Andre:
And again, read the article I linked - it shows how phase angle, as a property of group delay, changes with frequency. The author notes (as I previously quoted) that a typical cable would lead to a change in phase equivalent to a change in position of 50 microns - a meaningless distance in human perception terms.
No offense, but you're clutching at scientific straws here, without really saying why you are doing so or what we're supposed to conclude or understand. A good example of what I was saying in my above post.
Then you should admit that your results are entirely subjective, and in no way reflective of scientific (objective) fact wrt what you were testing. That's important. Your language from past posts though shows you think your results stem from differences in cables (etc) and not from your own psychology of perception, testing methods etc. The fact remains that Double-blind testing is the only way you can effectively isolate physical, experimental differences from the psychological aspects of the test. It's *essential* and that only 'some' of your tests were 'blind' (where's the rigour?) tells me your results are invalid and useless. This matters because:
You're trading experiences? What can you possibly learn from anyone else's experiences in this regard? What can they possibly learn from yours, especially when you are not apparently prepared to stand by your results (ie convince anyone you're right)? Think about it. I'm not talking about having a chat about what you enjoy doing or how you created a system you like, I'm talking about the discussion HERE in this thread - about whether cables offer complex audible differences. Subjective personal experience is *useless* in that context.
There's only one place low-level detail gets lost - the noisefloor of the system, and by the same means - attenuation. I've never heard anyone claim that cables are the noisefloor choking points in a system. The noise of individual components like wires is vanishingly low - at least -120dBs if not much lower. The 40 - 60dB dynamic range of even the most uncompressed and dynamic recordings sits well above that.
at 20kHz one cycle is 0.00005s or 50uS. It's not unreasonable to suppose a phase difference amounting to 1uS might be perceptible, but if it is, science would demonstrate that fact, at least for some people with good hearing. Saying "some say" though is again pointless. Why are they saying it? I don't know, you don't tell me. It's hearsay - useless. Find a scientific paper or textbook that shows this and we're on much firmer ground. Note, in any case, that phase angle is not a property of level - save to say that our hearing is remarkably insensitive at 20kHz - which makes me doubt a 1uS sensitivity in phase difference.
And again, read the article I linked - it shows how phase angle, as a property of group delay, changes with frequency. The author notes (as I previously quoted) that a typical cable would lead to a change in phase equivalent to a change in position of 50 microns - a meaningless distance in human perception terms.
No offense, but you're clutching at scientific straws here, without really saying why you are doing so or what we're supposed to conclude or understand. A good example of what I was saying in my above post.
Undoubtedly information is lost, for most people the level of 'detail' lost is simply unperceptible on any system. I don't deny though that it ought in theory to be perceptible on any reasonable system or pair of headphones. My point, to repeat it again, is that the fact we have MP3 recordings is proof that we have a solid understanding of psycho-acoustics and that, therefore, subjectivists should pay attention to psycho-acoustic effects (aka the psychology of hearing).
Yes, they ARE irrelevant, because they are not part of the test. DBT does ONE thing only - isolate the hypothetical differences between two things being tested. That you might be intimidated by others may be a valid point, and you should remove that influence - testing only with disinterested strangers, or close friends, or whoever. Familiarity with the system is a bogus point though - if the cables have audible differences, they will show. But, by all means use familiar equipment. It just isn't relevant, that's all I'm saying. As for tests ignoring outlying results, that depends on what the testers are looking for - if it's an average then statistical outliers - outside so many standard deviations - may not be useful. You do have to be careful to understand precisely what they are looking for and to carefully evaluate whether their methodology is appropriate to the results they're seeking. In our case, all we are looking for is - a) can people of good otological health hear differences between cables and if so, then b) what is the nature of those differences and what is the cause of them? (a) is essentially a binary question, but it could be repeated across a broad population of test subjects so that the equivalent of an (for instance) equal-loudness curve might be produced. In that case outliers - good and bad - don't help. (b) is then an investigation of cable physics (everything in life is down to physics) but so far in human history, we've never obtained a credible positive result to (a) so (b) cannot be done (and never will be, of course, in the case of cables).No it is not irrelevant if you want to find the truth. Have you ever tried a blind test with some others watching? It can have a large influence on your listening abilities if you are not experienced because your mind is busy with other thoughts than concentrating on what you 'hear'. Listening on an unknown system to unknown music is also a large handicap. (This is my opinion, based on my experience.) To top it all, some tests ignore the results of the best and worst listeners.
