Sospri said:
Thought not.
Oh and no, I have never purchased a fancy manis cable, always used the ones that came with the gear..............
Crossie
The cable in the box is not the issue............. You say science and logic makes your point. ....................
1. Science tels us different materials conduct electricity in different ways, different cables have an effect on the sound produduced.....
2. a better connection to the power source is always a good thing.... mains noise or Humm is very real. amplified in your amp..
3 try a cable and decide for your self, thats a good idea but dont spit rubbish to the question the post asked.
The cable in the box is not the issue............. You say science and logic makes your point. ....................
1. Science tels us different materials conduct electricity in different ways, different cables have an effect on the sound produduced.....
2. a better connection to the power source is always a good thing.... mains noise or Humm is very real. amplified in your amp..
3 try a cable and decide for your self, thats a good idea but dont spit rubbish to the question the post asked.
Hi you will always open a can of worms with this topic......... im going to try and advise you without being bias to either school of thought
lets start by saying i find power chords do make a small improvment to sound. i use russ andrews power chords...
Some people report they can not hear the difference. that it fine they save cash on purchase of cables... i would advise you try with your system test and make your mind up.
Science tels us different material will produce different results for many reasons.... so there is a real reason why they can sound different.. But from experience i find its a small gain in sonic perfeormance.... for example my russ andrews poweremax cable (£50) connected to my amp does produce a better well controlled bass and a more coherent sound..
BUT i must say spending silly money is hard to justify. so i believe the way to go is to buy a good quality cable to increrase performance without breaking the bank... you prob get a better sound but dont forget the cables are great quality and will last you for ever so are a good investment if nothing else
lets start by saying i find power chords do make a small improvment to sound. i use russ andrews power chords...
Some people report they can not hear the difference. that it fine they save cash on purchase of cables... i would advise you try with your system test and make your mind up.
Science tels us different material will produce different results for many reasons.... so there is a real reason why they can sound different.. But from experience i find its a small gain in sonic perfeormance.... for example my russ andrews poweremax cable (£50) connected to my amp does produce a better well controlled bass and a more coherent sound..
BUT i must say spending silly money is hard to justify. so i believe the way to go is to buy a good quality cable to increrase performance without breaking the bank... you prob get a better sound but dont forget the cables are great quality and will last you for ever so are a good investment if nothing else
bigboss
Moderator
- Mar 25, 2009
- 6,241
- 1,166
- 27,570
idc is a member here (not active for a while) who even made cables for a hobby. He wad a cable believer in the past, then his own experiences proved otherwise.
Check his blog:
http://idc1966.blogspot.co.uk
I'm yet to see a single research where cables have convincingly shown to make an audible difference by improving jitter etc. No manufacturer in the UK can even claim that, else they fall foul of ASA.
Check his blog:
http://idc1966.blogspot.co.uk
I'm yet to see a single research where cables have convincingly shown to make an audible difference by improving jitter etc. No manufacturer in the UK can even claim that, else they fall foul of ASA.
bigboss
Moderator
- Mar 25, 2009
- 6,241
- 1,166
- 27,570
I'll see if I can copy paste idc's blog articles.
How do audiophile cables work? Part 1 - introduction.I have been a member of various audiophile forums over the past few years and an audiophile for a lot longer than that. I have had various hifi systems over the years and used various cables, from interconnects to speaker to USB to connect my hifi together. Some of those cables have been no name freebies to cheaper cables aimed at the audiophile market such as QED and Silver High Breed to more expensive ones from Kimber and Q-Audio. I have also made my own cables using cheaper, pro audio parts from the likes of Van Damme and Neutrik.
Audiophile forums often crackle with debates about cables and their effects on sound quality. People get very vocal about cables and the arguments mean most cable threads eventually get closed. The arguments are usually cyclical and revolve around 'I can hear a differences', 'no you cannot'. Sadly few people try and add in evidence of what effects cables have and how they work and instead they put forward their own personal experience as some sort of proof. My experience is that even if you do put forward evidence you can be trolled, particularly by those who are cable believers. Many forums even ban the introduction of evidence in the form of blind testing as that is such a controversial topic that really gets audiophiles hot under the collar.
Hence I have resorted to a blog to put forward a theory on how cables work, as most forums do not welcome the debate or stifle or limit such.
Before going any further some definitions;
Audiophile - someone who loves music and is interested in the means of reproducing and the quality of the reproduction of that music.
Cable believer - someone who either does not care how a cable works or believes that cables can inherently affect sound quality by means of their construction and/or what they are made of.
Cable sceptic - someone who either believes that cables do not sound different and/or cannot affect sound quality the way a cable believer thinks that they can.
Sighted testing - where cables are compared with each other and the listener knows which cable they are listening to and in the case of most audiophiles they know about the price, image and reviews of that cable. Virtually all reviews of cables by professionals working for audiophile magazines etc and amateurs on forums are sighted.
Blind comparison testing - where the listeners do not know what they are listening to as cables are switched out of sight of them. The listener is then asked to make subjective assessments of the sound quality.
ABX testing - where listeners do not know what they are listening to and they are asked to identify which cable is which. So they listen to A then B and then either A or B (X) over a series of changes and they have to say whether X is A or B.
At first I was a believer, I heard differences between cables and I still do (even though I am now a sceptic). I was also convinced by the huge number of credible people who also heard differences between cables. I do not think the hifi magazines are out to con people with their reviews. I also do not think that cable makers are all snake oil salesmen out to con people. I believe them when they say that they can hear sound quality differences between cables.
However, as I read more and more cable debates on hifi forums the sceptical side, when allowed, we putting up a strong case to show that cables cannot be affecting sound quality. There is nothing within a cable, the materials it is made out of or the way it is made that can affect sound quality. Then with digital cables comes the added binary code means by which the signal is transmitted. Ones are ones and twos are twos and there is nothing else in the signal. But there is, the timing of the signal which is it out is called jitter and so arguments continued about whether jitter affects sound quality.
I think that many have asked the wrong question about audiophile cables. It is not do they work rather it is why do they work, for some people, some of the time in some systems.
My aim here is to try and rationalise the arguments for and against the effectiveness of audiophile cables and put forward a theory as to how they do work.
How do audiophile cables work? Part 1 - introduction.I have been a member of various audiophile forums over the past few years and an audiophile for a lot longer than that. I have had various hifi systems over the years and used various cables, from interconnects to speaker to USB to connect my hifi together. Some of those cables have been no name freebies to cheaper cables aimed at the audiophile market such as QED and Silver High Breed to more expensive ones from Kimber and Q-Audio. I have also made my own cables using cheaper, pro audio parts from the likes of Van Damme and Neutrik.
Audiophile forums often crackle with debates about cables and their effects on sound quality. People get very vocal about cables and the arguments mean most cable threads eventually get closed. The arguments are usually cyclical and revolve around 'I can hear a differences', 'no you cannot'. Sadly few people try and add in evidence of what effects cables have and how they work and instead they put forward their own personal experience as some sort of proof. My experience is that even if you do put forward evidence you can be trolled, particularly by those who are cable believers. Many forums even ban the introduction of evidence in the form of blind testing as that is such a controversial topic that really gets audiophiles hot under the collar.
Hence I have resorted to a blog to put forward a theory on how cables work, as most forums do not welcome the debate or stifle or limit such.
Before going any further some definitions;
Audiophile - someone who loves music and is interested in the means of reproducing and the quality of the reproduction of that music.
Cable believer - someone who either does not care how a cable works or believes that cables can inherently affect sound quality by means of their construction and/or what they are made of.
Cable sceptic - someone who either believes that cables do not sound different and/or cannot affect sound quality the way a cable believer thinks that they can.
