out, and will tell your daddy what you are doing with his money, OK? You will see what's gonna happen....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








_

 

You know when you record the sound it saves it into computer? Computer doesn't have ears...
 If you are copying data you don't need high quality cables. Jitter is only important in real time output to human ears.

 Skeptics think the human brain magically downloads the "data" when they listen to music. Their dream world...


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You know when you record the sound it saves it into computer? Computer doesn't have ears...
 If you are copying data you don't need high quality cables. Jitter is only important in real time output to human ears._

 

Patrick FYI, and I know that you belong to the digital UFO era, but a mike and many instruments: like guitars, pianos, winds, cymbals, drums, bass, etc...has not digital signal to transfer (except the ones with MIDI), they all work in the analog domain, some of them even acoustic, all of them use those cables you called crappy or in the mikes, or attached to the internal mikes they have. The sound is transmited in analog way, and later on mixed and recorded in a digital way...Cardas, Nordost, nor any other high end cable manufacturer, AFAIK, produce instruments cables...

 But let's talk about all analog, no digital, 25-30 years ago while you probably were crawling if born, and in the 50's were I was not even born, digital and computer did not exist like nowdays, and were not used on recording studios at all...The sound back then was recorded and transfered all in analog way by those same crappy cables, some of those studios still use the same cables back then...

 Please stop those absurd arguments...If you want to spend your family patrimony in cables that is up to you, but you will not find to many willing to do it, and less without any evidence...


----------



## Uncle Erik

Does anyone ever wonder why cable manufacturers and merchants don't ever test their own products? Or maybe they have, but don't tell the public.

 Think about it. If you had a multimillion dollar company and a vocal group was calling your product snakeoil, wouldn't you want to do something about it? The manufacturers absolutely know they have critics, yet they do nothing. Why is this? Wouldn't any reasonable person want to put an end to the controversy?

 If you were a cable manufacturer, wouldn't you also want conclusive tests to show your product to be superior to the competition? Look at what Intel and AMD do to each other. Why don't Nordost and Cardas, for example, do the same? If they could, it would be a huge sales advantage over the other, right?

 And speaking of sales, conclusive testing would mean that the skeptics would probably end up buying their products. Meaning, of course, higher sales. They want increased sales, right?

 But they don't do this. All you get are testimonials. Just like quack medicine. Also, notice how carefully worded their advertising is. It is always just shy of being on the hook for false and deceptive advertising. Why is this? Again, if you ran the company, wouldn't you want to be absolutely certain that your product was best and decisively address that in advertising?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Anyone tried aftermarket cables AND snake oil???? 

 Just checking...


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does anyone ever wonder why cable manufacturers and merchants don't ever test their own products? Or maybe they have, but don't tell the public.

 Think about it. If you had a multimillionaire dollar company and a vocal group was calling your product snake-oil, wouldn't you want to do something about it? The manufacturers absolutely know they have critics, yet they do nothing. Why is this? Wouldn't any reasonable person want to put an end to the controversy?

 If you were a cable manufacturer, wouldn't you also want conclusive tests to show your product to be superior to the competition? Look at what Intel and AMD do to each other. Why don't Nordost and Cardas, for example, do the same? If they could, it would be a huge sales advantage over the other, right?

 And speaking of sales, conclusive testing would mean that the skeptics would probably end up buying their products. Meaning, of course, higher sales. They want increased sales, right?

 But they don't do this. All you get are testimonials. Just like quack medicine. Also, notice how carefully worded their advertising is. It is always just shy of being on the hook for false and deceptive advertising. Why is this? Again, if you ran the company, wouldn't you want to be absolutely certain that your product was best and decisively address that in advertising?_

 

I agree 100%, but I think that some of them simply do not care about those, if they still sell, while money enter in your account, decency goes out of the window, I know a couple of manufacturers at least that are literally ripping people off (and they know that) and they keep on doing it...BTW two very well know ones...

 But as you say all what they always show, is a partial testimonials, followed by dots...and maybe a well known names under (which probably got their cables for free, and who knows what else) to make them appear with more authority/credibility...but IMO if no evidence = no much credibility from my side...

 Also keep in mind that for the audiophile world one of the more controversial topics is this, what is *good* here, could be *bad* there, and vice, really really weird, they later on labeled that as "synergy" and the voodoo recipe is now complete, ready to be sold to the next naive customer with a fat wallet...

 Also as you stated all what the skeptic ask for is an physical evidence, you give them this physical evidence and you convert them into a beleiver automatically...simply as that...things like God ratio, % speed of light, exotic proprietary materials that nobody knows, etc...doesn't hold too much water in my opinion for that purpose...


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does anyone ever wonder why cable manufacturers and merchants don't ever test their own products? Or maybe they have, but don't tell the public.

 Think about it. If you had a multimillion dollar company and a vocal group was calling your product snakeoil, wouldn't you want to do something about it? The manufacturers absolutely know they have critics, yet they do nothing. Why is this? Wouldn't any reasonable person want to put an end to the controversy?

 If you were a cable manufacturer, wouldn't you also want conclusive tests to show your product to be superior to the competition? Look at what Intel and AMD do to each other. Why don't Nordost and Cardas, for example, do the same? If they could, it would be a huge sales advantage over the other, right?

 And speaking of sales, conclusive testing would mean that the skeptics would probably end up buying their products. Meaning, of course, higher sales. They want increased sales, right?

 But they don't do this. All you get are testimonials. Just like quack medicine. Also, notice how carefully worded their advertising is. It is always just shy of being on the hook for false and deceptive advertising. Why is this? Again, if you ran the company, wouldn't you want to be absolutely certain that your product was best and decisively address that in advertising?_

 

This is the same phenomenon that you observe with thousands of products. There is nothing unusal about the audio industry in this respect. E.g., how come Callaway doesn't have direct comparison tests with their golf clubs vs. TaylorMade? Does that mean all golf clubs perform exactly the same? And as far as "carefully worded advertising goes," you see that everywhere also, not just in the audio realm.

 Your comments also assume that measurements tell the full and complete story, which is one of the primary issues that are the subject of the debate.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone tried aftermarket cables AND snake oil???? 

 Just checking..._

 

I haven't, but have you tried aftermarket cables?


----------



## philodox

I can't believe people are still arguing about this. The test has no validity, and was done for fun. Move on...


----------



## J-Pak

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does anyone ever wonder why cable manufacturers and merchants don't ever test their own products? Or maybe they have, but don't tell the public.

 Think about it. If you had a multimillion dollar company and a vocal group was calling your product snakeoil, wouldn't you want to do something about it? The manufacturers absolutely know they have critics, yet they do nothing. Why is this? Wouldn't any reasonable person want to put an end to the controversy?

 If you were a cable manufacturer, wouldn't you also want conclusive tests to show your product to be superior to the competition? Look at what Intel and AMD do to each other. Why don't Nordost and Cardas, for example, do the same? If they could, it would be a huge sales advantage over the other, right?

