A tribute to Paulinator
You asked a reasonable question, and so far nobody was able to answer it. The significance of the null hypothesis means that it would need just ONE case where a difference was reliable identified under blind conditions, to put the thing to rest. The fact that with your setup it didn't happen is not your problem. Up to them to come up with a setup that DOES demonstrate it, under blind conditions. And really it is not so difficult to make a setup where the tested listener gets no clue to which cable actually is connected. The argument that the test setup (relays, switches, etc) maskes the audibilities actually works against them: that necessarily would mean that source selectors, preamps, connectors, power amp output relays etc make it impossible to hear differences. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
These people make extraordinary claims, but cannnot come up with a simple demonstration to back it up. Until this happens, the logical conclusion is, that their claim is false.
And as far as those mega-posts are concerned, I have always operated on the principle that if you need more than halve a page to explain something, there are two possibilities:
- it isn't true, or
- you don't really understand it yourself.
(I know, I'm getting close).
Jan Didden
You asked a reasonable question, and so far nobody was able to answer it. The significance of the null hypothesis means that it would need just ONE case where a difference was reliable identified under blind conditions, to put the thing to rest. The fact that with your setup it didn't happen is not your problem. Up to them to come up with a setup that DOES demonstrate it, under blind conditions. And really it is not so difficult to make a setup where the tested listener gets no clue to which cable actually is connected. The argument that the test setup (relays, switches, etc) maskes the audibilities actually works against them: that necessarily would mean that source selectors, preamps, connectors, power amp output relays etc make it impossible to hear differences. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
These people make extraordinary claims, but cannnot come up with a simple demonstration to back it up. Until this happens, the logical conclusion is, that their claim is false.
And as far as those mega-posts are concerned, I have always operated on the principle that if you need more than halve a page to explain something, there are two possibilities:
- it isn't true, or
- you don't really understand it yourself.
(I know, I'm getting close).
Jan Didden
Re: A tribute to Paulinator
Just for the record, I sympathize with Paulinator and I think he has a point.
It's not that simple. No one "has to" come up with anything.
Some people claim they hear differences, some people claim they don't. If the null hypothesis is not rejected then we simply know nothing - we must remain undecided.
If a difference can be reliably identified just once, as you said, then yes we know that... in that specific case it made a difference. So, I would also like to see one well documented case where differences were audible.
But in this forum, or elsewhere, I haven't seen any actual data either way. So we don't know.
Nah. Logic has nothing to do with it. Common sense, yes. To me it just means that we have two contradicting hypothesis with no corroborating data either way.
Well. There is a point here.
If you meant my post: it was so long because this forum is so darn sensitive that you have to reword everything 3 times with 5 disclaimers and 7 caveats. As if it even mattered.
Just for the record, I sympathize with Paulinator and I think he has a point.
janneman said:
It's not that simple. No one "has to" come up with anything.
Some people claim they hear differences, some people claim they don't. If the null hypothesis is not rejected then we simply know nothing - we must remain undecided.
If a difference can be reliably identified just once, as you said, then yes we know that... in that specific case it made a difference. So, I would also like to see one well documented case where differences were audible.
But in this forum, or elsewhere, I haven't seen any actual data either way. So we don't know.
Nah. Logic has nothing to do with it. Common sense, yes. To me it just means that we have two contradicting hypothesis with no corroborating data either way.
Well. There is a point here.
If you meant my post: it was so long because this forum is so darn sensitive that you have to reword everything 3 times with 5 disclaimers and 7 caveats. As if it even mattered.
Re: A tribute to Paulinator
Konnichiwa,
This brings me back to the basic problem, namely the statistics.
Many people (especially the ABX Mafia but not only them) have insisted in using the .05 level of significance in small smaple size double blind tests.
I recommend STRONGLY to consider the two following publications:
Les Leventhal: "How Conventional Statistical Analyses Can Prevent Finding Audible Differences In Listening Tests,"
Preprint 2275 (C-9), which had been presented at the 79th AES Convention in New York, October 1985
and
Les Leventhal: "Type 1 and Type 2 Errors in the Statistical Analysis of Listening Tests." JAES June 1986
The upshot is that if you wish to apply a .05 level of significance to your study, if you are studying fairly small audible differences and you wish to make equally certain that you do not incorrectly accept or reject the null hypothesis you need a very large sample size, commonly not provided in Audio ABX testing. The sample size would have to be >> 100 to allow the use of a .05 level of significance.
Thus, if you use such a level of significance with much fewer datapoints all you have done to make the acceptance of the null hypothesis near certain, COMPLETELY DISREGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL AUDIBILITY.
