Speaker cables and system quality

[lindsayt]

https://numeralnine.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/a-brief-guide-to-audio-for-the-skeptical-consumer/

Davedotco, how many of the 7 points in that article do you strongly agree with?

 

[davedotco]

There are degrees of science here.

A simple third party conducted blind test is, to my mind, more 'scientific' than sighted tests. I think that is obvious. I have never seen any completed hi-fi test that is of a standard that would stand up to peer review.

I have never suggested that these sort of simple tests 'prove' anything, just that the weight of evidence suggests that it is far more difficult to hear differences in blind rather than sighted tests.

I have taken part in such tests and conducted one or two myself, at no time have I insisted that these tests 'prove' anything. In fact I have never had to as all the participants (reviewers, manufacturers and dealers in the main) have been shocked by how difficult it is to hear differences that, in many cases, they 'knew' existed from their previous (sighted) experience.

 

[lindsayt]

Just another post affirming your position that you can reliably hear things that scientific testing strongly suggests that you can not.

In order to challenge you views you need to do something different, blind testing is the obvious challenge though I accept that this is not easy to arrange. Beyond that, I am at a loos as to what to suggest.

I'd largely go along with Quests opinion of that article, with the addition that I've tried valve amps with high efficiency speakers.

Maybe Quests overall views on hi-fi do not need challenging, as they are just as valid, if not more so, than yours davedotco?

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Dave and others have carefully explained how we can be fooled by sighted tests.

You've now picked on the link with several Hi-Fi myths and seem to be conflating this with your beliefs about cable sound.

For what it's worth, I've long believed cables make a difference. However, I'm much more sceptical these days and prefer decently constructed standard cables than fancy boutique types. There are also several good points many pages ago about simple cable 'housekeeping' and keeping contacts clean - all important.

The debate here came close to the most relevant point, long ago postulated in a Hi-Fi magazine - either by Angus McKenzie or Martin Colloms, I suspect - that the best cable sounds like none at all - that is, has no effect on the signal. Most analogue cables that carry outlandish claims either try to change tonal balance or banish an artefact that probably doesn't exist, or is inaudible!

no sorry nobody has explained how we can be fooled as far as I'm concerned - in abx , which was the original question. The explanations by those who believe we are fooled are vague and don't account how our brain works, and audiory cortex, pre frontal lobes. Also common sense rang motivation centres don't make us hear different sounds, in normal situations. The mcgurk effect was mentioned but we know that's when there is a sense contradiction, as with train at a station e.g. I gave. But no such in a standard listening test. I pointed out the brain doesn't hear bias, it may convince you, but that's not the same thing. I also put forward the idea bias happens when it's close, and can be overcome, but often it's not close at all for me (in cable terms) and I also put forward my own double blind tests. They are not scientific tests too as no control and small sample size, but I'm sure based on my strong experiences (which is like a lot of people I know that cables make a difference) if we made it scientific the same results could be replicated. We'd need a control group.

i suspect you could conduct surveys that cables don't make a difference and others that do, but the former could be based on familiarity and the later where people have no knowledge or experience of the system, which is important to the extent we can pick out sounds. That would be what science would bring up, it would show what the determining factors. But at the moment we only have the 'Jim told me' argument.

 

[Leif]

The fact that so many tests conducted by a range of people are all broadly in agreement is more than enough for me, given that the alternative is to believe what people think they hear. The absence of convincing explanations for what people claim they hear is also consistent with the evidence.

In my own case, I am sure that my new speakers went through a break in whereby they started out with a mushy bass, and voices sounded all wrong. However, were someone to perform blind testing which showed I was mistaken, I'd accept the results, assuming it was reasonably carefully done, although I'd be intrigued to know the cause of my delusion.

There seems to be so much BS in the hifi world. People pay a fortune for amps with cases that are exquisitely machined, and over engineered, almost as if the makers are going overboard in the machining in order to convince the buyer that it is of exceptionally high audio quality even though the machining is so obviously decorative.

 

[lindsayt]

The fact that so many tests conducted by a range of people are all broadly in agreement is more than enough for me, given that the alternative is to believe what people think they hear. The absence of convincing explanations for what people claim they hear is also consistent with the evidence...

Leif, to take the example of 1 item from davedotco's linked article. Point 5 on valve amplifiers is highly selective on what the article has quoted.

What about here, for example: https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/etv.mpl?forum=set

This is a whole section of a forum, full of people whose experiences contradict the views on valve amps given in the article.

