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

[Alan Hope]

Regarding my suggestion that R-Carpenter run his new cables for a while before judging them against his old ones ...

Originally posted by tnargs
why don't you do it?

I did with my own ICs - not a single 2 weeks holiday - but they ran non-stop for 3 weeks including a couple of weekends away. Or are you suggesting I offer this as a service?

[Andre Visser]

Originally posted by AJinFLA

Could you please be more specific and give a scientific explanation/definition as to "minimum quality" and exactly how this is "easily achieved"? Andre was to tell us how to design "revealingness", but has decided to keep the recipe secret, just like the colonel did
AJ

No, I choose to ignore you because you are clearly only looking for an argument, not to mention selective reading.

You were asked what system you have, no answer yet.

If you were really interested about "revealingness" you would have been more open minded and try to listen what others are trying to explain.

[tnargs]

Originally posted by salas

There was strong opinion by John Curl and others, including me, that ABX can be a trap considering the challenge put to right - left brain balance.
I don't say that you are wrong that in controlled tests, wire is transparent, I just say that even $100 SS amps could not be distinguished from Mark Levinson. I am very much afraid of being easily conclusive is all I say. Maybe our controlled approach and tools have flaws, as our personal subjective evaluations have for sure. Just maybe.

I still want to read the opinion and experience of Allen Wright on cable audibility and cable tech, if by chance he watches this thread.
He is very serious and tech inclined and we know his contribution as a member here. He has done down to earth work on cables.

Allen says about his cable cookbook on his site: "I believe cables are as important as any other system component, and bring you 15 years of my research on the subject."

John Curl blah blah, Allen Wright blah blah... let them write their own opinions. They have exactly the same standing as anyone else's opinion; they are opinions. I don't care how much knowledge and theory is in their heads: if they haven't tested those theories in properly controlled tests, it's not science. How do you suggest they test those theories? Do uncontrolled tests first, then work backwards to explain the result?

It's all very well to argue some theoretical basis for discrediting controlled tests, but how do you propose to test those theories? With uncontrolled tests?

I've heard the left/right brain argument: you can argue it either way. Argue argue argue. So how do you test it? Whoops!

Why did this criticism of controlled tests arise? Because people didn't like the answers! They contradict years of listening experience. Uncontrolled listening experience.

Surely I don't have to argue the weaknesses (total invalidity would be a more accurate description) of uncontrolled tests? Any uncontrolled test result can be completely ignored ... completely. And that is not an opinion, it's a fact. Ask any scientist who has done the hard yards how much credence they would put in *any* experimental finding that came from uncontrolled tests.

Given the above fact, which are we going to rely on? How are we going to learn anything? The answer is clear. Uncomfortable, and a pain in the neck to conduct, but clear.

Now, bringing this discussion to bear on the topic, burn-in should be easy to detect in a controlled environment. Can anyone confirm if it has been done? I have seen convincing controlled tests of cables, with an utterly null result.

PS I will find the ABX thread you mention and debunk the left/right brain argument there.

[tnargs]

Originally posted by planet10
What about 2 devices with identical FR, but one has a considerably lower noise floor, or a set of speakers with same FR, but one has a CSD that falls away much faster?

Look, the poster was arguing that the bass *disappeared*. I was commenting in that context, but accidentally made an overly general statement.

[analog_sa]

Originally posted by AJinFLA

Could you please be more specific and give a scientific explanation/definition as to "minimum quality" and exactly how this is "easily achieved"?

I seem to have forgotten when this scientific fact was established. Could you refresh my memory with some references? AES articles perhaps?

Scientific fact? Are you under the impression that i'm working on a dissertation?

My objective on this forum is simple: to get as much anecdotal ideas about pushing the boundaries of sound reproduction and in return to share as much as i can from my own experience.

Clearly some of these ideas are suspicious and need to be verified. Arguing with armchair theorists is just not an objective although it's often amusing.

Around 1979 i used to have a pair of high efficiency Cerwin Vega speakers. With all their obvious shortcomings they were clearly capable of revealing differences between cables and even between cable directions. As did the JBL L112 which followed.

[Andre Visser]

Originally posted by R-Carpenter
I just made 2 sets of interconnects in 99.999 pure silver in Teflon. 22 gage, 2 in 2 return,Heat shrinked, techflexed looking good! I've done double blind listening on my MG3.5 with ribbon tweeter, ProAc2.5 clone with d2010
and my own bookshelves speaker with Hiquphone OW1. Neither me, nor my friend nor my wife were able to differentiate between silver and el-chipo monster cable.

Can you tell us more about your system and the music that you listened to.

I don't understand how you have made the cable, I would try a twisted pair with some insulation and then a copper braided sleeve, connected to the source side only, insulation again. (You wil need two for left and right.) On silver cable I've found the "burn in" time to be longer, I think Alan's suggestion of two weeks is good.

[SY]

How do you suggest they test those theories? Do uncontrolled tests first, then work backwards to explain the result?

Exactly.

BTW, pedantic alert: these are NOT theories, they aren't nearly that well-supported or thought out. They are hypotheses. If the proponents ever bother to gather actual evidence supporting them, then, maybe, they'll rise to the level of theories.

But I'm not holding my breath. Playing make-believe is far more fun than doing the tedious work necessary to do real testing.

[R-Carpenter]

Magne[planar 3.5r
Audio by Van Alstine Fet valve 550
Briston 0.4B
Sony CDP 20Es

ProAc2.5 clone
Behringer 500 reference
Briston 0.4B
Sony CDP 202 ES

Usher 8945P HiquphoneOW1 of my own design
DaytonRS180-hivi top mounted of my own design
Dayton RS150-Seas TDFC of my own design

Cables are terminated with high quality gold plated RCA.
Cables are not shielded.

This is what I will do for you tweako cultists.
I am in the process of learning Sound Easy. So, I will take this cables out of chain, until I am fully familiarized with measuring technique, and then I will measure the output of the speakers while changing interconnects. I will also do the measurements after 2 weeks of “burn in”

[Andre Visser]

Originally posted by tnargs
......It's all very well to argue some theoretical basis for discrediting controlled tests, but how do you propose to test those theories? With uncontrolled tests?

Now, bringing this discussion to bear on the topic, burn-in should be easy to detect in a controlled environment. Can anyone confirm if it has been done? I have seen convincing controlled tests of cables, with an utterly null result.

I have no problem with blind testing, what bother me most of the time is the way these tests are conducted. If I may give a few suggestions:

1) I find it harder to evaluate equipment on an unknown system, I prefer to use my own. The better the system, the easier to hear differences.

2) I don't think it is fair to use "listeners" that is unexperienced, one's mind (mine anyway) can only concentrate on one thing at a time, if you concentrate on "evaluating" your mind can stop hearing. It is also important to know what to listen for, surely not everybody will be able to hear the same, listening is a learning process.

3) The equipment and type of music used for evaluation is also very important. Some of these tests are done with so-called hi-end equipment that I would not even bother to listen to. Listening to anything else than a good recording of acoustical instruments is not worthwhile.

The effect of burn-in vary from cable to cable, the cables I use make a very noticeable difference, yes I've done some blind tests with new and burned in cables, no doubt with me that the SQ and detail improve.

André

[analog_sa]

Originally posted by R-Carpenter

Cables are terminated with high quality gold plated RCA.
Cables are not shielded.

I am in the process of learning Sound Easy. So, I will take this cables out of chain, until I am fully familiarized with measuring technique, and then I will measure the output of the speakers while changing interconnects. I will also do the measurements after 2 weeks of “burn in”

"high quality gold plated RCA" is pretty meaningless. Some of these "high quality" RCAs are really atrocious. Brand?

Same for wire. My first encounter with silver was with the same gauge as yours, 5 nines in teflon tubes, bought from a very reputable vendor and terminated with bullet plugs. How did it sound? I was expecting a bright sound and a long break-in period based on various forums. It turned out to sound very dull and uninteresting. If anything worse than entry level Monster. Suffered for months trying to break it in, with both music and a diy cable burner. It's been sitting in a cupboard for a few years now... Eventually tried DH Labs silver in foamed teflon. An amazing improvement.

Sound Easy will solve the cable mysteries? Serious?