the problem with some of the last 10 posts or so is there is no evidence. Steve and cnoevil saying people accept the evidence - but if referring to these so called tests online, which are not scientific, I'm sure most would agree they aren't evidence which ever side of the debate you are on.
so it comes down to your own experience and 'evidence' in the sense of what you hear of your system and whether you've found good and bad cables.
So I'd say as there isn't evidence in science to pick out two speaker cables in a-b open tests or abx blind tests, because therw are not any reliable tests, it's about forming views on our experiences. Leif talks about if he is unsafe to drive or not having drunk, but this isn't scientific evidence of whether he is or isn't. His knowledge of being unsafe is based on his experience and ability tohandle alcohol, aside from the law of course.
But conflating your own personal 'evidence' to the argument 'different speaker cables don't sound different in systems' is wrong, because it doesn't take account of the others experience and isn't respectful of that. I also think when you drill people down you find out why they think what they do to holding this view. Because there are people who believe the cables don't make a difference and other that do. If we accept for a moment that these are legitimately based on ones own experience, but that each view is correct on these experiences, why is this so? This is the interesting human part of the cable debate for me, as I find so many more reasons in a positive sense based on my experience, to say the right cables do improve performance in some systems, than the opposite position they don't. I see reasons of detractors like
- they don't own a system you can hear differences, either in quality etc. This gets you lots of criticism and makes them believe even more as they see it as boasting or they perceive they are critising you, when it's not. Often amongst people who don't have much nouse. It's just making a point to serve an argument
- they never try. If you don't try you can tell yourself if cables make any difference
-they think their system is superb (and it may be to them rightly) to the view if they can't hear differences in cables, it must be the fact cables don't make a difference and it's not their system just not revealing any differences.
But the arguments on the other side I see, for why someone instructs me I can't hear any differences, which I always find rather arrogant when I can (and loads of other besides by buying these cables keeping firms like chord in business etc) are such as
- you are just a hi fi snob: not releasing that I've owned budget stuff too and that by being a snob it's somehow about spending a lot for the sake of it. As far as I'm concerned spending on hi fi is a means to an end to get great sound, just like a £2k system will do that better than a £200 one
- you want to spend for the sake of it: I make judgements of if a cable is worth it just like any other hi fi purchase. I have no credible reason to waste money. If it doesn't make a difference it goes back and many items have.
-you are hearing differences you want to hear : no foundation in science taking account of how the auditory cortex works, they explain the mcgurk effect without realising thats it's the brain processing conflicting messages which doesn't happen when listening to hi fi. One guy was trying to explain to me he heard a rustling bag sound which he thought was an animal and that we are fooled into hearing the animal. No absolutely not. You hear the bag, the sound gets referred from the auditory cortex to the memory parts of the brain, and if it sounds different to the bag and like an animal, you react as if it's an animal. You think you e heard the animal and not the bag. But the sound is the same. There is no such conflicting thing going on in hi fi. I know what a guitar or violin sounds like. I can judge the quality of the sound of a violin through different hi fi.
- bias wanting it to be better - with the above in mind my brain can't make my auditory cortex prefer and hear differently. Motivation centres cannot override our judgement of the quality of sound otherwise we wouldn't get the information from our environment. Tasting apple juice wanting it to be orange juice, wouldn't make it orange juice. Bias happens when it's close or you are fooled e.g. Hearing aids
so it comes down to your own experience and 'evidence' in the sense of what you hear of your system and whether you've found good and bad cables.
So I'd say as there isn't evidence in science to pick out two speaker cables in a-b open tests or abx blind tests, because therw are not any reliable tests, it's about forming views on our experiences. Leif talks about if he is unsafe to drive or not having drunk, but this isn't scientific evidence of whether he is or isn't. His knowledge of being unsafe is based on his experience and ability tohandle alcohol, aside from the law of course.
But conflating your own personal 'evidence' to the argument 'different speaker cables don't sound different in systems' is wrong, because it doesn't take account of the others experience and isn't respectful of that. I also think when you drill people down you find out why they think what they do to holding this view. Because there are people who believe the cables don't make a difference and other that do. If we accept for a moment that these are legitimately based on ones own experience, but that each view is correct on these experiences, why is this so? This is the interesting human part of the cable debate for me, as I find so many more reasons in a positive sense based on my experience, to say the right cables do improve performance in some systems, than the opposite position they don't. I see reasons of detractors like
- they don't own a system you can hear differences, either in quality etc. This gets you lots of criticism and makes them believe even more as they see it as boasting or they perceive they are critising you, when it's not. Often amongst people who don't have much nouse. It's just making a point to serve an argument
- they never try. If you don't try you can tell yourself if cables make any difference
-they think their system is superb (and it may be to them rightly) to the view if they can't hear differences in cables, it must be the fact cables don't make a difference and it's not their system just not revealing any differences.
