Same old cable argument again...

michaelab: This thread split off from this one about the new on-line magazine.

Any magazine that believes in the magical properties of cables and ICs (p.45) deserves only to be ignored, which I shall henceforth do.

 

Hi,

I read Page 45 in the mag.

I failed to unearth any references to any beliefs held by the magazine (quite frankly, I question that a magazine, even if it is not prinited but electronics is high enough on the evolutionary ladder of concience to hold ANY beliefs, but that just an aside and I lack conclusive evidence to the fact that Magazines in fact do not hold beliefs).

The writer reports on what he percieves to be audible differences between cables. As such he relates his experiences. We may question the reality of our of his experiences....

Finally, I failed to find any references to magic.

I concluded that perhaps these references where implied, so I consulted the answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/magic ) definition, herewith provided under fair use as quotation for the illumination of the esteemed reader:

Dictionary

mag·ic (măj'ĭk)
n.

The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.

The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.

The charms, spells, and rituals so used.

The exercise of sleight of hand or conjuring for entertainment.

A mysterious quality of enchantment: “For me the names of those men breathed the magic of the past†(Max Beerbohm).

adj.

Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural: “stubborn unlaid ghost/That breaks his magic chains at curfew time†(John Milton).

Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

tr.v., -icked, -ick·ing, -ics.

To produce or make by or as if by magic.

I failed to find anything in the article which related in any way to above definition.

Therefore your remarks puzzle me deeply and I would seek some further enlargements on the subject by you.

Ciao T

 

In my opinion and experience, cables and ICs make precisely no difference to the sound, and that belief that they do is tantamount to belief in magic, mumbo-jumbo and the tooth fairy. Therefore, belief in cables and their effects represents for me a guarantee that the thing is not worth reading. This is why I have long stopped reading any hi-fi magazines.

If you wish to believe in such things, I respect your right to do so, ditto that of the magazines. But I would just love even just one of them to explode the myth sometime. However, we live in an era of faith, as typified by the Bush White House. I'll bet George believes in cables too.

 

Hi,

I am sorry, but your logic presented here is not only fundamentally flawed (only because your experience does not support a given contentions it is not invalidated in any way), but further it shows a difficult to tollerate intellectual arrogance. Anything past your ken is declared "magic, mumbo-jumbo".

I do not wish to believe, nor do I belive. I have no use for such religeous crutches. I merely know or do not know, that suffices.

Assuming there is a myth to explode, which, as far as my knowledge extends is not the case.

Only insofar that he would declare them the devils work.

Belief does not enter into that.

Differences are real (measurable). Cables of any kind can, under a suitable set of circumstances can cause reliably observable differences which in turn can be audible in cases even under the unfavourable conditions of DB Tests pre-rigged to return null results pretty reliably.

I shall leave you to your believes, together with all the others who prefer belief over knowledge or acceptance of un-knowing.

Ciao T

 

Well, I guess we agree to differ.

But consider, please, your own arrogance. What, pray, makes my experience of cables any less valid than yours? There is no theory to say that any bit of wire is any better than any other, and I confirmed this by listening to different wires and ICs. At one point, I believed there was a difference, but then I realised that I was hearing what I wanted to hear, as, I suspect, you are still doing. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's not what I personally like to do.

There is indeed an enormous myth to explode, but too many people have bought the myth. And if isn't a myth, I await your successful winning of the however-much-it-is prize to tell the difference between cables in a properly-conducted test, at whioch point I shall happily eat my words. However, I fully expect my words to remain uneaten. I wish you well, O Person of Faith. Personally, I shall continue to prefer knowledge over belief.

 

Hi,

Fine with me.

If bland observation of fact is arrogance count me in.

For you personally your own experience is fully sufficient, for others it may not be.

Actually, there are simple facts which suggest that certain electrical parameters in cables can impact on the signal passing through the cable in conventional applications, worse, parasitic behaviours such RFI/EMI pickup and noiseloops can impact onto the associated equipment in an unpredictable manner. This is simple fact, no theory.

There are theories and empirical evidence that suggest audibility of some of these effects.