Who should we listen to? The article that davedotco linked to? Or the SET section of Audio Asylum?

I think the answer is neither. We should, ideally, do our own listening tests and make up our own minds.

Just the same as we should make up our own minds about speaker cables in revealing hi-fi systems.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

The fact that so many tests conducted by a range of people are all broadly in agreement is more than enough for me, given that the alternative is to believe what people think they hear. The absence of convincing explanations for what people claim they hear is also consistent with the evidence.

In my own case, I am sure that my new speakers went through a break in whereby they started out with a mushy bass, and voices sounded all wrong. However, were someone to perform blind testing which showed I was mistaken, I'd accept the results, assuming it was reasonably carefully done, although I'd be intrigued to know the cause of my delusion.

There seems to be so much BS in the hifi world. People pay a fortune for amps with cases that are exquisitely machined, and over engineered, almost as if the makers are going overboard in the machining in order to convince the buyer that it is of exceptionally high audio quality even though the machining is so obviously decorative.

Id rather tie my strong experiences with evidence of a proper study, of which there are no such studies, because the hi fi world is full of people who are pessimists, doubters and just tie their own experience to an issue to the exclusion of others experiences. Especially if you own hi fi in a different standard to those you might think of as snobs. But I've actually been in both camps. From thinking cables didn't make any difference when I had a budget system about 5 years ago, to the opposite now, and I laugh of people's fallibility and gullibility on this matter.

So if there is evidence for argument sake, and if I consider there is knowledge as I know I hear good difference, I'd look to see what that evidence says. But there lays the problem, there isn't any evidence from studies either way. So I use judgement.

And I don't buy something being true just because people are spouting about something. That's being ignorant. I'd find out myself.

Im not sure if you tried any different cables, and I'd urge you to try if you haven't. But I think your conclusions about run in are sound but the differences in poor and good cables on really good systems are more profound than that with run in on pmc's, if you've got really good amps.. But if you apply the standards of your own' knowledge' or pessimistic experience to knowledge you don't know of, you make a wrong view. But if you haven't tried cables you will never know. But I can assure you, if you ever decide to try those pmc's on much better electronics, you will start hearing cable differences Im absolutely sure, as they are more than good enough speakers. You will tune the cable to the system.

But your point about bs is to demonstrate where you come from. From pessimism I think. It's natural to think, that a tv can't be better than mine, or car not better than mine etc. There may be very real need for some of these things, which look like bs, but can have a function. Though maybe not a case.

 

[davedotco]

The fact that so many tests conducted by a range of people are all broadly in agreement is more than enough for me, given that the alternative is to believe what people think they hear. The absence of convincing explanations for what people claim they hear is also consistent with the evidence.

In my own case, I am sure that my new speakers went through a break in whereby they started out with a mushy bass, and voices sounded all wrong. However, were someone to perform blind testing which showed I was mistaken, I'd accept the results, assuming it was reasonably carefully done, although I'd be intrigued to know the cause of my delusion.

There seems to be so much BS in the hifi world. People pay a fortune for amps with cases that are exquisitely machined, and over engineered, almost as if the makers are going overboard in the machining in order to convince the buyer that it is of exceptionally high audio quality even though the machining is so obviously decorative.

Id rather tie my strong experiences with evidence of a proper study, of which there are no such studies, because the hi fi world is full of people who are pessimists, doubters and just tie their own experience to an issue to the exclusion of others experiences. Especially if you own hi fi in a different standard to those you might think of as snobs. But I've actually been in both camps. From thinking cables didn't make any difference when I had a budget system about 5 years ago, to the opposite now, and I laugh of people's fallibility and gullibility on this matter.

So if there is evidence for argument sake, and if I consider there is knowledge as I know I hear good difference, I'd look to see what that evidence says. But there lays the problem, there isn't any evidence from studies either way. So I use judgement.

And I don't buy something being true just because people are spouting about something. That's being ignorant. I'd find out myself.

Im not sure if you tried any different cables, and I'd urge you to try if you haven't. But I think your conclusions about run in are sound but the differences in poor and good cables on really good systems are more profound than that with run in on pmc's, if you've got really good amps.. But if you apply the standards of your own' knowledge' or pessimistic experience to knowledge you don't know of, you make a wrong view. But if you haven't tried cables you will never know. But I can assure you, if you ever decide to try those pmc's on much better electronics, you will start hearing cable differences Im absolutely sure, as they are more than good enough speakers. You will tune the cable to the system.

