# The REAL Scam in Audio



## witchdoctor

Anyone who has been reading the thread here on audio cables must have noticed the fireworks on display. Apparently some shacksters feel that paying a lot of money for high end cables is a scam. I think that is getting it backwards. Think for a moment, if you manufactured speakers let's say why would you want your customers to make their $2000 speakers sound like a $3000 speaker by simply changing speaker cables? That makes 0 sense if you manufacture speakers, of course you want them to buy the $3000 speaker.

Why would you want a customer make your $2000 processor sound like a $4000 processor by changing the power cord and interconnects? Wouldn't you rather they get the $4000 processor?

The real scam in audio is spending huge $$$ on component upgrades when a simple cable upgrade could get you most of the way there for relatively little money.

Then when I see people promote this scam here as a way of being intelligent I have to wonder where that comes from. Has the component manufacturing industry really been this effective on making people spend big $$$ on new components? Apparently yes.

OK, now you want data right? According to audio reviewer Thomas Campbell:
" interconnects and speaker cables make the largest per-dollar difference of any component or accessory. "

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue7/signal.htm

I got news for you, you don't have to take any of this on faith. Nearly all of these cable vendors provide risk free in home auditions.

So, stop being scammed by the component manufacturers on spending big $$$ on components. Get good components and unleash 100% of their potential with some decent cables. Remember, interconnects and speaker cables make the largest per dollar difference of ANY component or accessory. Just take the time to test risk free and prove it to yourself. :smile:


----------



## willis7469

witchdoctor said:


> Anyone who has been reading the thread here on audio cables must have noticed the fireworks on display. Apparently some shacksters feel that paying a lot of money for high end cables is a scam. I think that is getting it backwards. Think for a moment, if you manufactured speakers let's say why would you want your customers to make their $2000 speakers sound like a $3000 speaker by simply changing speaker cables? That makes 0 sense if you manufacture speakers, of course you want them to buy the $3000 speaker.
> 
> Why would you want a customer make your $2000 processor sound like a $4000 processor by changing the power cord and interconnects? Wouldn't you rather they get the $4000 processor?
> 
> The real scam in audio is spending huge $$$ on component upgrades when a simple cable upgrade could get you most of the way there for relatively little money.
> 
> Then when I see people promote this scam here as a way of being intelligent I have to wonder where that comes from. Has the component manufacturing industry really been this effective on making people spend big $$$ on new components? Apparently yes.
> 
> OK, now you want data right? According to audio reviewer Thomas Campbell:
> " interconnects and speaker cables make the largest per-dollar difference of any component or accessory. "
> 
> http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue7/signal.htm
> 
> I got news for you, you don't have to take any of this on faith. Nearly all of these cable vendors provide risk free in home auditions.
> 
> So, stop being scammed by the component manufacturers on spending big $$$ on components. Get good components and unleash 100% of their potential with some decent cables. Remember, interconnects and speaker cables make the largest per dollar difference of ANY component or accessory. Just take the time to test risk free and prove it to yourself. :smile:


So you would have us believe that there is a conspiracy in the group of manufacturers that purposefully ship components with subpar powers cables to upsell us into more expensive components? 
Thomas Campbell is wrong. Room treatments are easily more beneficial than cables. And what about properly setting up your speakers? Even if candy coated magic fairy bling time continuum bending cable DID exist, they would never add more than setup and treatments. To suggest cables are more beneficial is ludicrous. I think speakers make the biggest difference myself. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Medi0gre

How many times do we need the same thread with a different title?


----------



## witchdoctor

willis7469 said:


> So you would have us believe that there is a conspiracy in the group of manufacturers that purposefully ship components with subpar powers cables to upsell us into more expensive components?
> Thomas Campbell is wrong. Room treatments are easily more beneficial than cables. And what about properly setting up your speakers? Even if candy coated magic fairy bling time continuum bending cable DID exist, they would never add more than setup and treatments. To suggest cables are more beneficial is ludicrous. I think speakers make the biggest difference myself.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think Thomas Campbell is spot on, and if you believe that speakers make the biggest difference I encourage you to buy bigger and better ones for lots of $$$. I will simply upgrade my speaker cables ( about $150 tops) and get a HUGE upgrade for relatively peanuts.

As for what you choose to believe why not post some data on the cables you tested? If you don't know what to test try reading this if you didn't like the other article:

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/1003/loudspeakercableshootout.htm


----------



## willis7469

No thanks. My speakers actually sound great with the cables I have. 
I found this article ridiculous. 
So....what about the conspiracy theory? Where's the proof on that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## witchdoctor

*Another Scam That Ticks Me Off*

Here is another scam. Beware of the cable company that claims to "save" you money. Look at the shoddy construction of this Monoprice cable and ask yourself, does it make any sense to partner this type of quality in a system costing thousands of dollars? There is a BIG difference between buying low price cables and just buying low quality merchandise. I think you need to compare at least 3 different brands of cables in various quality ranges before deciding what to go with, just like you would a speaker or turntable.


----------



## willis7469

willis7469 said:


> So....what about the conspiracy theory? Where's the proof on that?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Anything?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## witchdoctor

willis7469 said:


> No thanks. My speakers actually sound great with the cables I have.
> I found this article ridiculous.
> So....what about the conspiracy theory? Where's the proof on that?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The proof is in your listening room and you have to prove it yourself. I am not advocating a cable as you already said you were happy. I am advocating in home risk free auditions to others who want want to see if they can find a less expensive way to upgrade. From the looks of it you may have already dropped $20K+ on your system, you should be happy.


