Speaker cables and system quality

[davedotco]

It is easy to tell those who have really taken part in third party conducted blind tests from those that have not.

It is remarkably difficult to hear differences in hi-fi components and cables when you do not know what you are listening to, anyone who has done any 'proper' blind testing will tell you that.

To give some background, I was part of the listening panel for Martin Colloms original Hi-Fi Choice publications back in the '70s. One particular occasion still stands out. We were to audition a group of about 6 loudspeakers, we knew what the speakers were and we were all very familiar with them, so familiar in fact that we thought we could predict which would 'win' or 'lose' in the tests.

We had a tremendous shock in store for us, when tested blind, and carefully level matched, the differences we all 'knew' existed between the various models virtually dissappeared and much of the time we could not pick which model we were listening to. OK the speakers were all of a conventional design and within a specific price range, but these were speakers for heaven sakes, they are supposed to be different.

This exercise very quickly taught me the value of blind testing, it does not have to be a scientifically controlled, statistically viable test but it does need to be carried out by a third person so that the listener is truly detached from the hardware. In these circumstances it is illuminating for those taking part for the first time and often quite sobering.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

It is easy to tell those who have really taken part in third party conducted blind tests from those that have not.

It is remarkably difficult to hear differences in hi-fi components and cables when you do not know what you are listening to, anyone who has done any 'proper' blind testing will tell you that.

To give some background, I was part of the listening panel for Martin Colloms original Hi-Fi Choice publications back in the '70s. One particular occasion still stands out. We were to audition a group of about 6 loudspeakers, we knew what the speakers were and we were all very familiar with them, so familiar in fact that we thought we could predict which would 'win' or 'lose' in the tests.

We had a tremendous shock in store for us, when tested blind, and carefully level matched, the differences we all 'knew' existed between the various models virtually dissappeared and much of the time we could not pick which model we were listening to. OK the speakers were all of a conventional design and within a specific price range, but these were speakers for heaven sakes, they are supposed to be different.

This exercise very quickly taught me the value of blind testing, it does not have to be a scientifically controlled, statistically viable test but it does need to be carried out by a third person so that the listener is truly detached from the hardware. In these circumstances it is illuminating for those taking part for the first time and often quite sobering.

im not surprised at that. If you were familiar I'd ask did you listen day in day out at home to each of the speakers. But even if so I'm not too surprised that similar value speakers would elicit random selection from blind tests, even if a similar sound, mainly because audio is competitive and what can be achieved by one manufacturer at one price can be achieved by another at the same price. But it's pretty obvious comparing a £500 speaker to a £2000 one, if you lived with the two sets of speakers for say a month each.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Insider9

I agree with your last post about people getting better as they get more used to what really good hi fi does but I don't think it's exclusive in that there is some kind of special golden ears quality to it. It generally just gets better as you spend more in simple terms, with law of diminishing returns coming in.

the only thing I'd have a guess at saying is that your pre and power amp is probably letting your speakers down if they are of the ilk of my pmc's at pretty much the same new price to your speakers. The reason being is that very good speakers can be dramatically different if driven with a lot better amps, such that any changes in cables can be dramatic too. That could be one explanation, another is that you haven't found a cable in trials that is so poor, that your others put it to shame. But if you can't hear a difference to your odyssey compared to say epic twin, I'd be thinking it's amplification wouldn't show up that change.

but these changes are not about more expense. I only paid for the speaker cables because I did them as upgrades, not paying new prices, trading in, and getting dealer discounts. But I'd probably agree with you if you spent on cables what I have and put it into speakers, you'd probably get a better sound. But I'm already more than hugely happy with what I have, and I couldn't think of better speakers (which if anything would be the bit letting my system down) would be massively better for the type and design of mine as small floorstanders with big sound. I know too the pmc's punch well above their weight and compete with some speakers around £4000 so if I had spent the cash on cables on those I'm not sure I'd get better anyway, so I'd maybe revise my argument. But I think spending a bit more you'd be right.

