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

[Jakob2]

Which then, logically, proofs that the measured differences are not audible. Whats' the problem here?

jd

Sorry, i´m not trying to be offensive, but this is just a (unfortunately quite) common misunderstanding.

It just logically means that under the specific test conditions the difference remained undetected.
But you don´t know why it remained undetected, maybe it is not audible but maybe the test didn´t reach a sufficient level of sensitivity for the given task (for whatever reason).

That´s why the mentioned controls are mandatory, but are unfortunately ever so often ommited.

 

[SY]

If a manufacturer is not able to invest big money for big coils of cables with kilometer lengths, but wants to develop a special cable design, then he has to look for small specialised cable manufacturers, who have smaller machinery and are specialised in manufacturing cables in quite small quantities.

Exactly. There are plenty of those guys around, too. In general, there's nothing special about the technology, they just order up bits and pieces from the menu. It can be done with a pretty small investment- extrusion dies are mostly standard, and a custom die costs a tiny fraction of what an injection mold does (typically a few hundred dollars versus a few tens of thousands of dollars). Most copper on hand, for example, already has a bunch of nines of purity, and one can spec any extrudable polymer for insulation, any sort of winding (it's a machine setting), and any combination of wires to jacket together.

I've told the wire directionality anecdote before- this was from a wire and cable company I worked with for a few years. Hilarious.

 

[jan.didden]

Sorry, i´m not trying to be offensive, but this is just a (unfortunately quite) common misunderstanding.

It just logically means that under the specific test conditions the difference remained undetected.
But you don´t know why it remained undetected, maybe it is not audible but maybe the test didn´t reach a sufficient level of sensitivity for the given task (for whatever reason).

That´s why the mentioned controls are mandatory, but are unfortunately ever so often ommited.

Jakob, you are correct, I agree. My reaction was to the statement questioning the test because there were measureable differences and the test came out null. The implication being that therefore there was something wrong with the test.

I would say that this proved that the measurable differences are not audible.
Of course the test should have been properly designed as you argued. If it wasn't, the whole original statement is nonsense anyway.

jd

 

[Jakob2]

Jakob, you are correct, I agree. My reaction was to the statement questioning the test because there were measureable differences and the test came out null. The implication being that therefore there was something wrong with the test.

I would say that this proved that the measurable differences are not audible.
Of course the test should have been properly designed as you argued. If it wasn't, the whole original statement is nonsense anyway.

jd

I suppose, Andy_G meant the fact, that tests gave often negative result even if the differences were otherwise known to be audible.

Regarding our cable difference topic, i´m really not aware of any test done with sufficient positive controls.

 

[Jakob2]

Exactly. There are plenty of those guys around, too. In general, there's nothing special about the technology, they just order up bits and pieces from the menu. It can be done with a pretty small investment- extrusion dies are mostly standard, and a custom die costs a tiny fraction of what an injection mold does (typically a few hundred dollars versus a few tens of thousands of dollars). Most copper on hand, for example, already has a bunch of nines of purity, and one can spec any extrudable polymer for insulation, any sort of winding (it's a machine setting), and any combination of wires to jacket together.

I've told the wire directionality anecdote before- this was from a wire and cable company I worked with for a few years. Hilarious.

Of course, i don´t know enough about the situation in the USA, but in Germany for example there aren´t so many of these guys around.
And if someone wants to try something really unique it gets quite expensive nevertheless.

Nearly every provenience of copper is available (OFC, LCOFC, even PCOCC), but if it´s not standard for the cable guy, he has to buy small quantities just for this one cable design, even more likely if a company wants to have a solid core design or just imagine a silver line.

You don´t want an extruded insulation for the conductors? Basically no problem but means a long machinery occupation to do.

You have concerns regarding triboelectric effects? Basically no problem, but....

You are concerned about environment friendly production and materials? Basically no problem, but (at least that should become better and better)...

But in the end, what really decides about the success in the market is mostly marketing (basic functionality of a product given) and i really don´t know who to blame for this.
But again i´d ask, why the audio business should be the exception in the game.

 

[Andy G]

Which then, logically, proofs that the measured differences are not audible. Whats' the problem here?

jd

Jakob, you are correct, I agree. My reaction was to the statement questioning the test because there were measureable differences and the test came out null. The implication being that therefore there was something wrong with the test.

I would say that this proved that the measurable differences are not audible.
Of course the test should have been properly designed as you argued. If it wasn't, the whole original statement is nonsense anyway.

jd

There is no implication either way... only assumptions.

There is no proof that there is NOT something wrong with the test.

If you ASSUME/BELIEVE the test is perfect then ....

oh, forget it.

Pointless trying to argue... I'm totally over trying to explain basic scientific principles to people.

People... just believe what you want to believe.

I'm certainly not wasting my time on this stuff any more.

 

[Panicos K]

Store bought remote controlled version so you don't even have to move out of the sweet spot.
Remote Switcher

I am sure there are a bunch but that is the last commercial one I remember seeing.

