Do cables make a difference ?

[Saab]

So its scientific for silver and copper to sound the same? How?

 

[anon_bb]

This is one area I do find confusing. It smacks of Conspiracy Theory. "The retailers/manufacturers are deliberately misleading their customers" Does this mean they know that they are selling junk, that they know the cables make no difference but make and sell cables of varying types just to make money. From my limited experience I would say this is untrue. Firstly everyone in the industry would have to buy into the idea so that the conspiracy was not exposed and secondly, those few people I know who make cables genuinely believe their products make a difference. That is not to say that the pricing might be a little wild but that is a different story.

No conspiracy theory just an emergent property of human networks when everyone is trying to look after their own interests - a bit like politicians lining their own pockets. Truly the emporer has no clothes.

The original study of bees showed that convential ideas of lift from aerodynamics could not account for its flight. Subsequent study has shown the the flexure and rotation of the bees wings creats trailing wingtip vortices that provide the extra lift through turbulence. At no time was it in any doubt that bees could fly.

People CLAIM to hear a difference. If you take two identical cables but paint one gold people will claim there is a big difference between the two. Lets put that too the test in a way that eliminates placebo or expectation. Surprise surprise then the effect vanishes. Science is not obliged to explain until it is beyond reasonable doubt that an effect exists. People used to think the earth was flat but it was not - so peoples claims are not "sufficient evidence" and questioning those claims is good rather than bad science.

In any cable comparison of course earthing conditions should be addressed and made identical so that we are not hearing those effects rather than differences due to the cable itself. Any remaining difference will be due to the LCR cable characteristics and how they interact with the input and output characterisitcs of the equipment they are connecting - which is likely to be minimal. In other words cables that do sound ddifferent can be tracked back to not being electrically equivalent. Take a piece of bell wire and nordost that measure the same, have the same earthing arragement and the same terminations and I bet you cant tell them apart.

 

[Active Hiatus]

and questioning those claims is good rather than bad science.

questioning any claim is worthwhile especially if it can elicit an answer. Yours is the first that actually goes beyond a bald statement of belief. Thank you.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

People CLAIM to hear a difference. If you take two identical cables but paint one gold people will claim there is a big difference between the two. Lets put that too the test in a way that eliminates placebo or expectation.

In that case the subject must not know what is being tested.

The subject of statistics has made appearence before.

Prior to giving these "challenge" statistics any (unwarranted) credence, please make sure to sufficiently understand what is underlying. And ask yourself carefully why real, serious scientific studies (as opposed to parlour trickery) work with fairly study groups and not individuals.

I'm getting sick and tierd to repeat this again and again, so I'll leave it at that and will not bother to repeat the stuff again. Kindly read the "Philosophy" thread on more stuff, to save me typing the stuff again.

Take a piece of bell wire and nordost that measure the same, have the same earthing arragement and the same terminations and I bet you cant tell them apart.

I even agree, as the cable that measures identical will be indistiguishable physically (maerials, construction etc.) from nordost, so it will measure the same and sound the same.

Of course, non of this gets us anywhere!

Ciao T

 

[anon_bb]

Well it does tell us that paying 1000s of pounds for a cable is insupportable and that surely is what this is all about!

You have mistaken what I said. Sighted they will claim the two cables sound different. Blind (as indicated by my comment about removing expectation) they will not be able to distinguish them reliably. Of course to test this scientifically you need many listeners or many tests or preferably both. Though for practical purposes getting the guy that makes the claim to run 20 or so tests will certainly say something of value in the sense that it can be compared with 20 tests of comparing FM with AM radio which I would warrant even a partially deaf listener could distinuish 20 times out of 20 say. My point is about the validity of "claims" and the value of blind testing.

 

[michaelab]

So basically you have made up your mind and you are right and everyone else is wrong?

Absolutely not and I can't see how that can possibly be infered from what I posted . What I said was that if people are making a claim that is counter to current received wisdom the onus is on them to provide strong evidence of their claim before it's worth investigating. Strong evidence is not "I heard a difference - and incidentally so did my granny". As BBV has said, rebutting claims with no evidence to back them up is actually good science.

In the case of audible differences in audio only a statistically valid double-blind test can provide that evidence. To claim that this kind of test doesn't work for audio is patently untrue. ABX tests
have shown that people can easily distinguish the difference between speakers, <1dB level differences, low pass filters and many other differences. See here for some results.

Michael.

 

[lhatkins]

cables do make a difference, but price doesn't, I've tried a few different cables in my system, which are of the £30-£50 region, put a pair of Nordost £100+ cables, into the mix and actually made the system sound worse, I've got better results from home made cable, now work that out.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

In the case of audible differences in audio only a statistically valid double-blind test can provide that evidence. To claim that this kind of test doesn't work for audio is patently untrue.

Double blind testing does work, however, when strong convictions modreate our perception (as they do) a strong randomising is added, or in other words the noise levels go way up, technically speaking and the only way to obtain what happens below the that noisefloor CAN be brought out, but only by drastically increasing the sample size.

The previously mentioned 17/20 challenge for example for example falls under "poor science" in virtually any field, not just audio even in absence of strong convitions on the part of the subject. These "challenges" work the very same confidence tricsters do, they provide no information of use.

So ABX testing in audio is usefull, but STRICTLY if sample sizes are selected to ensure the results can be meaningful and only in cases where the "personal bias" problem can be overcome.

Ciao T

 

[michaelab]

Double blind testing does work, however, when strong convictions modreate our perception (as they do) a strong randomising is added

If people are merely asked to detect a difference and aren't told whether what they're listening to is 2 different cables or 2 different CDPs (or whatever) then how can strong convictions or "personal bias" or whatever you want to call it come into it?

In any case, this is irrelevant as ABX tests for things which are known to be audible (such as a 0.3dB level difference or a 40Hz high pass filter) will always give you a positive result. Oddly enough, ABX tests show that things that have reason to be audible are audible and things that don't (such as cables) are not...but of course since they don't give you the answer you want there must be something wrong with the test .

Michael.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

If people are merely asked to detect a difference and aren't told whether what they're listening to is 2 different cables or 2 different CDPs (or whatever) then how can strong convictions or "personal bias" or whatever you want to call it come into it?

I repeatedly suggested in the strongest possible terms that people should check the conditions and context that derived the data many, if not most published ABX tests are/where based. Clearly you did not bother, if you did you would know the answers to your own questions.

Are you prepared to actually understand what was going on and why most (if not all) of the data from that corner is best ignored and NOT mentioned? If so apply yourself to studying the subject, if you prefer to keep your convictions as they are, don' t check.

When will "you people" learn that just because a superficially scientific methode appears to be employed there is no garantee whatsoever that in fact the experiments where truely scientific and not just parlour tricks dressed up in drag?

L8er T

 

[Decca]

There well could be 3 issues here.

1. The mechanics (science) of transmitting information along a cable

2. The interaction of the cable with other equipment ie speakers

3. The ability of the brain to perceive any distortions caused by 1. and/or 2.

 

[Active Hiatus]

What I said was that if people are making a claim that is counter to current received wisdom the onus is on them to provide strong evidence of their claim before it's worth investigating. Strong evidence is not "I heard a difference - and incidentally so did my granny". As BBV has said, rebutting claims with no evidence to back them up is actually good science.

It can be argued that current received wisdom within the hi-fi community (both users and producers) is that cables do make a difference. I know you disagree but this is where the two sides differ. If it was "obvious" that cable claims were working contrary to science as it's currently understood it should be possible for you to point people to the papers that prove this. It is not a matter of you proving anything or testing the claims but telling people they are wrong without giving an explanation is not good. You made a statement earlier

But with cables, nothing is going on so there's nothing to find out about.

You seem certain therefore I can assume you know how cable and electricity work. If that is the case then it is reasonable to ask for evidence. As you say, if you make a statement it is reasonable to challenge it to see if it stands up.

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, although I found the results I missed any information on the testing proceedure, sample size and the like.

 

[Stereo Mic]

ABX, it must be remembered, is a business.

It would not be in their interests for people to perceive their product as anything other than scientific. The 40hz filter for instance, gives a veneer of authenticity, but frankly you would have to be semi deaf not to hear the affect a filter like that produces.

 

[anon_bb]

Please remember that there is an inverse relation between evidence and sample size. A small number of tests CAN be significant however the evidence needs to be very strong. I suspect a 17/20 test for AM v FM using a single listener would reveal statisitically highly signfificant results when assessed using students t. Therefore if a single person could do the same for two cables unsighted it would likewise be significant. However this is unlikely to occur I would suspect and say 11/20 would require many listeners to see if the effect was signficant or not.

 

[Effem]

If you look out of the window you'll see the sun setting. It is obvious that the Sun goes round the Earth. Except of course we know better because more careful observations have been made. What would happen if science had said "It's obvious the sun goes round the Earth so we don't need to challenge this"? Statements like "it's obvious" and "It don't believe it's true, so why bother" are lazy cop outs.

Science needs to challenge or it becomes mere dogma

The problem here is that "differences" DO exist between cables but nobody yet has proved objectively that they do and the reasons why are simply understood.

As ACTIVE HIATUS rightly says, science as it stands cannot be bothered to take up the challenge to find out why cables make a difference, because it's perfectly content in it's current stance of stating that known science dictates that cable differences do not and cannot happen. For science to take another step forward in it's understanding of the subject it wants MONEY to do just that and anyone who thinks that science will conduct intensive costly research without funding is living in cuckoo land TBH. Is it a major advance that will get us nearer the planets, end world poverty, or cure incurable diseases? No, it would only be done to stop endless debates like this amongst a tiny fractional minority of the population and that puts it all into proper perspective.

Arguably, the big cable manufacturers COULD put their heads together to fund this research, but what in reality is their motivation for doing so? None is the true answer, because they are doing quite nicely thank you without it and the prime example is Eupen who do publish their objective tests for all to see and has that put them at the very top of the cable sales tree? Nope. Does any buyer actually use that objective information in an informed buying decision? I doubt it.

Forget objective testing then you say, give us a double blind test as SOME form of reliable proof. Some have tried and failed miserably, not because a double blind test is an impossible dream, but because all the right ingrediens have never been in the same place at the same time for it to succeed. The Nordost Valhalla test was doomed to fail because:-

a) IMHO the cable itself wasn't one by which ALL other cables are to be be judged by. Nordost are excellent at marketing and promotion hence you all recognise the name, but the cable that I think would wipe the floor with the Valhalla few have ever heard of. *See below

b) The listening panel choice was flawed from the very start and some posts on this thread have explained the possible reasons why.

c) Only the one hi-fi system being used with cable swapping going on is bad news because it's said that sonic memory retention in humans cannot cope with breaks whereas instantanous switching will produce better results. Nobody yet has done this.

d) Bias was AUTOMATICALLY present because the listening panel knew well in advance they were going to be attending a listening test. This is my opinion coloured the final results whatever they were.

e) The biggest killer of all was that no money was used to conduct the test properly. All done on the cheap, relying on goodwill. Few people realise just how much time, money and organisation needs to be sunk into preparing a properly conducted blind test and a bunch of middle aged men slung into a poorly set up room, only one unfamiliar hi-fi system being used, unfamiliar source material, one Nordost mains cable on trial and one kettle cord do not a blind test make.

I run a cable making business (in case you didn't realise) and I have conducted double blind tests that were successful, not for "proving" anything to the outside world but to validate that the product intended for sale did actually have sound enhancing properties, not my enthusiasm and plainly obvious bias getting the better of my commercial judgement. * See above. Not one of mine I may add.

Is it all a dream, figment of people's imagination, or merely placebo? In my opinion placebo is a medical phenomena rather than one which directly applies to audiophools. "Expectation" is I think a better word in this instance and even then I say it works only once as a one shot effect, because when people can swap back and forth at will for days, weeks and months later and consistently repeat what they hear, then the expectation and placebo argument dilutes very quickly. When they call in another independant party (friends or wives) in an improvised unplanned blind test to confirm what is believed to be heard and under those conditions another person also hears the same differences, then IMHO expectation, placebo and imagination begin to hold considerably less worth in the debate.

The only time objective measurements are going to be made in the scientific world to end the debate is when someone stumps up the money to do it. Anyone going to pass the hat around for a collection?

 

[anon_bb]

You cannot state they DO exist you can only state you BELIEVE they exist (and are attributable to cable design rather than some other effect like emergent earthing properties) until there is objective or verified subjective evidence. Currently that does not exist so you cant state it as if it is already proven and use that as your starting pont - thats unscientific. Objective proof costs money but verification of subjective impressions does not. Every attempt I have ever seen has drawn a blank. If you have evidence and results then please present it along with your methodology.

 

[wolfgang]

As ACTIVE HIATUS rightly says, science as it stands cannot be bothered to take up the challenge to find out why cables make a difference,

Why should people spend limited research grants to help you sale your products? No. Cables manufacturers or perhaps audiophiles themselves have to come up with the some good quality ABX studies to demonstrate it is worth their effort to look furhter into this.

 

[Effem]

Why should people spend limited research grants to help you sale your products? No. Cables manufacturers or perhaps audiophiles themselves have to come up with the some good quality ABX studies to demonstrate it is worth their effort to look furhter into this.

I don't believe for one minute that spending money on objective research would catapult the sales of cable vendors. Nor do I believe that a successful ABX would prompt the interest of the scientific community enough to carry out a full research apart from casual curiosity, which certainly doesn't warrant spending valuable resources.

Again, those that currently cannot hear a perceived difference would still not do so after a successful ABX or objective results, much less prompt them to buy sooper dooper cables after fully validated results are published

The best proof of all is already in place if you ask me; the combined cable sales of all the cable makers worldwide must simply be mindblowing (up in the millions each year) and economic scale dictates that there MUST be something in the phenomena otherwise it would have died a death long ago. I don't think a cable maker can stay financially viable if more than 10% of their cables are being returned because they produce no differences of any kind. Returns are a very expensive proposition to a cable maker because it can destroy cashflow through issuing the refund, losing the postage sending back and forth, the resale of the returned cable isn't easy unless it's in pristine condition and the time/money all that takes is quite considerable. Perhaps it does happen and that's why some vendors ask ridiculous prices to allow for these eventualities?

We can almost safely assume therefore that the 90% or greater that do not get returned are kept because some benefit was derived from them. Balance that against the tiny minority of those folks that say cables cannot and will not make a difference and the sheer numbers overwhelm the sceptics many fold. Who is brave enough to say that all those MILLIONS have been comprehensively hoodwinked into believing that a perceived difference was noted by the recipients when in objective fact there was none?

 

[anon_bb]

I am.

That is the most irrelevent argument I have ever heard. People used to all beleive the world was flat and everybody bought maps showing the world was flat. Yet the idea was wrong and all the millions of maps that were sold were wrong and the millions of people that beleived it were wrong. Snake oil was always a hot seller.

People dont return cables as most people dont test them they just walk in plonk the money on the table and buy them with the system. Hifi is littered with examples of overpriced garbage that people queue up to buy.

The argument you have presented is the entire reason the overpriced cable fallacy exists - coupled with basic human nature and a quick study of cable markup. It says nothing about whether or not cables do make a difference.

 

[Saab]

QED Silver Anniversary sounded tinny in my system,Chord Odyssey did not.Even my anti-HIFI wife made a comment,so did my son.Why does everyone insist on telling me it was perceived,and that my ears lied to me? These same people who use science to baffle me then turn there arguements into an almost philosophical tirade of abuse.They can't hear it so therefore I can't,so therefore use some stuff they read in a forum or learnt at University to try and batter me into submission.Both extremes of this arguement are as bad as each other.
Most of us just happily live somewhere in the middle,happy in the knowledge we have a decent cable to let our systems sound as they should.