But your question about expense in one cable being cheaper than the other is not the topic here. What is, is just one cable being better than another in a given system and sometimes I've found a lot better and not necessarily more expense. I did a comparison with a £50/m naim cable and £6.20/m chord silver screen and the chord was a lot better. But I've tried that Cambridge audio cable you have and if you went and bought the naim cable or a more expensive copper only, than comparing one silver coated cable to another, I'd expect you to be able to tell the difference and pick them out in blind tests. Your comparison of your two cables is too similar to be a worthwhile test. If you changed amps to be double or more the price of speakers, I'd bet you could decide the odyssey is better than that Cambridge audio cable.

 

[abacus]

If you look in my posts I tend to suggest pro equipment a lot, this is because I have been in studios (Not to record but I know a few bands) and I can assure you that the equipment they use, make even Hi-End Hi Fi sound like a wind up gramophone, and using this equipment, and providing the cable is up to the job (Correct size for the length and power required) you will not hear any difference in sound, apart from the expectation bias, (Hence a double blind test is required to get any relevant results) if you don’t believe it, (Each to his own) just ask any professional recording engineer (Who are trained to hear differences way beyond most Hi-Fi Buffs) who will tell you exactly the same.

As always, it all comes down to personal choice, if you believe they make a difference (And you can afford them) then go with whatever floats your boat, just don’t expect someone else will come to the same conclusion.

Bil

 

[lindsayt]

I've been to bake-offs where it's been highly apparent that some people were more golden eared than others.

But how did they demonstrate that golden eared ability?...

...I get the impression that so much audio equipment is made to standards of excellence that far exceed human perception, and much of the appeal is aesthetic (physically speaking). My Chord Mojo looks the mutt's nuts, which is part of the appeal. It's also works well of course.

By them stating the nature of the differences within a few seconds of hearing the second component in an A/B demo. Whilst I was still thinking to myself "Hey that that sounds a bit... Does component B sound like... compared to A?"

And for the cloth eared listeners what they reported from the bake-off has been at odds with the majority of listeners and all too often tainted by an element of emotional / financial attachment. The more golden eared listeners have been better at reporting sonic flaws in equipment to which they may have emotional or financial attachment.

Every audio component that I've ever seriously auditioned has had at least 1 easily audible sonic flaw - when compared to another component with less of that flaw. I have not come across a single component that I would describe as having a standard of excellence in excess of human perception. With speakers being the most infuriating item as you always have to put up with at least 1 major, easily audible sonic flaw.

 

[Vladimir]

We had a tremendous shock in store for us, when tested blind, and carefully level matched, the differences we all 'knew' existed between the various models virtually dissappeared and much of the time we could not pick which model we were listening to. OK the speakers were all of a conventional design and within a specific price range, but these were speakers for heaven sakes, they are supposed to be different.

This exercise very quickly taught me the value of blind testing, it does not have to be a scientifically controlled, statistically viable test but it does need to be carried out by a third person so that the listener is truly detached from the hardware. In these circumstances it is illuminating for those taking part for the first time and often quite sobering.

You don't even need to organize strict procedure DBTs. Just let regular non hifi enthusiasts* hear for differences in sighted tests. Doesn't matter to them if its Onkyo AVR or Conrad Johnson, Jamo or ProAc. Level match the gear and it all sounds the same. Most will simply pick favorites on looks alone. These include musicians and ppl with perfect pitch. It has nothing to do with cloth or precious metal ears.

*No, not the wife. She has vested interests in keeping the adult child happy.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

I've been to bake-offs where it's been highly apparent that some people were more golden eared than others.

But how did they demonstrate that golden eared ability?...

...I get the impression that so much audio equipment is made to standards of excellence that far exceed human perception, and much of the appeal is aesthetic (physically speaking). My Chord Mojo looks the mutt's nuts, which is part of the appeal. It's also works well of course.

By them stating the nature of the differences within a few seconds of hearing the second component in an A/B demo. Whilst I was still thinking to myself "Hey that that sounds a bit... Does component B sound like... compared to A?"