 And speaking of sales, conclusive testing would mean that the skeptics would probably end up buying their products. Meaning, of course, higher sales. They want increased sales, right?

 But they don't do this. All you get are testimonials. Just like quack medicine. Also, notice how carefully worded their advertising is. It is always just shy of being on the hook for false and deceptive advertising. Why is this? Again, if you ran the company, wouldn't you want to be absolutely certain that your product was best and decisively address that in advertising?_

 

Very well said. We see real world benchmarks on many electronics. But I've never seen one from a cable company.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *J-Pak* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Very well said. We see real world benchmarks on many electronics. But I've never seen one from a cable company._

 

I have seen some articles, and some info posted, explainin all the technology behind cables, but the funny thing is that usually this is posted for the companies that do not need to do it, as they sell their products at modest prices, so they are not even trying to market their products... Here is one example of those articles...Honestly i do not beleive that there is much to know about cables, other than this, but the audiophiles insist in making things more complicated with fancy words, and trying to find imaginary parameters, that they believe are the ones that really matter in the sound, instead of using the ones we know and can measure. But of course which audiophile will care to read from a company which cables cost $25.00???.....


----------



## J-Pak

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have seen some articles, and some info posted, explainin all the technology behind cables, but the funny thing is that usually this is posted for the companies that do not need to do it, as they sell their products at modest prices, so they are not even trying to market their products... Here is one example of those articles...Honestly i do not beleive that there is much to know about cables, other than this, but the audiophiles insist in making things more complicated with fancy words, and trying to find imaginary parameters, that they believe are the ones that really matter in the sound, instead of using the ones we know and can measure. But of course which audiophile will care to read from a company which cables cost $25.00???.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I'm not going to believe the marketing claims of BJC either 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They're not out to do any favors, they're out to make money. I need a DBT for the real evidence. Which I will be posting on HydrogenAudio as soon as I'm done building my pure silver cables.

 edit: just to show you that BJC is making some rake, the Belden wire normally costs about $.80 a foot when bought in "normal" lengths, I can only imagine they're buying it in thousands of feet. And Canare connectors are very cheap as well. And since they're selling direct (no middle man), with only word of mouth advertising I can imagine they're doing pretty good.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *J-Pak* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not going to believe the marketing claims of BJC either 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They're not out to do any favors, they're out to make money. I need a DBT for the real evidence. Which I will be posting on HydrogenAudio as soon as I'm done building my pure silver cables.

 edit: just to show you that BJC is making some rake, the Belden wire normally costs about $.80 a foot when bought in "normal" lengths, I can only imagine they're buying it in thousands of feet. And Canare connectors are very cheap as well. And since they're selling direct (no middle man), with only word of mouth advertising I can imagine they're doing pretty good._

 

You have to be intelligent enough to separate what is marketing and what is real useful information...that happen in any read...

 But don't forget that any double blind test will be plagued by flaws!!!....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 You don't be believe me? Just wait and see while you post the results....Unless of course those results please the believers, in which case the methodology will be correct...


----------



## threEchelon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *J-Pak* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not going to believe the marketing claims of BJC either 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They're not out to do any favors, they're out to make money. I need a DBT for the real evidence. Which I will be posting on HydrogenAudio as soon as I'm done building my pure silver cables.

 edit: just to show you that BJC is making some rake, the Belden wire normally costs about $.80 a foot when bought in "normal" lengths, I can only imagine they're buying it in thousands of feet. And Canare connectors are very cheap as well. And since they're selling direct (no middle man), with only word of mouth advertising I can imagine they're doing pretty good._

 

But they do have really expensive machinery to cut and crimp the cables and the company is run by people with real experience and degrees. Also, they have an R&D department; they've already done work with Belden to create the LC-1 and top-quality HDMI cables.


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does anyone ever wonder why cable manufacturers and merchants don't ever test their own products? Or maybe they have, but don't tell the public.

 Think about it. If you had a multimillion dollar company and a vocal group was calling your product snakeoil, wouldn't you want to do something about it? The manufacturers absolutely know they have critics, yet they do nothing. Why is this? Wouldn't any reasonable person want to put an end to the controversy?

 If you were a cable manufacturer, wouldn't you also want conclusive tests to show your product to be superior to the competition? Look at what Intel and AMD do to each other. Why don't Nordost and Cardas, for example, do the same? If they could, it would be a huge sales advantage over the other, right?

 And speaking of sales, conclusive testing would mean that the skeptics would probably end up buying their products. Meaning, of course, higher sales. They want increased sales, right?

 But they don't do this. All you get are testimonials. Just like quack medicine. Also, notice how carefully worded their advertising is. It is always just shy of being on the hook for false and deceptive advertising. Why is this? Again, if you ran the company, wouldn't you want to be absolutely certain that your product was best and decisively address that in advertising?_

 

Best post I've read in a long time. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 One thing that always strikes me when I read TAS is how cables and power cord reviews generate descriptions as distinctive as Amazonian wildlife yet CDs that have really crappy sound quality get the thumbs up as "superb!".
 I see that around here as well. I see guys with a long history of lots of gear but I don't think they can hear worth a damn. 

 edit: ....I guess that's why they're wasting their time on nonsense.
 Nothing cracks me up as much as reading some poor dude is burning in his copper/silver cable. What's he smoking?


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *J-Pak* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_edit: just to show you that BJC is making some rake, the Belden wire normally costs about $.80 a foot when bought in "normal" lengths, I can only imagine they're buying it in thousands of feet. And Canare connectors are very cheap as well. And since they're selling direct (no middle man), with only word of mouth advertising I can imagine they're doing pretty good._

 


 Well in this case I can tell you, that I know of a couple, that are doing even better, as they instead claim they designed and did the cables, which is not true, they say to use top use top notch Rodium plated plugs, which is true, but many nickel plated has Rodium in the mixture as well, so there is nothing fancy about them, and they claim the cables made of exotic materials, and exotic geometric figures, and cryo treated, which is not true, (or noobdy can prove at least) What they do indeed is to buy bulk cables, put a fancy jacket over them, brand them, and sell them 10 times this price....Many of the audiophiles beleive those claims, and bough them...they are doing a lot better, and nobody had complaint....


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You don't be believe me? Just wait and see while you post the results....Unless of course those results please the believers, in which case the methodology will be correct...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The methodologies can be found in textbooks on statistics and experimental design. A common misperception is that DBT is a test. It is not. It is a control condition for an experiment. Specifically, if you find a positive difference between two stimuli, the difference may be due to the existence of expectancy effects. So, a good experiment blinds the subject so that expectancy is not present. Then, when a positive difference is found, it can be interpreted as a real difference, not expectancy. This part is important: *DBT only matters when there is a positive result*. It then helps in interpretation of results by eliminating expectancy as a confounding variable.

 Now an important corollary: A negative result in DBT means absolutely nothing. Nada. Since there was no effect, no control for expectancy is needed... (or is it?). All that a negative result means is that a positive result was not obtained in the experiment. It does not mean that there was not a real effect. In fact, absence of an effect might be due to expectancy as easily as the presence of one. So, you need some sort of control that will tell you the sensitivity of your test. Can you objectively prove that your test will in fact be sensitive to subtle and measurable differences in auditory stimuli? If not, a negative result in DBT means nothing. Note that without some sort of sensitivity control in the experiment, a negative result could be obtained simply because the subject was hearing-impaired.

 Important scientific principle: *The absence of a positive result does not imply a negative result*.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nothing cracks me up as much as reading some poor dude is burning in his copper/silver cable. What's he smoking?_

 

Trot on over to the SlimDevices forum. Someone with the gear to do it measured the capacitance of cables over time...and found that there were long-term changes in the capacitance of the cables measured over a burn-in period. He specifically made no claim of whether or not this would be audible. However, it appears that there are long-term changes in cable capacitance that could well influence sound (capacitors do alter frequency response). Not enough data posted for critical evaluation, but the principle is interesting, and there's no reason to doubt that some sort of effect is there. Whoopsie. Maybe the guy wasn't smoking what you are. Or perhaps you should reserve your laughter until more data is in.

 Nothing cracks me up as much as a skeptic who laughs in the face of physical evidence.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The methodologies can be found in textbooks on statistics and experimental design. A common misperception is that DBT is a test. It is not. It is a control condition for an experiment. Specifically, if you find a positive difference between two stimuli, the difference may be due to the existence of expectancy effects. So, a good experiment blinds the subject so that expectancy is not present. Then, when a positive difference is found, it can be interpreted as a real difference, not expectancy. This part is important: *DBT only matters when there is a positive result*. It then helps in interpretation of results by eliminating expectancy as a confounding variable.

 Now an important corollary: A negative result in DBT means absolutely nothing. Nada. Since there was no effect, no control for expectancy is needed... (or is it?). All that a negative result means is that a positive result was not obtained in the experiment. It does not mean that there was not a real effect. In fact, absence of an effect might be due to expectancy as easily as the presence of one. So, you need some sort of control that will tell you the sensitivity of your test. Can you objectively prove that your test will in fact be sensitive to subtle and measurable differences in auditory stimuli? If not, a negative result in DBT means nothing. Note that without some sort of sensitivity control in the experiment, a negative result could be obtained simply because the subject was hearing-impaired.

 Important scientific principle: *The absence of a positive result does not imply a negative result*._

 

First who say that to obtain a difference is a positive result, and not to obtain it, is a negative, who state that logic? For the ones looking not to heard them, if they do not find any, it is a positive result for them....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Also IMO you can conduct experiments, while you know what you are going to measure, but in the case of cables, as we have discussed here many times, the differences are not due to the parameters we know, and can measure, otherwise they should be an evidence of the difference, right? Maybe a combination of them, maybe one unknown for us, so I do not think that there will be an experiemnt that can prove an unknown magnitude or parameter...

 hirsch, and as a believer that we know you are, the last thing we want is to argue with you, about the validity of the test, but in any case, if a DBT is not the way to go, would you mind to point us in the right direction? Becasue the beleivers logic is even less solid, to say I hear this, with no much to add to prove it, do not hold IMO too much water neither...

 But going back to the skeptics, that need the evidence, so what you are saying is that the absence of a difference does not mean that there is no difference, OK, but if you hear one, then there is one, are you serious? Do you expect an skeptic to go home with that explanation??? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So in other words if there is no pos and no neg, there is nothing that can be drawn from a DBT, right? So the people that are doing them for years and years, are just a bunch of stupids that do not know what they are doing, right?.......
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 Ok, Good to know...


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Trot on over to the SlimDevices forum. Someone with the gear to do it measured the capacitance of cables over time...and found that there were long-term changes in the capacitance of the cables measured over a burn-in period. He specifically made no claim of whether or not this would be audible. However, it appears that there are long-term changes in cable capacitance that could well influence sound (capacitors do alter frequency response). Not enough data posted for critical evaluation, but the principle is interesting, and there's no reason to doubt that some sort of effect is there. Whoopsie. Maybe the guy wasn't smoking what you are. Or perhaps you should reserve your laughter until more data is in._

 

I'm hearing huge differences from unplugging the system for a few minutes. It takes many days of burn-in to get the system back to sounding like before.

 With cables if it has been left unused for a few months it needs to be burned in again. I heard a huge difference between 3-4 days of burn-in. The biggest difference I ever heard. It went from muddy to transparent over night.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nothing cracks me up as much as a skeptic who laughs in the face of physical evidence.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yes, skeptics are good at ignoring the truth. They believe what they want to believe and ignore the rest. They don't live in reality, they live in a dream world.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm hearing huge differences from unplugging the system for a few minutes. It takes many days of burn-in to get the system back to sounding like before.

 With cables if it has been left unused for a few months it needs to be burned in again. I heard a huge difference between 3-4 days of burn-in. The biggest difference I ever heard. It went from muddy to transparent over night.


 Yes, skeptics are good at ignoring the truth. They believe what they want to believe and ignore the rest. They don't live in reality, they live in a dream world._


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Trot on over to the SlimDevices forum. Someone with the gear to do it measured the capacitance of cables over time...and found that there were long-term changes in the capacitance of the cables measured over a burn-in period. He specifically made no claim of whether or not this would be audible. However, it appears that there are long-term changes in cable capacitance that could well influence sound (capacitors do alter frequency response). Not enough data posted for critical evaluation, but the principle is interesting, and there's no reason to doubt that some sort of effect is there. Whoopsie. Maybe the guy wasn't smoking what you are. Or perhaps you should reserve your laughter until more data is in.

 Nothing cracks me up as much as a skeptic who laughs in the face of physical evidence.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Point taken.

 I'll presume it is true. I don't know the materials and even if I did I'm not an engineer. Neither will I totally rule anything out but I can still giggle at the idea that copper or silver will change with a little electrical current running through it. 
 (Life is too short). 
 You're right, measurable doesn't mean perceptible (as I look at the visual indicator that my carbon monoxide detector is still working). 

 I loved reading about UFOs, Sasquatch and Loch Ness as a kid and as much as I wish they were true, I doubt they exist. 
 Can't prove either way though.


----------



## eyeteeth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm hearing huge differences_

 

Maybe you're an unreliable observer. 
 I think you're as flawed a human being as the rest of us (as I think back upon the girls I used to love).


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eyeteeth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Maybe you're an unreliable observer. 
 I think you're as flawed a human being as the rest of us (as I think back upon the girls I used to love)._

 

I love Valhalla cable more than any girl. If it doesn't work properly I will know.

 Skeptics just plug in the cable and do a quick test while eating food at the same time, it's not going to work. I'm entering very deep inside the cable instead of looking quick at the surface. I have had Valhalla for over 2 years.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I love Valhalla cable more than any girl. If it doesn't work properly I will know.

 Skeptics just plug in the cable and do a quick test while eating food at the same time, it's not going to work. I'm entering very deep inside the cable instead of looking quick at the surface. I have had Valhalla for over 2 years._

 

You are the king of strawman arguments.

 Also, you're mad crazy dawg what with the cables>love thing


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_First who say that to obtain a difference is a positive result, and not to obtain it, is a negative, who state that logic? For the ones looking not to heard them, if they do not find any, it is a positive result for them....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

This is basic experimental design. The null hypothesis (statistical term) is that there is no difference. A positive result occurs when an experiment determines that the odds of the null hypothesis being true are less than 1/20 (0.05) buy convention. Anyone who has taken a course in statistics or experimental design should know this. Trying to teach an experimental design course in one of these threads is futile. However, go back and read. It's been gone over earlier in the thread.

 Let me ask the question in a different way. Suppose that you do a DBT, and hear no difference. I can interpret the data at least three ways:

 1) There really is no difference
 2) There is really a difference, but psychological factors are blocking your ability to perceive it.
 3) There really is a difference, but a hearing impairment prevents you from perceiving it.

 From an experimental design standpoint, how do you rule out any of these explanations?


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is basic experimental design. The null hypothesis (statistical term) is that there is no difference. A positive result occurs when an experiment determines that the odds of the null hypothesis being true are less than 1/20 (0.05) buy convention. Anyone who has taken a course in statistics or experimental design should know this. Trying to teach an experimental design course in one of these threads is futile. However, go back and read. It's been gone over earlier in the thread.

 Let me ask the question in a different way. Suppose that you do a DBT, and hear no difference. I can interpret the data at least three ways:

 1) There really is no difference
 2) There is really a difference, but psychological factors are blocking your ability to perceive it.
 3) There really is a difference, but a hearing impairment prevents you from perceiving it.

 From an experimental design standpoint, how do you rule out any of these explanations?_

 


 Which is why it is typically done on people who claim to be able to discern even the smallest details, the purist audiophile elite in the production and hi-fi world. There have been several highly publicized DBTs done on amplifiers which show that even the top dogs, as it were, can't tell the difference when it comes to the crunch. Of course, you could just interpret it as the not being able to tell the difference because fairies are whispering sweet nothings into their ear, but the only non-speculation considerations are "is there a difference, yes or no."

 You rule those out by DBTs on folks who claim to be able to hear the difference, obviously. But you have to know this is a DBT-free forum, so please, no more talk about DBTs.

 Edit: But while we're on the topic, you're leaving out the obvious companion to your questions, which are:

 1. There is a difference
 2. There is not a difference, but psychological factors cause you to perceive one
 3. There is not a difference, but a hearing impairment causes you to perceive one

 Turns out your line of reasoning is kind of kaput... from an experimental design perspective.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...
 Let me ask the question in a different way. Suppose that you do a DBT, and hear no difference. I can interpret the data at least three ways:

 1) There really is no difference
 2) There is really a difference, but psychological factors are blocking your ability to perceive it.
 3) There really is a difference, but a hearing impairment prevents you from perceiving it.

 ..._

 

Who cares about differences that you can't hear?


----------



## Dominat0r

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Who cares about differences that you can't hear?_

 

Great point, ignorance is bliss (not calling anyone ignorate, just using the saying)

 I can for sure notice the difference between a cheap cable (one that comes with a DVD or CD player) and a decent made cable. Even a gold series ratshack cable sounds much nicer then the plain Red/White RCA cable. 

 BTW, thanks for the test, it was a good read and its amazing to see how many people thought a rat shack cable was a higher end cable. It just goes to show ya, that once you get into this hobby, you try to make your sound the best possibly, even though you prob wont even hear the difference. I bet i can pick out the Monster IC or the Ratshack IC between them and the Red/White cheap IC. Now, could i tell the difference between the Ratshack and Monster? Not a chance...

 Im going to do a blind test at the next meet, put everything together and cover it up so that only I will know the cable used. Then i will have another person switch it for me. Im waiting to hear back from a person on the forums, but i will have 3-4 cables to pick from. I have Monster Interlink 200 RCA ICs that i use for my SACD, then i have a gold series Ratshack cable thats SUPER thick, also a cable made with SPC/silver Canare plugs and last would be a cheap no brand Red/White RCA. I will also have a few to pick from from the others that would prob show for a small meet.....Team Head-Fi SoFlo!!


----------



## jmmtn4aj

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Who cares about differences that you can't hear?_

 

Just because a blind man doesn't see what we see doesn't mean what we see isn't there..


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You rule those out by DBTs on folks who claim to be able to hear the difference, obviously. But you have to know this is a DBT-free forum, so please, no more talk about DBTs.

 Edit: But while we're on the topic, you're leaving out the obvious companion to your questions, which are:

 1. There is a difference
 2. There is not a difference, but psychological factors cause you to perceive one
 3. There is not a difference, but a hearing impairment causes you to perceive one

 Turns out your line of reasoning is kind of kaput... from an experimental design perspective._

 

Claiming to hear a difference and actually being able to hear a difference are two different things. If you're actually trying to talk about science, an experiment has to show that the subjects are able to perceive sonic differences in the experiment setting. You don't take a subject's word on it.

 Your third option is silly. A hearing impairment is not going to produce a reliable ability to perceive a difference, unless by filtering out irrelevant frequency ranges it allows the subject to perceive the range where the difference really lies. And if that's the case, there's a real difference anyway, so you're back to your option 1.

 Option 1 and 2 do need to be distinguished, which gets back to what I've been saying all along. When there is a real difference, DBT is a useful tool for interpreting the results. However, that particular control is *only* needed when an experiment produces a perceived difference. In the absence of a perceived difference, the key control is one that shows that real differences can in fact be reliably perceived in that situation.

 Since you don't know at the beginning of an experiment whether you're going to get a positive or negative result, you need the appropriate controls for both situations, assuming that you're going into it with an open mind.

 I'll skip the repeat discussion of Type I and Type II error in statistics as well as the one about appropriate sample size. Read a book.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


 Read a book. 
 

Classy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Your third option is a non-sequitur from the actual observed results which requires a very specific bias in interpretation unless the subject has been observed to have a genuine hearing impairment, in which case the subject should be disqualified from participation in an experiment designed to determine whether there is a sonic difference between two components. Otherwise, one can easily claim to be a golden-ear audiophile because one hears a difference where multitudes of others don't and it isn't statistically problematic because, oh, they've all just got a hearing impairment. If you're defining having a hearing impairment as having an inability to distinguish between power cables despite unimpaired hearing otherwise, then you've got a very specific and entirely useless experimental framework because it assumes a difference before you've shown one to exist.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *threEchelon* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But they do have really expensive machinery to cut and crimp the cables and the company is run by people with real experience and degrees._

 

It takes a college education to make a cable now!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## HugoFreire

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm hearing huge differences from unplugging the system for a few minutes. It takes many days of burn-in to get the system back to sounding like before._

 

*Oh no!*

 I thought my system had about 300 hours of burn-in, but now that I read your post I realized it actually has zero hours because it's turned off...