The ABX test data previously published by the "Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society" has sadly been taken off line (maybe because the published conclusions where open to severe criticism because of bad statistics and because once adjusted to not abuse the statistical methode failed to show the null results desired by the group publishing the results?).
http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/smwtms.htm
This is especially sad as these tests actually provided the raw data and allowed hence the assement of just how likely it was that their null result acceptance was in fact in error, if the difference evaluated was small.
Not surprisingly, equalising the "error budget" for both types of statistical errors leads more often than not to an indication that in their tests in fact a difference was heard in the test, yet due to the small sample size we cannot be particulary certain that it was hear, but such is statistics. At the same time it was clear that their "null" result was not defensible beyond a reasonable doubt. And that covered ONLY the statistics.
Please understand that the staistics issue presents a FUNDAMENTAL challenge and in most cases of published tests an immidiate invalidation of the claim that a "null" result was obtained, as the statistics where (deliberatly or by ignorance) rigged to reject anything short of day/night differences.
So, I will for one last time request Paulinator to provide his DATA instead of his conclusion so that the data cab evaluated using statistics that will not automatically return a "null" result due to ill application of said methode. The same applies of course for other tests.
I will repeat however that NON of the published ABX/DB Tests on the subject of speaker cables (and indeed many other features with debated audibility) provided and used enough data to allow an analysis to a .05 significance level. Hence, any analysis to this level (invariably found) and then claiming to have obtained a "null" result must be considered null and void, as in the most simple terms the risk of not picking up small differences was high (> .5) to very high (>.7 ... >.9) and indeed often high enough to make it an almsot certainty that small differences where missed.
I have raised the same self point repeatedly in this thread. Not once has anyone provided a reasonable rejection, here is the last chance. Unless you can suggests why such misapplied statistics would still give results that should be considered speak now, or I shall consider the fundamental criticism level at the statistics as carried without opposition.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
janneman said:
This brings me back to the basic problem, namely the statistics.
Many people (especially the ABX Mafia but not only them) have insisted in using the .05 level of significance in small smaple size double blind tests.
I recommend STRONGLY to consider the two following publications:
Les Leventhal: "How Conventional Statistical Analyses Can Prevent Finding Audible Differences In Listening Tests,"
Preprint 2275 (C-9), which had been presented at the 79th AES Convention in New York, October 1985
and
Les Leventhal: "Type 1 and Type 2 Errors in the Statistical Analysis of Listening Tests." JAES June 1986
The upshot is that if you wish to apply a .05 level of significance to your study, if you are studying fairly small audible differences and you wish to make equally certain that you do not incorrectly accept or reject the null hypothesis you need a very large sample size, commonly not provided in Audio ABX testing. The sample size would have to be >> 100 to allow the use of a .05 level of significance.
Thus, if you use such a level of significance with much fewer datapoints all you have done to make the acceptance of the null hypothesis near certain, COMPLETELY DISREGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL AUDIBILITY.
The ABX test data previously published by the "Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society" has sadly been taken off line (maybe because the published conclusions where open to severe criticism because of bad statistics and because once adjusted to not abuse the statistical methode failed to show the null results desired by the group publishing the results?).
http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/smwtms.htm
This is especially sad as these tests actually provided the raw data and allowed hence the assement of just how likely it was that their null result acceptance was in fact in error, if the difference evaluated was small.
Not surprisingly, equalising the "error budget" for both types of statistical errors leads more often than not to an indication that in their tests in fact a difference was heard in the test, yet due to the small sample size we cannot be particulary certain that it was hear, but such is statistics. At the same time it was clear that their "null" result was not defensible beyond a reasonable doubt. And that covered ONLY the statistics.
Please understand that the staistics issue presents a FUNDAMENTAL challenge and in most cases of published tests an immidiate invalidation of the claim that a "null" result was obtained, as the statistics where (deliberatly or by ignorance) rigged to reject anything short of day/night differences.
So, I will for one last time request Paulinator to provide his DATA instead of his conclusion so that the data cab evaluated using statistics that will not automatically return a "null" result due to ill application of said methode. The same applies of course for other tests.
I will repeat however that NON of the published ABX/DB Tests on the subject of speaker cables (and indeed many other features with debated audibility) provided and used enough data to allow an analysis to a .05 significance level. Hence, any analysis to this level (invariably found) and then claiming to have obtained a "null" result must be considered null and void, as in the most simple terms the risk of not picking up small differences was high (> .5) to very high (>.7 ... >.9) and indeed often high enough to make it an almsot certainty that small differences where missed.
I have raised the same self point repeatedly in this thread. Not once has anyone provided a reasonable rejection, here is the last chance. Unless you can suggests why such misapplied statistics would still give results that should be considered speak now, or I shall consider the fundamental criticism level at the statistics as carried without opposition.
Sayonara
The fundamental fallacy lies here. Anyone who understands Jan's comment will appreciate how error budget should be apportioned.
Some comments.
The domain of A/B testing for small audible differences in cables is one where individual differences likely rule - and many in this thread seem to think it appropriate that experimantal method be (mis)applied.
The true variance within condition (individual differences) is apparently very large relative to the true variance between conditions (any actual audible difference). Add measurement error (within-person judgement errors) - and then huge sample sizes are needed to have confidence that an observed mean difference was not observed by chance.
BTW, one cannot affirm the null, only reject it.
Because of individual differences in true aural acuity, and becuse each person is a measurement instrument, frought with error - A/B testing is probably a futile excersize.
Like nearly all human characteristics, the ability to detect differences is probably somewhat normally distributed.
Some people can detect differences of some magnitude and kind better than others. Why is that so difficult to accept?
In short - who cares about the mean?
I urge everyone not to view one side or the other of this argument as an article of faith. Truth is crystal clear in matters of faith.
Truth in reality is quite fuzzy - esp. in science.
MG
The domain of A/B testing for small audible differences in cables is one where individual differences likely rule - and many in this thread seem to think it appropriate that experimantal method be (mis)applied.
The true variance within condition (individual differences) is apparently very large relative to the true variance between conditions (any actual audible difference). Add measurement error (within-person judgement errors) - and then huge sample sizes are needed to have confidence that an observed mean difference was not observed by chance.
BTW, one cannot affirm the null, only reject it.
Because of individual differences in true aural acuity, and becuse each person is a measurement instrument, frought with error - A/B testing is probably a futile excersize.
Like nearly all human characteristics, the ability to detect differences is probably somewhat normally distributed.
Some people can detect differences of some magnitude and kind better than others. Why is that so difficult to accept?
In short - who cares about the mean?
I urge everyone not to view one side or the other of this argument as an article of faith. Truth is crystal clear in matters of faith.
Truth in reality is quite fuzzy - esp. in science.
MG
KYW,
I have two comments:
- As noted above, as long as the null is not proven beyond a reasonble doubt I think the phrase is, we are, in a strict scientific formalistic sense "undecided". But what do I do when offered these fantastic 250 $/meter cables (mono, without termination, that's extra) that really change my sound experience? Do I say, hey, I'm undecided, what the heck, I'll buy them? No sir, no me.
- I would be interested in Leventhal's papers if they are available electronic or on hard copy. But common sense tells me that if the results is so sensitive to these statistic manipulations, the case for audibility cannot be very strong. Again, that means that the chances that these great cables DO completely change my sound experience are probably too low to justify the layout. But I am now more practical than scientific, and I don't want to hijack the thread off the scientific track.
Jan Didden
I have two comments:
- As noted above, as long as the null is not proven beyond a reasonble doubt I think the phrase is, we are, in a strict scientific formalistic sense "undecided". But what do I do when offered these fantastic 250 $/meter cables (mono, without termination, that's extra) that really change my sound experience? Do I say, hey, I'm undecided, what the heck, I'll buy them? No sir, no me.
- I would be interested in Leventhal's papers if they are available electronic or on hard copy. But common sense tells me that if the results is so sensitive to these statistic manipulations, the case for audibility cannot be very strong. Again, that means that the chances that these great cables DO completely change my sound experience are probably too low to justify the layout. But I am now more practical than scientific, and I don't want to hijack the thread off the scientific track.
Jan Didden
It is true that you cannot make any sweeping conclusions based on the various informal tests made by any of the contributors. I also see the issue from a practical point of view. How much of my available resources (time, money) should I devote to cables? The answer? From what I've seen here, not much.
I take great exception to statements that make claims of audibility, backed up by scientific principles which do not and cannot apply. Mathematical and theoretical models have a purpose, and in the face of such a question, can be used to narrow your choices so that you can finish the question off with an informal empirical test or two. Instead, distressingly, when the mathematical and theoretical models fail to show any significant differences, they are discarded and discredited as being inadequate, by people with no alternative explanations, and no reasonable data to properly support their objections. The biggest tool in the box of these people is the idea that it is far more complex than simple LCR parameters and impedances. Yet when pressed, not one of these people have ever been able to produce any of these alleged additional complexities. Most often skin effect and Maxwell effect are claimed, both of which are well understood, and known not to apply in the case of audio cables. There are people on this forum that could knock each and every one of these claims off by simply calculating the possible effect of any of these principles. All of them. A to Z. Silver vs copper, crystalline structures , eddy currents, and, as Ian showed, magnetostriciton. As boring as it may seem, the only reasonable conclusion for me is, it really is that simple. I completely accept that certain cables paired with certain systems can have an audible effect where they would not when paired with another system. I also think a quick investigation of this will reveal unreasonable LCR and Z parameters of the offending cable. This is not in any way an indication that things are too complex to be described by theoretical models as some would have you believe. It is an affirmation of the effectivity of these models.
I also take great exception to the way in which cables are portrayed by the Hifi media. Their continuous poetic descriptions of incredible tonality ,rhythm , transparency etc. has been so effective as to convince the masses that cables are of great import in the assembly of a hi end system. Yet on this forum, a group of experienced, and well educated audiohpiles cannot even agree that any audible difference exists, let alone which cable is better. In no other discipline of electrical engineering that I am aware of, would you find someone going beyond TEM to design a cable, yet there are cables with far more critical jobs on this earth than carrying a simple AC signal from amp to speaker.
Chris
Funny thing, in audio if you can hear things others cannot, you are revered, in society, you are sent for treatment.
I take great exception to statements that make claims of audibility, backed up by scientific principles which do not and cannot apply. Mathematical and theoretical models have a purpose, and in the face of such a question, can be used to narrow your choices so that you can finish the question off with an informal empirical test or two. Instead, distressingly, when the mathematical and theoretical models fail to show any significant differences, they are discarded and discredited as being inadequate, by people with no alternative explanations, and no reasonable data to properly support their objections. The biggest tool in the box of these people is the idea that it is far more complex than simple LCR parameters and impedances. Yet when pressed, not one of these people have ever been able to produce any of these alleged additional complexities. Most often skin effect and Maxwell effect are claimed, both of which are well understood, and known not to apply in the case of audio cables. There are people on this forum that could knock each and every one of these claims off by simply calculating the possible effect of any of these principles. All of them. A to Z. Silver vs copper, crystalline structures , eddy currents, and, as Ian showed, magnetostriciton. As boring as it may seem, the only reasonable conclusion for me is, it really is that simple. I completely accept that certain cables paired with certain systems can have an audible effect where they would not when paired with another system. I also think a quick investigation of this will reveal unreasonable LCR and Z parameters of the offending cable. This is not in any way an indication that things are too complex to be described by theoretical models as some would have you believe. It is an affirmation of the effectivity of these models.
I also take great exception to the way in which cables are portrayed by the Hifi media. Their continuous poetic descriptions of incredible tonality ,rhythm , transparency etc. has been so effective as to convince the masses that cables are of great import in the assembly of a hi end system. Yet on this forum, a group of experienced, and well educated audiohpiles cannot even agree that any audible difference exists, let alone which cable is better. In no other discipline of electrical engineering that I am aware of, would you find someone going beyond TEM to design a cable, yet there are cables with far more critical jobs on this earth than carrying a simple AC signal from amp to speaker.
Chris
Funny thing, in audio if you can hear things others cannot, you are revered, in society, you are sent for treatment.
Christopher said:
I agree on that one
I guess picky amplifiers with picky loads, combined with a range of reasonable LCR characteristics, can probably still give different results (right below oscillation or right above)...
I really get a good laugh out of most of that. But still - here we have a lot of earnest and passionate reviewers not all of which can be deluded or bought off. I don't really believe most of it, but I keep an open mind - I have been wrong before.
Besides that's the beauty of DIY no? If you DIY you can check out for yourself if solid core vs. stranded really does it for you. The problem lies not in the claims, but in the price people pay to verify them and in their credulity. KYW for once always recommends cheap and easy experiments. I made one of his cables, it didn't make a difference to me. But it cost nothing and I learnt something.
Again it's actually beautiful how so many earnest people can be so passionate about such a little thing as home audio. It reminds me of the (not always) gentlemanly fights up to the duel between rival scientists of the late 19th-early 20th century. The language was the same ... he claims ... dishonest ... falsify ... improper method ... not reproducible ... unsound mind ... whatnot. We can all only hope that our SO's never discuss what's going on late night on these threads.
Anyway, hearing seems to be surprisingly sensitive. At one point I read about an attempt to code unknown DNA data into sound because it was easier to hear possible patterns in seemingly random DNA than to attemt decoding it with algorithms.
Konnichiwa,
How should it be apportioned, if not to give an even weighting to both types of errors? Unless of course, you are not interested in the truth, but simply wish to manipulate the statistical methode to provide something that superficially could be mistaken as proof for a untennable position?
Sayonara
SY said:
How should it be apportioned, if not to give an even weighting to both types of errors? Unless of course, you are not interested in the truth, but simply wish to manipulate the statistical methode to provide something that superficially could be mistaken as proof for a untennable position?
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
If for you these cables make a material difference you need to ask - is the difference of a type and degree that makes the difference worth $ 500 to me?
I have not yet found any commercial cables I would ever consider owning (excluding all the really ultra-expensive stuff) which where capable to comprehensively outperform my "UBYTE" steries of homemade cables (note, the UBYTE Moinker stands for "Usually Beats Your Terrible Engineering" and was coined by the alter ego of Jocko Homo). Hence I have so far not found a reason to spend such money. But that is my own, personal counsel which I usually keep, in preference to limping proping up myself on other peoples opinions as crutches.
As the AES Preprints and JAES articles are available from the AES - please pay their ransom and buy the copies.
Hmmm. May I ask again, have you ever actually "double blind" tested ABX testing?
Take a group of people with strong opinions on a given subject, tell them they will participate in an ABX test upon that subject, but instead test a different variable, one whose audibility is under no abiguity. Tabulate the results. You will find yourself very surprised. Even more so if you alter the significance levels (or indeed choose to use more sophisticated statistical methodes).
I am perfectly in agreement. Most currently marketed "High End" audio cables actually are badly designed simply from a viewpoint of the fundamental parameters, the issues of interconnecting multiple pieces of mains powered gear etc.... Many cables actually DO change the sound, simply by being "tonecontrols".
However, I made the point before and will make it again. We have two COMPLETELY SEPERATE issues here and mixing one into the other is at the very best bad logic, at the worste a deliberate muddeling of the issues.
The Issues:
1) Do/Can speaker and interconnect cables make an audible difference?
2) Is a given cable marketed as "High End" cable good value for the money asked?
I notice that whenever the "Anti Cable League" runs out of arguments to defend the "null" position they something like:
"But what do I do when offered these fantastic 250 $/meter cables (mono, without termination, that's extra)"
You see, you are now DELIBERATLY mixing the issues. Given that you cannot, beyond a resonable doubt support the inaudibility of cables you switch to the "protect the dumb consumer form people after their money" line.
This has been a feature of the whole argument since the late 1970's. One would have thought the Anti Cable League could have come up with something else than rigged pseudo scientific tests and the endless argument about money, assuming they actually had a case, other than "sour grapes".
So, please once and for all either point out what bearing the cost of a given marketed cable has on the issue if certain differences in cable construction make an audible difference or not?
By muddeling the issues the way it always happens nobody benefits more than those people marketing overpriced and underengineered audio cables at a high premium. As long as there is a wholesale denial of any possible differences when enough people hear them at least to their own satisfaction you only leave a wideopen market without checks and balances whithin which ANYTHING can be claimed and anything sold.
I suspect any cable maker reading this thread is just sitting there and chuckeling to himself. Your side of the argument has prevented any accountability in the market for > 20 Years and made it what it is, in my view anyway. Without so much extremely noisy and long drawn out argument cables had never gotten the press they have and a more level view on the subject would have possibly prevailed....
Sayonara
janneman said:
If for you these cables make a material difference you need to ask - is the difference of a type and degree that makes the difference worth $ 500 to me?
I have not yet found any commercial cables I would ever consider owning (excluding all the really ultra-expensive stuff) which where capable to comprehensively outperform my "UBYTE" steries of homemade cables (note, the UBYTE Moinker stands for "Usually Beats Your Terrible Engineering" and was coined by the alter ego of Jocko Homo). Hence I have so far not found a reason to spend such money. But that is my own, personal counsel which I usually keep, in preference to limping proping up myself on other peoples opinions as crutches.
janneman said:
As the AES Preprints and JAES articles are available from the AES - please pay their ransom and buy the copies.
janneman said:
Hmmm. May I ask again, have you ever actually "double blind" tested ABX testing?
Take a group of people with strong opinions on a given subject, tell them they will participate in an ABX test upon that subject, but instead test a different variable, one whose audibility is under no abiguity. Tabulate the results. You will find yourself very surprised. Even more so if you alter the significance levels (or indeed choose to use more sophisticated statistical methodes).
janneman said:
I am perfectly in agreement. Most currently marketed "High End" audio cables actually are badly designed simply from a viewpoint of the fundamental parameters, the issues of interconnecting multiple pieces of mains powered gear etc.... Many cables actually DO change the sound, simply by being "tonecontrols".
However, I made the point before and will make it again. We have two COMPLETELY SEPERATE issues here and mixing one into the other is at the very best bad logic, at the worste a deliberate muddeling of the issues.
The Issues:
1) Do/Can speaker and interconnect cables make an audible difference?
2) Is a given cable marketed as "High End" cable good value for the money asked?
I notice that whenever the "Anti Cable League" runs out of arguments to defend the "null" position they something like:
"But what do I do when offered these fantastic 250 $/meter cables (mono, without termination, that's extra)"
You see, you are now DELIBERATLY mixing the issues. Given that you cannot, beyond a resonable doubt support the inaudibility of cables you switch to the "protect the dumb consumer form people after their money" line.
This has been a feature of the whole argument since the late 1970's. One would have thought the Anti Cable League could have come up with something else than rigged pseudo scientific tests and the endless argument about money, assuming they actually had a case, other than "sour grapes".
So, please once and for all either point out what bearing the cost of a given marketed cable has on the issue if certain differences in cable construction make an audible difference or not?
By muddeling the issues the way it always happens nobody benefits more than those people marketing overpriced and underengineered audio cables at a high premium. As long as there is a wholesale denial of any possible differences when enough people hear them at least to their own satisfaction you only leave a wideopen market without checks and balances whithin which ANYTHING can be claimed and anything sold.
I suspect any cable maker reading this thread is just sitting there and chuckeling to himself. Your side of the argument has prevented any accountability in the market for > 20 Years and made it what it is, in my view anyway. Without so much extremely noisy and long drawn out argument cables had never gotten the press they have and a more level view on the subject would have possibly prevailed....
Sayonara
Hi,
Makes me wonder...what do all these non-believers use to hook up their speakers?
Please state make or if diy ( I applaud already) , give a detailed technical description, please.
A: Absolutely...and I can, but refuse to explain once again as to the why.
A: Hardly ever. Although admittedly from a DIY POV hardly any product seems good value for money...no matter what the media has to say 'bout it.
Cheers,😉
Makes me wonder...what do all these non-believers use to hook up their speakers?
Please state make or if diy ( I applaud already) , give a detailed technical description, please.
A: Absolutely...and I can, but refuse to explain once again as to the why.
A: Hardly ever. Although admittedly from a DIY POV hardly any product seems good value for money...no matter what the media has to say 'bout it.
Cheers,😉
Speaker cables: Semi-DIY, 3x12, stranded copper, opaque vinyl insulation, construction-site orange. Big extension cords with the plug and socket cut off and spade lugs soldered on (60/40 Kester, using a 125W Weller gun). About 3 m long. And yes, I've had various fancy "audiophile" cables in here from time to time. Some of the sci-fi ones sounded different due to higher DCR, otherwise nothing that would tempt me to spend more than 30 cents a foot. The enthusiasts who have brought them over to show me the difference are stunned that I don't hear it. But, when the cable is hidden, their night-and-day differences seem to magically disappear.
Hi MBK,
I didn't mean to infer that these guys were on the take, or not passionate about audio, I just think that these glowing reviews are way over the top, and many readers don't have the information to question the validity of such opinions.
As for mixing dollars into the equation. We wouldn't be having this debate if a set of the most expensive cables available cost 100 clams.
DIY. 50 conductor ribbon cable terminated with crimped (MOT approved crimper) gold plated copper spades. (wwayy too much resistance in SY's 60/40 solder for such a cable to be taken seriously) he he
Chris
I didn't mean to infer that these guys were on the take, or not passionate about audio, I just think that these glowing reviews are way over the top, and many readers don't have the information to question the validity of such opinions.
As for mixing dollars into the equation. We wouldn't be having this debate if a set of the most expensive cables available cost 100 clams.
DIY. 50 conductor ribbon cable terminated with crimped (MOT approved crimper) gold plated copper spades. (wwayy too much resistance in SY's 60/40 solder for such a cable to be taken seriously) he he
Chris
Christopher,
Oh I agree that given the usual review language - for cables or anything else - we have 1000% quantum leaps every month and are in heaven since long ago...
Anyway my speaker cables are short (<1 m) because my system is bi-amped with amps on the speaker. Material is double-8 stranded that I got for free about 10 years ago when I bought my first speakers. Hard wired to my chip amps. I think they are 16 awg, too thick really, I guess I might change that to the 20 awg solid core silver (?) plated kind that I use inside chassis, easier to solder reliably.
Interconnects a wild mix of OEM free RCA ones (the plastic jack sleeved kind), one $50 monster double shielded which never made a difference to my ears, some Radio Shack ones, and self assembled balanced connections using standard microphone cable and whatever XLR brand looked solid enough to me in the store. Current favorite is Cannon.
The biggest (only?) differences I hear are always due to loose or bad connectors. My conclusion: if you DIY, hardwire the thing OR spend all the big bucks on the best connectors you can get. That can be $$$ enough, even DIY, and that's the reason why I haven't followed my own advice yet, still using the crap ones ;-)
Oh I agree that given the usual review language - for cables or anything else - we have 1000% quantum leaps every month and are in heaven since long ago...