Sighted testing - where cables are compared with each other and the listener knows which cable they are listening to and in the case of most audiophiles they know about the price, image and reviews of that cable. Virtually all reviews of cables by professionals working for audiophile magazines etc and amateurs on forums are sighted.
Blind comparison testing - where the listeners do not know what they are listening to as cables are switched out of sight of them. The listener is then asked to make subjective assessments of the sound quality.
ABX testing - where listeners do not know what they are listening to and they are asked to identify which cable is which. So they listen to A then B and then either A or B (X) over a series of changes and they have to say whether X is A or B.
At first I was a believer, I heard differences between cables and I still do (even though I am now a sceptic). I was also convinced by the huge number of credible people who also heard differences between cables. I do not think the hifi magazines are out to con people with their reviews. I also do not think that cable makers are all snake oil salesmen out to con people. I believe them when they say that they can hear sound quality differences between cables.
However, as I read more and more cable debates on hifi forums the sceptical side, when allowed, we putting up a strong case to show that cables cannot be affecting sound quality. There is nothing within a cable, the materials it is made out of or the way it is made that can affect sound quality. Then with digital cables comes the added binary code means by which the signal is transmitted. Ones are ones and twos are twos and there is nothing else in the signal. But there is, the timing of the signal which is it out is called jitter and so arguments continued about whether jitter affects sound quality.
I think that many have asked the wrong question about audiophile cables. It is not do they work rather it is why do they work, for some people, some of the time in some systems.
My aim here is to try and rationalise the arguments for and against the effectiveness of audiophile cables and put forward a theory as to how they do work.
bigboss
Moderator
- Mar 25, 2009
- 6,241
- 1,166
- 27,570
How do audiophile cables work? Part 2 - the cable makers.Cable makers and many of their customers state they can hear a difference in their cables. I say that they are correct as they can hear a difference in the cable. However, what causes that difference?
Here I argue it is not down to the cable itself, there is nothing inherent in a cable that changes sound. What I will show by various examples is that cable makers are continually missing the link needed between how a cable is made and how that affects sound quality. Cable makers have failed to show a connection between their products and not just sound quality but any audible difference at all.
Instead I will show that it is the hype, (by both cable makers and many of their customers) about cables working to change sound quality that causes some people to hear a difference. Hype about cables is a better explanation for hearing differences.
Cables come in all sorts of shapes and sizes
Much of that hype is to suggest new knowledge and R&D that has resulted in evidence cables do affect sound quality. However, what follows is a series of non sequiturs. Even the basic argument of ‘cables are different, I can hear a difference in sound, therefore cables cause the difference in sound’ is clearly potentially flawed. But that is what cable makers rely upon.
The ability to harness and transmit electricity and turn it into something useful is just about the biggest and most influential scientific step taken by mankind. The likes of Benjamin Franklin, Alessandro Volta and Thomas Faraday were conducting experiments and learning how to harness the power of electricity in the 18th and 19th centuries. Various laws of electricity have been known for a good length of time, such as Ohms Law published first in 1827 and have not found to be flawed.
The electric power that we need to power our hifis was first distributed to houses in NY in 1882, though before that individual wealthy people had their own power supplies. Since then with the likes of the current war between AC and DC, experience of and knowledge about the transmission of electricity down a cable has increased dramatically. (2) But we are still using the original discoveries of the 19th century as the basic principles of transmitting electricity down a cable, such skin effect first noted in 1883. (3 )
It was in the 1970s that the idea that cables could be used to improve the sound quality of hifis. QED cables were founded in 1973 and state by 1978 their speaker cable was considered a serious Hifi component. ( 4) Now that idea is common place. There are numerous companies making and marketing cables. A lot of study has gone into the construction of these cables.
What is clear in the following is that cable makers are still using the knowledge that was first being found back in the 19th century. There have been no new discoveries about cables and their inherent properties. It is instead hype.
What is also clear is that they can show different cable construction means differences when it comes to transmitting a signal. But the science runs out when it comes to showing whether those differences are audible or not and how cables can affect sound quality.
In 2008 Russ Andrews claimed and then backed up that claim by measurements that they could show reduced RFI by they way they made their cable. But, they could not link reduced RFI to a better sound, they could only suggest it. As such in 2011 they had to stop advertising their cables as improving sound quality by reducing RFI until they had more ‘robust substantiation’ (5)
Tara Labs have a paper on Constant Current Impedance Testing (CCZT) which shows that there is a measurable difference in differently made cables frequency response. They are not alone there, as such has been shown with various studies. (6) There are measurable differences between cables. Tara Labs say that such differences ‘highlight’ the reason why cable sound different. They say the measurements correlate with what ‘we can hear’. and they can ‘reliably correlate the listening experience to the test bench experience’. But there is no evidence presented to back up how they directly link a difference in the cable to a difference in the sound, beyond they can hear it. They introduce the part of the paper correlating the cable with what they hear simply as ‘the sound…‘.
In 1995 QED published their ‘Genesis Report’ on loudspeaker cable. (7)They comment on the mysticism and pseudo-science around claims about cables. As with Tara Labs, there is a lot of evidence presented to show how a cable can measure differently. Again , that is little doubt. However, there is the issue of linking construction to sound quality.
They put forward an argument that applies to many cables, not just their own that accurate and consistent sounding speaker cables will have low capacitance, inductance, resistance and dielectric losses. They state that certain factors are unlikely to be audible such as skin effect. They also say that blind testing has shown that listeners are unable to discriminate cable directionality. The actual test is not shown and they do not apply blind testing to anything else in their paper. Why use blind listening in one part only, why not use it for all of the claims made by QED?
Chord Cables claim lots of links between cheap cables which come free and ‘destroy‘ the information conveyed by music and their own which allow you to ‘really hear and enjoy your music‘, but as for evidence, none. (8)
ALO cables are superior because they are ‘built by hand’ and they ‘use only the finest materials available’. That is hype about build quality which is then contradicted when they acknowledge the Jena Labs cables copper discolours over time, but that does not affect sound. Yet later they state copper oxide is detrimental to sound. (9) So which one is it? They do not evidence any link to sound quality.
Cardas provide a history of the development of cables from the earliest telegraph systems. By the 1970s, like QED, Cardas state cables were seen as a part of the Hifi chain and along with that came ‘the scream of nay sayers’ who had managed to ‘lose the lesson of our ancestors’. By 2000 the ‘overall depth of knowledge is now at a new level’. That is not the case. I have shown what they are speaking of has been known about for decades or longer. Cardas say that the most important issue is conductor/dielectric transition time differential. But no evidence of how that works or how audible it is, is put forward.(10) Their use of the ‘Golden Ratio’ in cable design is not linked to any claims about audibility. Their use of ‘ultra pure and homogeneous metals’ are supposedly proven to produce the best sound. But no proof is shown. (11) Instead it is hype about build quality. Overall there is a large section on Cardas’ insights into cables, but none contain evidence on how they make their cable is linked to better sound. (12)
Blue Jeans Cables have again gone down the route of showing how there are differences caused to a signal in the way a cable is made. (13) But, again they cannot link that to audibility and only say
“It's fair to say that people differ greatly in their ability to tell the difference between cables or components.” Yes, that is fair, but it is also suggesting the link without evidencing it. (14)
Instead of evidence to show the link we get hype that build quality and differences in cables cause improvements in sound.
Something else lacking in all of the cable company’s claims is peer reviews. If you are going to present white papers, Genesis reports or even insights, a second opinion would be nice.
I have listened to Hifi’s with expensive audiophile cables, bought a few relatively expensive audiophile cables and at different times heard and not heard a difference between them. I have made my own cables, I have blind tested and in my own experience the above holds true. I also secretly hope that a cable company can one day find the missing link, the quality in a cable that makes it inherently and provably sound different to other cables. But at the moment there is none and I doubt that there ever will be.