And so you decided that you did not want to hear any differences and hence you do not hear them. In either you operate strictly on belief and within a personal reality determined by your beliefs. I have no use for this mode of operation.

I do know for a fact that in the system context of interconnected equipment the measurable differences between cables are sufficiently large to suggest audibility, certainly they are large enough to be considered as too large to constitute a "level playingfield" in blind testing.

For that I require no actual reference ever to listening to the cables!

Now, let us be clear here.

There is no myth to the effect that cables can make measurable and audible differences.

A myth may be that the more expensive cable is reliably the better one, buit the same can be said about cars, watches, commercial food products, public houses and any other product.

Once we place the issue of cost/price/profit/advertising claims et al.. in the realms of commercial capitalist operation and reduce the issue to the actual issue, which is already as far as I can tell prooven beyond reasonable doubts.

The "test challenges" you refer to actually use methodes of tetsing that have been repeatedly shown to be fundamentally flawed in implementation. They are in the realm of charlatanism and gambling, where the simple statistical principle makes sure the house always win. I challenged years back the ABX mafia on RAHE to redress their challenges and tests in the light of this, the ensuing silence from them was rather deafening.

As pointed out, faith does not come into it.

L8et T

 

Put another way if you need carefully conducted tests in order to prove a difference between cables, the effect must be extremely subtle and not worth the bloody stupid amounts companies want to charge for bits of wire.

Still what ever flouts your boat.

 

Hi,

You need carefully conducted tests in order to ensure that your tests have relevance and general applicability. This is required regardless if you want to test the efficiacy of Tamiflu against Birdflu in Humans or the audibility of cable changes.

Look, if you desperatly want to believe that cables make no real difference be my guest. But science remains science, no matter if people like the conclusions drawn or not.

To behave unscientifical in order to gain data that appears to suppoort a pseudo religious contention is about as low as being able to walk under a snake wearing a high top hat. And that is what a number of have been doing deliberatly and since they have been followed by a number of unquestioning believers, who feel that whitewash and apparent (but actually absent) scientific veneer given to simple "sour grapes" philosophy are worth believing in. Far be it from me to chastigate the true believers in the ABX Mafia's charlatanerie, but don't expect me to convert any time soon.

Ciao T

 

Wolfgang....do you mean " the same old stuff " or the same old stuff ? I might have miss read what you meant.

As to cables ......

If you can't hear the difference with them it normally indicates that you have a problem.

one- your gear can't resolve any detail
two- your gear is faulty
three- you can't resolve any detail
four - your ears are faulty

Even my father in law who is 80plus and deaf with no interest in audio can hear the difference cables can make, or infact other kit changes.

I would concur with 3D sonics comments.

 

I have only ever heard the difference with one cable and have not heard the difference with many more so I remain unsure. Thorsten, next time I come over, could you show me a difference in cables which is supposedly so obvious? I somehow doubt in my mind that a cable can really make an 'obvious' difference.

 

But this is you.

There's never been a test showing that electrically equivalent cables sound different. You can believe what you like but if you could do it why not take Randi's million dollars?

Paul

 

On cables,

some question whether cables (interconnect/power/speaker) make a difference full stop.

others believe that producing a high performance cable is something that costs just a few pounds to do.

others believe that price is relative to performance

some believe you should spend fixed percentages of your hifi budget on cables (e.g 10% or 15%)

some believe that sonic differences in cables are atributable to deviation from excellence - for example a cable acting as a high pass filter, or a tone control of some sort.

some people believe a combination of the above!

Have I left any out?

 

You see you have admitted that you don't have an open mind to this issue. Therefore please don't tell people, cables make no difference. You can believe what you like thats not a problem .... just don't try to convince other people who are still making up there's.

 

Do you not see the contradiction?

 

Same appears to apply to amps and CD players.

 

Hi,

Nor will there ever be. Cables that are sufficiently identical eletrically (C, L, R, G, dielectric absorbtion, low level distortion [the infamous microvolt diodes of copper oxide], magnetostriction, stability of electrical parameters when exposed to vibration et. al.) will have identical effects on the signal passing through them, hence should be indistinguishable. Change the conductor material and there is a change in R & L, voila, the cables are no longer electrical identical.