But your point about bs is to demonstrate where you come from. From pessimism I think. It's natural to think, that a tv can't be better than mine, or car not better than mine etc. There may be very real need for some of these things, which look like bs, but can have a function. Though maybe not a case.

You seem to be under the impression that we are all newbies, inexperienced in the way of hi-fi. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We have all (well most of us) heard clear differences, in cables, dacs, amplifiers what have you, and been just as convinced that these differences are quite real. It is simply that, having been around the hi-fi block a good few times, we have learned that these differences are not caused by what we think they are caused by and in some cases do not exist at all.

Maybe you will experience these things yourself, maybe not. Time will tell.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

The fact that so many tests conducted by a range of people are all broadly in agreement is more than enough for me, given that the alternative is to believe what people think they hear. The absence of convincing explanations for what people claim they hear is also consistent with the evidence.

In my own case, I am sure that my new speakers went through a break in whereby they started out with a mushy bass, and voices sounded all wrong. However, were someone to perform blind testing which showed I was mistaken, I'd accept the results, assuming it was reasonably carefully done, although I'd be intrigued to know the cause of my delusion.

There seems to be so much BS in the hifi world. People pay a fortune for amps with cases that are exquisitely machined, and over engineered, almost as if the makers are going overboard in the machining in order to convince the buyer that it is of exceptionally high audio quality even though the machining is so obviously decorative.

Id rather tie my strong experiences with evidence of a proper study, of which there are no such studies, because the hi fi world is full of people who are pessimists, doubters and just tie their own experience to an issue to the exclusion of others experiences. Especially if you own hi fi in a different standard to those you might think of as snobs. But I've actually been in both camps. From thinking cables didn't make any difference when I had a budget system about 5 years ago, to the opposite now, and I laugh of people's fallibility and gullibility on this matter.

So if there is evidence for argument sake, and if I consider there is knowledge as I know I hear good difference, I'd look to see what that evidence says. But there lays the problem, there isn't any evidence from studies either way. So I use judgement.

And I don't buy something being true just because people are spouting about something. That's being ignorant. I'd find out myself.

Im not sure if you tried any different cables, and I'd urge you to try if you haven't. But I think your conclusions about run in are sound but the differences in poor and good cables on really good systems are more profound than that with run in on pmc's, if you've got really good amps.. But if you apply the standards of your own' knowledge' or pessimistic experience to knowledge you don't know of, you make a wrong view. But if you haven't tried cables you will never know. But I can assure you, if you ever decide to try those pmc's on much better electronics, you will start hearing cable differences Im absolutely sure, as they are more than good enough speakers. You will tune the cable to the system.

But your point about bs is to demonstrate where you come from. From pessimism I think. It's natural to think, that a tv can't be better than mine, or car not better than mine etc. There may be very real need for some of these things, which look like bs, but can have a function. Though maybe not a case.

You seem to be under the impression that we are all newbies, inexperienced in the way of hi-fi. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We have all (well most of us) heard clear differences, in cables, dacs, amplifiers what have you, and been just as convinced that these differences are quite real. It is simply that, having been around the hi-fi block a good few times, we have learned that these differences are not caused by what we think they are caused by and in some cases do not exist at all.

Maybe you will experience these things yourself, maybe not. Time will tell.

You are suggesting I'm making up differences in my mind?

out of interest you said you were in the hi fi business I think. What hi fi have you owned or your best set up?

i don't experience myself as Lindsayt agreed with my point cables make a difference, and many besides.

Are you saying people hear differences in speakers that are attributed to their own minds hearing difference and not ears, then buy them. That's mad.

 

[davedotco]

The fact that so many tests conducted by a range of people are all broadly in agreement is more than enough for me, given that the alternative is to believe what people think they hear. The absence of convincing explanations for what people claim they hear is also consistent with the evidence.

In my own case, I am sure that my new speakers went through a break in whereby they started out with a mushy bass, and voices sounded all wrong. However, were someone to perform blind testing which showed I was mistaken, I'd accept the results, assuming it was reasonably carefully done, although I'd be intrigued to know the cause of my delusion.

There seems to be so much BS in the hifi world. People pay a fortune for amps with cases that are exquisitely machined, and over engineered, almost as if the makers are going overboard in the machining in order to convince the buyer that it is of exceptionally high audio quality even though the machining is so obviously decorative.