EDIT - Further evidence of the lack of a link is here in a paper submitted for an electrical engineering degree at MIThttp://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/46225/41567257.pdf
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_engineering
(3 ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect
(4) http://www.qed.co.uk/2/about.htm
(5)http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/1/Russ-Andrews-Accessories-Ltd/TF_ADJ_49597.aspx
(6)http://www.taralabs.com/images/stories/whitepapers/Constant-Current-Impedance-Testing.pdf
(7)http://www.qed.co.uk/qed-reports/the-genesis-report.htm#introduction
(8)http://www.chord.co.uk/news2.php?id=3
(9)http://aloaudio.com/cable-faq.html
(10)http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=54&pagestring=History+of+Audio+Cable
(11)http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=5&pagestring=Why+Cardas?
(12)http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights
(13)http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/whatwiredoes.htm
(14)http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/doeswirematter.htm
Here I argue it is not down to the cable itself, there is nothing inherent in a cable that changes sound. What I will show by various examples is that cable makers are continually missing the link needed between how a cable is made and how that affects sound quality. Cable makers have failed to show a connection between their products and not just sound quality but any audible difference at all.
Instead I will show that it is the hype, (by both cable makers and many of their customers) about cables working to change sound quality that causes some people to hear a difference. Hype about cables is a better explanation for hearing differences.
Cables come in all sorts of shapes and sizes
Much of that hype is to suggest new knowledge and R&D that has resulted in evidence cables do affect sound quality. However, what follows is a series of non sequiturs. Even the basic argument of ‘cables are different, I can hear a difference in sound, therefore cables cause the difference in sound’ is clearly potentially flawed. But that is what cable makers rely upon.
The ability to harness and transmit electricity and turn it into something useful is just about the biggest and most influential scientific step taken by mankind. The likes of Benjamin Franklin, Alessandro Volta and Thomas Faraday were conducting experiments and learning how to harness the power of electricity in the 18th and 19th centuries. Various laws of electricity have been known for a good length of time, such as Ohms Law published first in 1827 and have not found to be flawed.
The electric power that we need to power our hifis was first distributed to houses in NY in 1882, though before that individual wealthy people had their own power supplies. Since then with the likes of the current war between AC and DC, experience of and knowledge about the transmission of electricity down a cable has increased dramatically. (2) But we are still using the original discoveries of the 19th century as the basic principles of transmitting electricity down a cable, such skin effect first noted in 1883. (3 )
It was in the 1970s that the idea that cables could be used to improve the sound quality of hifis. QED cables were founded in 1973 and state by 1978 their speaker cable was considered a serious Hifi component. ( 4) Now that idea is common place. There are numerous companies making and marketing cables. A lot of study has gone into the construction of these cables.
What is clear in the following is that cable makers are still using the knowledge that was first being found back in the 19th century. There have been no new discoveries about cables and their inherent properties. It is instead hype.
What is also clear is that they can show different cable construction means differences when it comes to transmitting a signal. But the science runs out when it comes to showing whether those differences are audible or not and how cables can affect sound quality.
In 2008 Russ Andrews claimed and then backed up that claim by measurements that they could show reduced RFI by they way they made their cable. But, they could not link reduced RFI to a better sound, they could only suggest it. As such in 2011 they had to stop advertising their cables as improving sound quality by reducing RFI until they had more ‘robust substantiation’ (5)
Tara Labs have a paper on Constant Current Impedance Testing (CCZT) which shows that there is a measurable difference in differently made cables frequency response. They are not alone there, as such has been shown with various studies. (6) There are measurable differences between cables. Tara Labs say that such differences ‘highlight’ the reason why cable sound different. They say the measurements correlate with what ‘we can hear’. and they can ‘reliably correlate the listening experience to the test bench experience’. But there is no evidence presented to back up how they directly link a difference in the cable to a difference in the sound, beyond they can hear it. They introduce the part of the paper correlating the cable with what they hear simply as ‘the sound…‘.
In 1995 QED published their ‘Genesis Report’ on loudspeaker cable. (7)They comment on the mysticism and pseudo-science around claims about cables. As with Tara Labs, there is a lot of evidence presented to show how a cable can measure differently. Again , that is little doubt. However, there is the issue of linking construction to sound quality.
They put forward an argument that applies to many cables, not just their own that accurate and consistent sounding speaker cables will have low capacitance, inductance, resistance and dielectric losses. They state that certain factors are unlikely to be audible such as skin effect. They also say that blind testing has shown that listeners are unable to discriminate cable directionality. The actual test is not shown and they do not apply blind testing to anything else in their paper. Why use blind listening in one part only, why not use it for all of the claims made by QED?
Chord Cables claim lots of links between cheap cables which come free and ‘destroy‘ the information conveyed by music and their own which allow you to ‘really hear and enjoy your music‘, but as for evidence, none. (8)
ALO cables are superior because they are ‘built by hand’ and they ‘use only the finest materials available’. That is hype about build quality which is then contradicted when they acknowledge the Jena Labs cables copper discolours over time, but that does not affect sound. Yet later they state copper oxide is detrimental to sound. (9) So which one is it? They do not evidence any link to sound quality.
Cardas provide a history of the development of cables from the earliest telegraph systems. By the 1970s, like QED, Cardas state cables were seen as a part of the Hifi chain and along with that came ‘the scream of nay sayers’ who had managed to ‘lose the lesson of our ancestors’. By 2000 the ‘overall depth of knowledge is now at a new level’. That is not the case. I have shown what they are speaking of has been known about for decades or longer. Cardas say that the most important issue is conductor/dielectric transition time differential. But no evidence of how that works or how audible it is, is put forward.(10) Their use of the ‘Golden Ratio’ in cable design is not linked to any claims about audibility. Their use of ‘ultra pure and homogeneous metals’ are supposedly proven to produce the best sound. But no proof is shown. (11) Instead it is hype about build quality. Overall there is a large section on Cardas’ insights into cables, but none contain evidence on how they make their cable is linked to better sound. (12)
Blue Jeans Cables have again gone down the route of showing how there are differences caused to a signal in the way a cable is made. (13) But, again they cannot link that to audibility and only say
“It's fair to say that people differ greatly in their ability to tell the difference between cables or components.” Yes, that is fair, but it is also suggesting the link without evidencing it. (14)
Instead of evidence to show the link we get hype that build quality and differences in cables cause improvements in sound.
Something else lacking in all of the cable company’s claims is peer reviews. If you are going to present white papers, Genesis reports or even insights, a second opinion would be nice.
I have listened to Hifi’s with expensive audiophile cables, bought a few relatively expensive audiophile cables and at different times heard and not heard a difference between them. I have made my own cables, I have blind tested and in my own experience the above holds true. I also secretly hope that a cable company can one day find the missing link, the quality in a cable that makes it inherently and provably sound different to other cables. But at the moment there is none and I doubt that there ever will be.
EDIT - Further evidence of the lack of a link is here in a paper submitted for an electrical engineering degree at MIThttp://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/46225/41567257.pdf
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_engineering
(3 ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect
(4) http://www.qed.co.uk/2/about.htm
(5)http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/1/Russ-Andrews-Accessories-Ltd/TF_ADJ_49597.aspx
(6)http://www.taralabs.com/images/stories/whitepapers/Constant-Current-Impedance-Testing.pdf
(7)http://www.qed.co.uk/qed-reports/the-genesis-report.htm#introduction
(8)http://www.chord.co.uk/news2.php?id=3
(9)http://aloaudio.com/cable-faq.html
(10)http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=54&pagestring=History+of+Audio+Cable
(11)http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=5&pagestring=Why+Cardas?