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your third option is a non-sequitur from the actual observed results which requires a very specific bias in interpretation unless the subject has been observed to have a genuine hearing impairment, in which case the subject should be disqualified from participation in an experiment designed to determine whether there is a sonic difference between two components. Otherwise, one can easily claim to be a golden-ear audiophile because one hears a difference where multitudes of others don't and it isn't statistically problematic because, oh, they've all just got a hearing impairment. If you're defining having a hearing impairment as having an inability to distinguish between power cables despite unimpaired hearing otherwise, then you've got a very specific and entirely useless experimental framework because it assumes a difference before you've shown one to exist._

 

You seem to have an attitude about books. I learned statistics and experimental design out of books. They're useful for that sort of thing. I recommend them highly if you don't understand the basic principles of what you're talking about. If you don't read them, odds are that a person who has knows a lot more about a subject than you do. That doesn't give you a strong position to argue from.

 You cannot define a hearing impairment based on the results of your test. You've got to have a control condition that verifies proper hearing in a subject in that particular experimental situation before you can even begin to interpret a negative result in an actual test. Is any of this sinking in?

 What percentage of the population has perfect pitch? Is your hearing the same as theirs? Do you doubt the existence of the phenomenon? (It's been proven, and the conditions that allow it to occur are known). To that minority group, the majority would have to appear to have a hearing impairment ("What? You didn't know that isolated note was a B flat?"). 

 Claims of being "golden-eared" mean exactly nothing. If you're doing a real experiment, hearing ability in the experimental setting has to be proven independently of the actual comparison of interest. That requires what is called a "positive control group". But I'm now repeating earlier posts in this thread.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

It is possible to argue a position without resorting to high-brow condescension and insults. I realize this sentiment does not move you, but I wanted to throw that out there.

 The problem is that *your* interpretation presupposes a difference in the two things being tested in that it claims that there could be a difference and you just can't hear it. Your experiment, then, could be said to be testing two unknown variables (capability of hearing a difference, and a difference existing), one of which must be known in order to show the other.

 Perhaps you could run a series of tests on equipment many orders of magnitude more sensitive than human ears to analyze the signal both through the object of the experiment and a normal one. Such a device would be able to compare the waveform very precisely, and even overlay the waveform of the experimental object and the control object to determinately show any changes. Then you could find whether a difference exists without having to resort to the highly imperfect human ear and the experimental problems related to it. If only such a thing existed...


----------



## joneeboi

Let's see if I can add to the discussion here.

 From what I've read, you should have 
 a) high current cable between amplifier and loudspeaker/headphones and
 b) low current interconnect between amplifier and signal source.

 It's undeniable that the different cable conductor (silver, copper) and different purities will affect the transmission of information between the connected components. What the skeptics are guffawing about is how some people claim they can hear the difference but they cannot. There have to be differences because no human can ever be that exact in making cables, I don't care if your last name is "Valhalla" or "ster Cable." It's like enjoying fine wine; some people like $7 wine, others get the Georges De Latour Private Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon, Beaulieu from Napa Valley. 

 Can everyone tell the difference between cables? Of course not. Are there differences? Yes.

 Do yourself a favour and get Radioshack stuff for now. When you listen to it long enough, there'll be a bigger difference when you hit up ALO or Cardas with your aching wallet.


----------



## gmckay

Discussions of the audio benefit of cable IC's are as hot as debates regarding faith.

 For that matter, all that is required from the pro-cable group is a belief, unfounded by any scientific concensus, but simply a faith that if you don't believe there is a difference, then you won't hear it.

 Thus, the non-beleivers are at a disadvantage from the outset...for they must have faith in order to receive the holy benefits of cable audio quality.

 Snake oil salesmen of the 21st century!

 My money will always go to perceptible audio upgrades.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gmckay* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thus, the non-beleivers are at a disadvantage from the outset...for they must have faith in order to receive the holy benefits of cable audio quality.
_

 

Then how do you explain the many died-in-the-wool skeptics, including me, who changed their veiwpoint after listening to certain cables? They did not have the "faith" you claim is a precondition to hearing a difference -- precisely the opposite.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *joneeboi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can everyone tell the difference between cables? Of course not. Are there differences? Yes._

 

Myself and others find that insufficiently proven to merit the expense of experimentation beyond a cursory examination of lower cost options. The apparent fact that higher end cable companies aren't in the business of proving their products do anything through any scientifically acceptable means has led to a culture of anti-science, with some literally claiming that scientific practices either don't apply to cables, or actually have an agenda against cables. More often, it seems that those who adhere to the cable ideology espouse anti-scientific views, citing a problem with numbers versus what they hear.

 Depending on which side of the debate you take, you fall into the objectivist or subjectivist camps, which can be summarized into "if it can be proven to exist by showing a measurable difference, it is worth investing in" and "if it can't be proven to exist, the scientific methodologies have some flaw that prevents them from seeing what is obvious to my ears."

 The attraction to either camp is blatant - the first claims absolute authority in discerning fantasy from reality, often accusing the subjectivists of being gullible snake-oil collectors who selectively pay no attention to the same scientific practices liberally used in the design of their speakers and who question the very laws of physics that have been shown to be true enough for applications far beyond the relatively tame needs of audio transmission over a wire; the second camp claims absolute authority in discerning fantasy from reality, often accusing the objectivists of being obtuse number-worshipers who refuse to hear the obvious and who won't even try things out first hand (one of the principles of scientific examination, after all, is experimentation) because they're already convinced it won't make a difference. And they hate each other, at least in discussions like these.

 I am one of the former, though not nearly as vehemently as I used to be - really, it's your money, do what makes you happy. I still enjoy a good debate on the topic, but not with the self-righteous vitriol that seems to drive some objectivists in the never ending crusade against a double-blind-test free forum.

 Philosophically speaking, this is a classic example of the impasse that exists between traditionalists and rationalists. Rationalists claim that only something which can be rationally demonstrated is capable of truth (be it philosophically, in the form of rational arguments, or materially in the form of scientific analysis). Traditionalists, on the other hand, believe that the way things have been done reflects a certain, perhaps inconceivable truth inherent to them by virtue of having been done for so long. Ask a blacksmith why he hits a horseshoe a certain way - the answer will be varying degrees of "this is how you hit a horseshoe." A rationalist responds that there is obviously something that can be explained about why a horseshoe is hit in such a way, that it must offer a particular benefit over other methods, etc.

 I am a rationalist. It shows in everything I do and who I am. If you are not, there is very little philosophical common ground on which we can speak, because it means you simply don't require a rational basis to any given thing. You are not alone nor are you ungrounded in doing so, but you are incompatible with rationalism.

