I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[Andre Visser]

Hi,
The one thing that frustrates me even more than less than perfect equipment is the lack of well recorded material.
Cheers,

Yes that is frustrating, let's hope when everybody get used to compressed music, they would start concentrating on sound quality again.

 

[Brett]

I read an interesting post on the Audio Asylum on this subject. The poster was Teresa Goodwin, who writes for Positive Feedback Online. She claims that her mother can hear cable differences from another room while doing the dishes.

We should all take a lesson from this and give these kinds of claims all the consideration they deserve .

Damn she's funny. From all the hissy fits and stupidity she's posted, she sure gives PF a lot of credibility.

 

[tnargs]

I presume you and all those you are referring to above are each and every one a millionaire courtesy of James Randi, for your demonstrably paranormal hearing.

Are you listening to the advice you are receiving here? *Everyone* hears (or more correctly thinks they are hearing) cable differences during sighted listening, but this listening has no validity as a test. As soon as the listening is conducted in a valid controlled testing environment, no one can hear differences in cables that are correctly specified for the purpose in basic engineering LCR parameters. This has been done. It has repeatability. This is the *true* "direct, repeatable observation" that you thought you were getting from sighted comparison.


For the above:
If good hearing is paranormal, tell us something normal. If those who hear differences are fould (fooled - edit) by their brain,then what are you, the chosen ones who can control your brain?

Good hearing is good hearing, I never said otherwise. But hearing cable differences is not possible unless some of the cables are not suited to the application.

If normal is to question your senses because you cannot measure(today) what you hear, then teach us the way to do the same.

I am not sure what your point is, but you imply that I said "it can only be heard if it can be measured". I didn't. It is a very weak argument to twist my words or even worse to make them up. I think you are not open to the message that I bring, purely as a messenger not as a priest. The message has nothing to do with measurement. The message is about hearing. The message says "if you know what you are listening to, you are listening to what you know". That is, by all means listen to audio reproduction systems in order to determine their accuracy, but do it in a properly controlled test environment.

If we were waiting from you to see or hear any progress, we would still be listening our music through the phonograph. Thank God the phonograph was not competently designed from the start.

This makes no sense. You have the opportunity to listen, as I do, to 7.1 audio in 24/96 with DSP, in a search for progress, but you choose to swap cables in uncontrolled tests and believe your sighted tests, with flagrant disregard for massive, conclusive, and overwhelming evidence of the invalidity of uncontrolled tests as established by 100 years of science, and yet *you* accuse *me* of resisting progress?? Let me guess, your favourite listening system is a record player into valves...?

I have done blind tests on cables where I was able to identify the four different IC cables used by name, every time. I perceived the sound differences the same in the blind test and sighted.

$1,000,000 (not mine) says you can't do that, unless some or all of the cables are so heroically misconceived as to be inadequate for the simple purpose of handling the signal properly in a basic engineering sense. Which may have been the case in your blind test. I think we (you and I) covered this about 1000 posts ago in this thread -- see post #1095 and #1530 and #1346.

Although I agree with some of the "advise", I believe it is possible to get the same results with sighted and blind tests.

Of course it is. Just test two things that are audibly different!

Excellent. Maybe you'll be the first one then to fulfill the request I make every time. Cite references for published tests and studies in scientific journals with one proviso; not one with an obvious and intentional tester bias loaded front end.

First things first. I am not the one claiming to hear the differences in cables with the same measured properties. Let the proponent offer proof. Surely you are not going to offer sighted tests as proof?

I answered this question in post #1385. But don't thank me for digging it up...

....Don't even get me started that in the Boston Audio Society examples as a group they already agree with the tester's expectations. That's science theater, not science. The ABX traveling circus is no better.

So if you have better examples, I would be truly grateful. Under the pressure of this perpetual argument audio 'Objectivists' are morphing into a group who, pre-defining themselves as scientific, believe they're a priori immune from auplater's objection. 'Scientific' isn't a voluntary club, membership entails a merit badge. Only following its draconian restrictions earns you one. It's the Achilles's Heel of so many so-called Objectivists, and unfortunately Randi and the Skeptics as well, a group for whom I once had a great deal of respect but who have grown skeptical of everything but themselves. Until they stop intentionally loading tests with tester bias - automatically discounting 'shootouts' and 'challenges' - their results settle nothing and have marginal utility at best. ...

See post #1023 in response to the anti-objectivist comments above. (Or I should say, re-read it, as you *have* read the thread, right?). I think the onus of proof is on the people who have nothing but sighted listening 'tests' to show.

 

[Panicos K]

tnargs,

Chosen cables are of course chosen because they are suitable for the purpose.I agree that good hearing is goog hearing.It is just possible that some may detect some more difference than others and I don't really see where the problem is.Ifind it 100% natural.
It would have been nice if we could measure everything.Measurements however are more important to the engineer as this way there is a proof.For the non-engineer true audiophile though they are not so important.

As I said in one post-and I am not the only one who said that-is that I believe that in the future we will have measuring equipment that will be able to measure today's "imagination".History proves that.

$1,000.000 simply says that all the differences one hears-maybe small-will surely lost or hidden in a plastic box full of switches,nasty wires etc...Connect some switches and some nasty wires in line with your system's wires(a system that of course you know very well)and tell us what you hear

In another thread,Panomaniac(I think)said that his application for an ABX test,had been rejected by Randi.If it was Panomaniac and watches this thread,maybe he can tell us what happened,as I cannot remember well.

And since you are asking,yes,after 30 years of musical experiences,my system today is a Turntable and Tubes primarily.
The only true progress I personally found all these years,are better analogue sources.

 

[Andre Visser]

Originally posted by tnargs
Good hearing is good hearing, I never said otherwise. But hearing cable differences is not possible unless some of the cables are not suited to the application.

Well, I and many I know can hear differences between high quality cables.

Originally posted by tnargs
The message says "if you know what you are listening to, you are listening to what you know".

My message; If you know what to listen for it become much easier to detect these differences.

Originally posted by tnargs
You have the opportunity to listen, as I do, to 7.1 audio in 24/96 with DSP, in a search for progress, but you choose to swap cables in uncontrolled tests and believe your sighted tests, with flagrant disregard for massive, conclusive, and overwhelming evidence of the invalidity of uncontrolled tests as established by 100 years of science, and yet *you* accuse *me* of resisting progress??

If you think 7.1 audio with DSP is progress in hi-fi, think again, they are created to sell more equipment and to make noise while watching movies.

Originally posted by tnargs
$1,000,000 (not mine) says you can't do that, unless some or all of the cables are so heroically misconceived as to be inadequate for the simple purpose of handling the signal properly in a basic engineering sense. Which may have been the case in your blind test. I think we (you and I) covered this about 1000 posts ago in this thread -- see post #1095 and #1530 and #1346.

As you say we went over this, if Randi is so sure of his stories, he can visit me anytime for free and I will show him on my system, he can even bring his own cables.

I believe I have named the cables that I have used, all four of them were of very high quality.

Originally posted by tnargs
First things first. I am not the one claiming to hear the differences in cables with the same measured properties. Let the proponent offer proof. Surely you are not going to offer sighted tests as proof?

First, show me different cables with the same measured properties, then we can discuss testing them.

André

 

[SY]

Let me guess, your favourite listening system is a record player into valves...?

Agggh, I've been hit by friendly fire!!!!!!! Medic!!!!!!!!

 

[Panicos K]

Agggh, I've been hit by friendly fire!!!!!!! Medic!!!!!!!!

We are not enemies SY

 

[SY]

Yeah, but I got fragged.

 

[Alan Hope]

$1,000,000 (not mine) says you can't do that, unless some or all of the cables are so heroically misconceived as to be inadequate for the simple purpose of handling the signal properly in a basic engineering sense. Which may have been the case in your blind test. I think we (you and I) covered this about 1000 posts ago in this thread -- see post #1095 and #1530 and #1346.

Of course - as has been pointed out before - none of us here are eligible for Randi's $1M. Or I would be right in there!

Why didn't he make his terms applicable to all-comers? What is he so afraid of? Perhaps deep down he secretly knows the truth!!!

Genuinely curious: Re measurements, are there any cables which measure differently TO A DEGREE THAT COULD POSSIBLY AFFECT THE SOUND in any audible way?

 

[jacco vermeulen]

Let me guess, your favourite listening system is a record player into valves...?

What's the beef ?
If not for favoring balanced phono stages i'd have no problemo with a vacuum cleaner, you're welcome to post a J.Nelson 993 schematic or give your opinion of an Aesthetix Signature.

 

[analog_sa]

Genuinely curious: Re measurements, are there any cables which measure differently TO A DEGREE THAT COULD POSSIBLY AFFECT THE SOUND in any audible way?

Not to the extent that cables simply get a signal from point A to point B. Even the ones with "network boxes" don't affect the audible spectrum in any meaningful way. The interaction with amplifying circuits is another matter. Still, this cannot explain obviously audible differences as between silver , copper and silver plated copper. Or between connectors.

 

[MJL21193]

Still, this cannot explain obviously audible differences as between silver , copper and silver plated copper. Or between connectors.

I can explain it: There isn't any difference, obvious or otherwise. You only believe you hear a difference because you equate a higher quality to the more renowned metal.
Simple, really.

 

[analog_sa]

With the fascination cable threads seem to hold for you it seems strange you haven't read about my disappointment with my first silver cable a few years ago.

 

[MJL21193]

...about my disappointment with my first silver cable a few years ago.

Was it installed backwards?

 

[Andre Visser]

With the fascination cable threads seem to hold for you it seems strange you haven't read about my disappointment with my first silver cable a few years ago.

I used to think that silver cables make a system sound harsch, later I realised that the problem wasn't with the silver cables, it was only showing faults in the equipment more easilly.

 

[Andre Visser]

I can explain it: There isn't any difference, obvious or otherwise. You only believe you hear a difference because you equate a higher quality to the more renowned metal.
Simple, really.

John, go and play with your simulator.

 

[analog_sa]

Actually i was expecting bright. My first silver interconnect (5 nines) sounded dull and no amount of forced break-in achieved anything. It was probably too thick for an interconnect. Major disappointment. Silver plated indeed sounded bright and generally unlistenable. The DH Labs solid core silver in foamed teflon otoh was really nice and very cheap. Still use it.

 

[MJL21193]

John, go and play with your simulator.

I'm a DIY guy, not a cable preacher. I design and build things here - what, other than chat about cables, do YOU do here?

Silver plated indeed sounded bright and generally unlistenable.

Perhaps you equipment stand could benefit from silver plating? I'd try it.

 

[rdf]

... you equate a higher quality to the more renowned metal.
Simple, really.

If only it were that simple and linear. My Van Den Hul MCD 102 Mk3 interconnects sat with the spare wires for years, never able to tolerate their sound, moved aside by various dirt cheap home brews. Not until stripping off the shield and jacket - incidentally discovering a chemical reaction between the two that turned the former black - and using them unshielded/twisted did they go back into the system. My favourite RCA connector right now is Rat Shack: ~ ten cents each, easily melted polystyrene shell and unplated tin conductors. Coupling caps: the big Russian silver micas, against everything I believed about caps since Jung/Marsh was first published.
One of most recent figurative shocks was replacing the broken gold plated pins on my speaker cables with cheap Audio Note silver spades. This was a pain-in-the-posterior repair job, not an exciting adventure in tweakdom. The pins were no longer usable. The audible difference was ridiculous for such a simple change, and completely unexpected.


Floobie dust it all still may be but of a nature more complex than the simple models propounded here.

 

[Andre Visser]

I'm a DIY guy, not a cable preacher. I design and build things here - what, other than chat about cables, do YOU do here?

Maybe true, I don't like to preach my opinions on subjects that I do not have experience of.