But the arguments on the other side I see, for why someone instructs me I can't hear any differences, which I always find rather arrogant when I can (and loads of other besides by buying these cables keeping firms like chord in business etc) are such as
- you are just a hi fi snob: not releasing that I've owned budget stuff too and that by being a snob it's somehow about spending a lot for the sake of it. As far as I'm concerned spending on hi fi is a means to an end to get great sound, just like a £2k system will do that better than a £200 one
- you want to spend for the sake of it: I make judgements of if a cable is worth it just like any other hi fi purchase. I have no credible reason to waste money. If it doesn't make a difference it goes back and many items have.
-you are hearing differences you want to hear : no foundation in science taking account of how the auditory cortex works, they explain the mcgurk effect without realising thats it's the brain processing conflicting messages which doesn't happen when listening to hi fi. One guy was trying to explain to me he heard a rustling bag sound which he thought was an animal and that we are fooled into hearing the animal. No absolutely not. You hear the bag, the sound gets referred from the auditory cortex to the memory parts of the brain, and if it sounds different to the bag and like an animal, you react as if it's an animal. You think you e heard the animal and not the bag. But the sound is the same. There is no such conflicting thing going on in hi fi. I know what a guitar or violin sounds like. I can judge the quality of the sound of a violin through different hi fi.
- bias wanting it to be better - with the above in mind my brain can't make my auditory cortex prefer and hear differently. Motivation centres cannot override our judgement of the quality of sound otherwise we wouldn't get the information from our environment. Tasting apple juice wanting it to be orange juice, wouldn't make it orange juice. Bias happens when it's close or you are fooled e.g. Hearing aids
The other thing is when people start talking about confirmation bias or subjective validation they refer to what these 'evidence studies' show which don't have the right hypothesis (see my post hash 12), and as we know the so called evidence is not scientific and is hugely flawed. Like the magazine article of the 6 cables on this thread. Hugely flawed (and I'm playing devils advocate and critising an article which professes to draw an inference to say expensive cables can make a difference). If you actually read and digest what that magazine test shows, it does nothing of the sort, especially on its limited sample size etc.
So if anything the subjective validation is the other way around. People rely on zero scientific evidence to validate views.
So if anything the subjective validation is the other way around. People rely on zero scientific evidence to validate views.
TBF. What I said, is that people are usually predispositioned one way or the other, regarding cables....and then go looking for what ever evidence they can find, to support their (often strongly) held belief.
Having been on the cable merry-go round on here, more times than is healthy....I've come to the following conclusions:
- People with a science background (and what I call a Science Brain) have a strong, built-in scepticism, that cables cannot and will not make a difference. They therefore think testing them is a total waste of time. If they did hear a difference, they will put it down to Expectation Bias, unless conclusive proof is provided through measurements and/or proper blind testing protocols.
There are people from this background who went and tested cables and have been converted, but generally speaking they advise that people shouldn't be taken in by the Industry Snake-Oil Salemen, who just want to part them from their money.
- There is then people like me...who I call "Art Brain" (the other group would say Pea Brain). They have heard the strong arguments from both sides, so end up trying for themselves. They aren't into measuring everything, or doing Peer-Reviewed blind tests. They simply try them and go on what they hear....flawed and all as that may be.
Personally, I would like each side to learn from the other. I would like total sceptics to borrow a bunch of expensive cables, bung them in their system and report what they hear; and I would like us ordinary folk, to be aware of the Placebo/Expectation Bias and look into the science a bit more.
I don't always agree with DDC, but he is someone who has come at this from both sides and so has more insight than most....so I repect his opinion. If either side wants to change the mind of the other, a little respect goes a long way....and insults only help to entrench opinions. People who don't think cables make a difference aren't deaf; and people who do, aren't gullible and stupid.....that is a good starting point from which to have a debate.
Having been on the cable merry-go round on here, more times than is healthy....I've come to the following conclusions:
- People with a science background (and what I call a Science Brain) have a strong, built-in scepticism, that cables cannot and will not make a difference. They therefore think testing them is a total waste of time. If they did hear a difference, they will put it down to Expectation Bias, unless conclusive proof is provided through measurements and/or proper blind testing protocols.
There are people from this background who went and tested cables and have been converted, but generally speaking they advise that people shouldn't be taken in by the Industry Snake-Oil Salemen, who just want to part them from their money.
- There is then people like me...who I call "Art Brain" (the other group would say Pea Brain). They have heard the strong arguments from both sides, so end up trying for themselves. They aren't into measuring everything, or doing Peer-Reviewed blind tests. They simply try them and go on what they hear....flawed and all as that may be.
Personally, I would like each side to learn from the other. I would like total sceptics to borrow a bunch of expensive cables, bung them in their system and report what they hear; and I would like us ordinary folk, to be aware of the Placebo/Expectation Bias and look into the science a bit more.
I don't always agree with DDC, but he is someone who has come at this from both sides and so has more insight than most....so I repect his opinion. If either side wants to change the mind of the other, a little respect goes a long way....and insults only help to entrench opinions. People who don't think cables make a difference aren't deaf; and people who do, aren't gullible and stupid.....that is a good starting point from which to have a debate.
The best sounding cable is the one that comes closest to no cable at all, so that would be the one with the lowest resistance.
CnoEvil said:
i agree with what you say up to the point where you say 'they go on what they hear - flawed as that may be' because that's what I've been trying to explore why people think that and when you do explore, you find out why, and I strongly think that the idea it's flawed (when it's very obvious in sound difference) is misconceived. It's right to hold someone up who thinks cables don't make a difference and they own a £100 hi fi.
i have a science background but what I can tell is when a study is flawed and is one sided and most of these cable tests both for and against the argument, are. So I don't go along with those into science think that the studies show no empirical differences in cables, simply because if you have any level of understanding of how science conducts tests and surveys, and all you need is a basic understanding on that score, you'd never come to the conclusions people do on the current studies they proclaim to be evidence. Is anyone seriously telling me 3 people in a survey across 6 cables is reliable, where is the testing of significance.
Also you have to come at it on can people tell in abx tests, conduct a proper test, and then try and explain reasons. Someone else will do a test slightly different that will get opposite results and so on. That's what you do in biology and genetics. You look at all the studies to form opinions. What they often do in hi fi is come at it the wrong way, ie they aren't scientists so come at it with no fair hypothesis.
What if it had a low resistance, but a relatively high for a cable capacitance?Oldphrt said:
What about inductance too?
QuestForThe13thNote said:
I am someone who is a cable advocate and so think they are worth exploring. I am also aware that Placebo and Expectation Bias are real phenomenon, which is why listening can be "potentially" flawed.
I have heard enough to have formed my view, which is strongly held. I trusted my judgement when buying every element of my system and have trusted that same judgement when evaluating cables.... I don't expect anyone else to trust my judgement, as I have little empirical evidence.
I seldom discuss cables any more, as it always descends into an entrenched, polemic debate...that contains more heat, than light.
I found this article very knowledgeable:
The Wire and Cable Scene:
Facts, Fictions, and Frauds
Part II
By Peter Aczel
Sorry can't hyperlink on my mobile but easy to find on Google
The Wire and Cable Scene:
Facts, Fictions, and Frauds
Part II
By Peter Aczel
Sorry can't hyperlink on my mobile but easy to find on Google
CnoEvil said:
Arguing against entrenched views eventually becomes a pointless excersise, I have gone as far as I am able on this one.
As a dealer I used to get plenty of customers with firmly entrenched views. In many cases it was possible to refute them by the simple excersise of demonstrating that those views were incorrect. In some cases it was as simple and unsubtle as showing, by demonstration that their favoured product, whatever it was, was actually not the best thing since sliced bread.
What was interesting was the reactions, many thought that the demonstrations were in some way rigged (they weren't) so were not convinced, others accepted the results 'in principle' but still relied on their own 'preferences' when it came to selecting their system.
If the views are truly entrenched, they are remarkably difficult to shift, evidence is dissmissed out of hand for some ridiculous reason or another so no progress is made.
Point of order. I have always tried to be careful in what I say in these matters. Experience (including some blind testing) has convinced me that subjective listening is highly unreliable in making a serious evaluation of any hi-fi component, that is my base opinion.
Everything flows from that, if you hear a big difference between (say) speaker cables then something is going on. It is more likely, in my view, to be a pysco acoustic effect than a real difference (though I accept that this might be possible in some cases) but the only way I know of testing this is by blind testing.
davedotco said:
Having read a lot (and agreeing with a good percentage) of your posts.....and seeing some of the systems you have owned and liked, including Valves....it is my hunch, that you work quite hard at keeping your subjective side under control, as it's all too easy to embrace your inner audiophile. *dirol*
It really isn't under control at all, I still hear differences that I know don't exist (in all probability) and like you I am occasionally taken aback by the kind of unexpected revelations you detail in your Atlas cable anecdote. I refer you to my 'speaker cables of unequal length' issues.
It was the controlled testing that made all the differences, level matching when testing dacs and amps for example, shows just how tiny the differences can be even though they seem obvious in normal listening.
However, I think it is a good thing that people choose systems in the normal way, absolute differences between component seem much less inportant than the way listeners interact with the system, sometimes just buying what you fancy and works well for you is the best result.
It was the controlled testing that made all the differences, level matching when testing dacs and amps for example, shows just how tiny the differences can be even though they seem obvious in normal listening.
However, I think it is a good thing that people choose systems in the normal way, absolute differences between component seem much less inportant than the way listeners interact with the system, sometimes just buying what you fancy and works well for you is the best result.
Al ears
Well-known member
davedotco said:
+1
Sometimes just the look of an item can enhance it's sound qualities...... ;-)
I appreciate everyone is free to do what they think is best.
However just out of pure curiosity I would want to try it.
£1000+ a metre cables might seem crazy but I still would want try them.
Most sceptic have tried £10 a metre tops and written the idea of testing more off based on that when you ask them.
Again do you what you want but I would want to try them to know that I have.
However just out of pure curiosity I would want to try it.
£1000+ a metre cables might seem crazy but I still would want try them.
Most sceptic have tried £10 a metre tops and written the idea of testing more off based on that when you ask them.
Again do you what you want but I would want to try them to know that I have.
QuestForThe13thNote said:
You spare no effort in pulling apart any test which provides results that you do not like, but accept without question subjective impressions where the listener knows what they are listening to. In other words, you have double standards.
I honestly do not care what the results are, but blind tests are the only way to remove subjective bias. If blind tests showed that cables made a big difference, I would go out and compare cables. But they don't.
If cables really could tighten bass and reduce cable, or whatever, I bet the makers would be plastering that information on the packaging, and the adverts. But they don't. Did you ever wonder why? Could it be because it would open them to prosecution for making false claims?
ellisdj said:
Me too. Why not contact the makers, and say that you wish to do blind testing of their cables and see what they say? I bet they refuse. But I suspect if you said you were doing non blind testing, they might say yes.
Leif said:
I gave a link to a blind test...which included the Nordost Valhalla, as the most expensive cable....and it came out on top.
Just because it is expensive wont mean i will prefer it to my xlo. But I would still like to try it just to experience it.
CnoEvil said:
Except that the article appears to prove that the test subjects cannot recognise which is better. It will take me a while to compose my thoughts on that test, but I will try and write something coherent this week. I encourage you to look at the results, rather then the conclusions, and think about them.
Leif said:
Fair enough....I am reasonably familiar with the test, as I have seen it before....but any further insight is always welcome.
nopiano
Well-known member
Much as I said in post #125 on Quest's other long thread, simply no cable at all - without mentioning resistance. Excess resistance, rarely found, might have an impact. But the holy grail is invisibility, or perhaps i should say inaudibility!Oldphrt said:
Any claims of altering sound are suspect, though rarely it might be helpful. Manufacturers are often silent on this point, fearing legal action. Chord, for example, say something about being enjoyed by music lovers, which is hard to challenge!
Leif said:
no I pull apart all the so called tests both for the argument cables can be discerned apart in blind testing, and against the argument they cannot. Ie I recognise we cannot rely on either tests for or against as they stand as they are not scientific, if you read what I've been saying. So no double standards. There is no science to any of these tests as they are. In fact I even pulled apart the test in this thread stating Valhalla is not best. But that's about expense and cables which isn't my argument.
This means, as I've said it's based on ones own assessment. Then the reasons why people hold the views are quite obvious. But the fact you confirm you aren't willing to test your own assessment puts you into the category ; "I won't try" as I actually listed above. What if you had some speaker cable and it made a difference over another in sound quality terms, even if slightly, you'd have to quickly modify your position.
and as to the position it's double standards because I accept my own judgements, that's quite an unintelligent thing to say, because everyone will accept their own experiences and information if strong experiences. You accept your own view they don't make a difference, but bizarrely your view is founded on not even trying yourself, so who is in a better position in this argument?
The makers won't really say what they will do, although I suspect it's possible in many instances, because they can't predict how a cable will perform in any given system, since its all system dependent.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
I test OLED TVs for a living – and trust me, different sizes perform differently- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram