# about cables



## Ricky

See this thread:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...6%26filter%3D0


----------



## jude

So, Ricky, according to the IP addresses, it appears you're the first poster (KikeG) in that Usenet thread you're pointing us to. Given that, let me ask you this:

 So....ummm....like.....does that mean you didn't like my review?

 And still to come (and I'm sure you're going to _love_ this one) is my review of a CD player that happens to be very expensive.

 See ya then!


----------



## CRESCENDOPOWER

Yeah! I totally agree with what they are saying. There is no way one cable sounds different from another. I think someone slipped some drugs in Jude's drink. I guess they got me too, because I heard the exact same thing Jude did.


----------



## The Quality Guru

Thanks for that, Ricky


----------



## dngl

Ummm, that's wrong. First year high school chemistry or physics can explain why different cables would lose more signal than others.


----------



## nebuchadnezzar

probably a Best City or Circuit Buy salesman
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Jude, based on that very review, I have ordered a 0.5 meter pair of the Neutrals. (I gotta know!)

 Keep 'em coming, I enjoy the heck out of your reviews!


----------



## Neruda

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*See this thread:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...6%26filter%3D0 * 
 

and? what's your point? "Hi, my name's rickey, and i wanted to let you know that me and my friends were making fun of you. nya-nya!" good one, smart-stuff! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You know, if Jude's using words that are too long for you to understand, you could always send him an e-mail asking him to explain them for you in simpler terms. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 by the way, I for one would like to know what sort of audio rigs you and your obtuse friends own, and what cables you've auditioned. or are you just a bunch of posers talking about stuff you don't understand?


----------



## kwkarth

So Ricky,
 I take it that you're not capable of hearing the differences for one reason or another. Perhaps many reasons. Are you trying to convince others that there are no differences because you are incapable of perceiving them?
 Cheers!


----------



## tanfenton

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*See this thread:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...6%26filter%3D0 * 
 

Read it. Understand your reasoning. Now, understand ours. Where's your proof when the proof is in the listening?

 NGF


----------



## dhwilkin

Come on, people, no feeding the trolls.


----------



## zspradlin

If ignorance truly is bliss, ALL them boys are on cloud nine. I'll NOT listen without MY Crescendos!!!!! Not to mention my $700 power cables. 
 That entire thread just sounds like the MANY voices of inexperience. In the evolution of audio, I would venture to say that those boys are at the bottom of the food chain!!!


----------



## Hirsch

That was a google search of a thread in rec.audio.tech, which is a Usenet group, for those who haven't experienced one. One of the raisons d'etre of private moderated web-based forums such as this is to get away from the ...errr...morons... that have a tendency to propagate in an unmoderated Usenet environment and choke off otherwise useful discussion.


----------



## Neruda

not suprised.


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by jude _
*
 So....ummm....like.....does that mean you didn't like my review?
* 
 

Well, I find hard to believe that just a cable change could make such a difference, but I'm convinced that you really believe it, so, no blame on you. What I feel really disgusting is the interview to George Cardas, in my opinion this man has no sense of shame with all the things he says, he's just a charlatan talking BS and he knows it and makes profit of it.

  Quote:


 *
 So, Ricky, according to the IP addresses, it appears you're the first poster (KikeG) in that Usenet thread you're pointing us to.
* 
 

You're right, even my e-mail address is the same.

  Quote:


 *
 probably a Best City or Circuit Buy salesman
* 
 

 Quote:


 *
 Ummm, that's wrong. First year high school chemistry or physics can explain why different cables would lose more signal than others.
* 
 

Not at such lenghts of cables and such frequencies and amplitudes of signals.

 Me and many of the posters at the rec.audio.tech newsgroup are audio/electric engineers by studies and profession. I actually work as a programmer, but some of the newsgroup repliers are respected audio professionals, some with many years of experience in this area. Even if you are not one of these, but have a bit of knowledge and common sense, will realize that some claims are absurd.

  Quote:


 *
 You know, if Jude's using words that are too long for you to understand, you could always send him an e-mail asking him to explain them for you in simpler terms. 
* 
 

What I'd like to know is what are the real scientifical basis that explain the advantages of these cables, what makes them superior to a normal cable. The properties of a cable are defined by basic scientific terms: resistance, capacitance, inductance, and interference pickup. There's no skin effect at audio frecuencies, there's no inductance at audio frecuencies, there are no resonances in cables (I guess he meant stationary waves, as talking about resonance in a cable is just absurd). Capacitance is negigible at such frecuencies and short lengths. Any decent shielded cable has good noise rejection for audio purposes at home environments, and the best shielding is not very difficult to achieve. There's no distortion on cables. If these cables do something to the signal, it can only be degrading it, as any non-crap cable won't do anything to the signal. Just ask some qualifyed engineer os physicist, and he'll tell you the same.

 It can also be easily proved on a laboratory, measuring and analyzing the signal that enters in the cable and the signal at the other side of the cable. This can be done even at your home, if you have a good sound card (I'm not talking about Creative Crap cards) and suitable software.

 Yes, they sound different to you, that's true, but that has an explanation. Have you ever heard about placebo effect? One of the posters at these audio newsgroups, has showed in practice (going to their homes) by means of serious blind tests, to many audiophiles, that all the differences they heard were on their heads. It is a curious effect how, when the listener doesn't know what cable he's listening to, is incapable of telling a regular cheap cable from a megabuck one.

 There are lots of snake oil in consumer audio. Special power cords are even more absurd than expensive cables. How can the power that goes to your wallplug through meters of cheap unshielded electric cable, be improved at any way by a small piece of thick shielded cable at its ending?

 About the Google newsgroup thread, you can also participate in it if you want. There is also a moderated audio related newsgroup, rec.audio.high-end. If you read and/or participate in these and other audio related newsgroups, you'll learn many things. I do.


----------



## Nezer

Cables to make a difference and if you don't believe us try this...

 Go to home depot and get the cheapest, smallest diameter wire you can. For real giggles make it aluminium.

 Get a decent connector and some solder and make you an interconnect using this cable.

 Then go get one of the cheap monster cables (I suggest the interlink 200s or 250s, same cable different plugs).

 Plug the monster into one channel and your DIY job into the other.

 After you do this come back and apologize because you *WILL* hear a difference no matter what your system is!

 Now, would I buy a $300 IC... Hell no... Not unless my system was $$$$$$$$ then I imagine the difference could be noticeable.

 The rules about cables (saw these posted somewhere):

 1. The best cable is no cable. But this isn't feasible.
 2. The *ideal* cable is transparant. Again, this isn't 100% feasable.
 3. A cable can't *add* anything but it sure as hell can take away! The test above will show that!

 I used to be a skeptic too but then I heard the difference doing something similar to what is listed above.

 I also was skeptical about power cables but now I'm starting to come around on that too even though I haven't tried it yet.

 A good cable, power or ic or otherwise will attempt to filter out any interference and drain it off back to the source. (though not all great cables do this).

 Another point about cables is they have capicitance. This will result in high-frequency loss. The ideal cable has 0 capicitance... but again, not feasible.

 Really, give it a try before dissmissing it all together.

 And as always if *you're* happy with your setup including cables, why spend the cash to change it?

 Another point about $$$ cables... I think the law of dimishing returns is it a fairly low dollar value for ICs (like $50-100). Anything past that is spending dollars to gain pennies. Hell, it may even be lower than that!


----------



## jude

Ricky,

 I've been in the hobby for a long time now (and used to work hi-fi retail way back in college), so you can probably imagine that, by now, I've seen, and been involved in, many debates about this. I've seen the debate, from either side, attacked from pretty much all possible angles. And when it comes to audio, there are debates aplenty. Interconnects. Power cables. DBT is/isn't effective. CD players (fancy units versus less expensive gear that seem to measure as well). CD vs. SACD. Analog vs. digital. Tweaks. Tubes vs. solid state. Amplifiers sound/don't sound different. I've seen it argued both ways by engineers and science-minded folks (we have engineers and people who make their living in science in our member base here too); and what it almost always amounts to is that very little convincing is done either way. What you usually end up with are 300-post threads with a lot of insults and vitriol -- I'll pass, thank you.

 I've read your arguments, and the arguments of those who feel the same as you over the years, yet I continue to listen to relatively expensive headphone amps, relatively expensive headphones, relatively expensive interconnects, SACD, expensive headphone cables, all hooked up to power conditioners through not-very-inexpensive power cables. And there's little you're going to say that can convince me that it wasn't worthwhile, because (A) I listened to all the pieces of gear (and other equipment in their classes) before I bought them, and (B) I felt it was worth spending _my_ money on this stuff based on how it all sounded to me.

 So participating in that thread on Usenet would likely not result in any change in either of our positions. I'll pass on a likely flame war and fruitless debate. We are where we are.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*What I'd like to know is what are the real scientifical basis that explain the advantages of these cables, what makes them superior to a normal cable. * 
 

So would I. So would any intelligent individual. The bottom line is that we don't know what makes them better. Some people may have a pretty good idea, as they are able to construct a better cable.

 Aerodynamic theory used to predict that a bumblebee couldn't fly. Simply wouldn't work. The bumblebees didn't care, and kept on buzzing about until theory caught up with them not all that long ago.

 I don't need a scientific reason why something works to hear that it indeed does work. If an engineer can't measure what I'm hearing, then the engineer is measuring the wrong thing. Empirical realities are not going to change. The cable used can make big sonic differences in a system, be it interconnect, speaker cable, or power cord. The engineers who interest me are the ones trying to understand why this is so, not the ones trying to prove that the bumblebee is still on the ground.


----------



## Magic77

Hey Everyone,

 My opinion on all this is: It dosen't matter how much money you spend on cables, power cords, CD players, Headphones.....etc. As long as you are happy and enjoying your music. If you think a $3 cable sounds as good as a $500 cable that's fine, as long as you are enjoying the music that enters your ears. Then again, if you buy the $500 cable and think it makes a hell of a difference, then that's great too, because you are happy and enjoying your music.

 As long as you feel you weren't ripped-off, what does it matter?

 Personally, I would love to be able to buy all the super expensive equipment. But, I can still find quality equipment, cables and headphones that are good quality within my budget.


----------



## Ricky

> _Originally posted by Hirsch _
> *
> Empirical realities are not going to change. The cable used can make big sonic differences in a system, be it interconnect, speaker cable, or power cord. The engineers who interest me are the ones trying to understand why this is so, not the ones trying to prove that the bumblebee is still on the ground.
> *
> ...


----------



## nebuchadnezzar

Quote:


 I felt it was worth spending my money on this stuff based on how it all sounded to me. 
 

  Quote:


 The engineers who interest me are the ones trying to understand why this is so, not the ones trying to prove that the bumblebee is still on the ground. 
 

Well put guys!


 Ricky, I would like to hear your opinion on the test that Nezer has proposed. An alternative to this would be to ask for a demo from a manufacturer and compare an "expensive" cable to the interconnects that are supplied with any component. 

 If you really don't hear a difference then you're saving yourself a good chunk of change!!

 By the way...welcome to Head-Fi
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I suppose ferrite clamps and Vibrapods are out of the question


----------



## jude

> _Originally posted by Ricky _
> * Quote:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## acidtripwow

I wish that all that **** on that forum was the truth. It would have saved me a bunch of money for table dances. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This is why I stopped buying magazines like The Sensible Sound. Those guys are in the business of comparing audio equipment and then they would say stuff like there is no need for more expensive cables because they didn't hear any difference. Not that all the hype is the truth, but you really need to sit down and compare for yourself.


----------



## dngl

There is a lot of BS in audiophile products. I agree that sales pitches can sound ridiculous. I also agree that changing cables is one of the more subtle changes in a system; there is definitely a difference, but I would not call it earth-shattering. What I disagree with is the idea that cables cannot sound different. I do feel that there is a definite upper limit to cabling and a steep drop in the price/performance ratio at a certain point... but no difference? c'mon...


----------



## Satori

Since I am new to this I'm trying to understand this better.

 Is DBT acceptable for components but not as much so for cables, power supplies etc. I do believe it does take time to understand the differences between components that aren't seperated by much, hell it took me hours(days) to really appreciate the difference between using an amp and not using an amp with my RS-2s. But now I can tell the differences even blindly.

 Also what does ABX stand for?


----------



## Hirsch

> _Originally posted by Ricky _
> * Quote:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDEF

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
 Well, do you really believe that in the XXI century there's still anything to discover about cables? 
 

I, and anyone with any scientific background whatsoever, believe it. There's lots to discover about pretty much every thing ever studied (or not yet studied). We don't know anything with 100% certainty, and the very nature of science is to keep asking, keep testing, keep learning.


  Quote:


 The reason is expectation effect, placebo, pre-bias, call it how you want. 
 

That may be what you, personally, _think_ is the reason, but that isn't empirically the reason.

  Quote:


 Try that in a truly blind test, assisted by anyone else, and see how many times you can tell a cheap cable (I mean cheap, not the worst) from a megabuck cable. 
 

While I know we're not supposed to talk about DBT, I'll tell you right now that I've done double-blind tests between a $50 cable and a $100 cable and could tell the difference 100% of the time.

 I always find it interesting that the people who are the MOST adamantly against things like cables have never even done any scientific testing of their own. Or else they just assume that if they can't hear a difference, no one else in the world can, either.


  Quote:


 Anyone can be influenced by this placebo effect, I have been too, but I proved to myself that the difference was just in my head. 
 

Chances are that you were just as, if not more, guilty of being influenced by your own "reasons" as anyone else. You refuse to believe that cables can sound different, so you end up hearing no difference.


----------



## Polygon

It seems to me that this thread has been beaten to death as it is, but I must say that it all boils down to this; it is all a matter of opinion. You are right that it is all in your head Ricky, in the respect that a pair of Radio Snack cables my sound fine to you, Monster cable may sound great to some other guy, and I may think that some expensive cable sounds by far better. It is all a matter of opinion. I personally use Monster cable right now because I cannot afford the cables that I do want, because I have heard them and they sound better to me. That is my opinion. If you don't agree that is fine, but just remember it is just that, and opinion.


----------



## cyclingasronomer

that's an opinion!!


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by jude _
*
 At first, I wasn't sure why Audio Asylum made some of their forums "DBT-Free Zones". Now I know. As the admin of Head-Fi, I now declare the "Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories" Forum a DBT-Free Zone for all the same rules Audio Asylum does.
* 
 

Ok, you're on your right to do so. It makes sense to me to make a cables section DBT-free. I only wanted to show to the people at this forums another point of view. I also admit that maybe my first post was a bit "noisy".

  Quote:


 *
 For the reasons why, simply visit Audio Asylum's DBT-Free Zone Posting Rules by clicking on the following link:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/dbt.html
* 
 

I pretty much agree with all that is said at that page.


----------



## Nick Dangerous

*Ricky sez:*
  Quote:


 What I'd like to know is what are the real scientifical basis that explain the advantages of these cables, what makes them superior to a normal cable? 
 

I'd be happy to show you the measurements, but since the laboratory is inside of my skull you may not be able to see the readings... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The placebo effect is important to keep at bay. It's all too easy to worship expensive components. Blind testing helps keep the BS away. I personally found the $89 Clou cable to sound better than the $150 Cardas, despite knowing that the Cardas was more expensive. I'll be giving it another go in the future just to make sure.

 I think we should do a little blind testing at the next Head-Fi meeting. That would be fun.


----------



## TimSchirmer

From my own experience, cables do make a slight difference, but nothing signifigant at all. If I had a 2000$ system, I would spend less than 300$ on cables. The extra money spent on cables is MUCH better spent on a nicer source to begin with. I just use the lower-end kimbers in my system. Another good idea is to spend equal amounts on your interconnects, speaker, and power cables. (when spening more, spend in that order) The only signifigant change that I have ever heard was when I was auditioning Continous cast cables, which sounded more smooth than OHFC. There are more scams out there than bargains, just buy what seems reasonable.


----------



## kwkarth

FYI, here is an article from Absolute Sound regarding OCC (continuous cast copper) cable. 

 This might be of interest to you Ricky. FYI also, the Outlaw PCA cables are OCC copper.

http://www.everestaudio.com/harmonictech.pdf

 Excerpts:
 ...I perceived gross profit margins and I came to believe that most reviewers were assigning undue importance to a component that does not exhibit the same range of variances as loudspeakers or amplifiers. I also believed that the cable industry had taken a fundamentally wrong turn in rejecting the one technology that might conceivably have yielded a quantifiably different behavior in a cable – single-crystal conductors, also called “continuously cast conductors.”

 ...Noel Lee of Monster Cable once told me that there are really only two aspects of making an audio cable – geometry and materials – that is, how you arrange and space the conductors, and what materials you use in the construction of the conductors and dielectric. (If this were the case, then a cable following some common geometry and employing conventional materials throughout should be entirely ordinary in performance, but that’s another discussion.) Lee further commented that most American cable manufacturers stress geometry rather than materials, and that he was of that school himself. He made these remarks in conjunction with Hitachi’s much-heralded introduction of single-crystal cables in 1984.

 ...working under technical director Richard Bell. Bell had designed particle accelerators for the Atomic Energy Commission and written several seminal papers on the distortion mechanisms of transistors while he was a research scientist at ITT. He was one of the most impressive people I’d ever met in the audio field, and, as it happened, he was an authority on single-crystal copper, having been hired at one time by Signet to research it. Bell wouldn’t talk much about the project, he’d signed a nondisclosure agreement, but he stated emphatically that it supported the audible and measurable superiority of single crystal. 

 ... an old MIT publication on vacuum-tube design that single crystal was nothing new, and had been used in certain design applications for over 30 years.

 ...Ordinary conductive metals exhibit a crystalline internal structure with individual crystals of irregular size. The crystalline boundaries exhibit elastic effects in regard to electron motion, and electron collisions at these boundaries set up low audio-frequency resonances known as phonons, also referred to as “quantum noise,” though they are not noise in the sense of being random in nature. The intensity of phononic resonances is extremely low, but the argument is that it is sufficient to obscure low-level information in a recording or a transmission. Simply put, the fewer the number of crystalline boundaries to be traversed, the less noise; and single-crystal copper, with boundaries only at the surface of the wire, should produce less quantum noise than garden-variety high-purity copper or silver.

 ...appeared to provide significant audible benefits.

 ...the differences were particularly striking. With the Harmonics cables, the recording fairly sang. Instrumental forces were meticulously delineated, and at the same time, an unfailing sweetness and musicality was evident, plus a sense of reverberant tail-offs sauntering away into a diffuse performance space. Plug in the other wire, and the reproduction became remarkably sour and astringent, and I had a definite impression that the performance space itself puckered up, almost as if in response to the sourness. 

 ...This is a wildly impressionistic account, but the usual High End vocabulary having to do with frequency balance, focus, dynamics, and what have you, simply doesn’t seem adequate.

 ...High-pitched instruments like bells and soprano recorders sounded much more extended, transients such as drum beats, seemed to have more impact even at lower volumes, let alone with levelmatched, and the timbres of the instruments are far less inclined to bleed into one another. And, yes, the soundstage was wider. It was almost like comparing a mediocre box speaker with lots of cabinet talk and average quality cones with a electrostat like the big Sound Lab. 

 ...an extreme system capable of impressive performance with the cheapest cabling, but with the Harmonics in place, there was an almost surreal sense of palpability to good recordings – audience comments overheard on live sessions, leading edges of transients leaping out like leashed Dobermans, and highly realistic proportions to instruments. 

 ...Each individual conductor is insulated with foamed polyethylene (PE) to reduce strand interaction, which greatly increases signal-to noise ratio and dynamic range. The dielectric constant of foamed PE is better than normal PE (2.3) because it has many man-made air pockets. This kind of dielectric is better than commonly used Teflon. Also, Teflon dielectric requires extraordinarily high temperatures during the cable-manufacturing process, which can destroy single-crystal cable.


----------



## RickG

Hi Kevin,

 You probably want to delete that review before MacDEF does. I was told that it can cause legal problems for the Head-Fi site. All you can do is post a link.

_MacDEF says:_ 

 "RickG: 

 Sorry, but I had to delete that review -- it's a copyright violation to paste the entire review here, and we don't want to cause any trouble for Head-Fi. If you'd like to edit your post by including the link to the review, that would be great!"

 Check out this thread:
http://head-fi.com/forums/showthread...n&pagenumber=1


----------



## MacDEF

LOL, nice catch, Rick 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Yeah, Kev, prolly not a good idea. Since you're a fellow mod, I'll let you do the honors -- can you post a link instead? If it's only available offline, a few key excerpts, maybe?


----------



## zack

http://www.hsba.go.jp/bridge/akcable.htm

 now that's some cable!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


 _Originally posted by MacDEF _
*LOL, nice catch, Rick 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Yeah, Kev, prolly not a good idea. Since you're a fellow mod, I'll let you do the honors -- can you post a link instead? If it's only available offline, a few key excerpts, maybe? * 
 

Thanks guys. All better now?
 Cheers!


----------



## setmenu

waffle deleted
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Setmenu


----------



## Dusty Chalk

I got a pair of cheap Monsters and mid-priced (by cable standards) silver cables, and I guarantee you, you don't need no DBT to hear the difference.

 OTOH, if you can't hear the difference, more power to you, this hobby just got a whole lot less expensive for you.

 (Sorry, I realize this is an old thread by head-fi standards, but I haven't been here for a couple weeks, and missed all the excitement -- 35 pages to go through! You guys sure are loquacious...)


----------



## jude

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Dusty Chalk _
*You...sure are loquacious...* 
 

Yeah, well....I've been working out and stuff.


----------



## Ricky

As some poster said at one of the rec.audio newsgroups:

 "No science please...we're audiophiles."


----------



## phidauex

Perhaps, 'no pseudo-science please', is what I am really after. Like I said in another post, a guy with a function generator and a scope in his basement is not taking any worthwhile measurements for the discussion of scientific differences between cables. People are quick to boast about their testing abilities, but usually one finds that their testing was so full of holes that its practically unusable.

 Its like all those government sponsored 'tests' in the 70's that 'proved' that marijuana caused brain damage, despite the fact that 70% of the marijuana test group had experienced severe head trauma sometime in their life. Not particularly scientific. All the stats and numbers in the world don't mean anything unless the science was good to begin with.

 Peace,
 phidauex


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by phidauex _
*Perhaps, 'no pseudo-science please', is what I am really after.
* 
 

Agreed. The problem is that all those supposedly scientific explanations I've read in this thread and in George Cardas's interview about cables, are just that, pseudo-science.

  Quote:


 *Like I said in another post, a guy with a function generator and a scope in his basement is not taking any worthwhile measurements for the discussion of scientific differences between cables. People are quick to boast about their testing abilities, but usually one finds that their testing was so full of holes that its practically unusable.
* 
 

It is not so difficult to make good measurements if you know how. You just need a good 24/96 sound card, an audio editor, a software FFT analyzer, and to know what you want to measure.

 See lots of these type of measurements at www.pcavtech.com.


----------



## MacDEF

Ricky, the problem here is that you're assuming that if cables don't measure differently, they cannot sound different. That's a flawed assumption. There are lots of things science simply cannot yet explain. If human beings still do not totally understand how human hearing works, or fully understand electrical currents, how can anyone claim that they fully understand how cables work and that audible differences will always be "measurable?"


----------



## Dusty Chalk

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
 It is not so difficult to make good measurements if you know how. You just need a good 24/96 sound card, an audio editor, a software FFT analyzer, and to *know what you want to measure.* 
 

(Boldification mine.) Ah, there's the rub.


----------



## HD-5000

Ricky, let me ask you this. Why did you post that? Not trying to be hostile here, but why the hell did you even sign up for Head-Fi? Just to slam jude's review?


----------



## Neruda

that's what I want to know too, HD-5000. like I said in my first post, it's as if he wants to let us know that he was making fun of us on another board. very constructive. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I'm well aware that measurements show little to no difference in cables, but I know what I'm hearing. you can pontificate about placebo effects as much as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that cables do sound different. I'd reccomend trying out a pair of cables again; just be sure to use those two things on the side of your head when you do it, and keep a cable in your system for a few weeks before swapping it with something else. and buy something decent! try the outlaw PCA, it's cheap and good. not much investment, very obvious improvement in sound. to me at least.


----------



## kwkarth

Now hold on Neruda, Ricky doesn't know how to measure any differences, therefore there can't be any. That's good science!
 Mind, ears, and case closed.

 Happy listening!!


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 *Ricky, let me ask you this. Why did you post that? Not trying to be hostile here, but why the hell did you even sign up for Head-Fi? Just to slam jude's review? * 
 

 Quote:


 *that's what I want to know too, HD-5000. like I said in my first post, it's as if he wants to let us know that he was making fun of us on another board. very constructive.* 
 

Well, maybe it was not very polite with Jude's review, I have to concede you that point, and I apologize for that. When I did that maybe I was not in a "polite" mood, maybe because I found the George Cardas interview too disgusting, I mean, George Cardas fake pseudo-scientific techno-babble explanations just to justify his expensive cables. My main goal was this interview, and not so Jude's review.

  Quote:


 *Now hold on Neruda, Ricky doesn't know how to measure any differences, therefore there can't be any. That's good science!
* 
 

Well, not me, but I should add, not anybody. Hey, do you really believe that if this cable elusive parameters existed, they wouldn't have been investigated years ago? Do you really believe scientifics are a bunch of fools? Do you know that at serious audio and acoustic magazines such as JAES or JASA you can read scientific papers about the most complicated sound interactions/phenomena?. Do you know that your speaker coils and your equipment PCB tracks are plain, bare copper wire?

  Quote:


 *Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $740,000 reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe." 
 -Richard Dawkins* 
 

That's the point! This is what exactly happens with sound differences with measurabily similar cables. And at rec.audio.high-end there are a group of people who are willing to pay some money to anybody who can perceive such differences under rigorous controlled conditions.


----------



## MacDEF

Ricky, I see you responded to pretty much everyone else's posts but mine


----------



## kwkarth

Ricky,
 My point, tongue in cheek, was that the differences are real, they're quantifiable, they're repeatable, and to be sure, measurable, IF we bothered to characterize the complex transfer function comprised of subtle phase, frequency, and amplitude anomalies.

 Those measurements are undoubtedly very small. The human ear is an incredible instrument with truly remarkable dynamic range capabilities. A trained ear can instantly discriminate when there is a phase, frequency, or amplitude anomaly at work in a sound system that is completely inaudible to an untrained ear, even when that anomaly is pointed out repeatedly. 

 It is precisely by this training that I discovered that the channels of my SAC amp were wired out of phase with one another the instant I first heard it. Yet SAC themselves had produced who knows how many copies with the same defect and for who knows how long they’d been on the market, yet nobody said a word. They simply assumed that the amp didn’t sound very good I guess and sold them off to one another quietly hoping it would all go away. When I first noticed the problem and corrected it in my amp, I published my findings, and even those who sold the amp commercially, denied that such a thing could possibly be, for quite some time. As I persisted in my assertion, eventually one vendor actually checked with the factory and found that my finding was indeed true.

 My point is that some of us indeed hear things that are VERY real, and VERY repeatable, even though they aren’t heard by everybody. Eventually people figure out how to measure and quantify those subtleties that we hear.

 For your edification I’ve enclosed something I posted in an earlier thread some time ago regarding the human ear’s remarkable sensitivity.

 Cheers!

 Psychoacoustics is an inclusive term embracing the physical structure of the ear, the sound pathways, the perception of sound, and their interrelationships. Psychoacoustics, quite a recent term, is especially pertinent to this study because it emphasizes both structure and function of the human ear. 

 The stimulus sound wave striking the ear sets in motion mechanical movements that result in neuron discharges that find their way to the brain and create a sensation. Then comes the question, "How are these sounds recognized and interpreted?" In spite of vigorous research activities on all aspects of human hearing, our knowledge is still woefully incomplete. 

 Sensitivity of the ear 
 The delicate and sensitive nature of our hearing can be underscored dramatically by a little experiment. A bulky door of an anechoic chamber is slowly opened, revealing extremely thick walls, and three-foot wedges of glass fiber, points inward, lining all walls, ceiling, and what could be called the floor, except that you walk on an open steel grillwork. 

 A chair is brought in, and you sit down. This experiment takes time, and as a result of prior briefing, you lean back, patiently counting the glass fiber wedges to pass the time. It is very eerie in here. The sea of sound and noises of life and activity in which we are normally immersed and of which we are ordinarily scarcely conscious is now conspicuous by its absence. 

 The silence presses down on you in the tomblike silence, the first 10 minutes pass, then a half hour. New sounds are discovered, sounds that come from within your own body. First, the loud pounding of your heart, still recovering from the novelty of the situation. An hour goes by. The blood coursing through the vessels becomes audible. At last, if your ears are keen, your patience is rewarded by a strange hissing sound between the "ker-bumps" of the heart and the sloshing of blood. What is it? It is the sound of air particles pounding against your eardrums. The eardrum motion resulting from this hissing sound is unbelievably small-only 1/100 of a millionth of a centimeter or 1/10 the diameter of a hydrogen molecule! 

 Is this awesome or what? 

 The human ear cannot detect sounds softer than the rain of air particles on the eardrum. This is the threshold of hearing. There would be no reason to have ears more sensitive, because any lower-level sound would be drowned by the air-particle noise. This means that the ultimate sensitivity of our hearing just matches the softest sounds possible in an air medium. 

 Accident? Adaptation? Design?

 That’s good science!!


----------



## setmenu

More food for the cable sceptics.
 I have just made up some new leads for my DIY phones[previous
 were senn cast offs] from Van Den Hul flexicon B4 cable.
 They certainly sound different....Must be my imagination eh?

 Lower Capacitance and resistance plus shielding, different materials etc than the senn item.


 Someone else ought to give this stuff a try say on the venerable
 old HD600.
 The cable is twin core 3.5mm od has reasonable flexibility and
 is easy to solder.
 Plugs could be a problem at the phone end though.

 The cable is also available silver cored too.

 OH and the B4 costs £5-6 per meter ,£15 per meter for silver.


 Setmenu


----------



## Poddy

Quote:


 _Originally posted by setmenu _
*Lower Capacitance and resistance plus shielding, different materials etc than the senn item. * 
 

To be fair to the objectivists that recognise this as an effect on the sound. Perhaps you should check out this site. http://sound.westhost.com/
 Go to the articles section and just read all he has to say. You may not agree with it but you would be stupid not to read all sources in front of you. As for me i am still undecided as to whether a cable can make a difference. But please before posting anymore in this thread read the article. Any feedback on it would be welcome please help me to see what you see. Are there flaws in his logic?

 Edit: Considering some of you may not want to read that whole site (your loss 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) i copy and pasted this from the preamble).

_A quick summary of the topics to follow (in the cable discussion, at least) would be ... 

 Power leads will rarely (if ever) have any effect on the sound, provided they are of reasonable construction and are not inducing noise into (unshielded) interconnects. The only exceptions are those that use filters of some sort, which will reduce the noise floor in areas where interference is a problem. 
 Speaker cables can (and sometimes do) sound different with a given amplifier and loudspeaker combination, even where they are well designed and of reasonable guage. Excluded are very thin or extremely silly combinations - these will always do something to the sound, rarely good. 
 Interconnects might sound different, but only if they use odd construction techniques. Generally speaking, all properly (sensibly) designed and well made interconnects will sound the same - excluding noise pickup which is common with unshielded designs. 
 This is not to say that some people will not derive great enjoyment from the fact that they have spent as much on their cables as mere mortals can afford for their whole system, but this is "enjoyment", and has nothing to do with sound quality. This is about prestige and status, neither of which affect the sound._


----------



## cyclingasronomer

why do people want to convince some of us that what we are hearing, we are not hearing!


----------



## Dusty Chalk

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Poddy _
 You may not agree with it but you would be stupid not to read all sources in front of you. 
 

I don't appreciate being called stupid, just because _I_ do not read what _you_ dictate. Quote:


 But please before posting anymore in this thread read the article. Any feedback on it would be welcome please help me to see what you see. Are there flaws in his logic? 
 

Yeah -- it's logic. I'm an engineer at heart (as opposed to the physics degree I hold).

 I guess the better way to differentiate it (and I'm going to make up a word for this) is theoretician vs. practicalist.

 I theoretician comes up with the theory, and may even invent an experiment, but it is the engineer who carries out the experiment.

 I listen with my ears. I can hear the difference. I don't need to read anything else.

 (Stupid, indeed!)