(12)http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights
(13)http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/whatwiredoes.htm
(14)http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/doeswirematter.htm
bigboss
Moderator
- Mar 25, 2009
- 6,241
- 1,166
- 27,570
How do audiophile cables work? Part 3 - blind testingAs I discussed in Part 1, blind vs sighted testing and the results of blind testing really gets many an audiophile riled. Many audiophiles plain dismiss blind testing as it shows when they cannot see what they are hearing they either struggle or fail to tell any difference.
A common view is that blind tests are flawed.
http://www.stereophile.com/features/113 -
" But when you have taken part in a number of these blind tests and experienced how two amplifiers you know from personal experience to sound extremely different can still fail to be identified under blind conditions, then perhaps an alternative hypothesis is called for: that the very procedure of a blind listening test canconceal small but real subjective differences" - John Atkinson. Stereophile
http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial
"The answer is that blind listening tests fundamentally distort the listening process and are worthless in determining the audibility of a certain phenomenon." - Robert Harley. The Absolute Sound.
The basis of the flaw argument is that what was clearly heard when sighted is no longer so when listening blind, so therefore the blind test is faulty. I think that there is an alternative explanation.
There are those who argue sighted tests are wrong as well. Many cable sceptics claim people cannot really be hearing a difference as blind tests find that there is none. I think that is also wrong and that there is an alternative explanation.
That explanation is touched upon in Sean Olive's blog on sighted vs blind testing - Audio Musings, Sean Olive, Harman International
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
This is about speakers, but it shows the different results that you get with sighted and blind tests and I think that also applies to cables. Here are the results of the different tests
What that shows is when sighted people find bigger differences than when blind. It does not show that either sighted or blind tests are flawed. That in my opinion is an inaccurate conclusion. Instead of a mistake in either type of test what we see is a different result and we should then be asking why is that happening? Before that the same result happens with cables.
Sighted testing
There are hundreds if not thousands of sighted tests of audiophile cables on the Internet. Go onto any hifi forum or get a hifi magazine and you will find them. For example
http://www.whathifi.com/review/silver-high-breed-metaphor-2
"This new name interconnect, to us, is a lively listen with a wide sound. It's decent for the price, and the supple midrange and bass work well.
But it suffers from a vicious top end, while production subtleties are stampeded over by a lack of cohesion. To pep up a dull system, this might be ideal; those with treble heavy kit should steer well clear." - What Hifi on the Silver High Breed Metaphor 2 interconnect.
http://www.whathifi.com/review/audioquest-cinnamon-usb
"This well-made Audioquest cable has a solid feel to it. Our sample is the 1.5m; 0.75 and 3m versions are also available.
Pairing our Chord Chordette DAChttp://www.whathifi.com/review/chord-electronics-chordette-gem with the Cinnamon, we found that the sound of our set-up gained smoothness and a sense of authority.
Our kit served up a sweet-sounding treble, and well-integrated midrange, while the bass was sure-footed with nice weight to its delivery.
We’d like to hear more zip in dynamics, and more subtlety with tricky timing, but this Audioquest is worth checking out." - What Hifi on the Audioquest Cinnamon USB cable.
But whilst cable sceptics and believers argue about whether cables affect sound quality, cable believers also argue amongst themselves about what is the best sounding cable. One person will report a bright treble and another a dull treble.One person will report a 'night and day' difference whereas another reports a subtle difference. Then some will say they can hear no difference at all.
Then the 'Golden Ears' and 'Better Kit' arguments start. Claims are made that if you cannot hear a differences then there is something wrong with your ears or the rest of your hifi is not good enough and has insufficient detail for the cable to work. I cannot find any proof to back either argument up, but I will not dismiss them, I will offer an alternative reason to what is happening.
Sighted testing has also resulted in a clam that cables made out of silver wire sounds brighter than copper. But there is so much inconsistency in the results of sighted testing. Indeed none of it can be considered objective at all. All sighted testing is based on personal experience and opinion.
In 2011 when What Hifi was challenged by a forum member MaxFlynn through the Press Complaints Commission that it was deceiving its readers by reviewing cables as they really do make a difference, the result was that the complaint was dismissed as What Hifi stated that all of its reviews were just subjective opinion.
I my opinion too many reviews, if not the vast majority are presented as if they are objective and such and such a cable is better sounding than others. If cables really did do what they claim to do then why are the results not consistent and why, as in Part 2 are cable makers not able to show how construction is connected to sound quality?
Blind Comparison testing
I think that many people mix up the different types of blind testing and so here I want to show how the different types of blind test yield different, but consistent results.
What Hifi have been running a series of articles called The Big Question in the magazine where forum members are invited to the test centre and take part in a series of blind tests. These are the best examples of blind comparison tests I can find. The listeners are asked their opinions on what they hear and are aware switching is taking place, but they cannot see exactly what is happening.
What Hifi The Big Question on cables. Sept 2009
From the Sept 2009 issue. Three forum members were invited to WHF and blind tested where they though the kit (Roksan, Cyrus, Spendor) was being changed, but instead the cables were. The same three tracks were used throughout.
The kit started out with the cheapest cables WHF could find and no one liked it saying it sounded flat and dull. Then a Lindy mains conditioner and Copperline Alpha power cords were introduced and the sound improved. The IC was changed to some Atlas Equators and two out the three tracks were said to have improved with better bass and detail.
Last the 60p per metre speaker cable was changed for £6 per metre Chord Carnival Sliverscreen. Again, changes were noticed, but they were not big. Various swaps took place after that which confirmed the above, that the power cords made the biggest difference. When the test was revealed the participants were surprised to say the least!
What Hifi, Blind Test of HDMI cables, July 2010
Another What Hifi test of three forum members who are unaware that the change being made is with three HDMI cables. As far as they know equipment could be being changed. The cables are a freebie, a Chord costing £75 and a QED costing £150. Throughout the test all three struggle to find any difference, but are more confident that there is a difference in the sound rather than the picture. They preferred the freebie cable over the Chord one and found it to be as good as the most expensive QED.
An evening spent comparing Nordost ICs and speaker cables. AVForums June 2006
Further to the above ipod experiment, a report from a member of the AVForums and his experience of sighted and blind listening tests at a dealers.
http://www.avforums.com/forums/interconnects-speaker-cables-switches/351773-evening-comparing-nordost-interconnects-speaker-cable.html
The conclusion comparing the tests
"And here's what I heard.
1. All the cables sounded subtly different with one exception.
2. Differences were less apparent with some music than others
3. My assessment and experiences "blind" were different to my experiences "sighted""
What you have here is that there are still differences being reported, but they are not night and day anymore and cheap is as likely to do well as expensive. That is the same as when speakers were blind comparison tested at Harman International and the following DAC blind test at Stereo Mojo;
Like the other blind comparison as opposed to ABX tests this one found the cheapest and most expensive DAC in the final, with only a hairs width between the two in terms of sound.
http://www.stereomojo.com/Stereomojo%20Six%20DAC%20Shootout.htm/StereomojoSixDACShootout.htm
The 'night and day' differences have disappeared. This is consistent with all blind comparison tests that I can find.
ABX testing
There are numerous ABX tests of cables. Here are a few;
AV Science forum, Observations of a controlled cable test Nov 2007
A blind test between Monster cables and Opus MM, which as far as I can find is $33,000 worth of cable
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=941184
but the owner of the very high end kit and cables was unable to tell the difference.
Sound & Vision. Article by Tom Nousaine with 3 Blind Tests of speaker cables. c1995
http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Wired%20Wisdom.pdf
All three are fails by the listeners using their own hifi systems and with their choice of track, volume and time.
AV Science Forum, Monster vs Opus cables. 2002
Not particularly rigorous as in there were not enough tests, but as the poster states "And to cut to the chase, Mike could not identify the Monster from the Opus MM with any accuracy (nor the reverse, which also would have been a positive result if he had been consistently wrong) using our testing methodology. We stopped the test a little less than halfway through, I think we got through 8 A/Bs before we gave up."