 Read the excellent essay _Rationalism in Politics_ by Michael Oakeshott for a deeper look at the rationalist/traditionalist divide, if you care.

 Edit: PhilS, your argument from conversion isn't a supporting statement for your premise. That C.S. Lewis was an atheist and then converted does not change the arguments for or against religion, it just demonstrates one individual's personal change. It is the ultimate anecdote because it claims more than anecdotal power, but it does not have anything to add beyond another tally. Otherwise, the phrase "the 87,000,000 Americans who smoke can't all be wrong!" would be great advertising.


 Edit: And I need to change my signature, because science _is_ axiomatic. The fundamental axiom of science is that the state of knowledge can be improved through the use of the scientific method, which itself is founded on rationalism. The brilliant successes of science in every one of its endeavors doesn't change the fact that it is inherently axiomatic. I should never have had this signature, as on reflection it is knee-jerk and inappropriate. I apologize.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Edit: PhilS, your argument from conversion isn't a supporting statement for your premise. That C.S. Lewis was an atheist and then converted does not change the arguments for or against religion, it just demonstrates one individual's personal change. It is the ultimate anecdote because it claims more than anecdotal power, but it does not have anything to add beyond another tally. Otherwise, the phrase "the 87,000,000 Americans who smoke can't all be wrong!" would be great advertising.

_

 

 I think you may have missed my point. I wasn't arguing that the fact that a skeptic became a believer proves that cables make audible differences. I was responding to the argument that the only people who would hear cable differences were those who believed in the first place that they made a difference, and the conversion of skeptics shows that this is not the case.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gmckay* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Discussions of the audio benefit of cable IC's are as hot as debates regarding faith.

 For that matter, all that is required from the pro-cable group is a belief, unfounded by any scientific concensus, but simply a faith that if you don't believe there is a difference, then you won't hear it.

 Thus, the non-beleivers are at a disadvantage from the outset...for they must have faith in order to receive the holy benefits of cable audio quality.
*
 Snake oil salesmen of the 21st century!*

 My money will always go to perceptible audio upgrades._

 

That Zu Mobius was the sweetest damn snake oil I ever heard. I'm not trying to enter the argument here, but if a two-year-old couldn't hear the difference between the Zu and stock 650 cable I'd eat my own brain. And I really don't give a crap about cables at all. Well, that's not completely true. I would like to replace my own junk with bare Valhalla. At 96% of the speed of light, it would help me take too extreme tweaking to orgasmolicious levels.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think you may have missed my point. I wasn't arguing that the fact that a skeptic became a believer proves that cables make audible differences. I was responding to the argument that the only people who would hear cable differences were those who believed in the first place that they made a difference, and the conversion of skeptics shows that this is not the case._

 

Point well taken, my apologies. I agree that it is a puzzling and rather useless argument to question the character of the person claiming to hear a difference rather than offering facts to support the claim. Appeal to the person and all that.


----------



## gmckay

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Then how do you explain the many died-in-the-wool skeptics, including me, who changed their veiwpoint after listening to certain cables? They did not have the "faith" you claim is a precondition to hearing a difference -- precisely the opposite._

 

Good question. The answer may be that for the 99.9 percent of us who can not, in a double blind test, reliably identify perceptible difference between two cables constructed of reasonable quality have 'tin ears'.


 What do you make of it? Are you the .1 percent who have a gift of the golden ear?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gmckay* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Good question. The answer may be that for the 99.9 percent of us who can not, in a double blind test, reliably identify perceptible difference between two cables constructed of reasonable quality have 'tin ears'.


 What do you make of it? Are you the .1 percent who have a gift of the golden ear?_

 

No offense, but now you're talking about something other than what I responded to in your previous post. 

 In any event, I'm not going to debate DBT's and their inherent limitations anymore, etc., as it is against the rules of this forum and it's pointless in any event.

 Also, I don't claim to have golden ears or that I could pass a DBT that is set up the way they typcally set them up. I only know -- as a former skeptic -- what I hear in _my _system with _my _music when listening under _real world _conditions. And the people who claim to hear differences under those conditions are not .1 percent, but perhaps 50 to 60 % or more. Doesn't mean they're right, of course, but lots of pretty smart people, including many, many former skeptics claim to be hearing something. I think that's worth considering and keeping an open mind about -- just like it's worth considering and keeping an open mind about what science and measurements can tell us.


----------



## gmckay

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ And the people who claim to hear differences under those conditions are not .1 percent, but perhaps 50 to 60 % or more._

 

A 50% probability who claim to hear differences in a single DBT would correspond exactly to the same result as guessing between A and B.

 I'm sorry, but I'm departing this discussion for more qualitative discussion that to me actually make a difference.

 Frankly, cable interconnects are boring.

 Enjoy your music!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gmckay* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A 50% probability who claim to hear differences in a single DBT would correspond exactly to the same result as guessing between A and B.
_

 

That's not correct, or at least it's a misunderstanding of the point I made and how it relates to DBT's. But no matter.


----------



## cantsleep

so most of people got it wrong.. so copper is copper and all aftermarket cables are made with snake oil?

 rather, it seems to me that we were not really ready for this kind of testing. well then, we should be _more _prepared for next time. cant afford to fail, again
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 you can underestimate your own brain but.. just dont underestimate others as well. one more, just because you cant do it, that doesnt mean that others cant do so either.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

In what ways are we not ready for this type of testing? How should we prepare for the next bout?

 Are you suggesting that we are not ready for this testing because these tests show no difference, and so must not be reflecting the reality you hear?


----------



## cantsleep

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In what ways are we not ready for this type of testing? How should we prepare for the next bout?_

 

similar way, if not the same, you used to prepare for your math exams in school.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you suggesting that we are not ready for this testing because these tests show no difference, and so must not be reflecting the reality you hear?_

 

there is difference between _these tests show no difference _and _we cant tell the difference_. just because we cant tell the difference, it doesnt mean that there is no difference. 

 the reality you perceive may be different from the one i have. for example, some people believe in GOd and relate everything with God. of course, they are going to say in a manner that God exist whenever they open their mouth. on the other hand, some people just dont believe in God's existance. they just see and live life as is. same world, different perspective. cant really say who's right and who's wrong. likewise, if you ask me, im going to say pure silver is blah blah blah and canare is blah blah blah, trying to say that they are somewhat different from each other. but again, if you ask someone like P********(one who left the forum a while ago
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ), he is going to say copper is copper and all aftermarket cables are made of snake oil. dont waste money on that crap. same cables, hear differently.


----------



## NotJeffBuckley

I appreciate your candor in answering that question, but it seems that you're reducing things to a sort of universal skeptic argument (or at least an entirely relativistic one) which is difficult to even talk about, philosophically, while paradoxically nearly being requisite in a lot of ways. Harman wrote pretty extensively, and quite eloquently, about the same topic, though his concern was ethical rather than scientific.

 I am still figuring out where I stand on some things regarding the science of cables, so don't take my arguments against some of the claims and methods here as being an absolute condemnation because I am not prepared to make any such statement, but I definitely find some of the claims here to be at the very least highly exaggerated, if my understanding of electrical principles is accurate. Which it may not be, I'm always open to proof otherwise, but it has to be rational proof.

 Rationalist vs. Traditionalist is to philosophy what Objectivist vs. Subjectivist is to hi-fi audio. Around and around we go, but hopefully we each land a bit closer to eachother every time. I hate to see anger over cables. I hate that I used to lack the perspective not to get angry about cables.

 I apologize for some of my posts over the previous year or so which took a hard-line stance, it was an undeserved aggression and I really do regret it. I'm glad that most here have been kind in not holding a grudge despite the often berating tone I used to take. I've expanded my personal philosophy since then and I have come to realize that nothing is as absolute as it seems from a completely rational perspective. I have yet to find alternatives which satisfy my intellectual curiosity, but it is always hasty to claim that a thing is fully figured out, regardless.

 I still would like some empirical evidence before accepting fantastic truth claims, don't get me wrong


----------



## cantsleep

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I still would like some empirical evidence before accepting fantastic truth claims, don't get me wrong 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

sometimes, it is best to start from the answer and to question. bad thing about going from answer to question is that.. one may be blinded by its answer tho
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and we dont want that.

 nowadays, im more into cable swapping than listening to music. And i realize that many times i enjoy playing/testing with sound, rather than enjoying the music itself. is it bad? not neccesarily. listening to music is fun but listening to sound is also fun and has the wo.. effect in discovering the sound difference(not music), at least to me. of course, sometimes, or many times, i dont hear ANy difference in sound even if i change the content of the wires and so on..
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 it doesnt mean that i listen to sound all the time. most of times, i dont become critical about the sound itself too much. i can easily live with er4s + ipod combo, no amp no IC


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotJeffBuckley* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I still would like some empirical evidence before accepting fantastic truth claims, don't get me wrong 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Then you really should read this thread from the beginning. There are other threads also discussing the types of experimental design that would be required to provide the empirical data you are looking for. There are also elements of the perceptual experience that could affect results in ways that are not normally expected. The senses are not independent of each other. The reason that you normally hear music in a dentist's office is data that indicated that auditory stimulation raised pain thresholds. There is also data that vision and audition are linked in ways we do not completely understand (IMO at least some of the linkages are through attentional systems, but that's speculation), so we do not know exactly what effect a novel listening environment, particularly where we are subjecting someone to a forced-choice test, will have on auditory perception. If a person is not listening in the way he normally does, do we know if the results of any test have any bearing at all on what the person hears in his own system, listening for pleasure, as opposed to data?

 A positive results using DBT is nice. You've got a nice real difference, and it's even interpretable. However, they are also rare. Negative results are another matter. They are common, but I've yet to see one where enough care was taken in the initial design to make a negative result interpretable. I'm not sure that such a design is even possible at this point. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as people understand the limitations of a test going into it. Issues arise when you try and overinterpret a result. Nobody really knows what a negative result on a DBT signifies. Extrapolating a negative result into the conclusion that "there are no differences" is every bit as big an error as someone concluding that a perceived difference is due to physical properties of the cable in the absence of proper blinding (for those who haven't figured this out, I'm actually a DBT proponent, as long as the limitations of any particular experiment are understood).

 That said, I still go with my ears. The bottom line for me is that I want to enjoy what I'm listening to. Cables play a very major role to me, and I can define some characteristic sounds of cables I've tried. I can also cite instances where I was unable to produce those differences in DBT. However, if I don't like the sound of a cable in my rig, I'm not going to keep it there for very long due to a comparison that may or may not have any real life validity. Nor will I remove a cable that I like for one that I don't. I'd much rather enjoy what I'm listening to than worry about whether or not any particular test will show a difference. If I've demonstrated the difference to my own very subjective standards, that's enough. It's not science, nor do I pretend it is, but it works for me. I'd like to see the real science done at some point, but I don't need it.

 Incidentally, the reason you don't see a lot of cable companies producing tests of auditory differences against other cables is cost, plain and simple. Generating real data is not cheap. A real experiment that met scientific standards for publication, as opposed to amateur science derived from reading internet groups, would costs tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. A small cable company would be broken by this kind of expediture, and a large company doesn't need it. A company that was selling snake oil wouldn't want it. Don't expect any testing of this kind from the industry.


----------



## yakzil

I've always been a bit of a don't know on the topic of cables. My head says don't believe the hype, but my heart says all these guys in the cable industry can't be rogues. 

 Recently I upgraded my Cd player to a Cyrus 8 which has two outputs, so I can use two different cables and output them to different inputs on the amp (Cyrus 8). Then I can switch between cables using the remote. I've got a selection of cables, some borrowed some mine and checked them out. Basically I struggled to notice any difference between the cables (30$ to 200$), either in ABX mode or listening to whole tracks. This may mean I have crap ears or there was no noticeable difference in my system, either way I now know that, for me, spending shed loads of money on cables is money down the drain. Overall I'm happy with this as it has removed one variable and I can spend more money on speakers where I can notice differences.

 Yes I know it's all subjective, but that's the whole point. Most of us listen to music for pleasure, for me there is no increase in pleasure for money spent on cables, but there is on speakers. Just decide what works for you, it won't work for everybody but that's life.


----------



## bigshot

Philosophy is great if you have the time for it, but I'm a practical person. If I have to read a science book three times and strain to hear an improvement, I'm not going to pay hundreds of dollars for it. I've found much more effective and efficient ways to improve the sound of my system.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## ex0du5

It's great how some cable believers claim that their grandmother could hear the difference, and yet they cower behind the anti-DBT discussion rule.


----------



## Gurra1980

I'm very happy reading a thread like this, but nowing the rules how can it be allowed here?


----------



## Chu

I fear to tread into this thread reading the last couple of pages, but just one observation. A lot of people are hiding some pretty scathing statements behind an emotocon. I wonder how well this works in general?

 I hope everyone who thinks that controlled tests are useless in the audio arena dies in a fire


----------



## Gurra1980

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_emotocon. 

 I hope everyone who thinks that controlled tests are useless in the audio arena dies in a fire 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Should it be emotion, or is emotocon a word I don't now of?

 It's a tough punishment, but fair, none the less


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Gurra1980* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Should it be emotion, or is emotocon a word I don't now of?_

 

Emoticon.


----------



## tbonner1

I have found very little differences between interconnects when they are:

 1-similar length
 2-Impedance
 3-Capacitance
 4-properly terminated

 The differences people hear are changes in frequency response due (mostly) to these three things, not quality.


----------



## d.phens

But then - even in studio recording cable quality is often (over?)emphasized.
 And those people are certainly opposite to the 6moons ravers...
 Why do they care about cable quality? Does a cable really affect sound in case of huge lengths?


----------



## Black Stuart

Hi PhilS, Hi Hirsch,
 you are making reasoned arguments against unreasonable character armoured androids. 