And for the cloth eared listeners what they reported from the bake-off has been at odds with the majority of listeners and all too often tainted by an element of emotional / financial attachment. The more golden eared listeners have been better at reporting sonic flaws in equipment to which they may have emotional or financial attachment.

Every audio component that I've ever seriously auditioned has had at least 1 easily audible sonic flaw - when compared to another component with less of that flaw. I have not come across a single component that I would describe as having a standard of excellence in excess of human perception. With speakers being the most infuriating item as you always have to put up with at least 1 major, easily audible sonic flaw.

i can't really hear many flaws that annoy me. I think you are maybe being too much or a perfectionist. Decent Hi fi is about realising that for the flaws, if you've got a decent system it's hugely more rewarding than listening to some all in one iPod dock with its boom, lack of clarity and dynamics.

 

[lindsayt]

...To give some background, I was part of the listening panel for Martin Colloms original Hi-Fi Choice publications back in the '70s. One particular occasion still stands out. We were to audition a group of about 6 loudspeakers, we knew what the speakers were and we were all very familiar with them, so familiar in fact that we thought we could predict which would 'win' or 'lose' in the tests...

One of the golden eared listeners that I know used to take part in those Hi-fi Choice blind tests. Him and Martin (I believe, it may have been one of the other journalists) used to take the mickey out of the other people attending them, especially the corporate types and the dealers.

Here's his recollection of one of them, which I've edited in italics to make it suitable for the What Hi-fi forum:

I remember a session at the Hi-Fi Choice blind tests at Paul Messengers gaff in Herne Bay. On the team that day was a B&W corporate so and so as there were new B&W in the test. Well so was a small pair of JPW's and they expletive all over the large B&W musically. The ahem in a suit was trying to do his nonsense marketing bit and then when his speakers came on he marked them down

not a clue

The point being that some people at those blind tests were a lot more golden eared under those conditions than others. And that the corporate types were clueless.

Were you working for JBL at the time of your Hi-fi Choice blind test, davedotco?

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

I dont think these designers know more about a sound just because of their job, or can pick one out better or quicker. We all have a good ability with the same 'designed' ears. It's more about familiarity.

But at bake offs when people turn up demoing bits from one and bits from another hi fi, the problem is familiarity as well as they don't have time to live with the system, to tell if it's really much better. So it's pretty much a worthless exercise.

 

[davedotco]

It is easy to tell those who have really taken part in third party conducted blind tests from those that have not.

It is remarkably difficult to hear differences in hi-fi components and cables when you do not know what you are listening to, anyone who has done any 'proper' blind testing will tell you that.

To give some background, I was part of the listening panel for Martin Colloms original Hi-Fi Choice publications back in the '70s. One particular occasion still stands out. We were to audition a group of about 6 loudspeakers, we knew what the speakers were and we were all very familiar with them, so familiar in fact that we thought we could predict which would 'win' or 'lose' in the tests.

We had a tremendous shock in store for us, when tested blind, and carefully level matched, the differences we all 'knew' existed between the various models virtually dissappeared and much of the time we could not pick which model we were listening to. OK the speakers were all of a conventional design and within a specific price range, but these were speakers for heaven sakes, they are supposed to be different.

This exercise very quickly taught me the value of blind testing, it does not have to be a scientifically controlled, statistically viable test but it does need to be carried out by a third person so that the listener is truly detached from the hardware. In these circumstances it is illuminating for those taking part for the first time and often quite sobering.

im not surprised at that. If you were familiar I'd ask did you listen day in day out at home to each of the speakers. But even if so I'm not too surprised that similar value speakers would elicit random selection from blind tests, even if a similar sound, mainly because audio is competitive and what can be achieved by one manufacturer at one price can be achieved by another at the same price. But it's pretty obvious comparing a £500 speaker to a £2000 one, if you lived with the two sets of speakers for say a month each.

You are missing the point here. In the specific tests I described, the panel were all very familier with most of the models under test and already 'knew' which models were best yet when tested were often unable to discriminate between the 'best' and some 'known' less good models.