Id rather tie my strong experiences with evidence of a proper study, of which there are no such studies, because the hi fi world is full of people who are pessimists, doubters and just tie their own experience to an issue to the exclusion of others experiences. Especially if you own hi fi in a different standard to those you might think of as snobs. But I've actually been in both camps. From thinking cables didn't make any difference when I had a budget system about 5 years ago, to the opposite now, and I laugh of people's fallibility and gullibility on this matter.

So if there is evidence for argument sake, and if I consider there is knowledge as I know I hear good difference, I'd look to see what that evidence says. But there lays the problem, there isn't any evidence from studies either way. So I use judgement.

And I don't buy something being true just because people are spouting about something. That's being ignorant. I'd find out myself.

Im not sure if you tried any different cables, and I'd urge you to try if you haven't. But I think your conclusions about run in are sound but the differences in poor and good cables on really good systems are more profound than that with run in on pmc's, if you've got really good amps.. But if you apply the standards of your own' knowledge' or pessimistic experience to knowledge you don't know of, you make a wrong view. But if you haven't tried cables you will never know. But I can assure you, if you ever decide to try those pmc's on much better electronics, you will start hearing cable differences Im absolutely sure, as they are more than good enough speakers. You will tune the cable to the system.

But your point about bs is to demonstrate where you come from. From pessimism I think. It's natural to think, that a tv can't be better than mine, or car not better than mine etc. There may be very real need for some of these things, which look like bs, but can have a function. Though maybe not a case.

You seem to be under the impression that we are all newbies, inexperienced in the way of hi-fi. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We have all (well most of us) heard clear differences, in cables, dacs, amplifiers what have you, and been just as convinced that these differences are quite real. It is simply that, having been around the hi-fi block a good few times, we have learned that these differences are not caused by what we think they are caused by and in some cases do not exist at all.

Maybe you will experience these things yourself, maybe not. Time will tell.

You are suggesting I'm making up differences in my mind?

out of interest you said you were in the hi fi business I think. What hi fi have you owned or your best set up?

i don't experience myself as Lindsayt agreed with my point cables make a difference, and many besides.

Are you saying people hear differences in speakers that are attributed to their own minds hearing difference and not ears, then buy them. That's mad.

No, I am quite convinced that you totally believe what you hear.

The point is, everyone hears these subjective differences, that is not madness it is normal. It is just that most of the times, any differences heard are not caused by what you think is causing them but by something else entirely. The 'something else' may, in some cases, be actual real differences caused by factors not taken into account or even psycological factors such as expectation bias. This is my experience over my 35 years in hi-fi and pro-audio.

Speakers are particularly difficult to evaluate, despite the fact that most people consider the differences to be huge, most of the differences are obvious things like differences in level or room positioning. Blind testing level matched speakers was the definitive experience for me, most illuminating, changed everything for me.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

The fact that so many tests conducted by a range of people are all broadly in agreement is more than enough for me, given that the alternative is to believe what people think they hear. The absence of convincing explanations for what people claim they hear is also consistent with the evidence.

In my own case, I am sure that my new speakers went through a break in whereby they started out with a mushy bass, and voices sounded all wrong. However, were someone to perform blind testing which showed I was mistaken, I'd accept the results, assuming it was reasonably carefully done, although I'd be intrigued to know the cause of my delusion.

There seems to be so much BS in the hifi world. People pay a fortune for amps with cases that are exquisitely machined, and over engineered, almost as if the makers are going overboard in the machining in order to convince the buyer that it is of exceptionally high audio quality even though the machining is so obviously decorative.

Id rather tie my strong experiences with evidence of a proper study, of which there are no such studies, because the hi fi world is full of people who are pessimists, doubters and just tie their own experience to an issue to the exclusion of others experiences. Especially if you own hi fi in a different standard to those you might think of as snobs. But I've actually been in both camps. From thinking cables didn't make any difference when I had a budget system about 5 years ago, to the opposite now, and I laugh of people's fallibility and gullibility on this matter.

So if there is evidence for argument sake, and if I consider there is knowledge as I know I hear good difference, I'd look to see what that evidence says. But there lays the problem, there isn't any evidence from studies either way. So I use judgement.

And I don't buy something being true just because people are spouting about something. That's being ignorant. I'd find out myself.

Im not sure if you tried any different cables, and I'd urge you to try if you haven't. But I think your conclusions about run in are sound but the differences in poor and good cables on really good systems are more profound than that with run in on pmc's, if you've got really good amps.. But if you apply the standards of your own' knowledge' or pessimistic experience to knowledge you don't know of, you make a wrong view. But if you haven't tried cables you will never know. But I can assure you, if you ever decide to try those pmc's on much better electronics, you will start hearing cable differences Im absolutely sure, as they are more than good enough speakers. You will tune the cable to the system.

But your point about bs is to demonstrate where you come from. From pessimism I think. It's natural to think, that a tv can't be better than mine, or car not better than mine etc. There may be very real need for some of these things, which look like bs, but can have a function. Though maybe not a case.

You seem to be under the impression that we are all newbies, inexperienced in the way of hi-fi. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We have all (well most of us) heard clear differences, in cables, dacs, amplifiers what have you, and been just as convinced that these differences are quite real. It is simply that, having been around the hi-fi block a good few times, we have learned that these differences are not caused by what we think they are caused by and in some cases do not exist at all.

Maybe you will experience these things yourself, maybe not. Time will tell.

You are suggesting I'm making up differences in my mind?

out of interest you said you were in the hi fi business I think. What hi fi have you owned or your best set up?

i don't experience myself as Lindsayt agreed with my point cables make a difference, and many besides.

Are you saying people hear differences in speakers that are attributed to their own minds hearing difference and not ears, then buy them. That's mad.

No, I am quite convinced that you totally believe what you hear.

The point is, everyone hears these subjective differences, that is not madness it is normal. It is just that most of the times, any differences heard are not caused by what you think is causing them but by something else entirely. The 'something else' may, in some cases, be actual real differences caused by factors not taken into account or even psycological factors such as expectation bias. This is my experience over my 35 years in hi-fi and pro-audio.

Speakers are particularly difficult to evaluate, despite the fact that most people consider the differences to be huge, most of the differences are obvious things like differences in level or room positioning. Blind testing level matched speakers was the definitive experience for me, most illuminating, changed everything for me.

I wonder how you think that but have worked in hi fi so long. It's not the opinion of most people who own very good audiophile hi fi. What's the best system youve owned and speaker cables you've tried. I sense by you avoiding this question there is some motive in you not wishing to mention, or that possibly you've been caught up in the technicalities of hi fi for a long time, and not the practise. The more you think it, the more you believe it.

But it is mad to think of 'factors not taken into account', whatever these may be, are motivation for hearing differences themselves, not the speakers or cables themselves.

Have you ever lived with two sets of very good but different speakers for at least 4 months each, then blind tested them? If you are telling me that it's not due to the speakers and their frequency responses etc, I'm sorry but your whole position just looses all credibility for me.

 

[Freddy58]

Speakers are particularly difficult to evaluate, despite the fact that most people consider the differences to be huge, most of the differences are obvious things like differences in level or room positioning. Blind testing level matched speakers was the definitive experience for me, most illuminating, changed everything for me.

I'm quite interested in this comment. When I was in the market for some speakers (I didn't listen to loads), I narrowed it down to MA GX100's and Kef R300's. Positioned in exactly the same place, the differences seemed very significant. The MA's were very lively, lots of detail, very revealing. The Kefs had a more laid back sound, smooth. I settled on the Kefs, although I was struck by the MA's and really liked the detail. I just couldn't live with the MA's though, as after a short while, I found them too fatiguing to listen to. As said, the differences seemed very significant, so I would welcome your thoughts. And no, not looking for an argument

 

[lindsayt]

I agree with you Freddy58. Speakers are the easiest hi-fi components to evaluate. Davedotco's claim that they are "particularly difficult to evaluate" is not true.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

I seldom get involved in Cable debates, for obvious reasons.

It is my personal belief that they make differences, having listened to cables at all prices, from manufacturers like TCI, Vertere, Atlas, Cardas, Telurium Q, Chord, Linn, QED, Clearer Audio, Furutech...and probably more.....and expensive didn't always sound better (or should I say, preferable to me).

I have one anecdote which is totally true, doesn't conclusively prove anything but IMO is interesting nonetheless....and I have mentioned it here before:

Back in about 2011, I bought an Atlas Voyager from Ebay. I didn't like it, as it seemed to make the treble rather harsh and sibilent, so traded it in with my local dealer.

In 2013 (I think), I was interested in buying either the R100 or LS50.....I really wanted to save the money and go for the R100s, but decided to test them both. I had 2 long sessions with a system that consisted of a Linn Sneaky + Linn AVR600. The LS50s were so much better, that I decided to go for them....but before I pulled the pin, I wanted Mrs. Cno to hear the difference as well.

So back I went, with herself in toe, to listen again.

First up was the R100s.

The sound had a hard glassy bite to it that was unpleasant, but I put it down to the equipment being cold. Half an hour later it was no better. We then put in the LS50s which were more natural, but still there was a hardness there. This was puzzling, as none of this kit should have sounded like this.and hadn't done so on the other two occasions (on the end of the same system). Mrs C was not impressed and wondered what all the fuss was about....as I'd raved about the LS50s.

Over an hour later, there was not much improvement, so I asked the dealer what s/c cable was being used......he replied that it was the good install (copper) bi-wire that I have used before, so not the problem.

Anyway, Michael (the owner) was called away to see to a customer....so I decided to have a poke about behind the system...and there to my amazement, was an Atlas Voyager. I had not expected this, as he always uses Linn Blacks or Silver, and isn't an Atlas dealer.

When Michael became freed up, I asked him why he had used the Atlas cable. He said that a few days ago, he had a customer who asked for a cable that was less smooth than the Linn Blacks and he dug out this one (which was mine from all that time ago). Since it was kicking about the dem room, he used it to connect the system.

I then had him excgange it for some Linn Blacks (which had been used for the other 2 dems) and the sound returned to what it had been like before.....we both agreed the LS50s were well worth the extra and so that is what I bought.

You can't get more blind than not knowing (or expecting) that there had been a change of i/c. ....and my expectation bias was that Linn Blacks were being used....as it never crossed my mind that he would have dug out a cable from a year or two back (that I didn't even know he still had).

So people can make of that what they will.

I agree with you but funnily I had a bad experience of atlas cables and they were slightly bland in my system. Flat and lacking dynamics unlike chord cables. I tried hyper atlas cables. But your experience is a lot like many I think, and mine, but it's very important to stress if mrs cnoevil had changed the cables around unbeknown to you, to the one that didn't work as well in the shop, and you came back home, I'd expect you to think my hi fi has a problem or similar. Then you'd check it out and realise. But I'd reckon I'd be like you in the shop, but I may not have realised. The reason being I may not have been used fo the hi fi. But get a system back and listen to it at home without distractions it's a totally different kettle of fish with cables often, not always.

Recently after turning my power supply off to my pre dac without realising it was still off, I was listening to my hi fi and thought I have a problem. I Was about to phone the dealer as sound quality was so much poorer. It was just that I hadn't turned the power supply on.

but I rate your kef speakers which punch well above their weight and are a kind of renowned benchmark at their price. But when speakers are multiple times the quality, with detail etc, they become even more sensitive to things like amps, and cables, and it's very easy to tell.

I don't think you can describe yourself as having expectation bias really, even if you think you did, because you checked to see the cable and realised something was wrong. Bias would have been you choosing the r100 which are quite obviously not as good. What was going on there I think, was the thing where you think that it must be the same, as you think nothing has changed. Maybe you had forgotten how it sounded before for a small time, but you clearly didn't. You were just taking a dealer on trust and are talked into it. Or that thing where if you tell someone a different wine is the same, they believe it, and talk themselves into it. But that's just recognising the person has fooled you with the wine, it's not your taste buds tricking you (akin to ears) it is just yourself making yourself believe something. E.g. I must have had that after taste of the mint in my mouth still affecting judgement on the wine. But I guess when you do double blind tests you are hearing two different cables, and you are effectively picking out two to decide what you like best. You hear it or not. I'm sure if you put the bad cable on after the good one, you'd pick it out every time. Which is effectively all people do when changing cables for the better, if bias doesn't affect them and that bias can only really be it's too close to call.

I heard my speakers in a shop with naim stuff then borrowed those speaker at home. The naim stuff was not as good as my Cyrus stuff in terms of quality, different price brackets, but it was very easy to tell the qualities the speaker had and those inherent in the respective electronics. With the cables they were using too, which I also borrowed.

 

[davedotco]

Your observations on your demo get right to the point of this issue. In a normal demo there is no attempt to accurately match levels, any ad hoc adjustments that you make are subject to all kinds of error, the more sensitive speaker invariable sounds more detailed, more open and often just better. It only takes a a small difference in level to make this work and it is very difficult to make sensible decisions in this case.

I understand that this is difficult, it goes against everything that we experience in everyday listening, but my experience of listening to loudspeakers blind and level matched shows that the listeners preferences are often very different from that of sighted tests.

To be honest, had I not been involved in such testing, I would not believe this either, speakers sound so different in everyday use that it is easy to see which we prefer.

Freddie, in your specific case, the MAs are very slightly more sensitive than the kefs, hence their enhanced detail and percieved livelyness. That you chose the Kefs in such a demo is interesting.

 

[CnoEvil]

The system I listened to at the dealer, was one I was used to....I have an AVR600 + Majik DS....so I was very familiar with those components.

The dealer has become a friend, as I have known (and used him) since the early 80s.

I don't like Chord Cables, as I find them a bit "forward", with the exception of the Sarum Tuned Aray...but imo it's not worth the 1600 GBP/M asking price (when I heard it in 2013).

 

[Freddy58]

Your observations on your demo get right to the point of this issue. In a normal demo there is no attempt to accurately match levels, any ad hoc adjustments that you make are subject to all kinds of error, the more sensitive speaker invariable sounds more detailed, more open and often just better. It only takes a a small difference in level to make this work and it is very difficult to make sensible decisions in this case.

I understand that this is difficult, it goes against everything that we experience in everyday listening, but my experience of listening to loudspeakers blind and level matched shows that the listeners preferences are often very different from that of sighted tests.

To be honest, had I not been involved in such testing, I would not believe this either, speakers sound so different in everyday use that it is easy to see which we prefer.

Freddie, in your specific case, the MAs are very slightly more sensitive than the kefs, hence their enhanced detail and percieved livelyness. That you chose the Kefs in such a demo is interesting.

I should add that I listened to them at home. If I could have, I would have gone for the MA's as they really sparkled, quite impressive really. I just found that their strength turned out to be their weakness, just too shrill after a while, and I became sensitised. I like to think that I was listening at the same level, but there was nothing scientific about it, apart from my perception. I do find the more (perceived) laid back sound of the Kefs easier on the ear, and given their size, they do low frequencies really well, without sounding flabby, imo. I suppose something in between the two would be perfect, but I'm happy with my choice.

I couldn't be bothered to go to the extent you have regarding blind testing, but interesting to hear of your findings.

 

[Freddy58]

I assume that when you compared speakers, it was on a 'like-for-like' basis? Just to clarify...

 

[davedotco]

I assume that when you compared speakers, it was on a 'like-for-like' basis? Just to clarify...

Not quite sure what you are getting at but the test that really stands out in my mind was one done for Martin Colloms original Hi-Fi Choice back in the 70s.

A group of 5 or 6 speakers, within the same price range,were played to a group of 'industry folk' and despite the fact that we knew which speakers were in the test, and all 'knew' and pretty much agreed which were the best and worst, the results were surprising.

The known 'best' speaker did not come out on top with a couple of highly regarded models doing particularly badly. Particular speakers were often miss-identified by the group with some less well thought of models being wrongly identified as more favoured models.

What I took away from this was just how much our preferences changed when we listened blind and level matched, a very sobering experience for everyone involved. This is what I meant when I said that speakers were particularly difficult, you do not get the same results in controlled tests as you do in normal listening, that is what is difficult.

 

[Vladimir]

Harman's DBT replicated your experience, Dave. Interestingly, when ppl don't know brands, prices and aesthetics, and when they know what to listen for (trained listeners), they consistently want 1) louder 2) cleaner 3) neutral. So high SPL without distortion and power compression, at the flattest possible FR on and off axis.

 

[lindsayt]

davedotco, what make and model were the speakers in your Hi-fi Choice blind test?

It's quite possible that the speakers that were "highly rated" before the test had simply been over hyped and weren't all that. As in the example of the B&W vs JPW Hi-fi Choice blind test.

 

[Leif]

Your observations on your demo get right to the point of this issue. In a normal demo there is no attempt to accurately match levels, any ad hoc adjustments that you make are subject to all kinds of error, the more sensitive speaker invariable sounds more detailed, more open and often just better. It only takes a a small difference in level to make this work and it is very difficult to make sensible decisions in this case.

I understand that this is difficult, it goes against everything that we experience in everyday listening, but my experience of listening to loudspeakers blind and level matched shows that the listeners preferences are often very different from that of sighted tests.

To be honest, had I not been involved in such testing, I would not believe this either, speakers sound so different in everyday use that it is easy to see which we prefer.

Freddie, in your specific case, the MAs are very slightly more sensitive than the kefs, hence their enhanced detail and percieved livelyness. That you chose the Kefs in such a demo is interesting.

This might be true for decent speakers, I find it hard to believe for cheapers ones. I have some Mission 771e speakers, unused for 15 years, which I recently tried. The sound is awful. My MA Silver 1 speakers have an exaggerated bass lacking detail, best described as boomy. Measurements of the MA S2 show a very exaggerated bass. Measurements of the PMC twenty.21 show an increased treble response. I have not blind tested the last two, but I would be astonished not to recognise them.

The differences are sometimes huge for headphones, I cannot listen to a Beats Solo due to the lack of detail and huge bass.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

davedotco, what make and model were the speakers in your Hi-fi Choice blind test?

It's quite possible that the speakers that were "highly rated" before the test had simply been over hyped and weren't all that. As in the example of the B&W vs JPW Hi-fi Choice blind test.

this is the problem that David is not stating how it was actually done. Any science would do that. And no I don't buy how our ears suposedly can't discern differences in dynamics, clarity and all these variables, with non matched volume levels. Our ears are good enough audio devices to do so. But I agree it would make sense to eliminate the variable as much as possible or totally. But where for instance is the test that shows that level matching is important to reduce errors in double blind (or not). Again there isn't one. Which is what makes this hard to believe.

I don't actually see what his system is too. In my experience those that believe you can't discern differences with speaker cables as being with the cables themselves have multi faceted reasons why they think that. Drill these down and you find out. But those who believe the opposite have pretty much one reason, they hear it with their ears.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Your observations on your demo get right to the point of this issue. In a normal demo there is no attempt to accurately match levels, any ad hoc adjustments that you make are subject to all kinds of error, the more sensitive speaker invariable sounds more detailed, more open and often just better. It only takes a a small difference in level to make this work and it is very difficult to make sensible decisions in this case.

I understand that this is difficult, it goes against everything that we experience in everyday listening, but my experience of listening to loudspeakers blind and level matched shows that the listeners preferences are often very different from that of sighted tests.

To be honest, had I not been involved in such testing, I would not believe this either, speakers sound so different in everyday use that it is easy to see which we prefer.

Freddie, in your specific case, the MAs are very slightly more sensitive than the kefs, hence their enhanced detail and percieved livelyness. That you chose the Kefs in such a demo is interesting.

This might be true for decent speakers, I find it hard to believe for cheapers ones. I have some Mission 771e speakers, unused for 15 years, which I recently tried. The sound is awful. My MA Silver 1 speakers have an exaggerated bass lacking detail, best described as boomy. Measurements of the MA S2 show a very exaggerated bass. Measurements of the PMC twenty.21 show an increased treble response. I have not blind tested the last two, but I would be astonished not to recognise them.

The differences are sometimes huge for headphones, I cannot listen to a Beats Solo due to the lack of detail and huge bass.

exactly so if you did blind test speaker cables and decided to go for much better electronics at some stage, you would find a difference. It stands to reason.

 

[davedotco]

davedotco, what make and model were the speakers in your Hi-fi Choice blind test?

It's quite possible that the speakers that were "highly rated" before the test had simply been over hyped and weren't all that. As in the example of the B&W vs JPW Hi-fi Choice blind test.

this is the problem that David is not stating how it was actually done. Any science would do that. And no I don't buy how our ears suposedly can't discern differences in dynamics, clarity and all these variables, with non matched volume levels. Our ears are good enough audio devices to do so. But I agree it would make sense to eliminate the variable as much as possible or totally. But where for instance is the test that shows that level matching is important to reduce errors in double blind (or not). Again there isn't one. Which is what makes this hard to believe.

I don't actually see what his system is too. In my experience those that believe you can't discern differences with speaker cables as being with the cables themselves have multi faceted reasons why they think that. Drill these down and you find out. But those who believe the opposite have pretty much one reason, they hear it with their ears.

I never suggested the tests referred to were scientific, they were anything but.

The speakers were all medium sized standmounts in what was then a mid price range. The listening panel knew which speakers were in the group and were familier with them by experience and reputation. They had practically decided the 'winners' before listening.

The speakers included models from B&W, Kef and Monitor audio along with some less well known models, there was no attempt to make the switching double blind.

Each speaker was played in random order and the panel made notes, after the round was completed some speakers were listened to again at the request of the panel. Some members, on occasion, identified the speaker they were listening to, often wrongly.

The results taken from the notes showed a clear disparity from the expected results with unfancied speakers often doing better than the more highly regarded models. When sighted tests were later carried out (before the panel knew the results of the blind test), preferences went to the more favoured models and an unfancied speaker that did well in the blind test was consistently marked down.

I came away from this experience rather chastened, simply because the huge differences that we hear in speakers in everyday use and the preferences formed were completely at odds with the much smaller differences heard in controlled tests.