Panikos K:
Curly Woods:
Subjectivism is relying on your own perceptions when making statements about some aspect of reality. It does not reflect on whether or not you are 'thinking, experimenting, trying to learn' but, in any case, if that's what you're doing then unless the psychology of perception is your actual area of investigation then subjectivity is useless. In each of those areas, your goal is to be as objective as possible and to achieve that you rely on the scientific method. Of course it is healthy to think, experiment and try to learn - I don't dispute that - but unless you approach these activities in a sensible way, your results will be limited at best...
What kind of 'proof' is that??? Unless he excludes psychological factors in his investigations, he has no proof. He needs objective evidence, that is confirmable independently by other people, to claim proof. Saying "I percieved it, therefore it is real" is seriously mistaken. But of course that error lies at the heart of this debate!
No, I don't. It's the failure of the subjectivist's methodology that is proof that they cannot justifiably make the claims they do. Proof that cables do not have complex audible differences lies elsewhere entirely - in the realm of physics.
Curly Woods:
You shouldn't trust your perceptions - they are not reliable. Before you drop big dollars on a cable, you should be sure it will help your goals (which are whatever you want them to be, of course). Luckily, an understanding of physics shows us that cables will NOT affect your audio goals and you are free to put your time, money and efforts into other aspects of achieving those goals. By contrast, it's readily obvious - and scientifically demonstrable - that other components in an audio system can and do have readily observable differences, so put your time, money and efforts there.
You should care, though. What others achieve is a guide to what you can achieve, what others fail to achieve can be an indication that you should try to achieve it either. The final decision about whether to try and achieve something or not has to be rational and evidence based, but other's accomplisments (and failures) are valuable considerations. As for what science tells you - you are truly foolish to ignore it! (which should be obvious) By all means evaluate the effects of magic pebbles and shiny foil on your enjoyment of music, and by all means try to invent a free-energy machine or an anti-gravity star drive. Just don't expect to obtain any useful results - ever.
So what? No-one's suggesting otherwise.
Good for you - a worthy goal that more might benefit from following, so thankyou for sharing that inspirational idea. In the meantime, I respectfully suggest that you will make NO progress towards your personal goal by spending any time or money on anything more than $10 interconnects or $3/m speaker cables. Put that money where it will make the most difference - not the least (or none!!).
There are known limits to human perception, so use that knowledge. This does not reflect on your listening preferences or system design goals but enables you to better and more efficiently achieve them. Do you think that Ford's engineers re-invent the wheel every time they set out to create a new car? No, they use existing knowledge - either to build on it and add new knowledge or just to use that knowledge in different ways. Building a system should be just the same.
Still, they are ears and mind, and science can tell you a lot about them. It would be wise to start with what is known, rather than re-inventing the audio wheel.
I have been involved with the finest high end audio equipment for over 20+ years and setup a great many of these systems in customers homes. My experiences have taught me a great deal about what I know today. If you feel that cheap cables satisfy your needs, by all means, continue.
I have learned through experience with these great designs what can be achieved with cabling and proper system matching. No amount of science can replace this type of experience. First hand knowledge with a daily working relationship with all aspects of great audio equipment is a better reference in my eyes than any text book, thesis paper or what every study that you can provide for me or my customers musical enjoyment.
What actual long term experience do you have with the finest of audio equipment to reference your biases? I am curious as to what your references are and how you came to believe in them. Are you simply relying on textbook studies to make your choices in your system?