The point being made is that, despite knowing the models very well, the differences were often very hard to hear. Familiarity is really not a help in these situations.

Similarly, a few years later, I worked with another magazine who wanted to blind test a small group of mid priced amplifiers. Tests were carried out using a Roksan/sme record player and several pairs of price appropriate speakers. Volume was carefully matched by measurement and as a starting point, the two most different amplifiers were chosen to compare. Although both of roughly comparable price, one was a solid state pre-power of some reputation and the other an integrated valve design although the listeners did not know this.

The methodology was not particularly rigorous, the listeners were simply asked which they preferred but their preferences were spread between the two amplifiers with a number of no preferences recorded. Even though I knew which amp was which (I was doing the switching) I could not really hear a difference. When the two amplifiers were revealed the jounalists were, shall we say, stunned.

The magazine did not like the results as it really was not what they were looking for and the project was quietly scrapped.

This is just another example, I have others, but the point being made here is simply to show the difficulties in telling the difference between hi-fi components under controlled conditions.

 

[lindsayt]

i can't really hear many flaws that annoy me. I think you are maybe being too much or a perfectionist. Decent Hi fi is about realising that for the flaws, if you've got a decent system it's hugely more rewarding than listening to some all in one iPod dock with its boom, lack of clarity and dynamics.

It's all relative. I could bring a system that cost me £600 round to your place that would show up certain major sonic flaws in your £15,000 system within a few seconds. And another system, either yours or some other, would show up major sonic flaws in my £600 system.

And no, I'm certainly not a perfectionist. A realist and a pragmatist - maybe? A Paretoist - perhaps? The secret to hi-fi contentment is finding a system with the right set of compromises for each owner: price, size, looks, convenience, versatility, clarity, dynamics, treble, midrange, bass, tonal balance.

 

[chebby]

I remember a session at the Hi-Fi Choice blind tests at Paul Messengers gaff in Herne Bay. On the team that day was a B&W corporate so and so as there were new B&W in the test. Well so was a small pair of JPW's and they expletive all over the large B&W musically. The ahem in a suit was trying to do his nonsense marketing bit and then when his speakers came on he marked them down not a clue

My treasured, s/h, mint condition, JPW Sonatas (with MNIB Audax tweeters fitted when bought) costing £45 including delivery, weed all over a few more expensive speakers I have owned (especially Rega). I needed to spend £750 to get something noticably better.

I'll never part with them.

 

[gregory]

i have not stopped laughing, i thought you'd put on weight*mosking*

It's a non-issue.

Dealers can lend out sets of cables for home trial, or you can buy from businesses who will honour a full, no-quibble, money back agreement within a specified period (60 days comes to mind for some reason).

If you don't care (or don't believe or whatever) then again, it's a non-issue because you have either never encountered a hi-fi forum, and/or are safe in the knowledge that physics is your friend.

Either way, you can have happiness in being right and having your system sound better than the other chap's.

... like chubby.

... Chubbys view

Please pay me the courtesy of using my name correctly. Thankyou.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

i can't really hear many flaws that annoy me. I think you are maybe being too much or a perfectionist. Decent Hi fi is about realising that for the flaws, if you've got a decent system it's hugely more rewarding than listening to some all in one iPod dock with its boom, lack of clarity and dynamics.

It's all relative. I could bring a system that cost me £600 round to your place that would show up certain major sonic flaws in your £15,000 system within a few seconds. And another system, either yours or some other, would show up major sonic flaws in my £600 system.

And no, I'm certainly not a perfectionist. A realist and a pragmatist - maybe? A Paretoist - perhaps? The secret to hi-fi contentment is finding a system with the right set of compromises for each owner: price, size, looks, convenience, versatility, clarity, dynamics, treble, midrange, bass, tonal balance.

i doubt that. I suspect if the whole system is £600 against one at £15,000 it will take the £600 one apart. Now whether you prefer it is another matter, but these systems are in no way those you can ordinarily make a basis for comparison. It's just wishful thinking to think this. But I bet in every way, on detail retrieval, tone, bass response, dynamics . You aren't for real are you?