How can this be used for speaker cable testing?I mean how can you have the connection of only one speaker cable,between the amplifier output and speaker input during listening?

 

[SY]

Jakob, I'll bet a call over to Maillefer in Swtizerland (who make the basic machinery) will get you names of more custom wire producers in Germany than you thought.

 

[fredex]

Cable differences were and still are believed to exist.It is the proof of their existence or not existence that it is pending🙂
Has anything been proven and did not start as a belief?Except of course the cases where the "spark"was given by chance?

We know there are cable differences, by measurement, whether they are audible is the debate.
What is this "spark" given by chance?

 

[Panicos K]

We know there are cable differences, by measurement, whether they are audible is the debate.
What is this "spark" given by chance?

I mean that during someone's research on something,he finds answers/proof for something else that was not his intention at the moment.
See what I mean about my English sometimes?

 

[fredex]

PLEASE !!!!, would the dbt advocates come up with some sort of method for determining if a particular test is worth considering, other than, "oh! It was properly conducted". That is hardly a scientific explanation.

Until I see such a method, I can only see the whole discussion as pointless.

It is hard and sometimes impossible to determine if a particular test you read about was "properly conducted". However you can find out the truth directly with a little DIY. You will need some help and time but it is quite easy as you do not have to document everything it can just be a private experiment.

If you confine yourself to just reading and discussing there is the danger that you will unconsciously seek out or only notice theories that reinforce your existing beliefs, they maybe true but you don't really know for sure until they are tested.

 

[fredex]

I mean that during someone's research on something,he finds answers/proof for something else that was not his intention at the moment............

Right I understand you now. I like the word "Serendipity". Your English is good 🙂

 

[Panicos K]

Just checked my dictionary🙂 Yes,a nice word,thanks

 

[Panicos K]

@
If a manufacturer is not able to invest big money for big coils of cables with kilometer lengths, but wants to develop a special cable design, then he has to look for small specialised cable manufacturers, who have smaller machinery and are specialised in manufacturing cables in quite small quantities.


I think this is not bad or wrong.I mean if someone has a good and original idea but can't make it real,it is good that he contacts people that can help him.It could be any idea not just cables.

What SY says about rebranding and true it happens everywhere is different.

 

[Andre Visser]

However you can find out the truth directly with a little DIY.

Oh no you can't, if you want to do a test that even remotely count for something you need some fancy test equipment to measure first, if you measure a difference, don't worry too much you will most likely not hear it anyway. Then you need at least two other trustworthy people (make sure they don't believe in cable differences or else they are delusional anyway), no friends also, they can't be trusted, then you plan the whole test for at least three days..................... then repeat the whole test at least 200 times or else statistics.................. If you've heard no difference, there are no difference, if you do hear differences, you are delusional or you have a badly designed system.

Easy? Yes very easy, don't waste your time, everything sound the same anyway, just read the stories on internet, much easier.

 

[SY]

Wow, usually the specious objections come after the null results, not before. Congratulations!

 

[rdf]

Having both a Mercedes and a Kia (odd you picked those two!)....

I knew you were going to say that. It's all the years I spent working on Miss Cleo's hotline.

 

[Andre Visser]

Wow, usually the specious objections come after the null results, not before. Congratulations!

What "specious objections", just saying that it will take MUCH more than a "little DIY" to find the "truth".

 

[jlsem]

Aes Dbt

Anyone familiar with this episode?

Michael Fremer:

In the early nineties I challenged an audio writer who claimed that all amplifiers that measure the same sound the same to set up a double blind test that I would take. I guaranteed him that I'd be able to hear differences among the amplifiers. So he organized a double blind test at an AES convention (Audio Engineering Society) in Los Angeles.
I took the test, along with dozens of others attending, many of them recording engineers. When the results were announced, the organizers said that I'd gotten 5 of 5 identifications correct. My editor at Stereophile, John Atkinson, got 4 of 5 correct. But the overall result was statistically insignificant. Most test takers could not distinguish among the amplifiers. Guess what? I was declared a "lucky coin" and my result was "thrown out"!

Take the test and pass and they find a way to discredit you. When I relate this story on "objectivist" websites the response is always, "Not enough samples!" Well, I didn't design the test, I just took it. I jumped through their hoop and I guarantee you had I been 0 for 5 it would have been deemed a very well designed test.

Now, what amazed me about the result was that one of the amps was a vacuum tube amp that sounded way different from the others yet most test takers couldn't hear what was obvious to me.

What is the history of throwing out results in double blind tests because they didn't fall within the body of the bell?

John

 

[SY]

That's not exactly an accurate characterization, but that never stopped Fremer before.

Think about the group size and probabilities. If I get 100 people together and have them flip coins 5 times each, how many people will be expected to get 5/5 irrespective of the coins being truly 50/50 random objects?