In that case I'm glad your eyebrows hit the ceiling, now try and read again what I've said. I did not talk about different uses of music
, different uses of cable in a system.
From what I conclude till this moment,proof that cables do not have complex-or not complex-audible differences,lies nowhere.
For what I like to hear,yes subjectively,I need no confirmation or approval from anyone.
I'm the one who makes the choice,set up,pay,and enjoy my music.And as Curly Woods said,I don't care if no one else likes my system and choices.For what I like to hear,yes subjectively,I need no confirmation or approval from anyone.
I have never been able to listen to science myself. I still prefer music
Thanks, doomlord. You've so clearly stated the real issues, which continue to get dodged.
I am still "open minded" to consider cables make a difference, but I'm also in complete agreement with you: I don't think there is any proof anyone can hear a difference. As soon as someone can reliably prove their ears (and no one else's ears for that matter) can reliably detect cable differences, my open mind will receive them with open arms. I have no problem at all admitting I am wrong.
I am also a realist, however. From what I have gathered in this overlong thread is there does not exist a so-called subjectivist who is willing to place themselves under that requirement; personal anecdotal experience only, thanks. So I give up on the expectation.
It's funny; say you believe in God, and you're supposed to prove it. Say you believe cables make a difference, and you're right no matter what.
I am still "open minded" to consider cables make a difference, but I'm also in complete agreement with you: I don't think there is any proof anyone can hear a difference. As soon as someone can reliably prove their ears (and no one else's ears for that matter) can reliably detect cable differences, my open mind will receive them with open arms. I have no problem at all admitting I am wrong.
I am also a realist, however. From what I have gathered in this overlong thread is there does not exist a so-called subjectivist who is willing to place themselves under that requirement; personal anecdotal experience only, thanks. So I give up on the expectation.
It's funny; say you believe in God, and you're supposed to prove it. Say you believe cables make a difference, and you're right no matter what.
Why should anyone be another's "lab rat". I prefer to be my own as I am the only one that I need or want to satisfy. If others prefer to rely on what they are told, that is their choice. I trust my own thoughts and actions based upon my personal experiences.
If the 'some' of the tests always confirmed what I've heard sighted before the test, I think it is quite ridiculous to only believe in blind tests.
Well that's the part where you miss everything, the experiences of others give me new idea's that I can experiment with again.
My results is valid to my ears on my system, it will be quite arrogant to try and convince others that my views are correct for them also. If others are interested, they may do their own experiments and we can compare the findings. To me that is learning, not this constant crying of science by those who obviously never tried to do their own experimenting.
If you say so.
That reference are somewhere in this thread, you are welcome to search for it yourself.
The 1uS have nothing to do with the frequency range we can hear, it is timing differences between two channels and what make it more remarkable is that it can be detected with complex musical signals.
Nice article, very interesting also, strange how the "meaningless" differences corresponds with my hearing.
OK, since you insist. May I ask how many blind tests you have done?
Really? What I find tragic is that so called experts lead fresh open minded kids who just want to learn about audio reproduction into an endless amount of trial and error experimentation with no logical goal except to get some ineffable change in the sound which is somehow supposed to equate to better reproduction. Blind leading the blind out there.
A little bit of informed prejudice and skepticism is a healthy thing and can save you from wasting a lot of time.
Curly Woods:
Btw, 'musical enjoyment' is not the issue here. It's whether people understand WHY they are happy and enjoying their music. The answer is not because of the cables...
Panikos K:
Curly Woods:
Your experience is beyond question yet it is also entirely subjective. 20 years of believing doesn't make an article of faith any more real or correct than 20 minutes of believeing. The issue is whether or not cables have complex audible differences. And how can you say 'no amount of scientific knowledge can replace your 20 years of subjective expertise'? How does this even make sense? Take wine tasting - another classic area of 'subjective expertise' - it's been shown to be innacurate and even flat out wrong. Take predictions of great vintages - originally it was thought that lifetime 'experts' were needed to identify great vintages. Then scientists studied the question and found you can predict what makes a great wine scientifically - and the results back that up. Audio is just the same. Subjectivity is useless. It sounds to me like you have been fooling your customers - passing on to them your own prejudices and ignorance. I don't doubt they're happy, but they're also wrong if they think their system sounds good because of the particular cables you advised them to take.
Btw, 'musical enjoyment' is not the issue here. It's whether people understand WHY they are happy and enjoying their music. The answer is not because of the cables...
No experience 'finest of high end audio' (although I've heard it on occasion) and none is necessary in the matter of determining whether cables have complex audible differences. Also, I'm not biased - except in favour of rational, evidence-based argument and scientific enquiry. Of course I do not rely on 'textbook studies' to choose the components in my system, but I do rely on textbook knowledge to save me from paying for snake oil and voodoo and wasting my time looking for 'differences' that provably don't exist.
Panikos K:
Then you need to revisit your conclusion. Science - electrical engineering theory - is remarkably clear in explaining and predicting the audio-frequency response of cables and science - the psychology of perception and hearing - is also remarkably well understood (as the existance of MP3 technology shows). Giving any weight to hearsay and anecdote when a) it's subjective by nature and therefore useless for evaluating objective truths and b) when it *contradicts* known scientific knowledge, is therefore a mistake.
Curly Woods:
No reason anyone should be anyone's "lab rat" - what are you talking about? In the meantime, how are you even able to be your own lab rat when you reject science and the scientific method (eg DBT methods) which is where lab rats are used?? Secondly, I do not 'rely on what I'm told' and I do not expect anyone else to, either - that's NOT how science works. Science makes clear all the evidence, how to replicate it for yourself and how the conclusions are reasoned - everything's independently verifiable and THAT'S why people should pay attention to science. You may prefer "your own ideas and actions based on your own subjective experiences" but why? Not because you only have to please yourself - that's a cop out. If you ONLY rely on yourself, you are going to have to re-invent the entire body of human knowledge on the subject yourself and, given your preference for subjectivity and lack of understanding of science, that's just not going to happen.
If I change a set of cables and can better relate to the live musical experience that I am trying to recreate, my cable choices are indeed a part of the equation. What do I or anyone else care why the cables made the experience better for my enjoyment? Where did I reject science? Science allows me to have a system that makes me happy. I simply do not rely on science to tell me how my system should sound or not. Where has it been proven that cables make no difference in ones system? I have yet to read this scientific finding. I have read many studies, but far from proof of the nonexistence of such anomalies.
I rely on what I hear in live performances of unamplified instruments. I then try to recreate this experience to the best of my abilities. I could really care less what science says about what I should hear or how I achieve this scenario. I am the only person that is listening to my system and enjoying it.
Last edited:
I'd agree with this. But also I believe you can go a lot further in this audio game and have a much more satisfying enveloping experience by experimenting in areas that aren't somewhat negligible. I am an experimenter by nature and I usually take the time to experiment and test out any silly little idea I get in my head. I do think it has worked well for me in some cases but I really have doubts about all the little things I have tested over the years which are so hard to hear if a laymen was in the same room they would simply tell you that you are wasting your time on something which is minuscule.
So,now is poor kids who are buying good quality cables?REALLY?
Blind leading the blind out there,deaf leading the rest else where
Just joking...
Sad but true poor people usually pay full price for things. Rich people look for bargains and haggle. People LOVE music and will sacrifice way more than they should in the quest for perfect audio.
Can this same argument not be attached to many aspects of life? It still requires the user to use good rational thinking to not be taken advantage of regardless of the situation. There will always be ripoffs, regardless of the hobby. It is up to each individual to seek out the truths for themselves. I choose to not rely on anyone else opinions about anything. I will do my own investigations and then make my own decisions based upon what I find out through this investigation process.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.