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

[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 a theory or arrive at a conclusion using appropriate and accountable methodology.

 

[plastic penguin]

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?

I accept everything my ears tell me, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Anonymous]

how can one speaker cable.interconnect give "better sound" than another? they simply host/transport electrical pulses/signals, whatever.

the speakers produce the sound not the cables, cables are not active/intelligent, they can have no bearing on sound, it's simple logic.

 

[Anonymous]

My personal experience of all this is extremely limited. When I recently spent nearly 700 quid on a CD upgrade I thought, what the heck, 30 quid on a Chord CobraPlus interconnect won't break the bank, might as well see if there's any noticeable difference between that and the give-away jobs I've been using for over 15 years. I can't say I've noticed any at all, but that's obviously an experiment of one and even for a 38 yr old, a very crude hearing test I did a while back suggests my hearing isn't all it could be. Anyway, I remain a cable sceptic.

One aspect I think is very important in this whole debate is the skewed impression that complete newbies can get when trying to find out basic knowledge of which components of their hifi system can make a difference to sound. I find it slightly frustrating that when someone asks a simple question like "I've heard conflicting evidence about whether cables can make a difference. Should I dedicate a significant part of my budget to cables? Will I hear a difference?", so very often the answer is "If you think it will make a difference, it probably will" or "It's up to you how you spend your money". For me, an equivalent would be going to my GP and asking about homeopathy. What I would really like the GP to tell me is that there IS NO WAY that homeopathy can possibly work, beyond the placebo effect and that I really should consider medically proven treatments. IMO this isn't an exact equivalence since I don't personally know all the physical properties of difference cables to say whether there IS a possible way that real sonic differences can occur, but I think it stands up pretty well on the whole. The equivalent to the "proven medical treatments" in hi-fi might be things like changing components or altering room acoustics, I suppose.

So yeah, as with all things I'm agnostic on this one. From a pragmatic point of view, in pursuit of the best sound possible I will always consider altering variables which I know - insofar as one can know anything, but let's not get too philosophical - can be proven to make a difference. My new CD player DEFINITELY sounds better than my old one, and my new speakers DEFINITELY sound A LOT better than my old ones, and rational reasons can be given, making reference to the physical properties of drivers, and whatever jiggery-pokery goes on inside a CD player these days. I'm sure I'm as susceptible to psycho-acoustic cues as the next person so I don't deny this influences what it is I think I'm hearing, but I'll try and base my purchasing decisions, as much as possible, on evidence-based criteria.

 

[professorhat]

As a side question, let's imagine a situation - imagine you had a pain (not life threatening in any way), and someone gave you a pill and it made the pain diminish. Now imagine someone then took that pill to a lab and proved there was nothing in it which could possibly cure the pain you felt.

However, whenever you take the pill, the pain diminishes. Yet you know there is no scientific reason for the pill to have that effect. Would you continue to take the pill to ease your pain (assuming it was well within your means to afford it), or would you decide that because it had been scientifically proven there was nothing in it that could cure the pain, would you stop and instead live with the pain?

EDIT - this isn't meant to be some sort of trick, but I do see it as basically the same question as the original one. There's no right or wrong answer obviously, it would just be interesting to get people's different reactions to this situation.

 

[CnoEvil]

On second thoughts...I almost always never believe what I cannot disprove.....which I find unacceptable :~

 

[Anonymous]

As a side question, let's imagine a situation - imagine you had a pain (not life threatening in any way), and someone gave you a pill and it made the pain diminish. Now imagine someone then took that pill to a lab and proved there was nothing in it which could possibly cure the pain you felt.

However, whenever you take the pill, the pain diminishes. Yet you know there is no scientific reason for the pill to have that effect. Would you continue to take the pill to ease your pain (assuming it was well within your means to afford it), or would you decide that because it had been scientifically proven there was nothing in it that could cure the pain, would you stop and instead live with the pain?

EDIT - this isn't meant to be some sort of trick, but I do see it as basically the same question as the original one. There's no right or wrong answer obviously, it would just be interesting to get people's different reactions to this situation.

you've just described the placebo affect..

instead of a pill why not imagine a buddist monk said a prayer everytime you had the pain, and it went away everytime, what's going on? the magic of prayer or the mind playing tricks?

until there is some credible explanation as to why/how one cable could sound better than another then any perceived differences in cables may as well be down to prayer, or of course the mind playing tricks.

 

[idc]

To paraphrase the prof, lets image you have a disatisfaction with the sound of your hifi, so you buy a cable......

 

[professorhat]

As usual max, you've missed my point, but n'er mind.

 

[Anonymous]

As usual max, you've missed my point, but n'er mind.

i think i got your point prof, isn't it that if someone happens to prefer the sound of one cable over another then irrespective of "why" that could be, it's still preferable to them and it is therefore worth them buying said cable?

 

[professorhat]

As usual max, you've missed my point, but n'er mind.

i think i got your point prof, isn't it that if someone happens to prefer the sound of one cable over another then irrespective of "why" that could be, it's still preferable to them and it is therefore worth them buying said cable?

Nope...

There's no right or wrong answer obviously, it would just be interesting to get people's different reactions to this situation.

 

[CnoEvil]

As a side question, let's imagine a situation - imagine you had a pain (not life threatening in any way), and someone gave you a pill and it made the pain diminish. Now imagine someone then took that pill to a lab and proved there was nothing in it which could possibly cure the pain you felt.

However, whenever you take the pill, the pain diminishes. Yet you know there is no scientific reason for the pill to have that effect. Would you continue to take the pill to ease your pain (assuming it was well within your means to afford it), or would you decide that because it had been scientifically proven there was nothing in it that could cure the pain, would you stop and instead live with the pain?

EDIT - this isn't meant to be some sort of trick, but I do see it as basically the same question as the original one. There's no right or wrong answer obviously, it would just be interesting to get people's different reactions to this situation.

There is more to heaven and earth.................?

 

[v1c]

In the immortal words of Joe Cabot

"You don't need proof when you have instinct"

and that my friends is irrefutable.

 

[Anonymous]

As usual max, you've missed my point, but n'er mind.

i think i got your point prof, isn't it that if someone happens to prefer the sound of one cable over another then irrespective of "why" that could be, it's still preferable to them and it is therefore worth them buying said cable?

Nope...

There's no right or wrong answer obviously, it would just be interesting to get people's different reactions to this situation.

its a hypothetical situation, reactions are meaningless.

 

[Anonymous]

lets take active speakers, no speaker cables needed for them right? just digital data in, or perhaps analogue from a turntable but that's irrelevant.

so, at some point the amplified signal has to be passed from the built in amp to the speaker, i assume this is done over a very small length of wire?

now lets say somebody opened up an active speaker, and removed the small length of wire that bridges amp and speaker, what do you think it would be made of? copper? copper? or copper? or............

 

[plastic penguin]

These cable threads always end in tears. Yet I have no idea why they cause so much friction...

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but does it matter whether a cable or any other component makes a difference or not? The point should be if an individual can hear a difference, whether subtle or significant, regardless of a placebo effect, surely that's wot counts?

That's my contribution on cables for six months...

 

[Andrew Everard]

It's descended into nonsense...