 Like PhilS, I was a total skeptic because I listened to all the 'received wisdom' or should I say BS because that is what it is. As soon as I started experimenting with making my own I/Cs/power cords, guess what, I found differences and sometimes they were not small.

 I hold the skeptics in complete contempt because it is completely impossible to have an 'objective opinion' when you are part of the experiment - go study sub-atomic particle physics.

 Are at least some expensive cables snake oil, unquestionably. When someone like myself makes their own cables for what is virtually pennies - the androids never come back with answers - funny that, don't you think? Because they can't trot out their usual pathetic argument about spending lots of money ergo 'it must be good'.

 Sovkiller talked about recordings made in the 50s'/60s' what he pointedly did'nt say (perhaps he does'nt know) was that these same recordings were made using valve/tube mikes and ALL the equipment used was analogue. I am lucky enough to own some of these recordings and they can be superb.

 They spout like fanatic religious or political freaks about measurements - who listens to the music - the instruments or human beings (the last term is optional).

 Most commercial I/Cs are made using wire of a manageable gauge - why - because it is, in manufacturing terms easier to work with larger gauge wire, ergo faster production/lower costs/more profit - that was'nt hard to understand was it?

 I build I/Cs using different gauge wires, some of which are damned hard to work with because that is what produces the best/truest sound.

 I decided that with my Bada head amp, I would change all the signal wires inside to match my I/Cs, guess what I heard a distinct improvement in detail and immediacy - I was not surprised, as the wire used by the manufacturer was ordinary solid core copper, of a gauge that I have found does not benefit detail. 

 There is, running through all the naysayers arguments a simple incontrovertible fact - they never make their own cables, which means they have no experience of different gauges/materials, especially dialectrics. 

 Reading books is fine but until you engage in practice it is all meaningless - remember what the fat man said - all theory should come from practice.

 They cling to theory like a dying man. Undoubtedly some have very bad hearing and would never admit this (collapse into chaos). If you have a crap system you will never hear much anyway but the same applies if you have a rigid mind - after all, all audio information is fed to the brain by the very complex mechanism known as - the ear and processed by the individual brain.

 So it is true to say that it is the brain that hears rather than the ear. If that brain is rigid or frightened or incapable of hearing anything new - it simply won't matter what audio signal is fed to it.

 I have to say that I would love a face-to-face with some of these naysayers, I'm sure I would hugely enjoy the encounter but I'm not sure they would.


----------



## cLy_eVo

A very long thread, i'm sure it is mention somewhere that length of the IC matters. 1cm silver and copper cable IC would not sound different on any system. Thats why you can notice the difference on speaker system but not on headphone system, or so i read. Just my theory.


----------



## EnOYiN

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cLy_eVo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A very long thread, i'm sure it is mention somewhere that length of the IC matters. 1cm silver and copper cable IC would not sound different on any system. Thats why you can notice the difference on speaker system but not on headphone system, or so i read. Just my theory._

 

My speakers happen to use shorter cables than my headphone system (and I am still not able to hear a difference), so even aside from the fact that you bumped a 3 year old thread, I think your theory fails.


----------



## cLy_eVo

i meant like few cm copper IC + 3m stock cable VS few cm silver IC + 3m stock cable would not sound different... if you have a speaker that previously used 3 meter stock cable not pure copper and recable it to jena/vampyre cable of course you would notice the different. of course, i never heard it first hand JMHO.


----------



## gregorio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *d.phens* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But then - even in studio recording cable quality is often (over?)emphasized.
 And those people are certainly opposite to the 6moons ravers...
 Why do they care about cable quality? Does a cable really affect sound in case of huge lengths?_

 

I'm not sure where this comes from. Recording studios use relatively cheap cables. In general, studio professionals do not engage in the cable debate and do not believe they make any difference whatsoever.

 G


----------



## grawk

Every studio I've ever seen uses mogami, canare, and belden cable pretty much exclusively.


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure where this comes from. Recording studios use relatively cheap cables. In general, studio professionals do not engage in the cable debate and do not believe they make any difference whatsoever.

 G_

 

Like Grawk mentioned, why would the studios:

 A) care about sound quality when they will be screwing up every single copy they print.

 B) Notice a difference when they are all basically using the same crap.

 Try something recorded by Mapleshade and see how it sounds.


----------



## gregorio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *olblueyez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Like Grawk mentioned, why would the studios:

 A) care about sound quality when they will be screwing up every single copy they print.

 B) Notice a difference when they are all basically using the same crap.

 Try something recorded by Mapleshade and see how it sounds._

 

So you've decided not to take my advice and are still replying like a spoilt child, out of complete ignorance.

 A. Ignorance level - 11 out of 10. Studios don't make copies, they make masters. Making copies is the job of the duplicating house!

 B. Ignorance level 10 out of 10. Have you ever even seen the inside of a recording studio? Obviously not, based on your ridiculous rantings.

 Anyone with even a basic level of intelligence would realise that like any other profession, there are world class studios/engineers and incompetent ones. The vast majority aspire to high quality rather than incompetence.

 How old are you oldblueyez, my guess would be around 10-12 years old.

 G


----------



## BIG POPPA

Have to agree with oleblueeyes. Mapleshade has some AWESOME recordings. Chesky has some too. Have to check out my Buddy's studio to see what cable he is using? He just made an Album. This ain't no Mapleshade recording for sure. CD Baby: TURD HELMET: Greatest (S)hits


----------



## olblueyez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So you've decided not to take my advice and are still replying like a spoilt child, out of complete ignorance.

 A. Ignorance level - 11 out of 10. Studios don't make copies, they make masters. Making copies is the job of the duplicating house!

 B. Ignorance level 10 out of 10. Have you ever even seen the inside of a recording studio? Obviously not, based on your ridiculous rantings.

 Anyone with even a basic level of intelligence would realise that like any other profession, there are world class studios/engineers and incompetent ones. The vast majority aspire to high quality rather than incompetence.

 How old are you oldblueyez, my guess would be around 10-12 years old.

 G_

 

You ASSume way too much to be talking that way to anyone. Not once have you ever made a concrete connection from the average studio to any of these cable discussions.


----------



## endless402

exactly, different recording studios use different equipment

 thats why there are **** recordings and good recordings


----------



## gregorio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *olblueyez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You ASSume way too much to be talking that way to anyone. Not once have you ever made a concrete connection from the average studio to any of these cable discussions._

 

I assume? That's funny!! Go to an online dictionary and look up the word "hypocrite".

 I don't believe there is a single cable thread to which I have contributed where I haven't mentioned recording studios and/or the professionals who work in them. However, as I implied in my last post, there's not really any such thing as an average studio. Studios vary from people in their bedroom with a PC and Cubase, selling studio services, to world class commercial facilities who have spent millions on equipment, acoustics, etc.

 G


----------



## RockinCannoisseur

bomp records


----------

