Prana-Bindu Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 To prevent this hopeless discussion from being drowned out by all this friendly, conciliatory language, please consider this approach: What measurements is the Scientific Method Society waiting for before they'll admit that cables make an audible difference? It appears that these slide-ruler types want some kind of proof before they'll concede that cables can make an difference. The differences of which we speak are already presented by Believers in the language of sensory perception: "quieter background", "sharper imaging", "tighter bass", "faster dynamics", "smeared transients", etc. What kind of vocabulary do the white-lab-coat types require? What's the measurement(s) that is/are associated with a lower or higher noise floor? What electric phenomena are associated with well-defined transients? If we answer these questions, we'll be closer to the kind of certainty required by these math geeks. How do the engineers here describe the smearing of transietns in numbers and variables? Would any of you be able to read and understand a mathematical exegesis of variance in cable performance (as originally set forth in the language of sense-perception)? I know I wouldn't last two equations.... If you WOULDN'T understand a mathematical proof, why do you demand one? At some point, you have to place faith on one kind of vocabulary or another. It may still be a debate whether wires are just wires, but faith IS faith IS certainty. And yes, faith IS improved/maintained by practice (that's one of the reasons churchies still have to go to church). Let the belittling begin!! ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 Prana, I personally am not looking for mathematical proof. As I have stated numerous times, any contolled, verifiable and repeatable listening test(s) where the listener(s) does not know which component (in this case cables) they are listening to and volume levels are matched between components would work for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Delaflor Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 Really interesting discussion, to say the least. But Im not really concerned by the cables. What I really see (and amazes me) behind all this discussion is the old "I am right you are wrong". Science can deal with all the problems that have arised in here, and this is because science is just a methodology to test claims. True, not all the people who make scientific tests deal with all or most of the variables involved, and this may be specially truth when dealing with subjectivity. Still, one can design a set of experimental conditions that will lead us to the conclusions we all want. First of all, we need to start with specific and well designed questions, then we need to understand fully which are the variables involved, and only then we can design a proper methodology to make the relevant experiments. Now, if this sounds appealing, it could be useful for this discussion that believers and not believers joined to define the question, and then we all be prepared to deal with the next steps... This message has been edited by Manuel on 01-21-2002 at 12:38 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mace Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 Wow.. some thread. I have a 12 year old 25' run of monster run o' the mil (approx. ten gauge size) which was very corroded and the housing broken down and gooing up the wire. I finally got some new wire. Lowe's 12 gage and run o' the mill Monster 10 gage stuff off the roll (it's even time corrected! whatever in the world that can possibly mean...). Each was was 25'. Anyway, before testing all three wires I thoroughly cleaned my posts on KLF-30's and amp (alcohol and Q-Tips) as well as the old bare wire. I tried all three 2 times each for about 20 minutes a time with various music (organ, concerto, techno, metal, blues, classical guitar, dance). Well, it *seemed* that my dirty old wire sounded much better than before (after cleaning). And it seemed that the new moster sounded best and the Lowe's the worse. Why seemed?? Because it took so long to change out wires (I did by hand with bare wire connections) that I was never really sure if I remembered accurately. Anyway, the Lowe's seemed harsher and shrill and the new monster had more life and was more transparant than the old (more goosebumps). So, I stuck with the new Monster in white (which my wife likes better) and took back the Lowe's. I may try bi-wiring with new and old Monster if I get a chance. Things I noticed: I hiccuped a couple of times while listening and it was funny how the sound changed. I have a slight head cold and after blowing my nose the sound was different. I'm not kidding (I suppose a ear passage became more open or something). Also, prior to this I did a bunch of experimenting with speaker placement and testing my room acoustics. I would conclude that the room acoustics and listening/speaker position have a much greater affect than the differences between these wires. Now, is that saying that the real expensive wire wouldn't make a huge difference? No, not at all. Pyschological effects: I really can't say with certainty that my predisposition did not affect what I perceived. I mean, it took a while to clean up the old wire and all the posts and the Q-tips were really quite dark and dirty! Certainly that made a huge difference, right? The new Monster, with its time correction and dipole technology must really be better than that Lowe's crap which cost about 1/4 the price, right???? right??!!??? I dunno... even after doing some experimenting I still don't know if wire makes a difference or not... and I'm a poorer man for it (stuck with the new Monster). How's that for a decisive opinion on the topic?? I guess part of the reason I stuck with the new monster was that the old looks pretty bad through the casing, very spotty and crappy looking. Plus, deep down I want to see if bi-wiring makes a bit of difference (which I don't understand how it could). QUESTION: What is the "double" in Double Blind Test?? Later, Mace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Mace, I believe the "Double" in DBT means that neither the tester or the listener knows which component is being tested at any given time. Mdeneen, Yes, I know there is a lot of statistical and mathematical analysis of DBT results. However, I took Prana to mean that if someone came up with a mathematical equation that showed some type of electrical characteristic of a cable, would that be proof of there