Speaker cables and system quality

[gregory]

only joking

 

[Leif]

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.

I completely agree. However, it would be very interesting to do such tests. Sometimes it is good to be fooled.

 

[davedotco]

You are conflating two separate issues here, no one is suggesting that systems should be chosen by blind testing.

However if you are trying to decide whether changing a component (be it cable, amp, dac etc) in your system makes a difference, then basic scientific method requires that you remove all other variables. That includes subjective biases.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

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.

I completely agree. However, it would be very interesting to do such tests. Sometimes it is good to be fooled.

this one is even more fanciful for me as I think it pre supposes that people who spend more on hi fi want it to be better, just for the sake of spending or the upgrade, but the argument is somewhat lost on the cable debate when you spend less on a cable and get better sound. But this argument does somewhat help those that think those who like buying hi fi are snobs, or those people who say a system at 1/5th the price is objectively better. Their sbjectivensss to their own buying decisions and need to satisfy themselves nothing can be better than what I've bought, is running haywire.

but there is also an air of arrogance in saying the other person has no intelligence to be able to be subjective about the choices they make. Paints a picture a bit like that harry Enfield sketch 'I saw you coming'

also it gets to be more bizarre in the sense that whilst my brain is hearing the sounds for the better, I'm advised that I'm somewhat conning myself into thinking I am when I am being very objective about it, which is in self interest. It would be as if I'm on some type of acid trip thinking. Strange.

weren't you basically saying Leif that nothing compares to your arcam solo.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

You are conflating two separate issues here, no one is suggesting that systems should be chosen by blind testing.

However if you are trying to decide whether changing a component (be it cable, amp, dac etc) in your system makes a difference, then basic scientific method requires that you remove all other variables. That includes subjective biases.

you are saying that I think because on one hand you say systems shouldn't be tested by blind testing, but then that you say test removing other variables and by inference you'd be advocating a double blind which is intended to remove subjective bias.

 

[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.

I completely agree. However, it would be very interesting to do such tests. Sometimes it is good to be fooled.

this one is even more fanciful for me as I think it pre supposes that people who spend more on hi fi want it to be better, just for the sake of spending or the upgrade, but the argument is somewhat lost on the cable debate when you spend less on a cable and get better sound. But this argument does somewhat help those that think those who like buying hi fi are snobs, or those people who say a system at 1/5th the price is objectively better. Their sbjectivensss to their own buying decisions and need to satisfy themselves nothing can be better than what I've bought, is running haywire.

but there is also an air of arrogance in saying the other person has no intelligence to be able to be subjective about the choices they make. Paints a picture a bit like that harry Enfield sketch 'I saw you coming'

also it gets to be more bizarre in the sense that whilst my brain is hearing the sounds for the better, I'm advised that I'm somewhat conning myself into thinking I am when I am being very objective about it, which is in self interest. It would be as if I'm on some type of acid trip thinking. Strange.

weren't you basically saying Leif that nothing compares to your arcam solo.

Firstly, no one has brought cost into this, the discussion is whether or not there is a difference and whether subjective sighted listening is a suitable method for determining such a difference.

Suggestion bias or any of the other psychoacoustic phenomena that affects subjective evaluation has nothing to do with intelligence. Everyone is affected by it, that is not arrogance, but scientific fact, believing otherwise is delusional.

 

[davedotco]

You are conflating two separate issues here, no one is suggesting that systems should be chosen by blind testing.

However if you are trying to decide whether changing a component (be it cable, amp, dac etc) in your system makes a difference, then basic scientific method requires that you remove all other variables. That includes subjective biases.

you are saying that I think because on one hand you say systems shouldn't be tested by blind testing, but then that you say test removing other variables and by inference you'd be advocating a double blind which is intended to remove subjective bias.

There is an interaction between different components in a system and between the system and the listener, in my view this is best evaluated by subjective listening, if a setup sounds and 'feels' right, then it will probably work well as your system.

In an ideal world double blind testing would be used but that is unlikely to happen in hi-fi, it is too complex and longwinded for even quite well organised hi-fi groups.

Most of my posts in this thread has been to encourage anyone who can, to try and get involved in a blind test, it is a real eye opener. (if you pardon the pun)

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Yes agreed, but I think the original question I posed starting this thread is interesting because most decisions about speaker wire are often associated with a persons inflexibility to think out the box, that becauae it makes no ends in their budget system, that it's all the same, it can't be different on higher end systems. But most people who've owned both know the reality. I'd call this the fability of people in hi fi. If anything it's the opinions that are fooling them, and being set to a view, not the actual listening whether blind or not.

 

[abacus]

Yes agreed, but I think the original question I posed starting this thread is interesting because most decisions about speaker wire are often associated with a persons inflexibility to think out the box, that becauae it makes no ends in their budget system, that it's all the same, it can't be different on higher end systems. But most people who've owned both know the reality. I'd call this the fability of people in hi fi. If anything it's the opinions that are fooling them, and being set to a view, not the actual listening whether blind or not.

Did you read my earlier post (Might have got lost in the rapid responses) Professional studio engineers who have been trained to hear differences say there is no difference in cables that meet the specification for the job, (Power and length) so why do you think that your less trained ears and limited equipment (compared to professional equipment) hear a difference.

There is also the problem that you don’t know what the original recording sounds like, so even if cables did make a difference you would not know which cable gave the most accurate sound.

Bil

 

[Vladimir]

Now I can't wait to hear how this or that studio uses audiophile cables and endorses them. *biggrin*

 

[lindsayt]

Firstly, no one has brought cost into this, the discussion is whether or not there is a difference and whether subjective sighted listening is a suitable method for determining such a difference.
Suggestion bias or any of the other psychoacoustic phenomena that affects subjective evaluation has nothing to do with intelligence. Everyone is affected by it, that is not arrogance, but scientific fact, believing otherwise is delusional.

Yes, but in terms of hi-fi comparative demos I've seen enough examples to show that suggestion bias is insignificant compared to actual audible equipment sonic differences.

IE examples of listeners admitting that they have lost a bake-off due to them having integrity and not having cloth ears.

IE actual sonic differences trump suggestion bias.

I'd go as far as to say that "suggestion bias" is mostly used by people that didn't actually attend an actual bake-off where the reported results didn't go the way they wanted - as a cheap way to discredit the reported results of the bake-off.

 

[lindsayt]

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.

I find this a good test to ensure that a better component really is better. Play it at a slightly lower volume than the less good item. If it still sounds better it really is better.

I've been to plenty of comparative demos where that's been the case. IE the slightly quieter, genuinely better component has sounded better than the louder one.

Maybe, just maybe, this is one thing that separates the relatively golden eared from the relatively cloth eared? Their ability to tell the sonic differences between components even when the better one is played at a slightly lower volume in a comparative demo?

 

[ellisdj]

I know some do but do all studios have high quality listening systems?

It doesn't look like it to me half the time.

Is sitting 1 foot from a desktop monitor the same as 8 feet from a set?

Is it the same listening experience at all?
Half the time probably not as well

 

[Andrewjvt]

I know some do but do all studios have high quality listening systems?

It doesn't look like it to me half the time.

Is sitting 1 foot from a desktop monitor the same as 8 feet from a set?

Is it the same listening experience at all?
Half the time probably not as well

Will have mixing monitors and near field like you say but then larger quality monitors to play the recording back to customers etc like this one

https://youtu.be/3TbYEtB0wxo

 

[Leif]

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.

I completely agree. However, it would be very interesting to do such tests. Sometimes it is good to be fooled.

this one is even more fanciful for me as I think it pre supposes that people who spend more on hi fi want it to be better, just for the sake of spending or the upgrade, but the argument is somewhat lost on the cable debate when you spend less on a cable and get better sound. But this argument does somewhat help those that think those who like buying hi fi are snobs, or those people who say a system at 1/5th the price is objectively better. Their sbjectivensss to their own buying decisions and need to satisfy themselves nothing can be better than what I've bought, is running haywire.

but there is also an air of arrogance in saying the other person has no intelligence to be able to be subjective about the choices they make. Paints a picture a bit like that harry Enfield sketch 'I saw you coming'

also it gets to be more bizarre in the sense that whilst my brain is hearing the sounds for the better, I'm advised that I'm somewhat conning myself into thinking I am when I am being very objective about it, which is in self interest. It would be as if I'm on some type of acid trip thinking. Strange.

weren't you basically saying Leif that nothing compares to your arcam solo.

I have never said that nothing compares to my Arcam Solo. I do recall that you said it was mediocre (equal to a £200-300 amp) and hence I should sell it and buy a Cyrus One or Quad Vena. This is in spite of the fact that you have never even listened to the Arcam Solo Music/Movie. The fact that neither does what I want and both are very ugly are minor issues. To say that to someone after they have just bought something shows remarkable arrogance on your part.

As for " there is also an air of arrogance in saying the other person has no intelligence to be able to be subjective about the choices they make" again no-one has said that. However, there are many here who make objective claims based on subjective assessments without controlled blind testing, whereas experimental evidence proves that such claims are not valid. The human senses are easily fooled.

 

[ellisdj]

I know some do but do all studios have high quality listening systems?

It doesn't look like it to me half the time.

Is sitting 1 foot from a desktop monitor the same as 8 feet from a set?

Is it the same listening experience at all? Half the time probably not as well

Will have mixing monitors and near field like you say but then larger quality monitors to play the recording back to customers etc like this one

https://youtu.be/3TbYEtB0wxo

Thats a really big and good one they are not all like that from what I have seen

GIK used to have a series of videos on their site from a music engineer who mastered Keanes albums and others. He was adding their panels to his room and commenting on the difference

In his home room he listened back on a pair of B&W 605 floor stander equivalent - not sure the number

 

[davedotco]

Studios are a working environment and concepts such as 'high quality listening systems' simply do not exist in a hi-fi sense.

Different monitors are used for different parts of the process and when a studio (or an engineer) uses near field monitors, he is usually checking the mix for instrument positions, clarity etc.

The most important thing to a pro when producing a final mix is how that mix 'translates', ie does the mix stay intact when it is played back on other setups, be they other pro facilities or domestic setups. High quality playback systems that produce a great sound that does not 'translate', are of no use at all.

I am talking pro, working studios here, not home or 'project' studios where a lot of the cheaper near field monitors end up.

 

[davedotco]

The human senses are indeed easily fooled and what is really crazy is that the senses are still fooled even when you understand what is happening. You simply can not control this, it works on a deep, fundamental level that makes any concious effort to overcome these effects quite futile.

A very simple demonstration of this is the 'McGurk effect', where your eyes overule what you are actually hearing. If you have not seen this video before, it is worth a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

 

[Vladimir]

Studios are a working environment and concepts such as 'high quality listening systems' simply do not exist in a hi-fi sense.

Different monitors are used for different parts of the process and when a studio (or an engineer) uses near field monitors, he is usually checking the mix for instrument positions, clarity etc.

The most important thing to a pro when producing a final mix is how that mix 'translates', ie does the mix stay intact when it is played back on other setups, be they other pro facilities or domestic setups. High quality playback systems that produce a great sound that does not 'translate', are of no use at all.

I am talking pro, working studios here, not home or 'project' studios where a lot of the cheaper near field monitors end up.

I think I've read that some studios do have client auditioning rooms where the final product is played on a typical audiophile system. Clients liking the sound better than when listening on main studio monitors, or something like that.

I doubt a studio would buy B&W domestic florostanders for actual work. it's probably for playing the final mix to the customer.

 

[ellisdj]

A high quality listening system is too general a term if that came from me its not the best use of words
.
You can have a hifi system with full translation thats still sounds good and enjoyable I am sure you can.

I bet in the general pro world there are just as many compromises made as there are in the home environment just different ones. With the same exceptions for the bigger bugdeted.
Are the goals the same - in the Mark Knofler studio the speakers are above his head so he can see into the live room.
Thats a big one right there

 

[ellisdj]

Studios are a working environment and concepts such as 'high quality listening systems' simply do not exist in a hi-fi sense.

Different monitors are used for different parts of the process and when a studio (or an engineer) uses near field monitors, he is usually checking the mix for instrument positions, clarity etc.

The most important thing to a pro when producing a final mix is how that mix 'translates', ie does the mix stay intact when it is played back on other setups, be they other pro facilities or domestic setups. High quality playback systems that produce a great sound that does not 'translate', are of no use at all.

I am talking pro, working studios here, not home or 'project' studios where a lot of the cheaper near field monitors end up.

I think I've read that some studios do have client auditioning rooms where the final product is played on a typical audiophile system. Clients liking the sound better than when listening on main studio monitors, or something like that. 

I doubt a studio would buy B&W domestic florostanders for actual work. it's probably for playing the final mix to the customer. 

Thats is what I meant that is what that engineer uses to listen to see if it sounds good after not for his work. This is his home studio but he works there.

He says he knows those speakers and therefore they are a perfect tool.

It was just an example

 

[davedotco]

With all due respect, I don't think either of you have any idea what goes on in a professional recording studio. The idea that they may have some kind of hi-fi system (let alone a hi-end setup) to evaluate 'sound quality' is just nonsense.

If the studio wants to do a playback to impress the clients/record co/management they will do it in the control room, impress the hell out of them with a room full of 'tech' and high level playback. If they have other facilities for playback it is likely to be an iPod docking station or similar playing mp3s, because that is their primary market.

I have met a few engineers who are also hi-fi enthusiasts but they are pretty rare. In the main they use studio type speakers, often 'freebies' of one sort or another. These days the more discerning will use Adam or similar speakers obtained through the studio 'for a discount'.

 

[Vladimir]

I've only been in bigger DW/BBC radio and tv studios and one studio that does telemarketing, commercials and voiceovers for movies. No idea where i've picked up that blurb about hifi lounges for clients. Not claiming it's a common practice but maybe some studios don't want client tourism in their control rooms at all.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

The human senses are indeed easily fooled and what is really crazy is that the senses are still fooled even when you understand what is happening. You simply can not control this, it works on a deep, fundamental level that makes any concious effort to overcome these effects quite futile.

A very simple demonstration of this is the 'McGurk effect', where your eyes overule what you are actually hearing. If you have not seen this video before, it is worth a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

This is very ill considered and poorly thought out. The idea you have no control over what you hear. Wtf? What is going on with the mcgurk effect is that your brain makes sense of a contradiction in senses, but that doesn't happen when you hear things when there is no contradiction. Your brain doesn't tell you to hear something different because of bias, or by bias you want a cable to be better etc. It would be a confusing world if we heard something and it was something different, which is the point Leif is making and it's absolutely mad to think that.

By this way of thinking, you are making an argument nobody has any level of self critique or objectiveness. That because you want it to be better it is.

When you see the guy say 'var' and not 'bar' but he is still saying 'bar' the brain is making sense of the contradiction to hear 'var' . If you look away at this point you will hear 'bar'. But when you hear a stereo there is no contradiction. By the way the auditory cortex still hears the true 'bar'. I think it's physiologically impossible for the motivation centres of the brain, on a stimulus of bias, to hear different sounds autonomically with no control because that would take out any self critique and self objectiveness, which we rely on our ears to do e.g. Picking out different sensitive sounds, for purpose our ears were 'designed'.

 

[Pedro]

I wonder why placebos exist in medicine. I guess doctors and researchers mustn't read the WHF forum or go to hi-fi shows where there are people in their 50s.