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=941184
HiFi Wigwam, The Great Cable debate. Power cable ABX test Oct 2005.
This is a very well done large scale ABX test. A similar set up to Head-fi where four mains cables including 2 kettle leads (stock power cords that had come with hifi products), an audiophile one, a DIY one and a tester CD were sent out forum members. The results were inconclusive to say the least, for example;
The kettle lead was C. There were 23 answers :
4 said that the kettle lead was A
6 said that it was B
8 said that it was C
5 said that they didn't know.
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?654-The-Great-Cable-Debate&highlight=blind+test
Conclusion
There is a definite correlation between the type of test and the result. A sighted test finds the biggest differences, blind comparison reduces those differences and ABX testing finds no differences at all. So no one type of test is any better or more accurate than any other and no type of test is flawed as all produce consistent results. That is important where figuring out how cables can sound different to some people some of the time.
A common view is that blind tests are flawed.
http://www.stereophile.com/features/113 -
" But when you have taken part in a number of these blind tests and experienced how two amplifiers you know from personal experience to sound extremely different can still fail to be identified under blind conditions, then perhaps an alternative hypothesis is called for: that the very procedure of a blind listening test canconceal small but real subjective differences" - John Atkinson. Stereophile
http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial
"The answer is that blind listening tests fundamentally distort the listening process and are worthless in determining the audibility of a certain phenomenon." - Robert Harley. The Absolute Sound.
The basis of the flaw argument is that what was clearly heard when sighted is no longer so when listening blind, so therefore the blind test is faulty. I think that there is an alternative explanation.
There are those who argue sighted tests are wrong as well. Many cable sceptics claim people cannot really be hearing a difference as blind tests find that there is none. I think that is also wrong and that there is an alternative explanation.
That explanation is touched upon in Sean Olive's blog on sighted vs blind testing - Audio Musings, Sean Olive, Harman International
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html
This is about speakers, but it shows the different results that you get with sighted and blind tests and I think that also applies to cables. Here are the results of the different tests
What that shows is when sighted people find bigger differences than when blind. It does not show that either sighted or blind tests are flawed. That in my opinion is an inaccurate conclusion. Instead of a mistake in either type of test what we see is a different result and we should then be asking why is that happening? Before that the same result happens with cables.
Sighted testing
There are hundreds if not thousands of sighted tests of audiophile cables on the Internet. Go onto any hifi forum or get a hifi magazine and you will find them. For example
http://www.whathifi.com/review/silver-high-breed-metaphor-2
"This new name interconnect, to us, is a lively listen with a wide sound. It's decent for the price, and the supple midrange and bass work well.
But it suffers from a vicious top end, while production subtleties are stampeded over by a lack of cohesion. To pep up a dull system, this might be ideal; those with treble heavy kit should steer well clear." - What Hifi on the Silver High Breed Metaphor 2 interconnect.
http://www.whathifi.com/review/audioquest-cinnamon-usb
"This well-made Audioquest cable has a solid feel to it. Our sample is the 1.5m; 0.75 and 3m versions are also available.
Pairing our Chord Chordette DAChttp://www.whathifi.com/review/chord-electronics-chordette-gem with the Cinnamon, we found that the sound of our set-up gained smoothness and a sense of authority.
Our kit served up a sweet-sounding treble, and well-integrated midrange, while the bass was sure-footed with nice weight to its delivery.
We’d like to hear more zip in dynamics, and more subtlety with tricky timing, but this Audioquest is worth checking out." - What Hifi on the Audioquest Cinnamon USB cable.
But whilst cable sceptics and believers argue about whether cables affect sound quality, cable believers also argue amongst themselves about what is the best sounding cable. One person will report a bright treble and another a dull treble.One person will report a 'night and day' difference whereas another reports a subtle difference. Then some will say they can hear no difference at all.
Then the 'Golden Ears' and 'Better Kit' arguments start. Claims are made that if you cannot hear a differences then there is something wrong with your ears or the rest of your hifi is not good enough and has insufficient detail for the cable to work. I cannot find any proof to back either argument up, but I will not dismiss them, I will offer an alternative reason to what is happening.
Sighted testing has also resulted in a clam that cables made out of silver wire sounds brighter than copper. But there is so much inconsistency in the results of sighted testing. Indeed none of it can be considered objective at all. All sighted testing is based on personal experience and opinion.
In 2011 when What Hifi was challenged by a forum member MaxFlynn through the Press Complaints Commission that it was deceiving its readers by reviewing cables as they really do make a difference, the result was that the complaint was dismissed as What Hifi stated that all of its reviews were just subjective opinion.
I my opinion too many reviews, if not the vast majority are presented as if they are objective and such and such a cable is better sounding than others. If cables really did do what they claim to do then why are the results not consistent and why, as in Part 2 are cable makers not able to show how construction is connected to sound quality?
Blind Comparison testing
I think that many people mix up the different types of blind testing and so here I want to show how the different types of blind test yield different, but consistent results.
What Hifi have been running a series of articles called The Big Question in the magazine where forum members are invited to the test centre and take part in a series of blind tests. These are the best examples of blind comparison tests I can find. The listeners are asked their opinions on what they hear and are aware switching is taking place, but they cannot see exactly what is happening.
What Hifi The Big Question on cables. Sept 2009
From the Sept 2009 issue. Three forum members were invited to WHF and blind tested where they though the kit (Roksan, Cyrus, Spendor) was being changed, but instead the cables were. The same three tracks were used throughout.
The kit started out with the cheapest cables WHF could find and no one liked it saying it sounded flat and dull. Then a Lindy mains conditioner and Copperline Alpha power cords were introduced and the sound improved. The IC was changed to some Atlas Equators and two out the three tracks were said to have improved with better bass and detail.
Last the 60p per metre speaker cable was changed for £6 per metre Chord Carnival Sliverscreen. Again, changes were noticed, but they were not big. Various swaps took place after that which confirmed the above, that the power cords made the biggest difference. When the test was revealed the participants were surprised to say the least!
What Hifi, Blind Test of HDMI cables, July 2010
Another What Hifi test of three forum members who are unaware that the change being made is with three HDMI cables. As far as they know equipment could be being changed. The cables are a freebie, a Chord costing £75 and a QED costing £150. Throughout the test all three struggle to find any difference, but are more confident that there is a difference in the sound rather than the picture. They preferred the freebie cable over the Chord one and found it to be as good as the most expensive QED.
An evening spent comparing Nordost ICs and speaker cables. AVForums June 2006
Further to the above ipod experiment, a report from a member of the AVForums and his experience of sighted and blind listening tests at a dealers.
http://www.avforums.com/forums/interconnects-speaker-cables-switches/351773-evening-comparing-nordost-interconnects-speaker-cable.html
The conclusion comparing the tests
"And here's what I heard.
1. All the cables sounded subtly different with one exception.
2. Differences were less apparent with some music than others
3. My assessment and experiences "blind" were different to my experiences "sighted""
What you have here is that there are still differences being reported, but they are not night and day anymore and cheap is as likely to do well as expensive. That is the same as when speakers were blind comparison tested at Harman International and the following DAC blind test at Stereo Mojo;
Like the other blind comparison as opposed to ABX tests this one found the cheapest and most expensive DAC in the final, with only a hairs width between the two in terms of sound.
http://www.stereomojo.com/Stereomojo%20Six%20DAC%20Shootout.htm/StereomojoSixDACShootout.htm
The 'night and day' differences have disappeared. This is consistent with all blind comparison tests that I can find.
