new scientist

I hope you didn't jinx it and given it a kiss of life with this comment.

 

Tenson, I suspect what you're saying is essentially true. But speaking for myself, I'm prepared to accept the possibility that there are things that we can't measure (or at least, that it hasn't ocurred to us to measure) which may affect the perceived sound.

My hunch is that psychology is the main factor at play when it comes to cables -

or

There's a way to eliminate this factor - a double-blind test - but for some reason this seems to be a bit of a taboo amongst many hi-fi types ... I'm not sure exactly why. Perhaps because it would spoil the "magic", perhaps because it wouldn't be terribly helpful to certain retailers' sales figures.

We can argue all day about possible scientific explanations - but as many have pointed out, it's whether (not why) it actually sounds better that matters. And it seems to me that if there was the will, this could be quite easily determined once and for all.

 

I think in general that’s true, but very unlikely (though possible, I agree) with something like wires that have been around for so long and are used in so many other (more complex) things and then we are only concerned with the audible band... the likelihood just gets smaller and smaller. Certainly one can not just say that if it doesn’t sound good there must be things we are unable to measure.

 

Agreed. The likelihood is certainly very small.

 

I'll bet they said that before they measured electricity

 

yeah ... but we're cleverer than they were.

 

riiiiiight!

 

It's the catch-all explanation used for all manner of beliefs and subjective anecdote, everything from healing crystals to talking to tomato plants and all in-between. The idea that something is happening but this something is just waiting for the men in white coats to discover it. It certainly is appealing (and possible, but probable..?)

There is another explanation. An obvious one even. But of course no one with vested interest would dare open this Pandora's box. That would be daft.

 

It would be nice if we could all try and make some headway on this topic. I do believe that with a concerted effort on all our parts we could unearth what it is that causes this effect. The people that claim to have noticed this effect have, I assume, more experience working with cables in audio than all of us ( I could be wrong) and if there are several, unrelated, individuals who report this 'phenomena' then surely this is grounds enough to take it seriously and afford a little time in researching what data there is out there already.
In my opinion arguing about it is of no benefit to anyone, we are aware of each of our standpoints so lets progress. Irispective of what you think finding out the truth (or at least most of what is documented on the subject/profesional opinion in the industry) is what each of us should be trying to do.

 

There is no effect. Except on RAs bank balance.

Plenty of unrelated individuals report they have been anal probed by aliens.

 

you might be a little wide of the mark with that assumption ben, for instance just because RA sells cables doesn't mean he has any more expeirence of them than say Zanash does.

and it we accept that cables don't do anything, then all his experience is worth nothing, infact it worth less than nothing because he's potentially been lying to us all this time about any of the differneces in cables.


the only way forward is to test them,no tricks double blind.

asking people pick a particular cable out of a batch time after time might be a step too far for our audio memory.

but asking people to chooose their favourite from the same three cables played in different sequences, seems to be within the realms of possibility.

at least it would show correlation,and maybe indicate a differnece betwen peoples abilities.

 

If people could not detect any differences between identically measuring cables in the double blind tests that have already been done, then that shows we can already measure everything about audio cables that is needed. Amazingly, directionality is not one of the things measured for. Which just goes to show it doesn’t matter, if even exist!

Haaaaving said that, I'm not sure DBT are the be-all and end-all of testing. I'm sure some things are have a very small effect below 'perception' but over time can have an effect, even if they are subconscious. Just because we are not fully conscious of it does not mean we are not detecting it and it is not having some effect on us. So there we go I shot my own argument in the foot! But I do think that if an effect is worth serious consideration when buying a product that it would be detected in a DBT.

 

There have been a few attempts to progress by trying to show differences between cables can be reliably heard outside of listener bias. The results in each test or trial have all had the same characteristic: randomness.

Progress might be a set of results that do demonstrate something, like cable directionality, can be reliably heard outside of listener bias. ABX testing does have its detractors, the most vocal of which are those with vested financial interests. Russ Andrews is one such detractor. The last link is one test I organised some time ago (although by my own admission it had flaws).


http://chaud7.forum-gratuit.com/viewtopic.php?t=29

Test de câbles secteurs de Kiang, forumeur d'hifigwam.com (en anglais) envoie de câbles masqués aux 23 forumeurs/testeurs :

Présentation du test :
http://www.auricles.com/new_page_41.htm
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1614.html

Résultat général : http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1614-8.html#p113020

Résultats détaillés : http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1614-19.html#p115713

Résultats : http://www.auricles.com/Kiang_Power_cable_test(2).xls

--------------------------------------------------------

Sur le même principe de câbles masqués, écoute en aveugle de trois paires de câble de modulation par Edwood, forumeur d'head-fi le "Blind Cable Taste Test".
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=192802

Test en double aveugle de câbles de modulation (en français) :
http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/...&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=240#168903915

Tests ABX de câbles secteurs (en anglais) :
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/hificabletest

 

I think its been firmly established that double blind tests are fatally flawed..

just a quick scan of the links give ...I can point out at least one failing that will invalidate each of the noble if misguided efforts.

The first is sample size and the second is bias .....

none of the test had enough randomly selected participants ....you need a sample size of more than 50 and these must not be friends or relatives or like minded people....

so thats put that lot to bed.

I've never heard cable directionality......but I don't discount it. The current scientific thinking makes it extremely unlikely ...but then again if you were the Pope and Copernicus came to you and said I've a new theory about the earth ....would you have called him a heretic ? [As his current understanding indicated].

I've proved cables can sound different to more that a hundred listeners [not all at one time] are they all wrong ? I've made upward of 50 different types of cables ..the only directionality was due to a pseudo balanced topology.... or other component additions. That said I'm happy to accept dirrectionality can happen, if an organization has the evidence thats ok too ...but it would be nice if they could share it.

 

No it hasnt - except by cable proponents who seek to undermine a rigourous scientific method that fails to corroborate their beliefs.

Please produce references for published work in the scientific community that shows DBT is flawed...

If you go for a table ranking kind of study say of 12 cables then you can get significant results even with a dozen listeners. Its all in how you build up the tests.

In edition students t can be used for n < 50 where the normal distribution approximation doesnt hold.

 

This is, of course, totally incorrect. All scientific work relies on taking the visual bias out of an experiment. In my industry, we do this all the time. Of course, valid results assume appropriate

for statistical relevance. Our sampling panels are large, and I accept that this can't generally be done in an audio context. However, this one

is quite wrong, as that is eliminated by the test procedure. If one can't see what is being tested, there is no bias.

There's no way to put this gently, but, yes, they are. However, if they're all happy with their choices and believe they hear a difference, I for one am not going to object.

 

these double blind test ....linked to ...not all double blind test

why do you need a stupidly elaborate test when

A. you can rely on your ears ...you can can't you ?
or
b. find a cdp with two output feeding two inputs on pre amp with remote control .

place cable x in one and y in another play one cd and switch between ....differences are immediate

if you've not tried don't knock it ..

this method eliminates all the pseudo scientific clap trap shown in the linked DBT

you also get instant results without having to leave your listening position.

 

Can you though?

Surely how your brain determines things can affect how sounds are percieved? I'm not an expert by any means I'd be interested to know how the signal path from the ears to the brain can be affected by any number of things.

I had an ex into crystal healing and Aromatherapy. As far as I can see it is all placebo clap trap. But there is obviously something swaying those signals to the brain in people. Because people swear by the fact that an infitesible amount of gnats chuff in some boiled water can cure their gammy toe.

Maybe we need to screen our ear canals from neurological interference.

I'd like to see RA make that cable!

 

Yes, absolutely, when the visual element has been removed from the equation.

Nobody's knocking it, ol' bean, but I've tried it and have heard no difference. In fact, the only time I've heard differences was when I suspect I wanted to. In a subsequent test, there was no difference. Wire is wire. Period.

I haven't read your links, but DBT is an essential procedure for any meaningful results in any sort of evaluation. It eliminates any sort of bias. The whole business of questioning DBT originated when John Atkinson of "Stereovile" did a DBT and found to his horror that he couldn't tell two amplifiers apart when he knew one to be better. So, instead of the obviously correct conclusion, that they really did sound the same, he concluded that the test was flawed and then had to dream up an absurd mythology to back it up.

However, as I've said, if folk want to believe in things that aren't actually there and if this enhances their enjoyment of the music, I have absolutely no problem with that.

 

Would be interesting to hear how you proved this?