This was discussed elsewhere, involving the great Randi himself and in great detail on the subject of Shakti stones. The result was a categorical statement that Shakti Stones did not fall under the "$1M paranormal challenge", as they have provable physical properties which MAY alter the way equipment is exposed to EMI and which hence MAY alter the sound, so if someone passed a "blind test" with Shakti stones it would be nothing paranormal at all, merely a "goldenear" listener, hearing things not normally heard by detractors. Cables would be a much more obvious exclusion.

Past that, Randi is guilty of exactly the same type of staistically predetermined null result (eg. - "The House allways wins") type arrangement as the ABX Mafia. In many ways he is a great a fraud as those he claims to wish to expose.

Simply because you test references in fleeting standard scientific principles and statistical methodes does not mean these principles are actually rigerously and concientiously applied. And if they are not (which is a charge I redily level against the ABX Mafia and equally "The Great Randi") then what we have is not science, but charlatanery. Of course, most charaltans (on both the sides of each of the involved arguments) will find their mentally challengened followers who take their guru's say so as truth, rather than to think, investigate and experiment themselves.

I make neither a good follower and definitly not a good Guru. I merely wish people would start thinking for themselves.

Ciao T

 

Pick your option: "one- your gear can't resolve any detail
two- your gear is faulty
three- you can't resolve any detail
four - your ears are faulty"

 

Hi,

My current system is not articulary well set up to make such experiments.

I suggest a different approach.

Why don't you rig up a simple system with a good quality toggle switch (4-pole changeover £ 2 at maplin) and 8pcs good quality RCA jacks to allow you a direct bypass test, that is connect the device in line with your source or preamp output and allow the switch to either switch into circuit the DUT or to bypass it (older preamps have a "Tape Monitor" input which often with the "Tape Record Out" allowed an excellent bypass test facility).

Then see if any differences appear to be audible between bypass and cable in loop. Select from your collection (can be all DIY, I am happy to recommend some reciepies) the cables for the actual "always in line" application that have the least impact (in other words that are least different from a "striaght wire") and use them to wire the test device into your system.

If you combine this "bypass test device" (BTD) with a helper in the form of a friend or family member you can then conduct a large number of relaxed "trials" (I recommend no more than 5 Trials in a row to avoid fatigue creeping in) to determine if there is a difference or not, double blind and making sure to set the trials based on equal chance to eliminate bias from having more "different" or "same" trials.

It is ESSENTIAL that you approach the test with a completely open mind and without any strong emotional attachment to the outcome of the test (eg. it is neccesary that you give actually a flying french coitus about cables making a difference or not), otherwise your propesity to hear a difference where there is non (if you are a cable believer) or to hear no difference where is one (if you are a non-cable believer) will act as strongly randomising factor, obscuring any possible difference, even a gross one in small sample size testing.

Anyway, have fun.

Ciao T

 

Are you reffering to me .....with the contradiction ?

I advocate people make there own mind, not force others to there own opinions.

I'm sorry that people are so closed minded.
Its a wonder some people have ever bought any gear other than the most basic stacking system ...as we all know "all electronic equipment sounds the same"

Paul R.......That will be why your using the freebie cables from the box of your latest hifi purchase ....I think not.

As to cables of so called "electrically equivalent" perhaps you could illucidate. I'm not certain I understand your meaning

Randi is the biggest charlatene of the lot....you read the small print of the so called challenge !

I think that we should be getting back to the thread rather than having the perpetual argument over cables or who should think like who. I don't give damn what you think indivdually, what get's my goat is when some hurbert comes along and tells me what I or other people should think or accept without question.

Free speech is fine .....but let everyone make up there own minds, rather than have someone elses opinons rammed down there throat.

 

I guess you mean my reply to tones? If so then no. I'm saying tones pays lip service to IMO and IME but really considers it an undeniable fact that cables are myth and legend.