Do speaker cables make any difference?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
K

keladrin

Member
Joined 2005
rdf said:



This is somewhat contradictory. If the ear is a capable instrument "to carefully sculpture a sound that is pleasing to the beholder", I don't see why it loses that capability when judging a re-creation of that pleasing sound vs. a creation. A listener who has learned to differentiate the nuances of a great instrument doesn't become ignorant in front of a pair speakers. If a system masks or obscures those nuances who better to make that call?
Click to expand...

The meaning of my quote has unfortunately been distorted (much like sub-standard sound reproduction). It is the role of the musician I refered to as the sculpturer, not the ear. Of course the ear should behave the same whether listening to a live performance or a recording - this is the very reason that a recording should try and approximate the quality of the live performance.

Agreed they rarely do. My point is if we just accept they never do and cant ever then we will sound reproduction will never progress as this is the most challenging and ultimate aim. An artificial enhancement of the sound can be beneficial but this is relatively easily achieved compared with the goal of authenticity.
 
rdf

rdf

Member
Joined 2004
The section I quoted was your response to Panicos K's statement below:


"Johan,in your last post you said 1)...human hearing is a very poor and inconsistent measuring sense.However,humans,it is with this sense that they invented,tuned,refined,and hear their musical instruments,and nothing else.I don't have any doubt(although I cannot prove it scientifically)that a violin's true colors are more correctly heard by my ears than anyone's measurement equipment."
Click to expand...

Since Panicos K expicitly specified the inventing and tuning of musical instruments it was a reasonable interpretation, more hitting the wrong note than distorted reproduction.
 
M

macgyver10

Member
Joined 2006
keladrin said:

So are we ready for a vote on whether we are believers or disbelievers in the cable 'myth'?
Click to expand...

Don't know that it matters, but I'll happily place my vote with this caveat: If no measurable difference in signal level and frequency response at the speaker terminals is present, I do not "believe" that a difference can be heard between different speaker cables.

That's my current position, but as I've said before, I'm more than willing to be proven wrong through controlled double blind tests.
 
Panicos K

Panicos K

Member
Joined 2006
And because I accept tha t my English cannot be as good as yours,I will just say that what I mean when I use the word mind,is not the same as you, who claims that we imagine things that are not there,but for shiver or a tear that an amazing cartridge,cable or speaker causes to the listener.Open up your mind because music has not only to do with ears.Don't ask me if I have the perfect system.Ask me if I ever cried listening to it.Measure that if you can.
 
C

chrisb

Member
Joined 2002
Edited from a white-paper on Eminent Audio (Glen Croft Instruments) website:

Audio experimenters should take note that the psychology of experimentation is hazardous by its very nature.
For example, the fact that the measuring instruments for sonic precision and musicality are human ears demands due consideration.
In themselves, these are prone to fatigue and have perhaps 4-6 good hours of active usage in such intense bouts of comparative analysis.

Furthermore the general megalomania that accompanies the exaggerated artistic temperaments and inflated egos surrounding all matters Hi-fi encourages the perspective that upon experimentation a groundbreaking discovery is sure to ensue.

Of course, often experimentation leads to disappointment but experience, whilst not guaranteeing success can at least discourage fruitless pursuits that is commonplace amongst so many 'frustrated' amplifier designers. It is much easier to make something sound different than to make something sound definitively better.
Click to expand...



Of course this leads to the circular argument of how to quantify, qualify or most significantly, attain concensus on the "expertise" around which so many of these master-de-bates revolve.

To paraphrase some forum poster - sooner or later we need to stop believing everything we think.
 
phn

phn

Member
Joined 2004
Panicos K said:
And because I accept tha t my English cannot be as good as yours,I will just say that what I mean when I use the word mind,is not the same as you, who claims that we imagine things that are not there,but for shiver or a tear that an amazing cartridge,cable or speaker causes to the listener.Open up your mind because music has not only to do with ears.Don't ask me if I have the perfect system.Ask me if I ever cried listening to it.Measure that if you can.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's a logical fallacy. Actually, there are numerous logic fallacies--more than I have the interest or energy to deal with. This kind of "argument" is a waste of everybody's time. Then we can just as well listen to the cable peddlers. To quote Alasdair Patrick of Audioquest: "Of course, you can choose not to believe, but you'd be missing out on so much."
 
M

macgyver10

Member
Joined 2006
Panicos K said:
And because I accept tha t my English cannot be as good as yours,I will just say that what I mean when I use the word mind,is not the same as you, who claims that we imagine things that are not there,but for shiver or a tear that an amazing cartridge,cable or speaker causes to the listener.Open up your mind because music has not only to do with ears.Don't ask me if I have the perfect system.Ask me if I ever cried listening to it.Measure that if you can.
Click to expand...


Oh, I thought we'd made some progress...

I've never disputed the music, just the nuts and bolts that reproduce it. They can be measured...

Actually so can your emotional state...but that's another forum.
 
rdf

rdf

Member
Joined 2004
chrisb said:
Of course this leads to the circular argument of how to quantify, qualify or most significantly, attain concensus on the "expertise" around which so many of these master-de-bates revolve.
Click to expand...

Questionable reasoning seems to be an unfortunate constant of this debate. Witness this report of the talk Brad Meyer gave to the Boston Audio Society (http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing.htm):


"The ABX box is designed to determine how reliably the listener can detect differences. Preconceptions affect perception and conclusions [in other words, not only is seeing believing, but believing is also seeing-Ed.], hence the need for single blindness. Double-blind testing is required because the tester almost invariably (and unpredictably) influences the test subject(s). One of many well-known examples occurred when a group of psychology students tested many subjects for IQ. The subjects were impartially tested for IQ beforehand, and then sorted into two groups with similar IQ ranges. The testers were told that group A was exceptionally intelligent while group B was not. For each group, the testers were to read the same script while administering the test. The result was that the group touted as smart to the test-givers scored statistically significantly better than the group labeled stupid. Somehow the testers conveyed their expectations about performance while reading the same instructions to the two groups, and the groups responded to the cues."
Click to expand...


Emphasis mine. Meyer's example was intended to demonstrate the requirement for a test being double-blind (no argument there) but in his test protocol completely ignored the larger lesson, even the unstated beliefs of testers has been acedemically shown to influence the result of the test.

The article further describes how, after making this statement, the proponents of the ABX - well known throughout the audio world as making the strongest statements about normally operating cables and electronics being audible identical - lead a group test which demonstrates normally operating electronics as being audibly identical. It’s a reasonable call the publicly stated purpose of this ABX demonstration was to demonstrate differences don’t exist, yet tester bias didn't appear to be considered in the belief ‘double-blind’ is good enough. These are far from stupid men who ignored their own warnings to others, they apparently just felt it didn't apply.
 
M

macgyver10

Member
Joined 2006
Panicos K said:
macgyver10,if it is for nuts and bolts I can measure it myself,and if I'm lucky and make some more progress,I might finally manage to measure the steel wire people in my grandfather's village,used to hang their underwear.
Click to expand...


Don't you just need to cut it to length and bend it into the appropriate shape?

It might make a good speaker cable, but we'd have to test it with the underwear dielectric and without. ;)
 
webescott

webescott

Member
Joined 2006
wescomei.com
Depends,
If your driving some low impedence speakers, electrostats, ribbons, I would opt for the manufactures recommended jumper cable size speaker wire. The rest of us who have normal speakers can save there money use 14-18ga zip cord. I remember a story about Bob Carver making monkeys out of some editors from a well regarded Stereo Magazine. They tested his amp and did not like it, so Bob said he would modifly it for a re-test, and with a double blind test they could not tell the difference between there reference tube amp and Carvers solid state. Bob had added a small RC network to the speaker output and connected the amp to the speakers with small diameter bell wire. In effect he was lowering the damping factor of his amp to mimick there tube reference.

Scott
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom