If it were proved that differences between cables were minimal, would you accept the fact?

[admin_exported]

I ask because there appears to be a group of people who, even in the case of irrefutable proof, would still not accept, much as flat earthers feel about the posited rotundity of the planet. I'm taliking about technical testing, by the way not blind testing.

To me, it's a simple case of intellectual curiosity seeking a resolution to something that, in the whole scheme of things, seem relatively unimportant.

So, would you accept or deny?

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'm posting once, then I'm out.

Define 'minimal'? To some people (I'm talking about electronics here, not necessarily cables), once you hit the law of diminishing returns, some people will happily pay a lot of money for subtle differences - sometimes these subtle differences are huge to some people.

 

[Anonymous]

Fair question. Minimal as in on the very edge of being audible, assuming average hearing of someone aged 18.

 

[Paul.]

I think comparing the average cable buying public to flat earthers is a little bombastic. And when I say average cable buying public, I do mean spending up to £20 a meter on speaker cable, not £1000 a meter.

I am yet to see irrefutable proof. Can you tell a warm signal apart from a bright signal on an oscilioscope? Can we detect subtle nuances in a waveform? Just because a dude in his shed cant spot a difference in a highly complex waveform, does not mean the difference is not there.

To be frank, I don't believe sciences finest minds give a rats a** about this problem, and untill they do (which they never will) this question will never end. There is no answer.

 

[Anonymous]

I'd accept that there's minimal difference in terms of what's being measured, for what that's worth. If I'm honest, I don't really see the point of the question. Basically you're asking if it can be shown that A nearly equals B, would you deny that A nearly equals B (and by inference show yourself to be, logically at least, an idiot as a consequence of the way you've phrased the question)?

Apologies if this response seems to come across as pointed but the way you've structured and phrased it does't really provide much of an opportunity for any sort of discussion.

 

[nads]

what cables?

for some there can be and others there is not.

 

[Anonymous]

Let me make it simple. It is really, really, easy to set up a series of tests which measure frequency responses and loudness at each frequency either directly through appropriate equipment or by miking off speakers. The information you can derive from such is pretty irrefutable, just like the information that tells us the world is round. Yet, there are people who deny this, notably those known as flat earthers, who deny this mostly on the grounds their senses tell them otherwise.

My feeling is, as the topic indicates, that, even if you proved irrefutably that 100% of cables sounded exactly the same (that is an example, by the way, not necessarily my opinion), you'd still have a significant number of people who chose to believe their ears, rather than the facts, just as with the flat earthers.

Given that, if you asked 1000 people outside a shopping centre whether cables could make a difference to sound (assuming you'd find that many who would take you seriously) 99% would answer in the negative, it is interesting at an intellectual level to try and find out, in the world of HiFi, a) whether there are differences, b) how many people would choose not to believe the findings, and c) what the reasons for non-belief would be.

Another question worth posing is why technical testing is never used for cables when it is for every other HiFi device. A subset of this is to ask why there is so much opposition, as seen in other cable threads, to tech testing. A further subset is why is should be that many assume the results of such testing would not be in favour of those who hear differences, when the reverse is just as likely to be true.

 

[chebby]

If it were proved that differences between cables were minimal, would you accept the fact?

I wouldn't give a flying... fruitbat either way.

It simply is not interesting.

 

[Anonymous]

If some people found there to be differences in sound between cables then, in my mind at least, you have proved irrefutably that 100% of cables do not sound the same. You are talking about sound perception i.e. the recieving end and not the source of the sound.

We all have differences in sensual perception and our brains are wired up in different ways (see synesthesia). We all have different belief systems (which will affect the interpretation of our sesnses). Belief systems define our personalised version of the truth (whatever that is). We all have different realities as a consequence. It's complicated. That is what makes us human and the reason why we frequently don't agree with each other. This is the type of thing I find really interesting.

 

[Anonymous]

So you accept the world is flat?

 

[Anonymous]

Chebby, then why did you bother to post?

 

[shooter]

even in the case of irrefutable proof

Show us the proof please, copy and paste is you must.

To me, it's a simple case of intellectual curiosity seeking a resolution to something that, in the whole scheme of things, seem relatively unimportant.

If this is the case, why start a thread on it and talk about it, again?

 

[Bodfish]

It strikes me that the general point of discussion being posed is slightly off target, so to speak. I don't think that anyone would refute that the physical make up and construction of a cable can have a measurable effect on four key things - inductance, resistance, capacitance and impedance.

