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

[The Paulinator]

Ok, this nitpicking and beating around the bush is driving me crazy. Since when have people who hear differences in cables been only listening on familiar systems?

I am going to say this the way that so many cable beleivers HATE to hear it said: I really believe that any difference heard between cables is, in a way, dilusional. They may very well hear a difference, but only because they think they SHOULD hear a difference and so their mind makes them think they did. This happens on ANY decent system. Please read my original post in this HUGE thread for more details. I remember when I thought there was a difference in cables, I really thought I heard a difference, but now I know that I was subconsiously biased towards the expensive cables, because I had no reason to doubt everything I had heard about cables.

I read reviews of cables in magazines all the time where the cable is reviewed in the reviewers living room using entirely equipment that has been loaned to them for other equipment reviews, and they always describe the differences at the same level that they describe the difference between one speaker and another.

Kuei, you post a page or so ago confirmed my belief that no matter how well the scientific testing process was done, if they found there to be no difference, you would protest the validity of the test. I think that if the differences between cables are as night-and-day as people say they are, then hardly any scientifiic process should be necessary, and my method is more than adequate. They describe the differences like they are comparing one speaker to another, so they should be able to tell when I have secretly switched "speakers" on them. Simple as that.

But go ahead and break down this post into tiny sections and tell me why each thing I said is not valid because I wasn't in a recording studio like most people are when they listen to their favorite CD.

[ThorstenL]

Koinichiwa,

Originally posted by The Paulinator
Kuei, you post a page or so ago confirmed my belief that no matter how well the scientific testing process was done, if they found there to be no difference, you would protest the validity of the test.

No. I merely protest when I see tests such as posted at the previously referred to ABX test website or such published by the ABX Mafia in Audio (some of those that Tom Nousiane did where total sreamers).

If you claim you are condcuting a scientific test you must accept that such a test will be scrutinised and criticised. If the criticism to such a test is valid (the statistical side certainly is) you are under obligation to re-evaluate your results. If you fail to do so you are not operating scientific, you operate religous, in that no matter how much evidence is brought that you are incorrect you retain that your position is correct....

Clearly your understanding of statistics and their application to blind tests of the ABX structure (within Audio AND outside) is more than rudimentary. You may gain some enlightenment from a discussion of the matter in the letters pages of stereophile about 2 decades ago.

You may read all of it here:

http://www.stereophile.com/printarchives.cgi?141

Now you may entertain any funloving you care to. You may believe that the moon is made of green cheese, that flouride is good for your teeth, that CD standard audio has a 96db dynamic range, that cables never, under no conditions make a audible difference and any number of further myth, fairytales, urban legends and outright lies. You are even perfectly welcome to comment and talk about those beliefs you entertain.

What you are not welcome to however is to impose your believes on others as fact, UNLESS you can provide proof that can withstand any reasonable criticism.

It is my perfectly reasonable and with all due respect materially supportable view that you fail to provide such proof.

Hence you may freely say "I don't believe cables make a difference", however to suggest that others who have different experiences, opinions and views are delusional and should start to be sensible and adopt your believes, you do not advance even a coherent argument and absolutely no proof beyond anecdotal episodes.

I REPEAT MYSELF AGAIN:

Are you willing to disclose the score sheets from your blind tests so that they can be evaluated statistically?

Are you willing to consider your testsetup flawed and to conduct an equal test as those you have done, same testsetup as close as can be replicated, on phenomenae whose audibility in certain cases is absolutely beyond dispute?

If not, what do you have to fear?

Sayonara

[SY]

Originally posted by Christer
A analogy to what Kuei is saying is professional wine tasting
where there is a (or several?) standard for various parameters
that may affect the result, like glass type, room temperature,
white table cloths and walls, if I remember correctly. Well there
are quite a lot of people on this forum who has much much
more knowledge of this subject and could probably write an
essay on it.

Edit: For the non-professional case, say I'm on vacation in Italy
and have good meal with friends at nice Trattoria and drink
the house red. This wine may taste very good. However, if
I were to drink the same wine at home, I would probably
realize that it was a rather cheap and not too very good wine.
The situation matters a lot.

Well, now you ARE getting into my professional area. All those things can matter. In the same way that the ABX guys (including the dreaded Tom Nousaine) demonstrated that the test setup and procedure could readily get positive results (differences heard) for threshold phenomena like miniscule level shifts and frequency response errors (on the order of 0.1 dB), in our test setups, we make sure that the test (which includes the choice of panel) can detect things like volatile acidity, cork taint, or oxidation at threshold levels. If someone can't detect 7 parts per trillion of TCA contamination, he's not going to be on the panel.

Context is everything; one of the most wonderful wine experiences I've ever had was at a little beachside pizzaria in France, outdoors on a perfect June day, with a pitcher of a cold pink wine. Naked girls froliced a few meters away. I'll take that over an analytical tasting of classed growths from 1929.

[PUCK]

I can't disagree with anything that has been said, because all of this is subjective. I can only post my own experience and opinion.

I once believed there was no difference in cables as well. I had developed a good ear (I am a recording engineer) and was in a store, critically listening to a pair of B&W 804's run from a Krell amp. Not the best system, but certainly quite good. The salesman did a blind test with me. He took a pair of $400 cables and a pair of $40 cables and 10 times he either switched them or didn't. Now keep in mind, he didn't always switch them, so the question was not "Can you hear how much better this is?" The question was simply, "do you think this is cable A or B?" Each and every time out of those 10, I got it right. Some times he would just play around back there and not actually switch anything, just to keep me guessing. 10 times out of 10, I could identify which set of cables I was listening to, and told him which cable set I prefered at the end (the expensive one). I'm not an expert at statistics, but I would wager that 10 times out of 10 is statistically significant. On that system, in that room, I could tell the difference between cables. I think the difference is only a few percent, quality-wise, but it's still there to my ears. Would I hear the difference on some less-detailed speakers? Maybe/probably not. Would I notice the difference if someone switched my cables from one day to the next rather than one minute to the next? Maybe.

Point is, to me there is a difference. My Dunlavy's at home run from my McCormack amp have decent cables on them. When I first put the better cables on, I could swear I could tell the difference. Of course, I knew I was changing the cables, so it's impossible to know whether I would have otherwise.

Some people can hear certain things and others can not. I configured a stereo system at a really high-end store one day and really liked it. I told them I wanted to come back the next day to buy it, but I wanted to listen to it again to be sure. When I came in the next day and listened to it, something was wrong. I told them the soundstage had collapsed and the presentation wasn't the same as I remembered it. After a bit of research, they discovered that a salesman had put a different CD player in that room (a Conrad Johnson instead of a Theta Miles... both $1k+ players) because another room need the other CD player. Long story short: I never thought I could tell CD players apart either until that day.

[goldiloks123]

In a word yes cables do make some elecrical changes,but i am suspicious that an audiable change can be noticed.Just think this out! most mians cables are 1.5/2 meters long the supply to your block are hundreds of kilometers,let alone to your front door. How can one meter suddenly change the sound?.As for speaker cable i have done it solid/flat/multistrand/twistedmulti/twistedsolid, twisted my pocket paying for it too!.I think in the end you take something out with one type , lift something with the other.IT keeps us tweaking and pays someones wages no harm done save the odd divorce.

[janneman]

Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Koinichiwa,
[snip]Are you willing to disclose the score sheets from your blind tests so that they can be evaluated statistically?

Are you willing to consider your testsetup flawed and to conduct an equal test as those you have done, same testsetup as close as can be replicated, on phenomenae whose audibility in certain cases is absolutely beyond dispute?

If not, what do you have to fear?

Sayonara

He doesn't have to (although I would be interested). This is a classical ploy. P failed to find audible differences. Fine. YOU said that audible differences are existing. YOU provide proof for that. Just ONCE, and we can put this to rest. This, my friend, is the scientific method.
Like I said, you'd make a hell of a politician.

Jan Didden

[ThorstenL]

Koinichiwa,

Originally posted by janneman

He doesn't have to (although I would be interested). This is a classical ploy. P failed to find audible differences. Fine. YOU said that audible differences are existing. YOU provide proof for that. Just ONCE, and we can put this to rest. This, my friend, is the scientific method. Like I said, you'd make a hell of a politician.

I explicitly stated that my own tests convinced me sufficiently, but that they would clearly be open substantial critique, where I to promote as universally true.

Publications of Tests that showed audible differences in Cables under blind conditions abound. At least two UK Mags regulary use (or used) blind comparison testing of equipment INCLUDING Cables (HiFi Choice & What HiFi).

Of course, they no longer test for "difference or equal", something that has long been established in more enlightened circles, they test for preference, but still blind. If, within multiple presenation of A, B, C and so on a significant majority of listeners rates (and often identifies) the same item consistently, surely we can (due the much larger amount of data) easily conclude that a difference was reliably observed (do the math if you don't believe me).

Even the JAES was very reluctantly forced to publish data on DB Tests on cables that yielded results that are NOT NULL, if the AES website provided at least decent extracts I'd dig up the references to that.

Of course, all of the above mentioned tests would if evaluated to .05 significance FAIL to show results, simply because the testsample size is by far to small for such rigerous an analysis (see Leventahls AES paper and JAES Article on the topic).

So there is no ploy, on either side. Data exists that can support both viewpoints and it exists on both sides. The difference is in the evalution.

I really wish people would stop talking loblocks as they say on planet anagramia and actually make sure they understood the matter in question.

I am UNDER ABSOLUTELY NO burden of proof, as it was not me who proposed the Thesis "Cables are always inaudible".

Sayonara

[SY]

it was not me who proposed the Thesis "Cables are always inaudible".

That strawman is awfully tired; NO-ONE has proposed that ridiculous thesis.

[goldiloks123]

Scientific evaluation is flawd when it comes to all things audio!.in a lab you can make meserments that will justify set perameters,oops bang there it gose the human lug hole is not a piece of test bench apperatous. This is were it all ends up in the little room and flushed. You and I may have identicale set ups with the same cabels placed in twined rooms,we will not hear the same things.This is the fundemental flaw of all scientific stats;.

[ThorstenL]

Koinichiwa,

Originally posted by SY


That strawman is awfully tired; NO-ONE has proposed that ridiculous thesis.

Ahhhm. Well, how about this quote:

Originally posted by The Paulinator
I am going to say this the way that so many cable beleivers HATE to hear it said: I really believe that any difference heard between cables is, in a way, dilusional. They may very well hear a difference, but only because they think they SHOULD hear a difference and so their mind makes them think they did. This happens on ANY decent system.
[/B]

Sorry, that and many previous similar comments from Paulinator (the High End sales man turned anti cable crusader - does that strike only me as Saulus/Paulus situation?) to readily and illustrable constitute exactly what I simply reduced for conciseness.

Sayonara