Another interconnect question....Sorry

[idc]

Tarquinh:
Can I suggest you head down to your local dealer, borrow a range of cables ranging from £10 to £200 and settle down for a weekend's listening. Include your current cables in that, and bear in mind you may have to tweak the volume here and there.

Saved me a lot of money.

Have the cables swapped about for you so you do not know which is which. Make sure the volume is equalised between cables, as different cables can result in a different volume. That is important as it is the only actual difference a cable can make to the sound. Anything else is interfered with by our other senses, from a brand preference to the look of the cable to its cost.

 

[idc]

Gerrardasnails:idc:
Thanks! This is all you will ever need....... clicky

It is proven that all cables sound the same by the means of blind testing. Iggles, will you/have you ever been the subject of a blind test?

Load of rubbish. I've had all the Chord cables bar a couple. I found the Crimson average and the CSP excellent.

If there really is no difference, why the need for Jean Claude? Just use a £3 cable from Maplins.

Here are blind tests of various analogue cables clicky

You are right about the cost of the Van Damme cables, they have gone up. That is because when audiophiles become fans, cable makers can increase their mark up. Maplins would be better.

Here is another blind test where Maplins and Chord cables are used clicky

The claim is that because 70% of the tests were correct, that is statistically significant. That is wrong it needs to be more like 90%. Otherwise it is in the range of the same result you would get from guessing or random.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

idc:Gerrardasnails:idc:
Thanks! This is all you will ever need....... clicky

It is proven that all cables sound the same by the means of blind testing. Iggles, will you/have you ever been the subject of a blind test?

Load of rubbish. I've had all the Chord cables bar a couple. I found the Crimson average and the CSP excellent.

If there really is no difference, why the need for Jean Claude? Just use a £3 cable from Maplins.

Here are blind tests of various analogue cables clicky

You are right about the cost of the Van Damme cables, they have gone up. That is because when audiophiles become fans, cable makers can increase their mark up. Maplins would be better.

Here is another blind test where Maplins and Chord cables are used clicky

The claim is that because 70% of the tests were correct, that is statistically significant. That is wrong it needs to be more like 90%. Otherwise it is in the range of the same result you would get from guessing or random.

Hold on a minute, you state that cables make no difference and then you offer a "clickety" which offers a "test" whereby ALL the "testers" notice a difference.

As for offering up that AV website, well I've read reviews on there before and it's pretty poor. One thing I noticed was that the tester who got 50% correct (and obviously noticed a difference), was a cable sceptic who walked out!!!

 

[idc]

The 50% or even 70% correct is a fail. The tests mean that various cables are listened to and people have to make a decision as to which is which. If at the end of the test the result is the same as random, then the decisions made are random and are not based on actual heard differences.

If there really are differences to be heard, then the results would be 90% plus with all blind tests. You either hear a difference or you don't and you should be able to identify that difference consistently and regularly, not 50% or 70% of the time.

Try selling cables where you publish blind listening test which show no better than a random change of an alleged difference in sound.

I am all up for recommendations of a cable based on the likes of Van Damme or Maplin where it is the right length, flexibilty and build quality. But blind testing shows that recommendations based on sound are not accurate.

 

[aliEnRIK]

I know where your coming from IDC

But I feel your relying on blind tests to much (Like all sceptics)

Take the AV REVIEW one. 2 sceptics and 2 believers. The sceptics couldnt tell any difference statistically (So lets assume they have bad hearing)

One of the believers got ALL answers correct, the other got ALL answers correct but had to leave early (So lets assume they have good hearing)

If a test was set up with people who CAN seemingly tell audible differences, then you might find blind tests tell a different story. Ive searched everywhere for cable blind tests, and admit that none were statistically significant. But then I know from experience that the majority of those being tested are between 35 and 55 and generally dont have very good hearing

I propose a test that uses the top 1% of MANY tests (Those that CAN seemingly tell differences). Select well constructed cables (2 cheap, 2 dear but are 'believed' by the testers to make an audible difference). Use a well constructed ABX switch box, and material the testers know (each have their own music if need be). Im pretty sure the blind tests would be at least 85% corect if not entirely statistically significant

Ive not yet found such a test though, and probably never will...............

 

[idc]

Rick, if so much assumption, effort and loading for want of a better word is needed to get a favourable result, that in itself points to the dubiety of audiophile claims cables can affect the sound.

The more tests with more people the better, irrespective of whether they are audiophile or not and their age.

Since the aim is show whether hearing alone can or cannot detect a difference in cables it needs to be way more than random, consistently. Random will also include 100% and 0% results. Proof would be 90% of tests get 90% passes.

 

[aliEnRIK]

How on earth is a person with poor quality hearing going to be able to tell differences? What youve said there basically means that blind tests will NEVER equate to anything better than average as some of the people involved cant hear differences anyways!

Im stating that people with decent hearing CAN tell differences. If you dont wish to use those then thats upto you. Im calling your blind test void

Its akin to a friend of mine who cant tell the difference between SD and HD because his eyes are shot at. Whats the point in blind testing someone who is (literally) partially blind??

If people with good hearing could statistically tell differences over 90% consistantly then theres no way on earth you could say cables dont make any difference. Correct?

 

[idc]

Correct, such a consistency would prove cables do make a difference.

With regards to the quality of hearing, you get around that by either subjecting all to a hearing test with an agreed minimum standard, or you do loads of blind tests so that the extreme results are statistically unimportant. Or you discount extreme results. The latter two are more practical, which is why I don't advocate hearing tests.

The evidence so far for me is that blind tests on various cables, including power cords have not produced anything more than random.

To be truly conclusive far more blind testing needs to be carried out, which is why Igglebert and JoelSim, with all their cables are ideal subjects.

My own did not last long as I knew I was only guessing and could not hear a difference. My hearing is fine.

 

[aliEnRIK]

I agree that an ideal solution (assuming there are differences) is very hard to sort out that would have sceptics sit up and take note

Ive definitely heard differences between 'some' cables (Incuding mains cables)

In fact I posted only a few months back how an isotek elite mains cable made a sub so 'boomy' it actually rattled the light fitting (And sounded awful). Sounding awful is subjective (Although all 3 of us agreed it sounded bad), a moving light fitting is NOT subjective

Single people like Joel etc are ok for questioning, and setting up their own blind tests if they wish to (Id certainly be interested). But again, the sceptics would scoff at such an attempt.

As for hearing, I recently bought a hifi book by Ben Duncan. In it he referred to a genuine test done that proved that 'certain' people have ears shaped in such a way it actually changes the frequencies they hear. Their hearing was fine in that theyd pass a standard hearing test no problem, but if their own ears are physically 'phase shifting' frequencies, then detail will almost cetainly be lost to them. Ears are very complex devices, im sure theres more I could dig up on them that 'may' efffect blind testing of cables.

 

[Anonymous]

Rik, you're a sceptic because you've never accepted blind tasting per se.

 

[aliEnRIK]

(bashes head against wall)

Im now getting 'error' messages

Ill try and post a reply when I can tar

 

[aliEnRIK]

Really weird site this. Allows the above message through but NEVER the one I want to post..........

 

[Anonymous]

No problems, Rik. I enjoy reading you posts, even though sometimes I may not agree with them ....

 

[idc]

Your experience with the mains cable and the sub is interesting because one thing that cables can vary is the volume. If I change cable I need to re-adjust the volume control or some headphones become too loud or too quiet to hear. I wonder if the same thing happened with your sub.

I cannot link to it, but Hifi ** made up four mains cables to look the same and sent them out to be reviewed by forum members. Two were identical kettle leads, one was a DIY cable and the other 'audiophile'. The results were random and 8 out of 23 said they could detect differences between the two identical kettle leads.

Here is another power cord test involving the Nordost Valhalla clicky

The listeners failed to discern the Nordost over other basic cables.

 

[aliEnRIK]

The placebo effect is a very powerful thing

As for loudness, we tried to adjust for that, but nothing we did made the sub sound any better other than changing the cable back to the original or a braided type.

 

[shooter]

idc:
To be truly conclusive far more blind testing needs to be carried out, which is why Igglebert and JoelSim, with all their cables are ideal subjects.

I'd be up for that!

But what system should the test be taken on?

 

[idc]

I have noticed that in the above article I linked to there is an Editors note that The National Research Council in Canada have published a study which showed trained and untrained listeners could differentiate (and I presume not differentiate) to the same extent. That is backed up research by Steve Olive of Harman International who own AKG amongst other companies.

That makes sense because if there really was a sound difference, as in a physical quality to cables which made such a difference, most if not all should hear it.

 

[idc]

shooter69:idc:
To be truly conclusive far more blind testing needs to be carried out, which is why Igglebert and JoelSim, with all their cables are ideal subjects.

I'd be up for that!

But what system should the test be taken on?

Any. If cables really do make a difference, then they should work on all systems. Otherwise sellers should advise that their cables do not work with Rega systems, for example. But really, use your own as you will be used to it, so if there are differences you will spot them better.

 

[shooter]

idc:
Here is another power cord test involving the Nordost Valhalla clicky

They look like a whimsical bunch!

But what i'd like to know is why they have what looks to be a burger sat next to there music of choice....

 

[shooter]

idc:shooter69:idc:
To be truly conclusive far more blind testing needs to be carried out, which is why Igglebert and JoelSim, with all their cables are ideal subjects.

I'd be up for that!

But what system should the test be taken on?

Any. If cables really do make a difference, then they should work on all systems. Otherwise sellers should advise that their cables do not work with Rega systems, for example. But really, use your own as you will be used to it, so if there are differences you will spot them better.

Yes but then that could be an unfair advantage to myself for instance. Maybe you could use something from each system then the sound would be new to all of us...

 

[idc]

But if cables actually sound different, why do you need to make such provisions?

Common claims are silver is brighter and night and day, or just a little bit, so it should be so with all systems.

I think familiar music and system is important, but not necessary. I want to give the believers the best chance possible.

 

[shooter]

idc:
But if cables actually sound different, why do you need to make such provisions?

Common claims are silver is brighter and night and day, or just a little bit, so it should be so with all systems.

I think familiar music and system is important, but not necessary. I want to give the believers the best chance possible.

Yes your right music is more important and listening to your test track or tracks with each type of cable would give some results i'm sure, what ever they may be.

Or maybe i just wanted to hear an amalgamation of the three systems.

 

[aliEnRIK]

Silver can be a nightmare. Most silver cables are pretty poor in that theyre not very pure. Impure silver does indeed sound bright. Very pure (which generally means pretty expensive) silver sounds very much like pure copper

 

[idc]

Prove that outrageous claim!!!! A silver/copper blind ABX test is required or you must retract

 

[shooter]

The purity of silver is gauged from 99.9% to 99.99999% with 99.99999% being the cleanest but also the most expensive. If that makes an audible difference, god only knows.