 

[lindsayt]

I dont think these designers know more about a sound just because of their job, or can pick one out better or quicker. We all have a good ability with the same 'designed' ears. It's more about familiarity.

But at bake offs when people turn up demoing bits from one and bits from another hi fi, the problem is familiarity as well as they don't have time to live with the system, to tell if it's really much better. So it's pretty much a worthless exercise.

I went to a phono bake-off a week ago.

I found it easy enough to tell the nature and the magnitude of the differences between the least good and the best phono stages that were there. Despite me being totally unfamiliar with the room, recordings, tt, arm cart, pre-amp, power amp, and not that familiar with the speakers.

Most, but not all people there did.

And yes some designers, the ones that I respect, that I've met at bake-offs have been golden eared. There was 6 of them at the phono bake-off. But yes, as you say, it's quite possible to not be attached to the hi-fi trade and to still be golden eared, relatively speaking.

 

[davedotco]

I think you are rather over egging the importance of familiarity. Listeners get used to their systems (and rooms) so different setups can often cause confusion but the comparitive tests are still valid.

The most important factors are level matching and listening blind, this will tell you a lot about what the real differences in hi-fi components are. Remember, in virtually all comparitive listening, the louder setup invariably sounds better.

These posts are really an attempt to show how unreliable subjective assessments are, blind testing is the way forward but for all kinds of reasons people are reluctant to get involved.

 

[Leif]

I did a blind abx test with a friend (who knows my system a lot and has listened to it a lot when he comes around) comparing talk 3 cable with my current chord epic reference, but I reckon I could equally have used £10/m chord clearway and noticed the difference. This was using my same electronics in my signature but with my old pmc twenty 23 speakers (now have pmc 25-23s). Talk 3 seemed to pair horribly with my old 20-23s. A total loss of detail and dynamics. But funnily enough it's not so bad now with my new 25-23s. But with the chord epic ref the sound was clearer, more dynamic, bass was sharper and accurate, more layers in the sounds.

We actually gave up on the blind a b x test after around 5 different tracks each, as we both picked the right cable every time. The talk was just one of those cables that did not work well. The talk is a copper only construction with basic shielding. The chord epic reference a twin shielded twisted pair cable with copper coated silver and dialectric shielding.

Now I'm not making the point buy expensive cables like the chord, but that 'different speaker cables make a sound quality difference in the right quality system'

we did the abx test by selecting 10 different tracks we liked and a variation of classical, electronic and rock. We then had one person doing the test blindfolded with a double face mask as used on a plane. I then designated cable a as chord epic reference and cable b as the talk 3. Keeping it secret from my friend I tossed a coin, heads was cable a and tails cable b. This would then designate the first cable to be heard by my friend against the track if say cable a was tossed, then the next cable to be heard would be the opposite. We would then toss the coin again to select cable a of b as being the blind one.

Track 1) Michael Jackson billie Jean- cable a, cable b, blind test - cable a

I then repeated for the other tracks, keeping the order secret (as my friend did for me for when I'd be blindfolded).

we kept the stereo on the same volume level and played the first thirty seconds of the track, in swapping cables the tester was guided out the room temporarily so they could not hear the cables being swapped over, if any bias could be derived from the sound different cables would make being moved or dropped etc. After playing cable a and then cable b, or b then a, and then playing the random blind cable, the tester was asked which the blind cable was. Was it the first cable or the second. We both picked the correct cable each time and I recall we gave up after about 4 tracks each, as we both got them correct, such was how obvious it was.

When people then refer to arbitrary double blind tests showing you can't select cables it makes me laugh. What often the tests searchable and findable on the internet don't deal with are the following ;

- own familiarity with the hi fi and how well you know it's sound and the things it does in sound terms. It would be much harder to pick out cables double blind on kit you don't know. But in a system you know it's easier.