Anyway my speaker cables are short (<1 m) because my system is bi-amped with amps on the speaker. Material is double-8 stranded that I got for free about 10 years ago when I bought my first speakers. Hard wired to my chip amps. I think they are 16 awg, too thick really, I guess I might change that to the 20 awg solid core silver (?) plated kind that I use inside chassis, easier to solder reliably.
Interconnects a wild mix of OEM free RCA ones (the plastic jack sleeved kind), one $50 monster double shielded which never made a difference to my ears, some Radio Shack ones, and self assembled balanced connections using standard microphone cable and whatever XLR brand looked solid enough to me in the store. Current favorite is Cannon.
The biggest (only?) differences I hear are always due to loose or bad connectors. My conclusion: if you DIY, hardwire the thing OR spend all the big bucks on the best connectors you can get. That can be $$$ enough, even DIY, and that's the reason why I haven't followed my own advice yet, still using the crap ones ;-)
QUOTE]Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa,
[snip]
However, I made the point before and will make it again. We have two COMPLETELY SEPERATE issues here and mixing one into the other is at the very best bad logic, at the worste a deliberate muddeling of the issues.
The Issues:
1) Do/Can speaker and interconnect cables make an audible difference?
2) Is a given cable marketed as "High End" cable good value for the money asked?
I notice that whenever the "Anti Cable League" runs out of arguments to defend the "null" position they something like:
"But what do I do when offered these fantastic 250 $/meter cables (mono, without termination, that's extra)"
You see, you are now DELIBERATLY mixing the issues. Given that you cannot, beyond a resonable doubt support the inaudibility of cables you switch to the "protect the dumb consumer form people after their money" line.[snip]Sayonara [/QUOTE]
You are right, these are two issues, but they are NOT "completely separated". You know very well that I do not bring up the issue of laying out money for commercial supercables because I cannot support the inaudibility issue. For me that is no issue: since nor you or anybody else has proven there is an audibility, it doesn't exist (for the sake of this discussion, don't try to catch me on this on). I find it quite a show of running out of arguments if you have to switch to attacking me on the money issue. But I really hadn't expected otherwise.
It is people like you, who keep up the myth of audibility, that give supercable builders the chance to market (and sell) these ridiculously expensive cables, because there are many that want the best they can get and mistakenly think that these cables are the best, that they do add something beyond the reasonable low resistance twin lead.
Keep it up, you may singlehandedly pull the economy out of the doldrums.
Jan Didden
Konnichiwa,
[snip]
However, I made the point before and will make it again. We have two COMPLETELY SEPERATE issues here and mixing one into the other is at the very best bad logic, at the worste a deliberate muddeling of the issues.
The Issues:
1) Do/Can speaker and interconnect cables make an audible difference?
2) Is a given cable marketed as "High End" cable good value for the money asked?
I notice that whenever the "Anti Cable League" runs out of arguments to defend the "null" position they something like:
"But what do I do when offered these fantastic 250 $/meter cables (mono, without termination, that's extra)"
You see, you are now DELIBERATLY mixing the issues. Given that you cannot, beyond a resonable doubt support the inaudibility of cables you switch to the "protect the dumb consumer form people after their money" line.[snip]Sayonara [/QUOTE]
You are right, these are two issues, but they are NOT "completely separated". You know very well that I do not bring up the issue of laying out money for commercial supercables because I cannot support the inaudibility issue. For me that is no issue: since nor you or anybody else has proven there is an audibility, it doesn't exist (for the sake of this discussion, don't try to catch me on this on). I find it quite a show of running out of arguments if you have to switch to attacking me on the money issue. But I really hadn't expected otherwise.
It is people like you, who keep up the myth of audibility, that give supercable builders the chance to market (and sell) these ridiculously expensive cables, because there are many that want the best they can get and mistakenly think that these cables are the best, that they do add something beyond the reasonable low resistance twin lead.
Keep it up, you may singlehandedly pull the economy out of the doldrums.
Jan Didden
janneman said:
But Jan, the type of statement you just used is exactly the reason why these threads always degenerate the same way. Such a statement would never fly in a scientific article. Absence of evidence is no evidence for absence.
You have all the reason in the world to say, for instance, something like this: "Since nor you or anybody else has proven there is an audibility, I regard the issue as unimportant and recommend others don't waste their time on it." Same meaning, 95% less contentious. I would in fact subscribe to such a statement.
MBK said:
OK, yes, you are right. I should have said: since it has not been proven yet, it's "undecided". Thanks for correcting me.
Jan Didden
Sorry, I didn't mean to lecture.
I meant to say, in this forum, I often see contributors discuss wording rather than content. That can be avoided.
[feels guilty to bring up wording again]
I meant to say, in this forum, I often see contributors discuss wording rather than content. That can be avoided.
[feels guilty to bring up wording again]
Konnichiwa,
I MUST insist that they are. Otherwise you are in effect saying: "the differences between the cables are inaudible because one set of cables cosst a lot of money!"
You are NOT getting it, do you? I do not support the cable industry. I have no stake in it, I could not care less if it disappear tomorrow.
However, you are mixing two completely seperate issues.
One is the marketing and pricing of commercial "luxary" type items (such as Armani Suits, Bently Cars, Rolex Watches and of course High End Stereo, AV etc.) the other is the audibility of differences in cable construction.
If you cannot understand why it is ESSENTIAL to separate the issues than you fail to understand the basics about the scientific methode. And it is indeed exactly this muddeling up of seperate issues and the attached emotional responses that prevent a sensible discussion and evaluation of the issues.
The whole ABX and DB Test issue with regards to cables came from the fact that some people took exception to the pricing and marketing of luxary type (not commodity type) articles and choose to proof that there was no justifcation for the money charged.
However, instead of using the economic argument (which applies to many luxary articles - is a Bently really better than a Sporty Mazda for a fraction of the money?), they choose to contest that these items (not just cables) made a difference.
Yet the actual motive (which we can see again and again) is actually the economical issue, be it out of an unwillingness or inability to pay the price requested by the manufacturer.
Funny. I regulary comment that most commercial cables are NOT worth the outlay asked and that many suffer from fundamental design defficiencies. Yes, I argue this from a point of proposing that cables CAN make audible differences through a wide variety of mechanisms.
However, I'm probably more of a force towards refuting high priced cables as a sensible option to improve sound than most others.
So, can you (and indeed many others) PLEASE actually divorce the economical issues in High End Audio from the actual issues if such items as passive components (and indeed their orientation), cables, active components etc. CAN make an audible difference?
Sayonara
janneman said:
I MUST insist that they are. Otherwise you are in effect saying: "the differences between the cables are inaudible because one set of cables cosst a lot of money!"
janneman said:
You are NOT getting it, do you? I do not support the cable industry. I have no stake in it, I could not care less if it disappear tomorrow.
However, you are mixing two completely seperate issues.
One is the marketing and pricing of commercial "luxary" type items (such as Armani Suits, Bently Cars, Rolex Watches and of course High End Stereo, AV etc.) the other is the audibility of differences in cable construction.
If you cannot understand why it is ESSENTIAL to separate the issues than you fail to understand the basics about the scientific methode. And it is indeed exactly this muddeling up of seperate issues and the attached emotional responses that prevent a sensible discussion and evaluation of the issues.
The whole ABX and DB Test issue with regards to cables came from the fact that some people took exception to the pricing and marketing of luxary type (not commodity type) articles and choose to proof that there was no justifcation for the money charged.
However, instead of using the economic argument (which applies to many luxary articles - is a Bently really better than a Sporty Mazda for a fraction of the money?), they choose to contest that these items (not just cables) made a difference.
Yet the actual motive (which we can see again and again) is actually the economical issue, be it out of an unwillingness or inability to pay the price requested by the manufacturer.
janneman said:
Funny. I regulary comment that most commercial cables are NOT worth the outlay asked and that many suffer from fundamental design defficiencies. Yes, I argue this from a point of proposing that cables CAN make audible differences through a wide variety of mechanisms.
However, I'm probably more of a force towards refuting high priced cables as a sensible option to improve sound than most others.
So, can you (and indeed many others) PLEASE actually divorce the economical issues in High End Audio from the actual issues if such items as passive components (and indeed their orientation), cables, active components etc. CAN make an audible difference?
Sayonara
Yes, very well said.
Another skill is to be able to divorce expectation from the sonic evaluation/judgement equation.
I have repaired and then listened to thousands of pieces of audio gear that do not belong to me so I therefore have no vested interest, and I find this allows me to make unbiased and balanced judgements of this gear.
I approach listening to such equipment with an open ear, and I don't actually care how it sounds, so long as it is working to factory standard - usually my reaction is 'ho hum so what', and sometimes I am pleasantly surprised and enjoy the sound of the device under test.
Because I see the front panels of so many pieces of ugly or just plain silly looking gear, appearances hold no weight with me either, and visuals are not a factor in my evaluation process.
Many 'audiophiles' allow themselves to be mesmerised - wether it be the flashy brochure, the pretty front panel, the flashy connectors and cables sheaths, the price, etc..... hypnosis is hypnosis, and many follow like zombies by not discounting the above psychological influences, instead of listening to musical presentation and then being able to distinguish subtle sonics changes due to subtle changes such as cables, passive components and active components, and tweaks.
This is an acquired skill, and once gained is not forgotten.
Explaining this skill to those who do not have it is difficult.
Eric.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.