ABX testing
There are numerous ABX tests of cables. Here are a few;
AV Science forum, Observations of a controlled cable test Nov 2007
A blind test between Monster cables and Opus MM, which as far as I can find is $33,000 worth of cable
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=941184
but the owner of the very high end kit and cables was unable to tell the difference.
Sound & Vision. Article by Tom Nousaine with 3 Blind Tests of speaker cables. c1995
http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Wired%20Wisdom.pdf
All three are fails by the listeners using their own hifi systems and with their choice of track, volume and time.
AV Science Forum, Monster vs Opus cables. 2002
Not particularly rigorous as in there were not enough tests, but as the poster states "And to cut to the chase, Mike could not identify the Monster from the Opus MM with any accuracy (nor the reverse, which also would have been a positive result if he had been consistently wrong) using our testing methodology. We stopped the test a little less than halfway through, I think we got through 8 A/Bs before we gave up."
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=941184
HiFi Wigwam, The Great Cable debate. Power cable ABX test Oct 2005.
This is a very well done large scale ABX test. A similar set up to Head-fi where four mains cables including 2 kettle leads (stock power cords that had come with hifi products), an audiophile one, a DIY one and a tester CD were sent out forum members. The results were inconclusive to say the least, for example;
The kettle lead was C. There were 23 answers :
4 said that the kettle lead was A
6 said that it was B
8 said that it was C
5 said that they didn't know.
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?654-The-Great-Cable-Debate&highlight=blind+test
Conclusion
There is a definite correlation between the type of test and the result. A sighted test finds the biggest differences, blind comparison reduces those differences and ABX testing finds no differences at all. So no one type of test is any better or more accurate than any other and no type of test is flawed as all produce consistent results. That is important where figuring out how cables can sound different to some people some of the time.
bigboss
Moderator
- Mar 25, 2009
- 6,241
- 1,166
- 27,570
How do audiophile cables work? Part 4 - measurementsThe main stance of the cable sceptic is that when you measure a cable there is no difference from one to another that can account for the reported sound quality differences. Cable believers reply that is not true, there are differences between cables and then refer to cable maker reports of how their cable is made differently and therefore sounds different. But in Part 2 it has been shown that is a non sequitur and cable makers cannot make a connection between how a cable is made, what it is made of and sound quality.
Cable believers and makers site potential differences caused by skin effect, jitter (for digital cables), copper purity, copper vs silver, braiding the cable, solid core, multiple strands, wire thickness (AWG), the type of sheething, the connector (gold vs nickel plating). But they ignore two factors that do have an affect on sound quality.
Cable length
Testing has found one definite measuement that has an effect on cables, length. That particulalry applies to digital cables where the likes of USB has a recommended maxiumu length. http://www.datapro.net/techinfo/usb_info.html
"The most aggravating limitation of USB is the length restriction. Because of the nature in which data is carried through the cable, USB has an accepted maximum length of 15 feet. Some devices, depending on power needs and data bandwidth, may be able to go beyond this, but there are no guarantees"
Testing of HDMI cables has found they start to fail as the length goes up
http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/long-hdmi-cable-bench-tests/hdmi-cable-testing-results
There are less definitive answers to the length an analogue cable can go to, but as it can act as an ariel the longer it is the more shielding it should have and the thicker and stronger it should be. Pro audio often uses very long cable lengths and strength and shielding is important, more so than in a domestic hifi setting.
However, this is not so much a sound quality difference as much as either the cable works or it does not. So sound quality is reduced not buy 'poor bass' or 'splashy treble', but by crackles and drop outs.
Cable resistance
I am sure, but from my own experience as opposed to testing that cables can also be affected by resistance. There is science behind that experience, attenuation. The higher the resistance the greater the attenuation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuator_%28electronics%29
"A line-level attenuator in the preamp or a power attenuator after the power amplifier uses electrical resistance to reduce the amplitude of the signal that reaches the speaker, reducing the volume of the output."
Russ Andrews sell attenuators and attenuated cables and here is his explanation of how attenuation affects volume;
http://www.russandrews.com/viewindex.asp?lookup=0®ion=UK¤cy=GBP&article_id=attenuation&target=blank&customer_id=PAA1760123511590TLZQFWRZKRJCZLMP
Try this yourself if you are unsure of volume and sound quality. Turn your amp right down and at low volumes there will be a lack of dynmaics and detail. Then turn the volume up and you start to hear a sweet spot where the music sounds at its best. Depending on your amp and your own subjective preference that sweet spot size will vary, but it tends to be between 10 and 12 o'clock on the dial. As you go louder the fine detail disappears again and distortion and clipping starts to happen.
The ear can detect a difference from as little as 0.2db volume. From Head-fi and member Nick_Charles "I have 4 CD players and no two have the same output level and I can DBT the loudest and quietest 14/14 , but when I level match nope !"
However, usually an audible difference in volume is higher than that " Subjectively, a 2-3 dB change in sound level is barely perceptible; if someone asks you to "turn up the volume a little," you will probably increase the sound by at least 3 dB."
http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/EARS.htm#Top
Then from the same article, Fletcher Munsen Curves which show how the ear will hear two tones which are at the same sound pressure level as having different loudness.
To me this all suggests that volume has a big influence on sound quality and any affect on volume will cause subjective reports of sound quality to vary. In any case sound quality is a subjective matter anyway.But you cannot market a cable by saying, it will make the volume rise slightly, so improving sound quality, as you can do the same thing by adjusting the volume control on your amp!
(Maybe we should demand better quality of volume controls instead of cables?)
Cable believers and makers site potential differences caused by skin effect, jitter (for digital cables), copper purity, copper vs silver, braiding the cable, solid core, multiple strands, wire thickness (AWG), the type of sheething, the connector (gold vs nickel plating). But they ignore two factors that do have an affect on sound quality.
Cable length
Testing has found one definite measuement that has an effect on cables, length. That particulalry applies to digital cables where the likes of USB has a recommended maxiumu length. http://www.datapro.net/techinfo/usb_info.html
"The most aggravating limitation of USB is the length restriction. Because of the nature in which data is carried through the cable, USB has an accepted maximum length of 15 feet. Some devices, depending on power needs and data bandwidth, may be able to go beyond this, but there are no guarantees"
Testing of HDMI cables has found they start to fail as the length goes up
http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/long-hdmi-cable-bench-tests/hdmi-cable-testing-results
There are less definitive answers to the length an analogue cable can go to, but as it can act as an ariel the longer it is the more shielding it should have and the thicker and stronger it should be. Pro audio often uses very long cable lengths and strength and shielding is important, more so than in a domestic hifi setting.
However, this is not so much a sound quality difference as much as either the cable works or it does not. So sound quality is reduced not buy 'poor bass' or 'splashy treble', but by crackles and drop outs.
Cable resistance
I am sure, but from my own experience as opposed to testing that cables can also be affected by resistance. There is science behind that experience, attenuation. The higher the resistance the greater the attenuation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuator_%28electronics%29
"A line-level attenuator in the preamp or a power attenuator after the power amplifier uses electrical resistance to reduce the amplitude of the signal that reaches the speaker, reducing the volume of the output."
Russ Andrews sell attenuators and attenuated cables and here is his explanation of how attenuation affects volume;
http://www.russandrews.com/viewindex.asp?lookup=0®ion=UK¤cy=GBP&article_id=attenuation&target=blank&customer_id=PAA1760123511590TLZQFWRZKRJCZLMP
Try this yourself if you are unsure of volume and sound quality. Turn your amp right down and at low volumes there will be a lack of dynmaics and detail. Then turn the volume up and you start to hear a sweet spot where the music sounds at its best. Depending on your amp and your own subjective preference that sweet spot size will vary, but it tends to be between 10 and 12 o'clock on the dial. As you go louder the fine detail disappears again and distortion and clipping starts to happen.
The ear can detect a difference from as little as 0.2db volume. From Head-fi and member Nick_Charles "I have 4 CD players and no two have the same output level and I can DBT the loudest and quietest 14/14 , but when I level match nope !"
However, usually an audible difference in volume is higher than that " Subjectively, a 2-3 dB change in sound level is barely perceptible; if someone asks you to "turn up the volume a little," you will probably increase the sound by at least 3 dB."
http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/EARS.htm#Top
Then from the same article, Fletcher Munsen Curves which show how the ear will hear two tones which are at the same sound pressure level as having different loudness.
To me this all suggests that volume has a big influence on sound quality and any affect on volume will cause subjective reports of sound quality to vary. In any case sound quality is a subjective matter anyway.But you cannot market a cable by saying, it will make the volume rise slightly, so improving sound quality, as you can do the same thing by adjusting the volume control on your amp!
(Maybe we should demand better quality of volume controls instead of cables?)
bigboss
Moderator
- Mar 25, 2009
- 6,241
- 1,166
- 27,570
How do audiophile cables work? Part 5 - in the mindSince we have established no electrical or construction cause for different cables producing different sound quality, we have to look at the other potential variable, the listener.
Cable believers howl when it is suggested that they are somehow hearing things or fooling themselves. But all of the very credible reports of cables sounding different (which includes myself) when sighted shows this is not the imagination at work. I believe it shows there is a strong link between the other senses and hearing and sound quality.
Here are some studies that link the senses
A study of contextual influences on sound quality evaluation
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/d … 6/art00005
"Product sound quality judgments are based on perception of both acoustical characteristics and various non-acoustical factors. This paper focuses on how non-acoustical, contextual, factors might impact sound quality evaluation. Three different experiments showed that a positive or negative attitude towards the product (induced by priming tasks, mood, or reading about others' opinions) systematically influenced how sounds were perceived. Moreover, temporary influences such as mood interacted with more stable individual differences such as noise sensitivity. These findings suggest that product sound quality evaluation is variant across people, and that both research and industry need to consider contextual factors to fully understand how the concept of quality is constructed."
A study into developments in sound quality evaluation
http://intellagence.eu.com/acoustics200 … /572-0.pdf
which studies all sorts of sounds including car doors shutting and snoring! It states "the image of brand names or audio-visual interactions can significantly influence sound quality judgements"
A study of country of origin and brand and their influences.
http://www.wu.ac.at/werbung/download/pu … 97cems.pdf
It finds that identical CDPs were rated differently for sound quality depending on their supposed country of origin. (See page 43 of the report).
Sennheiser's annual report of 2010 has some interesting articles about the affect taste has on sound. Here is a description of a study by Heriot Watt University where volunteers tasted wine to different types of music and then described the taste. It was affected by the music.
http://www.sennheiser-annualreport.com/ … _ears.html
It seems reasonable that sight affects sound as well, which helps to explain why we get so many reports of items such as cables, which should not sound different, sounding different.
There has been very little testing of cables, but here is one where a psychology students tests cables and sound vs value
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id … Nkd2N0NmM2
where when the subjects know the value they can hear a difference, but when they are blinded they cannot hear a difference any more.
"For the past few weeks we have been learning about the brain and it's amazing properties, we decided it would be a perfect time to test the brains capability to alter reality. Our minds after all are very powerful in the ability to deceive us. We decided to perform an experiment that we have devised to determine if the whether cost of something really scales perfectly with the performance, or does the mind play a greater role in determining this. If the latter is true, then, our mind's perceived value of equipment will increase the fidelity of what we hear when we listen to audio. This would reinforce the concept that our minds are powerful enough to change even the way we hear based on factors other than reality. In order for us to test this experiment we gathered a group of volunteers with the promise of an experience they would not soon forget. Our procedure is as follows: We setup a test platform consisting of an audio set up with changeable variables the first setup used cheap and easily obtainable stock cables, in the second set up we swapped these out for far more expensive cables. The aim of our experiment was to test whether or not the perceived value of the setup changed the way the listener heard the sound.
How: After that we blindfold the participants and repeat the listening experience but switching the cables randomly each time. After the test subject has listened to music 4 times, we ask the order in which the cables were used. After they explain to us what they think they have heard in order we tell them what the actual order is. The target of our experiment was people who listened to music. To collect the data from these individuals we had invited them over to a house with our equipment set up and allowed them to be comfortable and sat them down. From there we had let them start our experiment.
Our experiment was conducted by letting participants listen to both the cheap and expensive audio and then letting them make an analyses on what the sound quality is with both. After setting up the test station and gathering our test subjects, we began the test by first allowing the subjects to hear the cheap and the expensive cable separately. Each time we specifically told them which cable they were listening to. After a few tries, most subjects claimed that they were able to differentiate between the two. When the subjects were satisfied with what they heard, we blindfolded them and subjected them four random tests. Each one of the four consisted of either the expensive or the cheap set of cables. We did this randomly without sequence. After this, they explained to us what they thought they had heard in chronological order and then we told them what the actual order is. All subjects we tested were unable to correctly identify between the cables despite having proclaimed a huge difference between the cables before the cable was put on. We did this for 12 participants including ourselves, we felt that we too were also viable candidates for the test, as bias was nearly impossible in this kind of test. This was easily proven by the fact that even though we tested each other before conducting the experiment, our results matched those of our test subjects.
Results analysis: The participants could tell a difference in sound quality when the participants knew which audio cable we were using. This had changed dramatically when we did not tell them what we were using and were blindfolded; none of the participants were able to tell the difference between the two cables consecutively. These results tell us that the price of equipment affects our judgment due to the fact that our minds are powerful and that it can skew our judgment just by thinking that something is better than the other. This would be due to the fact that our minds want to have a relation between both price and quality. This might have to do with the fact that we do not want to be scammed into paying for something that is actually cheap. In order for our minds to do this they will correct whatever we are missing or what we find is wrong. A reason for this mental "safety net" could be to make us feel less regret when something bought that is expensive underwhelms us. As these participants did not buy the equipment they might have subconsciously thought about how price will be matched linearly to quality thus altering what they think.
Due to the fact that before being blindfolded participants had stated they could tell a difference in sound quality between the two cables, most of which stated that the more expensive cable sounded better, we are able to conclude that our minds influence the way we hear things depending on the perceived value of what we listen to. Therefore we can conclude that our hypothesis was correct and that perceived value really does change what we think is a better sound quality. Some of the variables we may have missed though would be that our participants may have been subject to some type of hearing loss. To prevent this, we would need to conduct this experiment on a larger scale then what we have previously tested. Some other things that we can do is redo this test with a larger variety of cables. This meaning that we could test new equipment to see if it really will make audio a better quality by using this same procedure. Another thing that we could do is use the data to make things sound better to customers or the person receiving it by telling them that the equipment they are using is expensive. This would revolutionize the way we see technology by learning that people will actively fix what our minds feel is missing. This would mean that doctors could prescribe "expensive" medication to amplify the effects of the medication being prescribed, a sort of "super" placebo effect. Our minds actively alters what the brain receives due to changes in expectations. Despite it being only a minuscule or non-existent change it is amplified or created into something we perceive as a huge difference. Cognitively it can be said that does this due to expectation that have been set upon us. We want to hear a difference because we expect a difference as a result of the price that we paid, therefore it can be argued that at times humans can easily be manipulated due to our expectation that value will scale linearly with performance. "
Cable believers howl when it is suggested that they are somehow hearing things or fooling themselves. But all of the very credible reports of cables sounding different (which includes myself) when sighted shows this is not the imagination at work. I believe it shows there is a strong link between the other senses and hearing and sound quality.
Here are some studies that link the senses
A study of contextual influences on sound quality evaluation
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/d … 6/art00005
"Product sound quality judgments are based on perception of both acoustical characteristics and various non-acoustical factors. This paper focuses on how non-acoustical, contextual, factors might impact sound quality evaluation. Three different experiments showed that a positive or negative attitude towards the product (induced by priming tasks, mood, or reading about others' opinions) systematically influenced how sounds were perceived. Moreover, temporary influences such as mood interacted with more stable individual differences such as noise sensitivity. These findings suggest that product sound quality evaluation is variant across people, and that both research and industry need to consider contextual factors to fully understand how the concept of quality is constructed."
A study into developments in sound quality evaluation
http://intellagence.eu.com/acoustics200 … /572-0.pdf
which studies all sorts of sounds including car doors shutting and snoring! It states "the image of brand names or audio-visual interactions can significantly influence sound quality judgements"
A study of country of origin and brand and their influences.
http://www.wu.ac.at/werbung/download/pu … 97cems.pdf
It finds that identical CDPs were rated differently for sound quality depending on their supposed country of origin. (See page 43 of the report).
Sennheiser's annual report of 2010 has some interesting articles about the affect taste has on sound. Here is a description of a study by Heriot Watt University where volunteers tasted wine to different types of music and then described the taste. It was affected by the music.
http://www.sennheiser-annualreport.com/ … _ears.html
It seems reasonable that sight affects sound as well, which helps to explain why we get so many reports of items such as cables, which should not sound different, sounding different.
There has been very little testing of cables, but here is one where a psychology students tests cables and sound vs value
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id … Nkd2N0NmM2
where when the subjects know the value they can hear a difference, but when they are blinded they cannot hear a difference any more.
"For the past few weeks we have been learning about the brain and it's amazing properties, we decided it would be a perfect time to test the brains capability to alter reality. Our minds after all are very powerful in the ability to deceive us. We decided to perform an experiment that we have devised to determine if the whether cost of something really scales perfectly with the performance, or does the mind play a greater role in determining this. If the latter is true, then, our mind's perceived value of equipment will increase the fidelity of what we hear when we listen to audio. This would reinforce the concept that our minds are powerful enough to change even the way we hear based on factors other than reality. In order for us to test this experiment we gathered a group of volunteers with the promise of an experience they would not soon forget. Our procedure is as follows: We setup a test platform consisting of an audio set up with changeable variables the first setup used cheap and easily obtainable stock cables, in the second set up we swapped these out for far more expensive cables. The aim of our experiment was to test whether or not the perceived value of the setup changed the way the listener heard the sound.
How: After that we blindfold the participants and repeat the listening experience but switching the cables randomly each time. After the test subject has listened to music 4 times, we ask the order in which the cables were used. After they explain to us what they think they have heard in order we tell them what the actual order is. The target of our experiment was people who listened to music. To collect the data from these individuals we had invited them over to a house with our equipment set up and allowed them to be comfortable and sat them down. From there we had let them start our experiment.
Our experiment was conducted by letting participants listen to both the cheap and expensive audio and then letting them make an analyses on what the sound quality is with both. After setting up the test station and gathering our test subjects, we began the test by first allowing the subjects to hear the cheap and the expensive cable separately. Each time we specifically told them which cable they were listening to. After a few tries, most subjects claimed that they were able to differentiate between the two. When the subjects were satisfied with what they heard, we blindfolded them and subjected them four random tests. Each one of the four consisted of either the expensive or the cheap set of cables. We did this randomly without sequence. After this, they explained to us what they thought they had heard in chronological order and then we told them what the actual order is. All subjects we tested were unable to correctly identify between the cables despite having proclaimed a huge difference between the cables before the cable was put on. We did this for 12 participants including ourselves, we felt that we too were also viable candidates for the test, as bias was nearly impossible in this kind of test. This was easily proven by the fact that even though we tested each other before conducting the experiment, our results matched those of our test subjects.
Results analysis: The participants could tell a difference in sound quality when the participants knew which audio cable we were using. This had changed dramatically when we did not tell them what we were using and were blindfolded; none of the participants were able to tell the difference between the two cables consecutively. These results tell us that the price of equipment affects our judgment due to the fact that our minds are powerful and that it can skew our judgment just by thinking that something is better than the other. This would be due to the fact that our minds want to have a relation between both price and quality. This might have to do with the fact that we do not want to be scammed into paying for something that is actually cheap. In order for our minds to do this they will correct whatever we are missing or what we find is wrong. A reason for this mental "safety net" could be to make us feel less regret when something bought that is expensive underwhelms us. As these participants did not buy the equipment they might have subconsciously thought about how price will be matched linearly to quality thus altering what they think.
Due to the fact that before being blindfolded participants had stated they could tell a difference in sound quality between the two cables, most of which stated that the more expensive cable sounded better, we are able to conclude that our minds influence the way we hear things depending on the perceived value of what we listen to. Therefore we can conclude that our hypothesis was correct and that perceived value really does change what we think is a better sound quality. Some of the variables we may have missed though would be that our participants may have been subject to some type of hearing loss. To prevent this, we would need to conduct this experiment on a larger scale then what we have previously tested. Some other things that we can do is redo this test with a larger variety of cables. This meaning that we could test new equipment to see if it really will make audio a better quality by using this same procedure. Another thing that we could do is use the data to make things sound better to customers or the person receiving it by telling them that the equipment they are using is expensive. This would revolutionize the way we see technology by learning that people will actively fix what our minds feel is missing. This would mean that doctors could prescribe "expensive" medication to amplify the effects of the medication being prescribed, a sort of "super" placebo effect. Our minds actively alters what the brain receives due to changes in expectations. Despite it being only a minuscule or non-existent change it is amplified or created into something we perceive as a huge difference. Cognitively it can be said that does this due to expectation that have been set upon us. We want to hear a difference because we expect a difference as a result of the price that we paid, therefore it can be argued that at times humans can easily be manipulated due to our expectation that value will scale linearly with performance. "
bigboss
Moderator
- Mar 25, 2009
- 6,241
- 1,166
- 27,570
How do audiophile cables work Part 6 - conclusionAudiophile cables do work to make different people's hifi systems sound different some of the time. The cause is not inherant in the cables itself, its construction or materials.
Instead, as much as many audiophiles hate the idea, cables affect sound quality only when they operate in conjuction with other senses, particulary sound. That is proven by the consistently different results obtained by sighted, blind comparison and ABX testing.
That is further corroborated by the differing reports on what cables sound like, a subjective issue in any case. If a specific type of cable had a specific linked effect which the majority could hear, we could say that there must be something within a cable which makes it sound objectively different. But even after 40 years of research nothing has been identified by any cable company.
Resistance may also play a part as resitance causes attenuation, attenuation affects volume and volume affects sound quality. But that will never sell cables as you can achieve the same effect with the volume control on your amp.
My advice would be to buy from the pro audio world which has not been affected by pseudoscience and myth and prices are far more reasonable.
Instead, as much as many audiophiles hate the idea, cables affect sound quality only when they operate in conjuction with other senses, particulary sound. That is proven by the consistently different results obtained by sighted, blind comparison and ABX testing.
That is further corroborated by the differing reports on what cables sound like, a subjective issue in any case. If a specific type of cable had a specific linked effect which the majority could hear, we could say that there must be something within a cable which makes it sound objectively different. But even after 40 years of research nothing has been identified by any cable company.
Resistance may also play a part as resitance causes attenuation, attenuation affects volume and volume affects sound quality. But that will never sell cables as you can achieve the same effect with the volume control on your amp.
My advice would be to buy from the pro audio world which has not been affected by pseudoscience and myth and prices are far more reasonable.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Question How do I get my sound working through my DAC? Need some advice!- Started by Yoran
- Replies: 38
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram