Another opinion about cables...

[jacksonbart]

I'll ask again.

Could someone please post here (not google) just one link to an article of a blindfolded test which confirmed that people can hear the difference between wires?

I'm not talking about differences in gauges. Based on the distance from the speaker to the amp, one should use the correct "thickness". Nobody's arguing that. I'm talking 13 cents per foot 12 gauge zip VS $100 per foot 12 gauge boutique.

Thanks again.

I can't, because I am unaware of one that exists. The desire to spend $$$$ on speaker cables is in the eye of the beholder. My ears aren't good enough for me to tell the difference.

[Fastlayne]

That was intense! Still, it really is an example of limited benefits. It would be frustrating to have a car that could never be legally driven on the roads out of 2nd or 3rd gear, not just the Bugatti.

[Fastlayne]

The part about the power conditioner was the most flawed to me because the company rep picked their product 2 out of 3 times. There should have been at least one more test which would result in 2/2, which is a guess, or 3/4, a more convincing majority.

[russ69]

Just remember, Amar Bose designed his 901 around his double blind test. His test results (doctoral thesis) showed his subjects could not hear a difference when the HF was removed. I'd say if you like Blose 901's then you'll like double blind tests and their results.

Thanx, Russ

P.S. I was a Bose 901 owner so I have a small clue on that subject. I don't concider 901s as hi-fi.

[Don Richard]

don't understand the practical difference for this test if they were asked which is better or if they could hear a difference

Controlled testing's goal is to develop objective data. "Better" implies subjective evaluation, which is essentially an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions, right?

[Don Richard]

"... Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker cable. Many audiophiles say they are equally good. I couldn't hear a difference and was a wee bit suspicious that anyone else could. But of the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable. ..."

Well now, I believe we might have solved this whole debacle of a "test". 14 ga. up against cables as thick as a thumb without proper level matching will result in slightly more acoustic output from the system with the thicker cables. There have been many properly done tests that show that people prefer a louder sound and think that it sounds "better". I believe PWK mentioned this phenomenon in one or more of his papers. We are talking about less than 1 dB difference, a difference easily detectable by a trained listener but not by a member of the general population. In a given system a slight bump of the volume control can easily reverse this perception. 10 ga. would have been a better choice for this test, or for one's own system.

[Guest " "]

" I tested a $2,000, eight-foot pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from
Monster Cable, which are as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge,
hardware-store speaker cable. Many audiophiles say they are equally
good. I couldn't hear a difference and was a wee bit suspicious that
anyone else could. But of the 39 people who took this test, 61% said
they preferred the expensive cable. ...""

to add some additional info to the above senerio...you need to understand what is being tested....a difficult point for many to understand...14 guage hardware store cable was not engineered to alter audio signals...seperate from the better, prefered, difference question....the monster sigma retro cables (which I have a pair of) are engineered to do something...not sure what it is...but the scientific test to validate this engineering is to measure the impedeance of the cables between + and - with the cables unconnected...plain cables would read infinite resistance...the monster sigma retro measure 100 ohms between the + and - while measuring what you'd expect from end to end....so what is causing this...is there an inductor wired across the + and -.....is there a resistor.....it's not a capacitor, or at least I don't think so..so if you take a speaker wire with an inductor/resitor/capacitor wired across it, why would you not expect for it to sound different....better is subjective...but is it different...many folks have a mental block that prevents them from acknowlegding that there could be a difference between plain wire...but these high end cables are not just plain wires...there's other crap in them.

[DrWho]

Frankly, "cost" is irrelevant to the argument. It is a red herring.

I agree.

We keep pretending we're talking about
science with this AB testing business. AB tests in audio - blind,
bouble blind or any other kind - depend on human memory for their
output data. Human memory is perhaps the most unreliable "instrument" a
scientist could choose by which to measure something. The very best neuroscientists can barely agree on how memory works, or even what it is.

The
number of factors that can influence (read change) memory from moment
to moment are too numerous to even list. They are both biological, like
emotions and physical processes, and external like environment and
other sensational input.

In principal I agree.....however....there are many other factors that people have no problems "remembering" in blind A/B listening. If there are differences that are so small to not be identifiable in a blind A/B, then I might suggest that they are of very little value compared to other differences that are easily identifiable.

[stan krajewski]

Nobody's arguing that.

Well actually, yes they are.

Read the blog in the post that started this thread. It's all all about hearing the difference for the price.

Lots of verbal points trying to be scored here. This is not an 8th grade debating class and I just don't feel like going there.

Notice how we still don't have one link to that one place that did an objective blindfold test.

I'm now wondering what the "red herring" really is.

[Mallette]

Problem with this is both sides have a hangup about "scientific proof." Heck, there is no "scientific proof" that Bach is better than Tiny Tim.

I keep it personal: if I can't hear it, it's irrelevant...that that doesn't mean it's not relevant to someone else.

I have personally seen a ghost. Many of you will say "no, you didn't. There is no scientific proof ghosts exist."

That's A. Correct and B. Irrelevant.

I've seen a ghost for which there is no scientific proof. So what?

To my knowledge, there is no scientific proof that gravity exists. There are theories, and there are measurements, but nobody has made any or made it visible or moved some from here to there.

I have said this before and I believe it:
There is no higher arrogance than to tell a person they didn't experience something.

Bear in mind you may simply be a hallucination in that persons dream, and if you think that statement is absurd I'd suggest you are not open minded and have forgotten that the stereo system over there isn't really black. Black exists nowhere but in your mind, along with red, green, blue and all the rest.

If none of the above makes sense, I'd suggest a study of basic (and I don't mean Phd stuff) physics and a read of a good translation of Lao Tzu.

It's all pretty well summed up by the Firesign Theatre:

"That's metaphysically absurd, man! How can I know what YOU hear?"

Dave

[Mallette]

If none of the above makes sense, I'd suggest a study of basic (and I don't mean Phd stuff) physics and a read of a good translation of Lao Tzu.

I second the recommendation of the Tao Te Ching, and I would add Fred Alan Wolf's "User's Guide to the Universe" as one of the better lay views into the sheer wonder of Quantum Physics.

We seemed to have reach an impasse as to what this discussion is about.

Indeed. Is it:

1. Given, that two cables, both with the electrical integrity and capacity to carry the signal, may have qualities that are imparted to that cable that are audible to the human ear and these differences can be quantified by available science.

or

2. Some people hear things that cannot be quantified by available science.

The problem is that both are going on at the same time and are mutually incompatible.

Dave

[Mallette]

Mark, that was simply outstanding and greatly reduces my opinion of myself.

It underscores what I was saying about "...available science" and strongly suggests that those who have a need for "proof" are probably more concerned that they are not hearing anything and feel the need to justify that.

Luckily, I don't have that problem. In fact, I am GLAD I don't have that problem because then I wouldn't be able to afford this passion. So, I am not only glad I can't hear these things, but I don't want to learn to hear them just to get my "Golden Ears" merit badge.

I really sense the joy of those who find a very special tube, cap, speaker wire, or interconnect that brings some new thrill to their listening, and I am happy for them.

I'd just like to find a few more decent recordings...

Dave

[Lonelobo]

Was the ghost you saw carrying any cables?

[Mallette]

Was the ghost you saw carrying any cables?

Really didn't examine it that long. Re-adjusted the rabbit ears and it went away.

Dave

[askbob1]

Wait, you can polish a turd?

LOL!! I guess then you could call monster cable hot chite on a silver platter, while the HD zipcord is a cold turd on a paper plate.......[]

[DrWho]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBj6PonX14A

[stan krajewski]

I have said this before and I believe it:

There is no higher arrogance than to tell a person they didn't experience something.

Dave

There is indeed a higher arrogance:

Tell a person you experienced something wildly out of the ordinary and then expect them to believe it without any proof whatsoever.

In closing, if one jumps off the Empire state building in nothing but their street clothes - they die (whether or not they believed in gravity).

[Mallette]

I have said this before and I believe it:

There is no higher arrogance than to tell a person they didn't experience something.

Dave

There is indeed a higher arrogance:

Tell a person you experienced something wildly out of the ordinary and then expect them to believe it without any proof whatsoever.

In closing, if one jumps off the Empire state building in nothing but their street clothes - they die (whether or not they believed in gravity).

You miss the point. If the person is reliable, you may believe that they believe they had it without expecting to have it happen to you. As to jumping off the ESB in street clothes, I'd bet along with you on a messy ending...but it might not happen. Don't know about the ESB, but a jumper from the Eiffel Tower survived and we'd have lost a bet on that one.

I make my decisions about what I accept from a person based on my assessment of their reliabilty, not on science. Science is what I would use to try to explain reliable testimony. For instance, I've given considerable study to Nicolai Tesla. Mark Twain wrote that he once walked into Tesla's lab and saw him levitated. I believe this, as the source is reliable and there is considerable evidence that Tesla developed science that has been lost.

Modern science dismissed his broadcast electricity schema as not practicable. However, no one has attempted it at near the scale he experimented and even he wrote that those scales where only about a 10th of the requirement for full functionality. His full scale experiment was never completed due to lack of funding and the ruins of it are enormous. Bear in mind that a mind as great as Edison's could neither comprehend nor accept the idea of alternating current. In fact, we don't know of any scientists at the time who appear to have understood it except Tesla.

The interesting thing is that it was his first idea about a better way to deliver electricity and was accepted because it was easily demonstrable. His broadcast method was a later concept that was not so easily demonstrable...though that doesn't mean it would not work. The tests were never completed.

Dave

[Don Richard]

I prefer science-based faith to faith-based science.

[Mallette]

I prefer science-based faith to faith-based science.

You'd need to explain the difference. Seems to me science-based faith is what you hypothesize with, and faith-based science is what you use to prove the hypothesis.

Dave