- the degree of performance of cables. It's often just a test of expensive v cheap in some blind tests, but As I say that's not the hypothesis we are testing here. We are testing good versus bad pertaining to how it works in the system, and expense sometimes has something to do with that, other times it doesn't. For a test to be credible you have to pick wildly different performing cables outside the context of abx blind tests i.e. Just in a b non blind tests.

- because you need to form a view of badly performing cables first, before any blind test has credibility it must come before abx testing. We had both done that in seeing the cables and reckoning the chord epic reference is better.

- the people who don't own the hi fi but are listening to cables and trying to pick them out, must get to know the sound of the hi fi first. You can't send people into a shop of a system they are unfamiliar and get them to pick out cables, as it could be lack of familiarity with the music on the system that they are deciding on, not the cable.

- sitting in different parts of the room. One guy in a a-b test at Bristol in the chord room couldn't pick out a chord cable. Where was he? At the back!!!

- You have to remove the vagueries of how people reckon sounds and the different aspects of sounds. E.g. Detail, dynamics et . So if you don't know what dynamics is, you have to test whether people can pick out dynamics of different levels of quality before they can then be reliable people to judge if one cable has better dynamics than another. If you are not listening for dynamics you won't factor it into decisions to pick out the cable. You could call it schooling if you like, but you learn these things as you get familiar with the new hi fi. Someone who just listens on a very cheap iPod dock won't be listening out for dynamics on a good stereo.

So lots of tests have been performed often involving many high profile people, and the conclusions are essentially that they could not pick out speaker cables more reliably than chance, whereas you and your friend can. Obviously your tests were not conducted properly. *scratch_one-s_head*

Can I suggest you do more tests, but this time conducted properly with some observers who understand blind testing?

 

[Leif]

i can't really hear many flaws that annoy me. I think you are maybe being too much or a perfectionist. Decent Hi fi is about realising that for the flaws, if you've got a decent system it's hugely more rewarding than listening to some all in one iPod dock with its boom, lack of clarity and dynamics.

It's all relative. I could bring a system that cost me £600 round to your place that would show up certain major sonic flaws in your £15,000 system within a few seconds. And another system, either yours or some other, would show up major sonic flaws in my £600 system.

And no, I'm certainly not a perfectionist. A realist and a pragmatist - maybe? A Paretoist - perhaps? The secret to hi-fi contentment is finding a system with the right set of compromises for each owner: price, size, looks, convenience, versatility, clarity, dynamics, treble, midrange, bass, tonal balance.

i doubt that. I suspect if the whole system is £600 against one at £15,000 it will take the £600 one apart. Now whether you prefer it is another matter, but these systems are in no way those you can ordinarily make a basis for comparison. It's just wishful thinking to think this. But I bet in every way, on detail retrieval, tone, bass response, dynamics . You aren't for real are you?

You really do want to read the link I gave because it suggests that your assumption is false. Are you trolling?

 

[chebby]

i have not stopped laughing, i thought you'd put on weight*mosking*

It's a non-issue.

Dealers can lend out sets of cables for home trial, or you can buy from businesses who will honour a full, no-quibble, money back agreement within a specified period (60 days comes to mind for some reason).

If you don't care (or don't believe or whatever) then again, it's a non-issue because you have either never encountered a hi-fi forum, and/or are safe in the knowledge that physics is your friend.

Either way, you can have happiness in being right and having your system sound better than the other chap's.

... like chubby.

... Chubbys view

Please pay me the courtesy of using my name correctly. Thankyou.

And now the invented quotes.

I'm out of here.

 

[lindsayt]

i doubt that. I suspect if the whole system is £600 against one at £15,000 it will take the £600 one apart. Now whether you prefer it is another matter, but these systems are in no way those you can ordinarily make a basis for comparison. It's just wishful thinking to think this. But I bet in every way, on detail retrieval, tone, bass response, dynamics . You aren't for real are you?

You may have missed one small but important 2 letter word in my previous post.

The key word being "me".

The system cost me £600.

The price new, adjusted for inflation into 2017 terms would be higher than that. Somewhere in the region of £4000???? At a very rough guess.