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Poddy _
*[size=xx-small]To be fair to the objectivists that recognise this as an effect on the sound. Perhaps you should check out this site. http://sound.westhost.com/
 Go to the articles section and just read all he has to say. You may not agree with it but you would be stupid not to read all sources in front of you. As for me i am still undecided as to whether a cable can make a difference. But please before posting anymore in this thread read the article. Any feedback on it would be welcome please help me to see what you see. Are there flaws in his logic?

 Edit: Considering some of you may not want to read that whole site (your loss 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) i copy and pasted this from the preamble).

A quick summary of the topics to follow (in the cable discussion, at least) would be ... 

 Power leads will rarely (if ever) have any effect on the sound, provided they are of reasonable construction and are not inducing noise into (unshielded) interconnects. The only exceptions are those that use filters of some sort, which will reduce the noise floor in areas where interference is a problem. 
 Speaker cables can (and sometimes do) sound different with a given amplifier and loudspeaker combination, even where they are well designed and of reasonable guage. Excluded are very thin or extremely silly combinations - these will always do something to the sound, rarely good. 
 Interconnects might sound different, but only if they use odd construction techniques. Generally speaking, all properly (sensibly) designed and well made interconnects will sound the same - excluding noise pickup which is common with unshielded designs. 
 This is not to say that some people will not derive great enjoyment from the fact that they have spent as much on their cables as mere mortals can afford for their whole system, but this is "enjoyment", and has nothing to do with sound quality. This is about prestige and status, neither of which affect the sound.[/size] * 
 

Simply stated, his logic is fataly flawed and his mind obviously closed, not to mention his ears. Try listening. It helps.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Hey, just last night I lied down to listen to some music in bed, and as soon as it started playing, I could tell that something was wrong... I checked the connections and found that I hadn't plugged the interconnect at the pcdp end all the way in... *plug*... muuch better 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Does this count as hearing a difference in interconnects? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 A cheap way to experiment with differences in interconnects would be to build your own ones...


----------



## setmenu

Well regarding my previous post.
 I now presume that Sennhieser actually use the cable to 'tune'
 the sound of the headphone judging by the difference between
 the Van den Hul and senn cable sound.

 The phones they originally came from [hd 45s I think?] would 
 not be benifited by the Van Den Hul.

 And how about this!
 Just inserting a short piece[3inches] of fat [by comparison] Siltech
 4/56 silver ic cable into the chain between the headphone
 lead and amp output by way of 3.5 mm jack plug connectors
 made a difference again....a nice one [the Siltech effect].
 A 3 inch piece!...... clearly audible to me.

 Add the above to the various changes that can be made to the transducers , ear cups etc [not even considering amps]
 and you have........

 Serious tuning ability here or a trip to the looney bin...you decide
 I can,t.

 Not entirely on topic but hell.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








 Setmenu


----------



## Satori

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Joe Bloggs _
*Hey, just last night I lied down to listen to some music in bed, and as soon as it started playing, I could tell that something was wrong... I checked the connections and found that I hadn't plugged the interconnect at the pcdp end all the way in... *plug*... muuch better 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Does this count as hearing a difference in interconnects? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 

No
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 just means it wasn't making a good connection


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Joe Bloggs _
*Hey, just last night I lied down to listen to some music in bed, and as soon as it started playing, I could tell that something was wrong... I checked the connections and found that I hadn't plugged the interconnect at the pcdp end all the way in... *plug*... muuch better 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Does this count as hearing a difference in interconnects? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



* 
 






 Well, we all have to start somewhere!!


----------



## Ricky

I much agree with what is said at Poddy's post, at http://sound.westhost.com

 Also:

  Quote:


 Yeah -- it's logic. I'm an engineer at heart (as opposed to the physics degree I hold). 
 I guess the better way to differentiate it (and I'm going to make up a word for this) is theoretician vs. practicalist. 
 I theoretician comes up with the theory, and may even invent an experiment, but it is the engineer who carries out the experiment. 
 I listen with my ears. I can hear the difference. I don't need to read anything else. 
 

But for your little experiment to be valid from a scientific point of view, has to be double-blind, sorry. That's how drugs efectiveness is tested, because that is the only reliable method.

 Bias is a BIG distortion factor when comes to detect differences in sound. Humans are prone to overdetect differences in sound. Bias has effect even at non-conscious subliminal levels, so even if you believe you are not biased, bias is something you simply can't control, as we are humans and not machines.

 I have had the experience. Some things I thought sounded very different, suddenly sounded very similar if not equal in some cases, when confronted with a properly done blind test. Why not just try it for yourselves? Afraid of doing it? Where's your curiosity? Who's mind closed?

 So, it's all about DBT's, but this thread was started before DBT banning. I won't troll at other threads (except maybe the DBT one  ) with this issue.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I think it's quite possible that some differences cannot be detected in a DBT but are still audible in more relaxed circumstances...

 Just because you can't detect the difference in a in a stressful DBT doesn't mean you can't detect the difference all the time. As you pointed out a lot of our cognition goes at the subliminal level. We may not be able to detect a difference when we consciously try to look for it in a short test--nevertheless it's entirely possible that our subconscious can pick out the difference...

 And not being able to see what you're listening to or even having your eyes covered may already be disconcerting enough to lower your discriminatory powers a long way...

 Having said that, in a non-blind test in a noisy environment, I haven't been able to convince myself that my discman sounded different from a Sony SCD-555ES SACD player. Now if I can take that as final proof that the two are performing on the same level, I can save myself a lot of money 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 And y'know, people perform very differently in DBT and ABX... do you go to r3mix.net or hydrogenaudio.org? Have you ever seen some published results of blind tests on different formats? There would be a few that can pick out all the different encoders and assign different scores for all of them (and sensible ones--like 5/5 for MPC and 1/5 for WMA and not the other way around...) while some can only pick out a few, and most gave 5/5 and never get listed in the results because this has no informational value.

 To put it bluntly, if you can't tell the difference in a blind test, you may just have tin ears, or you may just be no good working in a blind test. (like me actually 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Joe Bloggs _
*
 Just because you can't detect the difference in a in a stressful DBT doesn't mean you can't detect the difference all the time. As you pointed out a lot of our cognition goes at the subliminal level. We may not be able to detect a difference when we consciously try to look for it in a short test--nevertheless it's entirely possible that our subconscious can pick out the difference...
* 
 

Well, the test doesn't have to be short or stressful. It may be stressful but only because you're not used to them, are afraid of the result, etc. But as long as it is double-blind and level matched, you can do the test at any way you desire.

  Quote:


 *
 And y'know, people perform very differently in DBT and ABX... do you go to r3mix.net or hydrogenaudio.org? Have you ever seen some published results of blind tests on different formats? There would be a few that can pick out all the different encoders and assign different scores for all of them (and sensible ones--like 5/5 for MPC and 1/5 for WMA and not the other way around...) while some can only pick out a few, and most gave 5/5 and never get listed in the results because this has no informational value.
* 
 

Yeah, I visit those sites very often, and have seen those results. (I'm KikeG at there).

 Well, the main point in DBT tests is first to detect if there is a difference, just and only that. If you detect a difference, then and only then after that, you can rate or describe the difference if you want. And about identifying all the encoders, well, that is far above of what I'm talking here.

 As I'm sure you know, in these forums only ABX tests (one type of double blind tests) are accepted as proof of transparency or non-transparency of encoders.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

*sigh*

 The problem is, ABX / DBT may be like the 95% significance test in statistics--if it can't pass the test, there is still a good chance that the two are in fact different--it's just that you couldn't pick it out in your limited test.

 In the case of DBT in audio the problem is how to get the listener to perform at the same performance during the test as during his/her casual listening. Limited length and duration of sonic memory, difference in the environment from his / her normal listening environment, difference in psychological state, etc. all affect the end result.

 And at the end of the day, just because you can't pick out one from the other in a DBT doesn't mean you can't enjoy one more than the other when you're not doing DBT. *sigh*


----------



## Leporello

It is possible that there are differences between cables that cannot be detected in a blind test, but only in so-called sighted tests. What we need is evidence to support this claim. Possibility is not enough.

 It is also possible that a switch-box obscures the differences between cables. What we need is evidence to support this claim. Possibility is not enough.

 It is also possible that there are differences that cannot be measured, at least not yet. What we need is evidence to support this claim. Possibility is not enough.

 The burden of proof is on those making the claims.

 If we think our blind test was limited (for example too short) it is time to run that test again. If it was not valid in some other way, it is time to design a better test.

 Science is not only about making up interesting hypotheses (important as that may be). It is also about backing those hypotheses with evidence. There will be no proof in the absolute sense of the word. It is all about statistics and probabilities.

 If even discussing ‘DBT’ is to be prohibited on this forum, we might just as well add ‘evidence’ on the list of forbidden words. To speak of open mind…

 Regards,

 L.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*
 But for your little experiment to be valid from a scientific point of view, has to be double-blind, sorry. That's how drugs efectiveness is tested, because that is the only reliable method.
* 
 

Actually, this is only partially true. DBT is not used in drug testing where there might be adverse effects to withholding a particular treatment. It is also not used when there are side effects to a particular compound that make it impossible to disguise. Somehow, we come up with reasonably reliable methods of detecting efficacy anyway.

  Quote:


 Bias is a BIG distortion factor when comes to detect differences in sound. Humans are prone to overdetect differences in sound. Bias has effect even at non-conscious subliminal levels, so even if you believe you are not biased, bias is something you simply can't control, as we are humans and not machines.

 I have had the experience. Some things I thought sounded very different, suddenly sounded very similar if not equal in some cases, when confronted with a properly done blind test. Why not just try it for yourselves? Afraid of doing it? Where's your curiosity? Who's mind closed? 
 

The one thing that I can absolutely, positively guarantee is that if you have used DBT on yourself to convince yourself of the presence or absence of anything, you have not done a properly designed DBT. You have simply determined that you can't hear a difference in that situation, which by no means implies that there is no difference. If I do a DB visual perception test on my father, I can demonstrate that blue is perceived the same as green (He's color blind). If you use DBT on yourself, and have not detected a difference, have you proved anything beyond your own inability to perceive? Have you even proven that?

 The first thing you need, before you go any further in conducting a DBT, is a sample of the population of interest of appropriate size. If you've actually done a DBT properly, how have you conducted your sample size calculations? 

 Jude, my apologies for the response to the troll.


----------



## Leporello

Hirsch, 

 Please correct me if there is something wrong with my reasoning: we need appropriate-sized population samples only if we want to make generalizations "into" that population (sorry about my English...)

 However, for a given individual it would be sufficient if he/she scored in a blind test in a statistically significant way repeatedly.

 This would be evidence enough, that this particular individual is able to differentiate between cables. So far, I have never seen anybody provide this kind of evidence.

 Regards,

 L.


----------



## Hirsch

Statistics is for the most part about populations. Take a single individual, and give that person 1000 trials. Assume that person gets the right answer 510 times. Any mathematical analysis you attempt will tell you that this falls within the realm of chance. The person cannot tell a difference... 

 Now take 1000 people, and have them all score between, say 505 and 515 out of 1000. You'll get a very powerful statistically significant effect indicating that as a group, this sample is scoring higher than chance. They can tell a difference, despite the large number of mistakes made.

 Now, can that original person who scored 510 out of 1000 actually tell the difference? Who knows? Probably not even the person himself. You have to run an appropriately sized experiment to tell you what that score means.


----------



## Anders

I am a little reluctant to throw me into this discussion on DBT (double blind test). However, I think that I have a point that has not be expressed yet. I will begin with my conclusion: 

*The only DBT that may be useful for an audiophile is the one you do on yourself!!! *

 If you can accept the following, reasonable assumptions (I will not prove them), you will understand why.

 1. Results will depend on the choice of cables. With some sets of cables, very few or noone will hear any difference at all. With other sets many more will hear a difference.
 2. Results will depend on the selection of test subjects. Some subjects will repeatedly hear the difference, some most of the time while others never will surpass the statistical probability of guessing.
 3. There is a phenomenon called experimentation bias, meaning that the result of a DBT can be screwed by differences between an artifical experimental situation and real-life situations. I don't say it would be impossible, but I have never felt deep engagement in music when A-B-ing.

 With regard to differences in 1 - 3, you can get great variation in the results of DBTs. 
 Let's assume that you find a DBT that convincingly shows that there is a difference between Radio Shack bulk, Kimber PBJ and Cardas Neutral Reference. This means that there is a statistical difference between the ratings of these cables for a group of listeners. 
 But you still don't know anyting about these essential questions:
 A. Do I belong to the group of persons who can hear differences between cables?
 B. If I can hear differences, would my priority be the same as the group mean?
 C. If I have the same priority and Cardas is put on top, is it worth the price difference?
 D. Should I only choose between the cables that are tested in DBT? 

*The conclusion is: If you think that DBT is necessary: OK, but the only meaningful way is to do it on yourself.* 

 A second conclusion it that Jude made a wise decision when banning DBT discussions.

 Finally, I will shortly explain why cable DBTs are pseudo-scientific. DBT is a scientific method but something does not become science by just using the method. DBTs of a lot of cables may, if properly conducted, accumulate knowledge, but a very specific knowledge. A common demand in science is that the experiments are connected to theoretical formulations or at least are generalisable. The state of knowledge in this area seems to be far from this stage. I don't know if these physical, physiological and psychological processes are too complex. This is probably one reason, another can be that there are other areas of research that are regarded as more essential for purely scientific reasons or practical purposes. At least one thing is clear, noone will get even a buck of research funding just for throwing in some cables in a DBT.


----------



## MusicJunkie

I have a really stupid question....

 What is DBT??


----------



## Anders

Recently I noticed this acronym on the forums listning without understanding it until I read the "about cables" thread. It is double blind test, mostly used in medical research on pharmaceutics, where it is the most appropiate procedure.
 I have added this to my previous post for readers who haven't read the whole thread.


----------



## Satori

While by no means is it acurrate(but it makes me happy), I've gone to several shops that have a nice couch setup in a listening room and have had one of the employees switch pieces of equipment without me watching and the results are pretty good. No I'm not talking about cables, but with other components. It does seem to be the best way to determine what to spend your money on. 

 I mean to be honest can you trust any of the reviews around? To many people have a bias based on the brand names. Look at all the Team whatevers around here. And once you get over $50 or so an interconnect the differences become smaller and I would guess preconceived ideas win out.

 Just my thoughts.


----------



## Hirsch

This time I really am going to honor the rules and be silent. My apologies once again for failing to do so earlier.


----------



## Anders

Hirsch, this was not an argument with you. I don't mean that one can do the DBT alone, at least two assistants are needed!
 Some of the thinking was inspired by you, but the formulation was not precise enough.


----------



## cyclingasronomer

i am honestly trying to figure out why some people keep telling us we don't hear a difference. are they really trying to convince us that what we hear, we don't? or are they trying to tell others not to listen to us, and not to listen to their own ears? it seems to me, that if one doesn't believe that anyone can hear a difference, he would decide to go to another site and talk to others who don't want to believe those of us who do, and who don't want to listen for themselves. i don't mean this to be a sarcastic jab, just an honest thought. why not just encourage them to listen. if one doesn't hear, he doesn't. why bring science and philosophy into a defence of wanting to remain ignorant of what one could hear if he tried. i don't mean ignorant as an insult, just the state of not knowing what one might hear if one listened. this is a site for listeners. why are we arguing about theory instead of discussing what we hear? philosophy and science are fun and interesting, but this is not the purpose of this site. or maybe i'm wrong. i guess i should take the advice of the last writer and shut up!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
*
 Well, the test doesn't have to be short or stressful. It may be stressful but only because you're not used to them, are afraid of the result, etc. But as long as it is double-blind and level matched, you can do the test at any way you desire.

 Yeah, I visit those sites very often, and have seen those results. (I'm KikeG at there).

 Well, the main point in DBT tests is first to detect if there is a difference, just and only that. If you detect a difference, then and only then after that, you can rate or describe the difference if you want. And about identifying all the encoders, well, that is far above of what I'm talking here.

 As I'm sure you know, in these forums only ABX tests (one type of double blind tests) are accepted as proof of transparency or non-transparency of encoders. * 
 

Ricky,
 It would be virtually impossible to set up an uncompromised DBT with these cables, unless you had a complete uninitiated, non-hi-fi person conduct the test. The cables themselves are very different looking physically to the point that it would be impossible to disguise them, and further, it would be impossible to introduce a switching mechanism that in and of itself would not further degrade the sound and obfuscate differences. If you could achieve a true DBT without compromise, I would be most interested in participating.


----------



## Dusty Chalk

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Ricky _
 But for your little experiment to be valid from a scientific point of view, has to be double-blind, sorry. That's how drugs efectiveness is tested, because that is the only reliable method. 
 

You're overusing the concept of science here. This isn't a courtroom, I do not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt yada-yada-yada-blah-blah-blah.

 The extrapolation of this is that I can make a claim that I can hear the difference between Black Sabbath and Holst, and you'll come back and say, sorry, that opinion is not valid unless you've done a double-blind test.

 Sorry, you're wrong. There are some differences that are wildly enough different that one does not need a DBT to believe they are different. I'm saying I have two pairs of cables (not all of them, just the two at the most extremes, as the most extreme example) that are so wildly different sounding that you do not need a DBT to be able to tell the difference. Nor your preference.

 And I'm also telling you that your opinion is not valid until you've actually listened to some of these cables. You can quote all the theory you want at me, but without _practical experience_, your opinion is worthless. Quote:


 So, it's all about DBT's, but this thread was started before DBT banning. I won't troll at other threads (except maybe the DBT one  ) with this issue. 
 

Ummm...that's not how it works. The whole forum is supposed to be DBT-free...and...uh...(suddenly, Dusty realizes he is guilty himself)...uh, sorry Jude...methinks this thread should have been closed before I got here, no? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			











 Zen question for you -- you're making a claim that DBT is the only way to prove something. How could I possibly prove you wrong? You can't DBT DBT-vs.-non-DBT...


----------



## dvw

I don't think the debate between the relevancy of DBT is useful in the context of cable. Neither camp can convince the other camp on the test.

 One important point nobody mention is how great the difference is. If the difference is like black and white, then DBT could be useful. But if the difference is like ash white vs bone white, then DBT will be like testing your memory. There is a difference but the result will depend on the individual.

 So you might prefer bone white over ash white over a long period, but you might not be able to tell in a DBT. So what.

 This is really up to the individual that spends his own money.


----------



## MacDEF

Ricky, you seem to only respond to selective posts. Even thogh I don't necessarily agree that DBT is always the best method for testing audio, I'll put it here quite plainly: I've done DBT with cables, with clear results: there is a difference.

 If you're interested, here's how it was done: a very good CDP with two outputs, connected via two different sets of cables (cheap RS and good after-market) to a Max (which has two inputs). I hooked up the cables so that the person doing the switching didn't know which was which. I put on my headphones facing the opposite direction. The other person sat in front of the Max, reached behind, and flipped the switch back and forth, keeping track of whether the position was "up" or "down."

 Is that not enough to convince you?


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by MacDEF _
*Ricky, you seem to only respond to selective posts* 
 

No, what happens is that I don't have much time to do this, so I can't respond to everybody.

 I will respond you in a more extense post in the few next days, it's 1:15 night at here.


----------



## HD-5000

jude, I think that you shouldn't completely ban the use of DBT in judging cables. Maybe it doesnt show all the subtle differences that cables make, but at least you should give people the option to use that. It can be a useful way to compare differences in audio equipment without the preconception that the more expensive expensive cable will be better. I thought this forum was a place where people can freely post their opinions?


----------



## Ricky

Quote:


 _Originally posted by dvw _
*So you might prefer bone white over ash white over a long period, but you might not be able to tell in a DBT. So what. *
*


DBT's I'm talking are about being able to detect a difference, not to determine preference.*


----------