For me, it is the combination of these factors that result in cable 'sounding' different; in actual fact it is the output stages in the equipment being used that are reacting ever so slightly differently to these characteristics. For example, early Naim amplifiers used to 'need' to have a certain length of speaker cable (NAC-5) regardless of the distances between the speakers to keep the output stages stable.

I recall a series of tests run by Hi-Fi News back in the mid-late nineties where they electrically tested about 30 different speaker cables, gave all the data relating to the above characteristics, carried subjective tests as well and then tried to draw some conclusions about the relationship between the electrical results and the subjective preferences. All very interesting but not terribly helpful in the end unless you had exactly the same system as they were using in the test.

Your question isn't that different from asking whether amplifier A with 0.012% THD sounds different/better than amplifier B which has 0.015% THD. As ericleroi says, perception is where it actually gets interesting - but that's probably best saved for the 'What Cerebellum ' Forum.

 

[Anonymous]

So you accept the world is flat?

I accept the world is different for each of us. It could be triangular shaped for some people for all I know and that doesn't bother me although I do find it intriguing.

but that's probably best saved for the 'What Cerebellum ' Forum.

lol

 

[CnoEvil]

I made one post on two threads, which was in fact one thread. Now there is one thread, with with no posts from me at all.

Feeling onset of paranoia :~

 

[Andrew Everard]

The thread was double-posted, so I removed one version, and left the one with the most replies – ie some.

And by the way, if this thread turns into the display of handbags it's already threatening, it'll be heading for the happy hunting ground PDQ.

 

[CnoEvil]

The thread was double-posted, so I removed one version, and left the one with the most replies – ie some.

Most sensible, but paranoia still there.

 

[True Blue]

If it were proved that differences between cables were minimal, would you accept the fact?

Yes, but would you accept the fact that if there were differences........................

How can you scientifically tell one apple "tastes" better or worse than another.......you cant...............its all to do with perception end of. Goodbye

 

[Dan Turner]

Ok i couldn't resist but add my 2 cents. I regard myself a a logical and rational sort of person. If i see scientific evidence, then I'm going to believe it. However I think that 'science' and 'proof' get bandied around all to often on these forums on threads about contentious subjects, and quite a lot of the time both concepts are being severely peverted - I'm not suggesting the OP here is doing that, it seems a pretty genuine question, but I can just see this thread going to way of so many others.

Science takes observations and goes about trying to explain them. Or it takes a hypothesis and sets about trying to prove or disprove it.

So in this instance (and I did like the comment from Paul above about how no serious scientist is going to give 2 hoots) if a scientist approached this topic then they would either start with the observation from many people who claim to be able to tell 2 cables apart (let's say interconnects for arguments sake), and try to measure the difference. When they had exhausted every measurement that they could apply, if they were able to measure no difference, but they still had test subjects who were able to tell them apart in a (properly executed) A/B test then they would not conclude that the test subjects were imagining it, they would say that they lack the ability to measure the phenomenon taking place. Or they would start with the hypothesis that there is no audible difference between the two cables and I'm pretty sure at that point they would realise that they don't posses a machine capable of auditory perception and then go and get some human test subjects to listen to them.

Generally speaking scientists do not go around telling people that they are imagining something. For the simple fact that any reasonably minded person has the humility to realise that they don't know what they don't know and just because you can meassure the things that you do know about it doesn't mean that there aren't potentially other factors at work that we have absolutely no clue about let alone how to measure them. The way I've seen some people talk about proof on these forums it's as if human kind knows everything that there is to know about the universe and can measure every little thing about it.

In order to prove scientifically that there was no audible difference between 2 cables you would have to be able to know and understand every characteristic of the materials that it's comprised of and be able to measure all of them as a real musical signal is passed through it in real-world conditions. Has anyone tried that? Is it even possible? Until it is we'll have to make do with the human ear.

So why the tirade? Well I remember posting on the forums about cable burn-in before now after hearing a difference between a demo set of speaker cables and the brand new ones I picked up after handing them back. It was literally a straight swap for identical cables - the first set were the demo set that I liked the sound of, and the second were the new ones that I picked up after taking the demo set back. In short it had never entered my wildest dreams that the new set of cables that I picked up would sound any different to the demo ones, so I expected nothing, other than for the new set to sound identical to the demo ones. However after installing the new ones there was a clear (worse) difference in the sound. the only thing that had changed were the cables. It may not have been an A/B test, but I had no reason to expect a difference, or to hear a difference that wasn't there, I didn't expect to, it was a genuine 'out of the blue' observation.