The speakers are not direct radiators like your PMC's and that is - probably - the main reason why my system would show up major sonic flaws in yours.

Whilst the speakers in my £600 system are not sealed boxes and that's why my speakers in turn have major sonic flaws in the bass. Not something I'm going to beat myself up about. I'm just going to be realistic and accept them for what they are. Inexpensive speakers (these days) with relatively good midrange and treble but mediocre bass and a few other non-sonic downsides too.

As I said, speakers are infuriating as they ALL have major sonic flaws.

 

[davedotco]

There is no point in trying to convince subjectivists that what they are hearing is not real, they are totally convinced that what they 'hear' is real and any test that refutes their views is somehow compromised, fixed in other words.

Scientifically valid blind tests are so difficult to set up that it is probably beyond the competence of audio enthusiasts.

What I am suggesting though, is that it is possible though is to set up a test using a third party (not a mate) to swap equipment unseen (and level matched if necessary) and just have a listen. If you have never done this before, you will be shocked by the results.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

I did a blind abx test with a friend (who knows my system a lot and has listened to it a lot when he comes around) comparing talk 3 cable with my current chord epic reference, but I reckon I could equally have used £10/m chord clearway and noticed the difference. This was using my same electronics in my signature but with my old pmc twenty 23 speakers (now have pmc 25-23s). Talk 3 seemed to pair horribly with my old 20-23s. A total loss of detail and dynamics. But funnily enough it's not so bad now with my new 25-23s. But with the chord epic ref the sound was clearer, more dynamic, bass was sharper and accurate, more layers in the sounds.

We actually gave up on the blind a b x test after around 5 different tracks each, as we both picked the right cable every time. The talk was just one of those cables that did not work well. The talk is a copper only construction with basic shielding. The chord epic reference a twin shielded twisted pair cable with copper coated silver and dialectric shielding.

Now I'm not making the point buy expensive cables like the chord, but that 'different speaker cables make a sound quality difference in the right quality system'

we did the abx test by selecting 10 different tracks we liked and a variation of classical, electronic and rock. We then had one person doing the test blindfolded with a double face mask as used on a plane. I then designated cable a as chord epic reference and cable b as the talk 3. Keeping it secret from my friend I tossed a coin, heads was cable a and tails cable b. This would then designate the first cable to be heard by my friend against the track if say cable a was tossed, then the next cable to be heard would be the opposite. We would then toss the coin again to select cable a of b as being the blind one.

Track 1) Michael Jackson billie Jean- cable a, cable b, blind test - cable a

I then repeated for the other tracks, keeping the order secret (as my friend did for me for when I'd be blindfolded).

we kept the stereo on the same volume level and played the first thirty seconds of the track, in swapping cables the tester was guided out the room temporarily so they could not hear the cables being swapped over, if any bias could be derived from the sound different cables would make being moved or dropped etc. After playing cable a and then cable b, or b then a, and then playing the random blind cable, the tester was asked which the blind cable was. Was it the first cable or the second. We both picked the correct cable each time and I recall we gave up after about 4 tracks each, as we both got them correct, such was how obvious it was.

When people then refer to arbitrary double blind tests showing you can't select cables it makes me laugh. What often the tests searchable and findable on the internet don't deal with are the following ;

- own familiarity with the hi fi and how well you know it's sound and the things it does in sound terms. It would be much harder to pick out cables double blind on kit you don't know. But in a system you know it's easier.

- the degree of performance of cables. It's often just a test of expensive v cheap in some blind tests, but As I say that's not the hypothesis we are testing here. We are testing good versus bad pertaining to how it works in the system, and expense sometimes has something to do with that, other times it doesn't. For a test to be credible you have to pick wildly different performing cables outside the context of abx blind tests i.e. Just in a b non blind tests.

- because you need to form a view of badly performing cables first, before any blind test has credibility it must come before abx testing. We had both done that in seeing the cables and reckoning the chord epic reference is better.

- the people who don't own the hi fi but are listening to cables and trying to pick them out, must get to know the sound of the hi fi first. You can't send people into a shop of a system they are unfamiliar and get them to pick out cables, as it could be lack of familiarity with the music on the system that they are deciding on, not the cable.

- sitting in different parts of the room. One guy in a a-b test at Bristol in the chord room couldn't pick out a chord cable. Where was he? At the back!!!

- You have to remove the vagueries of how people reckon sounds and the different aspects of sounds. E.g. Detail, dynamics et . So if you don't know what dynamics is, you have to test whether people can pick out dynamics of different levels of quality before they can then be reliable people to judge if one cable has better dynamics than another. If you are not listening for dynamics you won't factor it into decisions to pick out the cable. You could call it schooling if you like, but you learn these things as you get familiar with the new hi fi. Someone who just listens on a very cheap iPod dock won't be listening out for dynamics on a good stereo.

So lots of tests have been performed often involving many high profile people, and the conclusions are essentially that they could not pick out speaker cables more reliably than chance, whereas you and your friend can. Obviously your tests were not conducted properly. *scratch_one-s_head*

Can I suggest you do more tests, but this time conducted properly with some observers who understand blind testing?

no high profile people. If you want to be objective you say why you think it's not conducted properly, but the other people aren't testing the hypothesis of a good versus bad cable. Can you suggest what I could improve.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Ok no problem

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

I think you are rather over egging the importance of familiarity. Listeners get used to their systems (and rooms) so different setups can often cause confusion but the comparitive tests are still valid.

The most important factors are level matching and listening blind, this will tell you a lot about what the real differences in hi-fi components are. Remember, in virtually all comparitive listening, the louder setup invariably sounds better.

These posts are really an attempt to show how unreliable subjective assessments are, blind testing is the way forward but for all kinds of reasons people are reluctant to get involved.

no I'm not sure that can be said, for me. You can't just say if you've never heard a hi fi before and you are blind testing with another you've never heard that you can pick out how it sounds in a double blind test. There are certain things I can listen out for in a particular way a hi fi deals with a particular track I know, that I've got used to by having the system. If I don't know what to look out for I can't then think, oh that sounded different there or better, as a basis for then coming to a view on which one I select from the abx test. And anyway you don't buy hi fi by double blind testing two Hi Fi's, albeit it's quite a good measure for serving the purpose -can you discern is something a lot better as with my cable comparison of a poor and good cable. Also you buy hi fi largely by chance as with many such consumer purchases, just by being in a certain dealer etc at a time, and importantly when you make a change you do so from the basis of comparing what you have and know to something else, which is different from your point of comparing two systems you don't know in double blind (I think you were getting at by quoting in your other post you'd be amazed what the results yield by doing so - I'm not surprised as you don't know either system). You are asking yourself the question is it better, and if so you buy. Sometimes I think people get so hung up by double blind because of so many human fallibilities as to why they think a different product won't be better, on their experience, they forget only the other person who is making the comparison knows, unless another has an identical system.

it would be a bit like being asked to compare Jacqueline du pre's Stradivarius cello with one made on the cheap by Yamaha a few years ago. In a double blind you wouldn't pick the Stradivarius out, but take it home as with the other one and play them, akin to owning two hi fis or two sets of speakers, and then be asked to pick it out, you'll know exactly which one is the Stradivarius.

 

[gregory]

i have not stopped laughing, i thought you'd put on weight*mosking* only joking, didn't mean to offend

It's a non-issue.

Dealers can lend out sets of cables for home trial, or you can buy from businesses who will honour a full, no-quibble, money back agreement within a specified period (60 days comes to mind for some reason).

If you don't care (or don't believe or whatever) then again, it's a non-issue because you have either never encountered a hi-fi forum, and/or are safe in the knowledge that physics is your friend.

Either way, you can have happiness in being right and having your system sound better than the other chap's.

... like chubby.

... Chubbys view

Please pay me the courtesy of using my name correctly. Thankyou.

And now the invented quotes.

I'm out of here.