being a difference in the way the cable would sound when compared to another cable. That would not be the type of proof I would be interested in. In fact, many cable manufacturers already supply such "proof". This whole topic basically revolves around whether there are any differences that can be heard, and a listening test that at minimum meets the two criteria I described is what I would consider a valid test of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prana-Bindu Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 The test should ask the right questions. I'm not comfortable with just asking "Do you notice any differences?" or "What is different about this sound than the last you heard?". The differences cables make are too subtle and require a practiced ear to hear: transients, soundstage, background noise, dynamics, etc. The questions should be more like "How do the transients compare?" and "Is there a difference in the decay times?" and "How do the widths of soundstages compare?" and "Is there a difference in low-level detail?". Otherwise, it would be too easy to ignore such details and to notice no difference. Also, all cable should probably be terminated with banana plugs, to speed up the waiting intervals. Why would the ignorance of the person administering the test make any difference in a cable comparison test? As long as they shut up about it and sometimes pretended to switch cables without actually switching (listener blindfolded), the test should be sufficiently bias-proof, right? Maybe next time people make the pilgrimage to Hope, Arkansas, Klipsch would be willing to host such a test? There may be other factors that make the test more difficult. For example, what if some component combinations aren't that sensitive to cable switches? I have read that the Audio Refinement Complete is very sensitive to cable choice.... The room would have to be set up so as not to get in the way, etc. It's already too much to think about. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Delaflor Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 I beg to differ. I think we must DISCARD any subjective-sensorial questions right from the beggining. Humans are not a reliable source of information regarding his own internal states. If one is going to ask "does this sounds better than this?" one is really asking a personal opinion. Now, you say that questions like "How do the transients compare?" are better. But no. What is the reference (I mean absolute, non relative reference) in what is a "transient" or the "soundstage"? If you say that a human opinions or feelings, then the hole argument is lost. So, the right questions should be based on the external objective plane, common to every listener in the world. Now, how to translate such terms as "depth of soundstage" to the objective plane? That is a really good question to start! This message has been edited by Manuel on 01-22-2002 at 12:08 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 If this thread reaches five pages, I will put a bullet in my own head! Some might rechoice. I am weighing options. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 No way, dude! MY CABLES ARE BETTER! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 My cables sound better than mdeneen's cables! kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manuel Delaflor Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Lol mobile Excellent post mdeneen, I think this should make clear what is a good set of tests to prove (or unprove) any claims. What I would still like, is a quantifiable definition of those oscure terms that most audiophiles always say. Of course I understand them, but as soon as one digs in what they REALLY are, they appear to be composed by nothing but faith and opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prana-Bindu Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Using the chosen test system, the various units we seek to measure (soundstage, detail, stability, noise, etc.) can be identified using a signal specifically designed to show each unit through a well discernible range. For example, use digital signal processing to alter the size of the soundstage on a test signal prior to the listening test for soundstage size. In other words, use a signal that clearly shows a narrow soundstage and follow it with a signal clearly showing a much bigger soundstage. Then explain to the subject the difference he/she just heard: "that's what we mean by soundstage width, got it? Now listen for that in the following test...." That would probably suffice. If we get this thread longer than that obnoxious "All your base are belong to us" thread, we can all be proud. ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc1091 Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Geeze. I can't believe that I've missed this thread. Of course I haven't read through the entire thing, so forgive me if I sound like an old broken record: I used to think that cables (as long as you purchased relatively thick cable that didn't oxydize a lot) made relatively little difference. I then had my eyes opened by a local audio store that was nice enough to let me take home a pair of MIT Terminator2 cables to try. The difference was immediate and like night & day. After having tried them, I could not go back to average cable. I purchased MIT terminator 2 Bi-Wire cables. Since my purchase, I added a Rotel 200 WPC amp. I found that the improvement that the amp offered was just as dramatic. Removing the MIT cables, and running the speakers with normal 12 gague wire from the Rotel, I notice less of a difference than I did when I switched the wires when running the speakers through my 85WPC Denon Receiver. So I think that oodles good clean power does have a lot to do with your quality of sound. But I do insist that the cables do make a difference (I can't go to a high volume sales audio store like Ultimate Audio and listen to anything anymore because it doesn't sound good). Let your ears show you the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 cc1091---But your MITs have some kind of a filter, possibly EQ, built in, I don't think anyone's argueing that you can't hear the effects of filters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 I've been reading this post for several days now, and like most, (especially Mobile) can't tear myself away from it! And although, darn it, I fall into the category that "can" hear the difference ( or think I can, yes, I bought Audioquest, interconnects and speaker cables, but not without a moneyback