Anyway, having posted this I generally had my intelligence insulted and the thread went the usual way. Call me over-sensitive, but I take exception to being told i'm imagining things - and anyway, how can you imagine something you are not expecting?

So the conclusion that I draw from this is that whilst science may not be able to measure or explain (yet?) the characteristics of a cable that changes with use, that doesn't mean that such a phenomenon doesn't exist, and we have absolutely no reason the think that we are capable of scientifically defining everything that might be involved.

So in answer to the OP's original question - If I could hear a difference between 2 cables in a fair A/B test, or as in my example above had observed an unexpected difference where I had no opportunity for bias, yet some kind of 'scientific' test could not detect a difference, then I would say that the test was insufficient and did not constitute proof.

 

[idc]

To me the question should no longer be do cables make a difference and should now be why do cables make a difference?

There are far too many credible reports of cables making a difference to dismiss such. But, frequency measurements have found differences so marginal it is very doubtful that they are audible. Blind ABX testing backs that up as it finds people cannot reliably hear differences.

So my position is the very unpopular any difference is caused by placebo, buyer justification and other reasons that are psychological and not audible.

 

[professorhat]

Generally speaking scientists do not go around telling people that they are imagining something. For the simple fact that any reasonably minded person has the humility to realise that they don't know what they don't know and just because you can meassure the things that you do know about it doesn't mean that there aren't potentially other factors at work that we have absolutely no clue about let alone how to measure them. The way I've seen some people talk about proof on these forums it's as if human kind knows everything that there is to know about the universe and can measure every little thing about it.

Completely agree with this

 

[Anonymous]

To me the question should no longer be do cables make a difference and should now be why do cables make a difference?

There are far too many credible reports of cables making a difference to dismiss such. But, frequency measurements have found differences so marginal it is very doubtful that they are audible. Blind ABX testing backs that up as it finds people cannot reliably hear differences.

So my position is the very unpopular any difference is caused by placebo, buyer justification and other reasons that are psychological and not audible.

zackly

 

[idc]

Generally speaking scientists do not go around telling people that they are imagining something. For the simple fact that any reasonably minded person has the humility to realise that they don't know what they don't know and just because you can meassure the things that you do know about it doesn't mean that there aren't potentially other factors at work that we have absolutely no clue about let alone how to measure them. The way I've seen some people talk about proof on these forums it's as if human kind knows everything that there is to know about the universe and can measure every little thing about it.

Completely agree with this

There are a lot of scientists who are fighting back against the kind of psydoscience that is very present in hifi. Start off with Bed Goldacre's Bad Science as a good example.

My idea of proof is the legal beyond all reasonable doubt, not the absolute you seem to be referring to.

 

[CnoEvil]

Is there much difference between:
Deluded into believing vs Deluded into not believing (ie hearing a difference then being talked out of it)?

 

[Anonymous]

Generally speaking scientists do not go around telling people that they are imagining something. For the simple fact that any reasonably minded person has the humility to realise that they don't know what they don't know and just because you can meassure the things that you do know about it doesn't mean that there aren't potentially other factors at work that we have absolutely no clue about let alone how to measure them. The way I've seen some people talk about proof on these forums it's as if human kind knows everything that there is to know about the universe and can measure every little thing about it.

Completely agree with this

Dan Turner, I'm not in disagreement, but do remember that several scientists, such a Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe etc did just that and were vilified for their trouble.

In this instance, the science isn't particularly profound or complex, unlike the great discoveries of those to whom I referred. No-one claims to know everything abouth the universe, but these are cables. I think we can all accept that water boils at a certain temperature, and freezes at a certain temperature (both depending upon altitude) and do not question the scientific proof and testing which was required to arrive at these facts. However, to establish these simple measurements required scientific testing and demonstrable proof. Testing cables is more complex, but not really frantically so, and doesn't require new insights into scientific theory to arrive at meaningful results. The problem I have, and, I repeat, the tests could go either way, is that some seem to refuse to accept possible results that could in some cases that deny their own subjective listening experience.

By the way, it was probably I who insulted you in the thread to which you refer, for which I do apologise. Unfortunately I tend to get a bit excited when I think I have found a solution to a contentious issue, and can be a bit too dismissive. My thought is not to prove anyone an idiot for their beliefs, but to be able to prove or disprove or arrive at a conclusion using appropriate and accountable methodology.