Of significant interest .....

Without wasting my time trawling through old discredited works like Hawksford's, is there any thing in that list which shows that anyone has ever successfully demonstrated that they can tell apart two electrically equivalent cables (or, if you like, two cables with the same frequency response) under controlled conditions?

I'm not really that interested in hypothesising by audio journalists and soothsayers. I am interested in facts backed up by controlled experiments.

 

Arrived back last night - weather the same as here. Hifi is more entertaining though.

 

My word Mr Brown, long time no see is the land of Port/Golf and Sun been tempting you to have a life.
How are you Mike?

 

I'm very well thank you Mr Sallis Really enjoying life in Portugal

 

Of course all cables change the frequency response to a certain degree.....at frequencies well above the audible spectrum and therefore utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Do you have anything other than insults and straw man arguments to add here?

Show me the results of a clinical trial of a drug or other similar scientific research where a level of significance level >.05 is used. Or are you suggesting that clinical drug trials are not using "good and proper statistics" and are mere "sensationalism"? Why is a .05 significance too small for diferenting audio cables when it works perfectly well for detecting audio differences that really do exist such as changes in frequency response?

Where are they documented? What are these "non-linear" effects? Even so, it is one thing to be potentially audible, quite another to be actually audible.

I suggested no such thing and you have produced yet another straw man argument. I believe you to be intelligent so you must be willfully failing to understand my point, which I will repeat again for your benefit: if differences in audio cables were in fact so readily audible, so huge, then there would be no dispute at all about their existence. The very fact that dispute exists implies that cable differences, if indeed they exist, are very, very small indeed and likely to be irrelevant in the context of a hifi system.

The only one in religious mode and going on faith here is your good self.

How modest of you to include no less than eight articles written by yourself to errmm....back up your own postings. Are you creating a personality cult?

Here is an article suggesting a far more plausible explanation for why people believe they hear differences between cables. OTOH if you want to continue to "believe" then here's a list of products you may be interested in

Michael.

 

Good to see you posting, even if it is on the age old disputed ground .
I feel there is more ground is to be had from thrashing my latest acquisition around the yard (A JCB 3cx mkIII) excellent fun sir .
Away I leave cable debates to you guys with more than 3 brain cells, its easier to let people make there own minds up.

 

Hi,

Actually, for arguments sake, a 5m loop of 1mm diameter speaker cable will have a resistance of 0.17 Ohm, which can produce sufficient levels of interactions with a given speaker to exceed 0.5db. Not with all speakers, but enough exist.

Actually, I offer neither insults nor arguments, I offer observations. How you interpret them is an entierly subjective matter and I cannot possibly be held responsible of what you read into my writings past that which is actually written and rest assured, I do mean what I write LITERALLY, otherwise I would have written something else. By your leave, this is an observation, not an insult.

Show me a clinical trial with only a single subject and 15 administrations of a dose of medicine or placebo and which applies a .05 significance to the subjects ability to tell if they received placebo or medicine.

ANY green statistician will tell you that you are using inapropriate methodes and statistics.

However, once we stop dealing in medicines and do audio suddenly inacceptable methodes and statistics suddenly morph into real science, if only you belief hard enough. Again, by your leave, this is an observation, not an insult.

On the contrary. I suggest that clinical drug trials use good and proper statistics and are forced to be, however, to repeat:

Have you ever heard of a clinical trial with only a single subject and 15 administrations of a dose of medicine or placebo and which applies a .05 significance to the subjects ability to tell if they received placebo or medicine?

No, and that is because drug trials do not try to prove "non-efficiency" of all medicines next to sugar in a sensationlist manner using bad scinece, instead, being constrained by laws and professional odies regulations they try to proove the efficiacy of their remedies beyond reasonable doubt.

In audio the funds to actually pay people to do the same are simply not in existence, not even with the much reviled sellers of expensive cables.

When it comes to a new flu remedy or an Anti-HIV retroviral drug the possible profits are billions over a few years, so dropping a few millions on large scale trials is actually peanuts.

Actually, it seems you lack any material exposure to real statistics. You may wish to remedy this and start understanding how "statistical confidence" works. Then you would not even have bothered asking the above. Again, by your leave, this is an observation, not an insult.

Try reading what I write, especially when I actually do bother to provide references. Honestly, it helps. Again, by your leave, this is an observation, not an insult.

Which was my point exactly. Effects that extend beyond LCR parameters and which have sufficient magnitude to have a level higher than the agreed audibility treshold exist.

They may or may not be actually audible, with music, in a given system, but at least their magnitude is sufficient to not preclude audibility.

For arguments sake, if at an SPL of 90db our "distortion" is at -120db it will require extreme degrees of proof to even suggest audibility, but if at 90db SPL our distortion is at -60db many authorities will agree that nothing in principle precludes the possible of audibility.

Now if we where to wish to prove such audibility, blind tests with both the overall sample size and care applied to drug trials would be needed, to which the application of a .05 level of significance would be entierly appropriate.

We may also carry out smaller sclae tests. In such a case it is reasonable to balance the risk of type A/1 and Type B/2 statistical errors, which will illustrate to us immediatly the lack of appropriatness of a very high significance level.

In fact, as previously remarked, if we wish to derive sensible data from small sample size trials the use of a "pass/fail" criteria of .05 is simply not acceptable, as virtually all modest differences will fall oustside this particular "confidence interval" for tests with sufficiently small sample size.

Or in other words, only the grossest difference will pass a .05 significance pass/fail criteria in small (< 25 trials) samples and the likelyhood of missing small differences approaches under those conditions will approach near certainty. Again, by your leave, this is an observation, not an insult.

Forgive me for being literal, but (again, by your leave, this is an observation, not an insult) did you perchance write the following?

If so, allow me to repharase and tighten your statement, strictly for illustrations sake:

The mere fact that there is even a dispute regarding the particle or wave nature of photons is a good indicator that differences are not relevant.

Both statements, strictly for arguments sake and removing the actual subject appear in principle equivalent. If so, then there is no principle difference between audio and the rest of science, in which case your statement is applicable in principle to any scientific field as "just because it is disputed it is proven wrong". Again, by your leave, this is an observation, not an insult.

Unless you are able to make supposition that the general rules of science do not apply to audio you will have to accept that what I suggested is in fact exactly what you claimed. If that was not was not what you wished to claim, change your statement. Again, by your leave, this is an observation, not an insult.

Agreed, I am playing "Devils Advocate" here.

However, if you like to take to task anyone making specific statements you dislike, I do consider that when you make sweeping and general statement that are so far off base as the above you need to be taken to task as well. Again, by your leave, this is an observation, not an insult.

It is one thing to criticise others for sloppiness and lack of proof, I guess it is another thing to have pointed out to oneself that one is at least as sloppy. Again, by your leave, this is an observation, not an insult.

Actually, modesty (and prudence) obliged inclusion, as had I not included them you (or any other blue meanie) would have questioned why I did not include my own writings, had I forgotten them, did I no longer believe in them etc. I am not particulary proud of them nor do I feel they add anything new and no, I have no interrest in either cult of personality or guruhood (or indeed anyne taking a "believe" in anything I say or do).

What I have interrest in was once termed as follows:

"Alle Jahr schicken die Araber und Africaner zusammen, befragen einander auß den Künsten, ob nicht vielleicht etwas bessere erfunden oder die Erfahrung ihre rationes geschwächt hette, da kommet järlich etwas herfür, dadurch Mathematica, Physica und Magia (dann hierinn sind die Fessaner am besten) gebessert werden, wie es dann Teutschland numehr weder an Gelehrten, Magis, Cabalistis, Medicis und Philosophicis nicht mangelt, da man es einander möchte zu lieb thun oder der gröste hauff nicht wolle, die Waid allein abfretzen: "

Here is an article suggesting a far more plausible explanation for why people believe they hear differences between cables.[/QUOTE]

It actually makes an equally plausible explanation why people desperatly believe they cannot hear such differences. Again, by your leave, this is an observation, not an insult.

As I pointed out previously, belief, or the religous mode of the human mind (regardless if is masquaredes as "science" or "religion") has zero relevance or attraction to me.

I have no use belief, nor do I request or require is of anyone, yet equally, I feel no use or pride in destroying such. We all have our own needs, who am I to deny others their cheriched beliefs, hence my suggestion to agree to disagree....

Kind regards T

PS, the german section of the "Fama" (ca 1600) translates acceptably, if not very accuratly to the following:

"Every year the Arabians and Affricans do send one to another, inquiring one of another out of their Arts, if happily they had found out some better things, or if Experience had weakened their Reasons. Yearly there came something to light, whereby the Mathematica, Physic and Magic (for in those are they of Fez most skilful) were amended;

As there is now adays in Germany no want of learned Men, Magicians, Cabalists, Physicians, and Philosophers, were there but more love and kindness among them, or that the most part of them would not keep their secrets close only to themselves."

PPS, I am enjoying a nice sip of a late bit of Sake (Gekkeikan) and Japanese anime on the wall via projector, plus a georgeous view over BJ from the 29th floor, life is good....

 

PPS,

Actually, non of these products interrest me. In a few cases I had a hand in making (sadly temporarily) superior alternatives availbel to those interrested, in some other cases I am familiar with the underlying principles and feel little compelled to pay for using them, especially if they go back hunderts of years at least.

Finally, most of these products seem to rely on reverse psychology, something to which I show remarkably small suceptability and some elict a feeling of DejaMoo (did we not hear this bull before?). Actually, for an openminded empiricist like me knowing them (and even having empirical exposure) is okay, what is your excuse?

Still, "innocent until proven guilty past reasonable doubts" (at least in enlightened and modern societies), you seem to prefer "guilty untill proven innocent past reasonable doubts", which is an attitude I remember rather unfondly from east germanys secret police, so forgive me for espousing the modern democratic way, I'll let you run the holy inquisition for unbelievers.

Kind regards T

 

" I offer observations. How you interpret them is an entierly subjective matter"

I took this one quote from your really long and boring post because I believe it sums up the cable debate nicely.

 

I presume the above means the answer is a " no " to the below?

Why do you bother?

Whatever happened to the fabled jaw drop or the ever so amusing taming of room modes?

 

Mr Mick,

Why do you bother.

BTW, if you have not yet noticed, I am ignoring you. Even with this post.

Sayonara, have a nice life.

 

No that's fine.

You are incapable of providing a simple direct answer to a simple direct question.

That says more than enough about you and your kind.

 

I repeat:

http://xkcd.com/309/

 

[/QUOTE]Here is an article suggesting a far more plausible explanation for why people believe they hear differences between cables. OTOH if you want to continue to "believe" then here's a list of products you may be interested in

Michael.[/QUOTE]


I had a brainwave whilst making a cup of tea. You can eliminate the room by wearing headphones when testing cables. Put the stax on, swap the cables, If there's a difference, it's all settled and we can go home.

Taa Daa! (that's a fanfare)

 

ah but as you move around the relative positions of the headphones will alter and upset the apple cart.

I like the factt that the guy with the comb filters theory, falls on the side of, ooooh its all the room,and hey doesn't he just happen to make room treatments.

i can be 100% sure that comb filtering has naff all to do with the changes i hear between cables, as i alwasy do component swaps as the seated part of a 2 person team.

believe what you like

 

I see that in fact you are not being malicious, you simply don't understand.

First, your example is very poor. There isn't any more a great deal of dispute about the particle or wave nature of photons. A central concept of quantum mechanics is the wave-particle duality which is that all particles also have a wave like nature. In essence, a photon is both a particle and a wave simultaneously and will behave as a photon or a wave depending on how you choose to observe it.

Second, even if there is/was dispute about the particle or wave nature of photons the analogy is totally inappropriate. What we are debating here is whether A = B or A <> B. The wave/particle 'dispute', such as it exists, is whether X = A or X = B, where there is no dispute at all that A <> B. It's not a dispute about small differences, it's a dispute about is it one thing or is it another.

An appropriate science analogy would be whether whether 2 chemically similar drugs (A and B) are equally effective at treating a certain type of cancer or whether A is actually more effective than B (or vice versa). If there existed any dispute amongst scientists about whether there was any difference between A and B it would be a very strong indicator that any differences that existed were likely to be very small, or possibly non-existent. However, in the case of cancer treating drugs a small difference is anything but irrelevant. If drug A can prolong or save the life of only 1% more patients than drug B then it's a worthwhile difference. Drug trials with large sample sizes are done to determine whether the difference exists and there the matter usually rests.

OTOH, if only 1% of humans can tell the difference between two cables then I would suggest that difference is irrelevant.

Studying pharmacology at university (hence the references to drug trials) gave me more material exposure to real statistics than I would wish on anybody, but if you would like to learn you could do worse than Wikipedia.

Michael.

 

Not to the 1% it isn't!

 

thats rich !

definitely pot call the kettle

 

I am bored with revision and hence some ramblings.....

This is without doubt the best thread on the most interesting subject ever.

Do you think we could organise a conference or seminar?

Question:
You play two identical samples of the same piece of music, sit in the same place, keep the volume the same, and therefore don't change the frequency response or amplitude at your ears. Can you actually hear a difference between them?
Answer:
No, you might think you can, but actually can't.


This is pretty basic isn't it?

Question:
Can different materials in different parts of a HiFi replay system affect the freq response?
Answer:
Yes

And finally:

Question:
By how much do you have to change the freq response for it to be audible to people*?
Answer:
I don't know, why not talk about that?


*Different folks, different ears, nobody is the same etc.