guarantee!) I think, without sounding trite,it comes down to this. It's your money, and your opinion, and your ears ..so if you like it, go for it. If you don't, well..don't! It's like that channel on TV..don't complain about it, change channels..we could argue all day about how we perceive the content of the show being viewed..but we all have the same choice. Do it or don't. Leave it on..turn it off. There ain't a gun to the head. Speaking of which, Mobile, since you post some of the more clever replies on this board..don't do it. There's so many more subjects on which you can enlighten us! Steve ------------------ Happiness is coming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Greenway Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 I may have been a little gruff on my previous reply so I must repent my evil ways. I have recently (they shipped today!)purchased some KLF-30's and a KLF-C7. The 30's were a trade-in on some new Montana's so I got them at half of list and the C-7 was new in box. I had the dealer put in a new pair of 7 ft bi-wires in one of the boxes(not free). I ain't going to know what they sound like with zipcord wires. I am just going to assume that they sound better than my Heresy's(they are getting demoted to rear surrounds)because of the new wire. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soeren Basboell Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 A different point of view on the interface between cables and amplifiers. Some years ago I was using a little (ca 6W) class A SS on my khorns and laScala and it worked reasonably well. Then i moved to another place, which is about 300 meters from an 800W 2MHz SSB maritime transmitter belonging to our coast radio. Now I had the pleasure of listening to other peoples telephone conversations, even without paying for it, although you need a little training in order to understand SSB. But the announcements on 2182 kHz AM was of beautiful quality. Sometimes I could hear it even when the amplifier was off! ... These speakers are sensitive. The problem was the classical, that these signals can go back into the amplifier via the feed-back network and then we have reinvented the crystal radio we used to build as kids. For me the solution was not to manipulate the amplifier but to use some very well screened microphone cables of good, but not exotic quality. I still live happily with that although I now use a much better amplifier which I guess is immune to that kind of radiation as the output is balanced. Some day when I can overcome my laziness I will try some DIY cables but I am in no hurry. Anyway I have the advantage that I can just phone the radio station and ask them to send a test signal. My point is here that a part of the cable problem could be sensitivity to radiation more than transmission of the signal. I guess that I live in a relatively noise free environment here in this little eastern greenlandic settlement, but with one very strong noise source. Fortunately it makes it very easy to identify when you can recognise the voices. I guess that in US and Europe there is a lot of noise which though not audible could give some intermodulation products which can fall down into the audible range in some amplifiers. Here it could be heard or felt as lack of clarity combined with aggressiveness. Think it over Søren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 An amusing story as always, Søren. Unfortunately, with this crew here, these kinds of stories do very little in the way of "good" since they are looking for scientific proof or all things "cable" or otherwise. The fact that you "heard" this means very little more then a polite chuckle or calculated shrug, especially without a proper scientific method behind it. Do you think it possible to submit some scientific data along with your story next time? Perhaps some footnotes? Alas, and more importantly, did you hear this purported interference while wearing a blindfold or without knowledge that a station was indeed within range? I am sorry to trouble you here but the inherent knowledge that there IS, in fact, a station nearby could have swayed your perception, thereby fooling the naive mind into thinking that The Cure recording of "The Blood" was actually an SSB broadcast warning for a GALE over the North Sea! Frankly, it is all quite troubling. Indeed, I am not sure this is actually mdeneen writing in under a manufactured name.... Søren and mdeneen sort of "sound" alike... Indeed, I dont really think I can tell the difference. The do LOOK a bit differnt. But ...YES!!! If I am honest, I CANNOT tell the difference between these transmissions! passage of time.... passage of time..... OK, I just conducted an experiment (see passage of time between last sentence and this one). I just doned a blindfold and told my lovely wife Audrey to put up a mdeneen post and a Søren post, changing at varied intervals! I must be honest. At first, I thought I could "FEEL" the difference as the mdeneen post emitted what I felt to be a strange hummmmmm.... While the Søren post seemed a tad more expansive..quieter, perhaps. (*1)But in the end, I found myself picking the mdeneen post and SCREAMING Søren!!!! Imagine my dismay! Even my wife was crestfallen. Alas, it all looked the same to me with my eyes covered. And the hum from my old EICO's failing PS caps obscured all things positive, including the sound of my wife quietly shutting the door and leaving with our next door neighbor, who happens to have "bigger cable." Oh Lord. kh *1 - uttered at 3:25am and recorded with Nakamichi Demagnetizing Wand which was turned off and moved in at a spiral over arms length from head. Nakamich calibrated to EST and warmed up from 0200 untill 0320. Right hand used for both measurements. see revision date below for time stampf>s> This message has been edited by mobile homeless on 01-24-2002 at 05:39 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 You have documentation or does this come from limited experience? kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prana-Bindu Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 It IS odd how we believe everything we see and hear on the television, but refuse to acknowledge the stated perceptions of so many on this and other forums confirming the influence of cables. As my practiced colleague mobile homeless might say, exactly HOW do you KNOW that Paula Zahn is a human being, not some kind of sexy Replicant? ------------------ May the bridges we burn light our way.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.