----------



## JBrax

This is a joke right? After reading your first post in this thread I'm finding it difficult to take you seriously. Like Willis my guess is speakers are going to have greater impact than any cable.


----------



## willis7469

Thanks. I am happy, and don't need to prove anything to myself. But you were implying that OEM's were shipping crummy power cables so they could up sell people into more expensive gear. That's the part I'm asking you to provide some proof about. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469

Here's a very involved test of power cables. I will admit, it could be argued as not being perfect. However to the claims of BIG improvements, the results were around 49%. The same as flipping a coin! I've read all the links you have posted. I'd love to hear your impressions of this test. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

And the conspiracy? Conjecture I say. But still waiting. It's a big claim.


----------



## lovinthehd

Wow just wow. If witchdoctor isn't being paid, as he says, for this sort of "promotion" he really should....he's repeating the mantra of the cable charlatans _ad nauseum_ and if anyone benefits from someone taking him seriously, they do. Should at least get a cut....just sayin'. 

I know in other threads he's been told by speaker designers and manufacturers this is a bunch of nonsense but he persists! Don Quixote would be proud!


----------



## robbo266317

lovinthehd said:


> Wow just wow. If witchdoctor isn't being paid, as he says, for this sort of "promotion" he really should....he's repeating the mantra of the cable charlatans _ad nauseum_ and if anyone benefits from someone taking him seriously, they do. Should at least get a cut....just sayin'.
> 
> I know in other threads he's been told by speaker designers and manufacturers this is a bunch of nonsense but he persists! Don Quixote would be proud!


I don't think witchdoctor is employed by a cabling company or he would have started inserting links to their site in his signature. 

However, his "Expert" Thomas Campbell. Well, I have never heard of him until today.

So statements that say 


> OK, now you want data right? According to audio reviewer Thomas Campbell:
> " interconnects and speaker cables make the largest per-dollar difference of any component or accessory. "


Are dubious at best! (data? there is no data in his review...)

I have emailed asking for more information on the claims Thomas has made and am still awaiting a response. :waiting:


----------



## Savjac

This discussion like many others really serves no point as not everyone believes in both sides, but rather, like most other subjects, there are indeed least two sides. For reasons unknown to me, the non believers find posts that they can unload on while the believers find themselves in the middle of arguments. This is not just for this posts but for most anything else...even the question do all amplifiers sound the same to which the results are pretty close to 50% of the participant voting yes and 50% voting no. 

I think I can find as many positive reviews of cable differences as others can find in stating there is no difference...so who is right ? Everyone in that everyone is different and has different priorities. The only trouble that rears its ugly head is those that state firmly that no differences exist without having ever actually tried to hear the differences.

I tend not to believe that cable differences are huge and are more important that changing speakers or room set up but hey that's me. Speakers are in my book the largest contributors to the sound we hear in any given room, period. We must remember however, that everything is built to a price point and not all units have the greatest crossover components or drivers or even internal wiring but all that can be changed should anyone feel the need. I did on my stuff and I changed it, making for a much better sounding speaker. 

Thus for me, cables "Can" make a difference, but these differences are small and entirely system and listener dependent. But I believe that everything makes a difference, its just that I or others may not be able to hear the differences. Again, just my belief using my ears and knowledge of music. I remember years ago owning some Hafler gear, amp and preamp that I built from a kit and loving those pieces a good bit. That is until I discovered a company in St. Louis, Musical Concepts, that offered upgrades to either or both units. I bit the bullet and bought the upgrade to the pre amp, which included new board components, caps and such as well as a new power supply and spent a couple days installing everything. Once done I plugged it in and was shocked by the wonderful difference. I had the listening crew over and they were a bit shocked as well just to show it was not just me. 

I dont know where I am going with this except why beat up on a guy who believes something, after all he is not running for president :rofl:
Just post a "Hmmm" or something and move along....and then read my signature...it is very true.


----------



## witchdoctor

willis7469 said:


> Here's a very involved test of power cables. I will admit, it could be argued as not being perfect. However to the claims of BIG improvements, the results were around 49%. The same as flipping a coin! I've read all the links you have posted. I'd love to hear your impressions of this test.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> http://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html
> 
> And the conspiracy? Conjecture I say. But still waiting. It's a big claim.


I think this is an excellent test and thank you for posting. The point is someone actually took the time to listen and compare for themselves. I encourage everyone to get 3 or 4 power cords and see for themselves if it makes a difference in their system. I would never make a purchase based solely on a test or a review, only an in home audition. If I were testing power cords I would begin testing on my source componenent, then test it on my pre-amp, and finally my amp. You can see the editors own conclusion about this test:
_The test was a grand and noble experiment at best and a bust at worst. Make of it what you will.

I consider any testing you do in your own home a grand and noble experiment and would encourage everyone to do so under whatever test conditions makes them happy._


----------



## witchdoctor

*Are You Just Mad?*

I would be mad if I were soaked by component manufacturers on an endless journey of ugradeitis only to find out I could have achieved the same or better SQ for much less $$$ with wise cable choices.

The ONLY solution is to first become a trained listener to reduce the placebo effect (meaning you don't want to hear a difference therefore you can't). Next you have to get 3 or 4 different types of cables and perform an in home audition yourself. Please post your results.


----------



## witchdoctor

*Look Behind the Curtain*

Here is another way component manufacturers get you to part with big $$$. Go to any audio show and visit a booth. You will proudly see speakers, amps, etc on display. What you won't see (unless you look) is that these components have been connected with audiophile cables. The manufacturer neglects to mention that his component only sounds this good because it is being supported with $ cables. Then you get the thing home and wonder why your shiny new amp doesn't sound like the demo--- duh!

Next time you go to a show ask what cables they are using and what they cost. understand if you want the same performance you need to add that amount to your purchase price.


----------



## witchdoctor

robbo266317 said:


> I don't think witchdoctor is employed by a cabling company or he would have started inserting links to their site in his signature.
> 
> However, his "Expert" Thomas Campbell. Well, I have never heard of him until today.
> 
> So statements that say
> 
> Are dubious at best! (data? there is no data in his review...)
> 
> I have emailed asking for more information on the claims Thomas has made and am still awaiting a response. :waiting:


Robbo, why not just audition the Signal cables in the review and post your results? Why all the hubub if you can just see for yourself?


----------



## witchdoctor

JBrax said:


> This is a joke right? After reading your first post in this thread I'm finding it difficult to take you seriously. Like Willis my guess is speakers are going to have greater impact than any cable.


In order to determine if this is a joke you need to audition some new cables yourself. Please post your results. I have found it funny that so many people have so many opinions yet never actually tested anything. Wasting $$$ on expensive components is not a joke so please test yourself and post.


----------



## chashint

Medi0gre said:


> How many times do we need the same thread with a different title?


I agree.
This is turning HTS into AVS.


----------



## Savjac

*Re: Are You Just Mad?*



witchdoctor said:


> I would be mad if I were soaked by component manufacturers on an endless journey of ugradeitis only to find out I could have achieved the same or better SQ for much less $$$ with wise cable choices.
> 
> The ONLY solution is to first become a trained listener to reduce the placebo effect (meaning you don't want to hear a difference therefore you can't). Next you have to get 3 or 4 different types of cables and perform an in home audition yourself. Please post your results.



Herein lies the rub.. I have at least four different speaker cables that I have been testing over the last six months or so as well as for different interconnect cables that have been tested over the same period of time. I can honestly say that I have heard differences and I have my favorites and my not so favorites how ever none of them are truly bad.
My personal problem lies in my thin-skinned nature which tends to preclude me from posting reviews that may in fact draw the kind of negative attention that has been seen here in these posts.

When I was young and brash I used to write a good number of reviews for several audio journals however because they were print there was no immediate feedback from the nonbelievers trying to convince me that my elevator did not reach the top floor. On occasion the following months magazine would have one or two letters that may have differing opinions although they did not usually get into the very negative because this was after all an audio file drag. Nevertheless I will go ahead and try to put something together at least to start by later this week should you wish to read it.

:dontknow:


----------



## rab-byte

That moment when your sarcasm is so advanced no one can tell if you're r being a troll or serious.


----------



## witchdoctor

*Re: Are You Just Mad?*



Savjac said:


> Herein lies the rub.. I have at least four different speaker cables that I have been testing over the last six months or so as well as for different interconnect cables that have been tested over the same period of time. I can honestly say that I have heard differences and I have my favorites and my not so favorites how ever none of them are truly bad.
> My personal problem lies in my thin-skinned nature which tends to preclude me from posting reviews that may in fact draw the kind of negative attention that has been seen here in these posts.
> 
> When I was young and brash I used to write a good number of reviews for several audio journals however because they were print there was no immediate feedback from the nonbelievers trying to convince me that my elevator did not reach the top floor. On occasion the following months magazine would have one or two letters that may have differing opinions although they did not usually get into the very negative because this was after all an audio file drag. Nevertheless I will go ahead and try to put something together at least to start by later this week should you wish to read it.
> 
> :dontknow:


You make an excellent point. The "cable kamikazes" attack anything that disturbs their belief system and thus they discourage the sharing or new information. I look forward to your post, thanks.


----------



## witchdoctor

chashint said:


> I agree.
> This is turning HTS into AVS.


There are many other threads here if you don't like this one. Please keep your posting in this thread about the cables you have tested in your home and if they were a good value... or not.:smile:


----------



## Savjac

*Re: Are You Just Mad?*



witchdoctor said:


> I would be mad if I were soaked by component manufacturers on an endless journey of ugradeitis only to find out I could have achieved the same or better SQ for much less $$$ with wise cable choices.
> 
> The ONLY solution is to first become a trained listener to reduce the placebo effect (meaning you don't want to hear a difference therefore you can't). Next you have to get 3 or 4 different types of cables and perform an in home audition yourself. Please post your results.





witchdoctor said:


> You make an excellent point. The "cable kamikazes" attack anything that disturbs their belief system and thus they discourage the sharing or new information. I look forward to your post, thanks.


Now that is quite the funny term, cable, kamikazies. I guess thinking this through that any hobby howsoever large or small will have the same issues. Take for example college football, if one were to read posts on forums similar to this I believe that the hate and disrespect would exit the computer screen as lightning and thunder sufficient to possibly render me blind.

The good thing about this forum is that we are all much more well behaved than almost anyone else. So I don't feel that all of the participants are trying to ruin my day as many of them feel they are doing a service even if we do not request assistance. Having said that there are those on occasion that feel so strongly in their anti-beliefs that it would indeed curl the hair I do not have. I try to believe that they are only wishing you the best and hoping to save large sums of money that I also do not have and move forward with that belief. Trolls must probably be ignored.lddude:


----------



## willis7469

witchdoctor said:


> In order to determine if this is a joke you need to audition some new cables yourself. Please post your results. I have found it funny that so many people have so many opinions yet never actually tested anything. Wasting $$$ on expensive components is not a joke so please test yourself and post.



He did and said he found NO difference. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469

witchdoctor said:


> I think this is an excellent test and thank you for posting. The point is someone actually took the time to listen and compare for themselves. I encourage everyone to get 3 or 4 power cords and see for themselves if it makes a difference in their system. I would never make a purchase based solely on a test or a review, only an in home audition. If I were testing power cords I would begin testing on my source componenent, then test it on my pre-amp, and finally my amp. You can see the editors own conclusion about this test:
> _The test was a grand and noble experiment at best and a bust at worst. Make of it what you will.
> 
> I consider any testing you do in your own home a grand and noble experiment and would encourage everyone to do so under whatever test conditions makes them happy._


_


I'm glad you enjoyed it. I was hoping you'd give an impression on why you thought they only had 49% accuracy. If the claims of BIG differences are to be believed, wouldn't you agree that number would be higher? Yes or no?
Also, I haven't seen you back the claim of OEM's and upselling with shoddy power cables other than conjecture. You may well be right, but someone new to this hobby who may be easily influenced should have at least something tangible to base a decision on. And don't tell me they should audition a cable for themselves. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk_


----------



## Kal Rubinson

willis7469 said:


> So you would have us believe that there is a conspiracy in the group of manufacturers that purposefully ship components with subpar powers cables to upsell us into more expensive components?


I once received an amplifier for review with a note from the manufacturer saying that I could not fully appreciate it unless I obtained an S$S$S power cord from a particular source. While I snickered at that lapse of judgement (why didn't he include it or offer it as an option?), I bought said cord for the review. IMHO, it made no difference nor did it make any difference with the many other components I have paired it with over the years. Mind games.



> Thomas Campbell is wrong. Room treatments are easily more beneficial than cables. And what about properly setting up your speakers? Even if candy coated magic fairy bling time continuum bending cable DID exist, they would never add more than setup and treatments. To suggest cables are more beneficial is ludicrous. I think speakers make the biggest difference myself.


Amen.


----------



## willis7469

Jack! I do enjoy reading your posts and I enjoy your eloquence. I suppose I'm like Lou in that I used to believe certain things. I am no longer burdened by these. I have tested many things over the years and that is exactly how I came to my beliefs. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469

Wow Kal, that's one of the almost nonexistent(to my exposure level at least) times I've heard of an oem suggesting that. Thanks for posting your impressions of that experience. I respect your thoughts. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## witchdoctor

willis7469 said:


> I'm glad you enjoyed it. I was hoping you'd give an impression on why you thought they only had 49% accuracy. If the claims of BIG differences are to be believed, wouldn't you agree that number would be higher? Yes or no?
> Also, I haven't seen you back the claim of OEM's and upselling with shoddy power cables other than conjecture. You may well be right, but someone new to this hobby who may be easily influenced should have at least something tangible to base a decision on. And don't tell me they should audition a cable for themselves.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It doesn't matter what the test results were, for or against. The point was they actually tested for themselves. I encourage everyone to be open minded and post their own test results. 
You have stated you are happy with Monoprice, what else have you tried?


----------



## witchdoctor

Kal Rubinson said:


> I once received an amplifier for review with a note from the manufacturer saying that I could not fully appreciate it unless I obtained an S$S$S power cord from a particular source. While I snickered at that lapse of judgement (why didn't he include it or offer it as an option?), I bought said cord for the review. IMHO, it made no difference nor did it make any difference with the many other components I have paired it with over the years. Mind games.
> 
> Amen.


You seem to have gone to enough audio shows, can you explain why most manufacturers use high end cables to demo their gear?


----------



## willis7469

witchdoctor said:


> It doesn't matter what the test results were, for or against. The point was they actually tested for themselves. I encourage everyone to be open minded and post their own test results.
> 
> You have stated you are happy with Monoprice, what else have you tried?



The point was to get YOUR opinion of the amount of times the group picked. Like I said, if the improvements are SO big, wouldn't that number be higher?
FYI, I do NOT use monoprice. The playback quality seems good enough but I don't like the build quality. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And...
Also, I haven't seen you back the claim of OEM's and upselling with shoddy power cables other than conjecture. You may well be right, but someone new to this hobby who may be easily influenced should have at least something tangible to base a decision on. And don't tell me they should audition a cable for themselves.


----------



## witchdoctor

_


willis7469 said:



The point was to get YOUR opinion of the amount of times the group picked.

Click to expand...

_


willis7469 said:


> Thank you for asking. I can only refer to my own test. I tested three different grades of the Virtual Dynamics power cord in my system starting with my Paradigm Reference Active 40 speakers. The test required two cords for two speakers (active speakers have their own internal amps). In my system the Virtual Dynamics Nite cord won the battle. My experience was very similar to this review;
> 
> https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/review-virtual-dynamics-nite-power-cord
> 
> this review
> 
> https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/review-virtual-dynamics-nite-power-cord-power-cord
> 
> and although I liked this Master Series cord it didn't provide enough value compared to the Nite for the extra $$$
> 
> http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/virtual-dynamics-master-series-power-cord/
> 
> I have also tested power cords by Pangea, Signal Cable and a few other brands, nothing has bested my VD Nites PC.
> 
> I encourage everyone to test for themselves under risk free conditions.
> 
> Willis, until you post about a cable that you have actually tested in your own system I can't really help. When you have some more experience about actual cables please post. If you just want to attack my personal preferences please be more specific. If you tried a VD Power Cord and didn't like it that would be an excellent post about a negative* experience.* Please be more specific in the future OK?


----------



## willis7469

Thanks I'll check those links later. 
Still wondering. Why if the impact is SO BIG, why they only saw 49%?


And...
Also, I haven't seen you back the claim of OEM's and upselling with shoddy power cables other than conjecture. You may well be right, but someone new to this hobby who may be easily influenced should have at least something tangible to base a decision on. And don't tell me they should audition a cable for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## witchdoctor

_


willis7469 said:



Thanks I'll check those links later. 
Still wondering. Why if the impact is SO BIG, why they only saw 49%?

Click to expand...

_


willis7469 said:


> Well in order to find out posting isn't going to help. Try a cable and listen for yourself. I can't keep going in circles about this. I think we both disagree and since you are happy I wish you well.:smile:


----------



## willis7469

You're right. We do have a difference of opinion. What I'm getting at is that you have made a really big claim, and will not substantiate it. If I claimed to you I could fly, you'd want a video. No? So, I'm look for some clarity. So...

I haven't seen you back the claim of OEM's and upselling with shoddy power cables other than conjecture. You may well be right, but someone new to this hobby who may be easily influenced should have at least something tangible to base a decision on. And don't tell me they should audition a cable for themselves.
And also if claims are SO big, and SO dramatic, it should be as easy as choosing blue vs orange, to a higher level of accuracy than flipping a coin. I want YOUR opinion as an advocate of subject testing why this is so low. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## witchdoctor

_ I want YOUR opinion as an advocate of subject testing why this is so low. _


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

I want your opinion of a cable you tested. You go first:smile:


----------



## nova

I have not seen any data in all the links you have provided. All I see are anecdotes and personal experience. That is not data.


----------



## willis7469

witchdoctor said:


> _ I want YOUR opinion as an advocate of subject testing why this is so low. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




I want your opinion of a cable you tested. You go first:smile:[/QUOTE]


No. I've asked you first at least 4 times. 
And...
Also, I haven't seen you back the claim of OEM's and upselling with shoddy power cables other than conjecture. You may well be right, but someone new to this hobby who may be easily influenced should have at least something tangible to base a decision on. And don't tell me they should audition a cable for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tonyvdb

He also has not backed his claim that there is a measurable difference. I want to see two plots on one REW graph showing the before and after. If the difference is heard there will also be a different showing in REW. It's really that simple.


----------



## witchdoctor

nova said:


> I have not seen any data in all the links you have provided. All I see are anecdotes and personal experience. That is not data.


Don't make purchase decisions based on data, use data to shop. You need to create your own personal experience through an in home risk free audition. If you want to know what to audition first just ask and I will try to help. Here is an example but don't limit yourself to one brand:

Read this review:
http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-a...path-rca-and-ultra-speaker-cables-review.html

Review their data (specs are at the bottom of the page):

http://www.svsound.com/products/soundpath-rca-audio-cable

Request an in home 45 day audition and post your results for everyone to learn.


----------



## witchdoctor

tonyvdb said:


> He also has not backed his claim that there is a measurable difference. I want to see two plots on one REW graph showing the before and after. If the difference is heard there will also be a different showing in REW. It's really that simple.


If I post this you will slam the reviewer. You need to do your own testing:smile:


----------



## nova

No data there either. There is plenty of data out there that show there are differences in the way speakers sound. So I can go out and listen then pick my preference. I have yet to see any data to show that cables make any difference. 

I don't think I'd place those SVS cables in the same high end group of cables that this discussion is about. They look like good quality cables at a fairly reasonable price.


----------



## witchdoctor

nova said:


> No data there either. There is plenty of data out there that show there are differences in the way speakers sound. So I can go out and listen then pick my preference. I have yet to see any data to show that cables make any difference.
> 
> I don't think I'd place those SVS cables in the same high end group of cables that this discussion is about. They look like good quality cables at a fairly reasonable price.


And THAT is what makes this topic so interesting. The price of those SVS cables makes you wonder how they can compete but you need to find out by listening.
case in point, I was using a $1500 digital cable and a vendor offered me an audition of his $150 cable. I liked the guy so accepted but "knew" it couldn't compete. I'll bet you can already guess the ending. The $1500 went on Ebay and I had money left over to buy the new cable.

BTW, the premise of this thread is that cables represent the biggest bang for the buck upgrade in audio. Now would YOU believe that claim if I provided data? i hope not. You need to test things yourself and yes, my experience has been that SQ improvements from cables are a lot cheaper than going out and replacing components (see post #34 and read all the links). But of course don't take my word for it, test!


----------



## willis7469

Ok. I'll only ask one question at a time. 
I haven't seen you back the claim of OEM's and upselling with shoddy power cables other than conjecture. You may well be right, but someone new to this hobby who may be easily influenced should have at least something tangible to base a decision on. And don't tell me they should audition a cable for themselves. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## witchdoctor

willis7469 said:


> Ok. I'll only ask one question at a time.
> I haven't seen you back the claim of OEM's and upselling with shoddy power cables other than conjecture. You may well be right, but someone new to this hobby who may be easily influenced should have at least something tangible to base a decision on. And don't tell me they should audition a cable for themselves.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Go to an audio show and observe the cables used by vendors. If you find any 10 cent a foot stuff please let me know. Not one vendor will tell you that to get your components to sound the same as their demo to buy the same cables they used. Hmmm, I wonder why?
Tag, now its your turn.

Why have you not posted anything about your own experience auditioning cables? Is it because you have none?


----------



## nova

Actually I would believe that claim if you, or anyone for that matter, had actual data that proved they made a difference.

The price of those SVS cables in no way make me wonder how they compete, a quality cable at a reasonable price. There are many good quality cables out there for reasonable prices.

I don't see how they could possibly be the biggest bang for the buck if they make no difference.


----------



## willis7469

witchdoctor said:


> Go to an audio show and observe the cables used by vendors. If you find any 10 cent a foot stuff please let me know. Not one vendor will tell you that to get your components to sound the same as their demo to buy the same cables they used. Hmmm, I wonder why?
> Tag, now its your turn.
> 
> Why have you not posted anything about your own experience auditioning cables? Is it because you have none?



Nice try but that is still conjecture without proof. 
And also this thread is the one YOU started with a claim of intentionally misleading customers. So I ask again, where is your proof?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 3dbinCanada

witchdoctor said:


> Anyone who has been reading the thread here on audio cables must have noticed the fireworks on display. Apparently some shacksters feel that paying a lot of money for high end cables is a scam. I think that is getting it backwards. Think for a moment, if you manufactured speakers let's say why would you want your customers to make their $2000 speakers sound like a $3000 speaker by simply changing speaker cables? That makes 0 sense if you manufacture speakers, of course you want them to buy the $3000 speaker.
> 
> Why would you want a customer make your $2000 processor sound like a $4000 processor by changing the power cord and interconnects? Wouldn't you rather they get the $4000 processor?
> 
> The real scam in audio is spending huge $$$ on component upgrades when a simple cable upgrade could get you most of the way there for relatively little money.
> 
> Then when I see people promote this scam here as a way of being intelligent I have to wonder where that comes from. Has the component manufacturing industry really been this effective on making people spend big $$$ on new components? Apparently yes.
> 
> OK, now you want data right? According to audio reviewer Thomas Campbell:
> " interconnects and speaker cables make the largest per-dollar difference of any component or accessory. "
> 
> http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue7/signal.htm
> 
> I got news for you, you don't have to take any of this on faith. Nearly all of these cable vendors provide risk free in home auditions.
> 
> So, stop being scammed by the component manufacturers on spending big $$$ on components. Get good components and unleash 100% of their potential with some decent cables. Remember, interconnects and speaker cables make the largest per dollar difference of ANY component or accessory. Just take the time to test risk free and prove it to yourself. :http://s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails.illustrationsource.com/huge.103.516926.JPGsmile:


Oh boy!!


----------



## willis7469

And again, certainly unmistakable BIG differences would be obvious right? So why 49%?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## witchdoctor

willis7469 said:


> Nice try but that is still conjecture without proof.
> And also this thread is the one YOU started with a claim of intentionally misleading customers. So I ask again, where is your proof?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sorry, its your turn. I guess the answer is you have never auditioned anything.


----------



## willis7469

witchdoctor said:


> Sorry, its your turn. I guess the answer is you have never auditioned anything.



Nope. You haven't answered me, and this thread is about being scammed so...?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tonto

whitchdoctor wrote:



> cables are a lot cheaper than going out and replacing components


I don't see a majority of shacksters replacing components expecting better sound (apart from amps, for more power to fully feed their speakers and allow them to preform their best). There are a few, but I think most of us replace equipment for new features. Like 4K, Atmos & better room correction. Cables don't factor into that. I've been using my Yamaha for 20+ years...it still works great. But I am getting a new one, only for the features that are available now. Will I buy new cables? Some because I have to (HDMI), but I will continue to use what I have where I can. Expensive cables are beautiful & it's nice to have nice things. But the price difference hasn't justified the expense for me. I would expect nearly *100%* in blind testing *and* measureable results.

I think the quality of components today are very good. Many are limited by the amount of power needed to get the most out of our speakers. Thus external amps. Which brings us back to speakers & room treatments making the most substantial impact in performance. Just my $0.02.


----------



## witchdoctor

3dbinCanada said:


> Oh boy!!


i know, all those poor people that were duped into spending big $$ on components being led off the cliff, if only that had tried a risk free cable upgrade first. I hope that is not you leading the line:smile:


----------



## willis7469

witchdoctor said:


> i know, all those poor people that were duped into spending big $$ on components being led off the cliff, if only that had tried a risk free cable upgrade first. I hope that is not you leading the line:smile:



Maybe it was you? Vendetta?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## witchdoctor

_
I think the quality of components today are very good. Many are limited by the amount of power needed to get the most out of our speakers. _

That statement is spot on but you should read this article on this award winning Auro3D system before buying new amps

http://mrgcustom.com/press/Electronic House Jan 2016 Issue - MRG Theater.pdf


----------



## willis7469

witchdoctor said:


> _
> 
> I think the quality of components today are very good. Many are limited by the amount of power needed to get the most out of our speakers. _
> 
> 
> 
> That statement is spot on but you should read this article on this award winning Auro3D system before buying new amps
> 
> 
> 
> http://mrgcustom.com/press/Electronic House Jan 2016 Issue - MRG Theater.pdf



Url not found...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## witchdoctor

_I don't see how they could possibly be the biggest bang for the buck if they make no difference.[/QUOTE]_

You can't "see", you have to "hear" I look forward to your review if you care enough to investigate for us.:smile:


----------



## witchdoctor

willis7469 said:


> Url not found...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


http://mrgcustom.com/press/Electronic House Jan 2016 Issue - MRG Theater.pdf

Try this one


----------



## witchdoctor

*Don't Get Angry*

I see more and more posts from the shacksters who seem to post about a lot of things but have never actually posted about a cable they have actually auditioned and seem "miffed". Could these two things be related?

It seems the people who actually took the time to audition a cable and post about it are always very calm and objective.

I am not angry because I get my money back if a cable doesn't meet expectations. My advice is don't be angry, just test new things and learn the old fashion way EXPERIENCE!


----------



## nova

That's just it, I hear no difference and neither does anyone else. You have no data to prove that they do make a difference, your logic is flawed, you resist the conclusion of this discussion by treating the conclusion as subjective when it is in fact objective, if they made a difference it would be a measurable fact not a subjective anecdote.


----------



## witchdoctor

nova said:


> That's just it, I hear no difference and neither does anyone else. You have no data to prove that they do make a difference, your logic is flawed, you resists the conclusion of this discussion by treating the conclusion as subjective when it is in fact objective, if they made a difference it would be a measurable fact not a subjective anecdote.


All of these shootouts have winners,why? Because no one can hear the difference?

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=disconnect&x=/html&q=cable+shootout

You state you hear no difference, fantastic. What did you specifically audition? Why not try something new if there is no risk?


----------



## 3dbinCanada

*Re: Don't Get Angry*



witchdoctor said:


> I see more and more posts from the shacksters who seem to post about a lot of things but have never actually posted about a cable they have actually auditioned and seem "miffed". Could these two things be related?
> 
> It seems the people who actually took the time to audition a cable and post about it are always very calm and objective.
> 
> I am not angry because I get my money back if a cable doesn't meet expectations. My advice is don't be angry, just test new things and learn the old fashion way EXPERIENCE!


Its difficult to administer a blind listening test to swap in and out cables before the two minute mark in which the accuracy of what we hear goes down the toilet.


----------



## Lumen

witchdoctor said:


> You can't "see", you have to "hear" I look forward to your review if you care enough to investigate for us.:smile:


Define "us" because your support group is conspicuously absent. You have presented your side of the argument, as has your opposition. In the end, your attempt to perpetuate subjective phenomena as given truths cannot be tolerated. This thread is nearing its end for serving a useful purpose, so I suggest you re-read our RULES in general, and one in particular:
_It is our endeavor to provide accurate and truthful information at Home Theater Shack. There is no doubt a lot of false information floating around on the Internet. We will do our best to not allow it here, but we all have to understand that is a vast difference between fact and opinion. Several of our staff members are educated and trained on certain audio and video topics. If we believe a member is providing false information and/or arguing against credible and proven evidence, we will do all we can to courteously and politely educate that member. However, we will NOT allow that member to continue to post the false information and we will not allow an argument against credible evidence to continue. If the member persist, the member will be banned from this forum. We do not have a problem with members disagreeing with opinions and things that have not been proven with factual and/or credible evidence. Snake oil is not allowed here._​If you have something NEW to add, then by all means enlighten us; otherwise, please give it a rest.


----------



## willis7469

Hang on Lou I'm still waiting for proof of conspiracy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nova

I'm not "miffed" or angry in any way, I'm just trying to understand your side of the discussion. 
I have been in this game for over 40 years and in that time have used many, many, many interconnects, speaker wires and power cables. From lamp cord, to manufacturer supplied interconnects, Monster, Blue Jeans, Phillips, Monoprice, Kimber Kable, FRiEQ, Nordost, generic twisted pair and a bunch of others that I can't remember. None of them sounded the slightest bit different.


----------



## Lumen

Awww, okay. It is kinda fun. But if you all don't play nice, I'm taking my toys and going home!!


----------



## JBrax

I'll say this for you witchdoctor you've increased activity with this thread. This thread is hoppin!


----------



## witchdoctor

_If you have something NEW to add, then by all means enlighten us; otherwise, please give it a rest.[/QUOTE]_

Well I think that the basic premise I made was that cables make the best bang for the buck upgrade in audio. I posted my own testing experience and validated it with links from other reviewers who shared my experience. The invitation is for other shacksters to find out for themselves if this claim holds water by auditioning a "new" cable, risk free in their own home. If they post about it "we" all benefit.

I never made a claim for one cable over another and you can see the premise behind all my posts is to encourage risk free auditions. I think a group of angry shacksters who never even made one post about a cable they auditioned encouraging other members not to test a cable themselves and make up their own mind is shameful. It is fine to say, I tried brand X and did not like it. It is wrong to say all brands are snake oil even though I have 0 experience with most of them.
Am I wrong?


----------



## witchdoctor

JBrax said:


> I'll say this for you witchdoctor you've increased activity with this thread. This thread is hoppin!


I was pretty amazed when I looked at the post number, thanks for contributing!:smile:


----------



## witchdoctor

nova said:


> I'm not "miffed" or angry in any way, I'm just trying to understand your side of the discussion.
> I have been in this game for over 40 years and in that time have used many, many, many interconnects, speaker wires and power cables. From lamp cord, to manufacturer supplied interconnects, Monster, Blue Jeans, Phillips, Monoprice, Kimber Kable, FRiEQ, Nordost, generic twisted pair and a bunch of others that I can't remember. None of them sounded the slightest bit different.


Well that is a good start. The thing with technology is it keeps getting better, faster and cheaper. Personally i want to try the new SVS Cables and am always amazed when new tech can provide the next "bang for the buck" upgrade.


----------



## willis7469

I'm not angry either. But you started this thread with a deliberate tone and won't back it up. Attack me all you want, but I don't owe you anything and my answer is basically the same as nova. Your failure to provide proof goes against your credibility. And don't turn that around on me YOU started the thread. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## witchdoctor

willis7469 said:


> I'm not angry either. But you started this thread with a deliberate tone and won't back it up. Attack me all you want, but I don't owe you anything and my answer is basically the same as nova. Your failure to provide proof goes against your credibility. And don't turn that around on me YOU started the thread.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If I were you I would get three new power cords to audition and plug them into that Onkyo receiver and test them for 25 days. My experience is this is much cheaper then buying a new receiver and will often provide better SQ than even the receivers one or two levels up the line, maybe even their flagship. Please don't believe me, just try it and see and you will have your proof.

This reviewer uses the same power cord I do and specifically says it made a bigger difference than upgrading his CDP

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/review-virtual-dynamics-nite-power-cord-power-cord


----------



## lovinthehd

witchdoctor said:


> Well that is a good start. The thing with technology is it keeps getting better, faster and cheaper. Personally i want to try the new SVS Cables and am always amazed when new tech can provide the next "bang for the buck" upgrade.



What new technology? In wire? Please share a real technological advance, such as employed by SVS in their new branding of some unknown manufacturer's cable....I assume while SVS may have spec'd the product in a normal way, there's no new "technology" evident. So educate us, you know, like you often ask. Go to school and find out for yourself. Dip your toes in the knowledge pool rather than your poor comparison methods employing expectational bias.


----------



## nova

> Well I think that the basic premise I made was that cables make the best bang for the buck upgrade in audio. I posted my own testing experience and validated it with links from other reviewers who shared my experience.


Problem is you have not done any testing at all. You have tried different cables and "listened". Then you gave us a subjective opinion and nothing more. Show us something that validates cables make for the best bang for the buck. Links to other people's subjective opinions and shared experience is not a validation. Some years ago, many people had the same shared experience on the radio and believed we were being invaded by aliens...



> I think a group of angry shacksters who never even made one post about a cable they auditioned encouraging other members not to test a cable themselves and make up their own mind is shameful.


I really don't think any of us are angry, and I did list a few of cables I've tried.


----------



## witchdoctor

lovinthehd said:


> What new technology? In wire? Please share a real technological advance, such as employed by SVS in their new branding of some unknown manufacturer's cable....I assume while SVS may have spec'd the product in a normal way, there's no new "technology" evident. So educate us, you know, like you often ask. Go to school and find out for yourself. Dip your toes in the knowledge pool rather than your poor comparison methods employing expectational bias.



We know each other to well. Let's face it, you wouldn't try a new cable if it knocked on your door with a six pack and plugged itself in while you imbibed and listened to tunes.

I wish you well and am happy that you are happy (and I hope you wish the same for me):smile:


----------



## witchdoctor

_I really don't think any of us are angry, and I did list a few of cables I've tried.[/QUOTE]_

Thanks for posting!

Looking at those Acurus amps and Denon receiver I have to ask, what power conditioners have you auditioned? I bet those puppies get thirsty:smile:


----------



## tonyvdb

If this thread was a court case it would have been thrown out long ago as all it has been from the start is "hearsay" you have not given one ounce of evidence that exspencive cables make a difference.


----------



## Savjac

Ok here is my last serious entry in this group of postings and then I will go back to inventing stuff, I promise.

An honest and upbeat exchange of thoughts and ideas is always welcome in any given discussion, especially this one. Most of the guys here have been true gentlemen and have provided thoughts and criteria that seems to support certain beliefs. However, there are some folks that seem to know all against the beliefs and purchasing habits of millions of people. Please note that statement goes for believers and non believers. 
The interface between an amplifier and a speaker is a moving goal in that there are constant changes in power demands based on the frequencies being heard, especially when so many are played at once. As such, wire is usually measured statically against a fixed load and not how they are to be used. The same wire in my system may not be received as positively in someone else's system and that is my honest belief as of right now. I say that because I am open to demonstrations and would be willing to reconsider should I HEAR that my beliefs are wrong. That simple

I don't know if the science is correct or not so I have no engineering thoughts at all beyond what I was told by an engineer at Quad many years ago. I met him at a CES show and he was driving his electrostatics with some nice, non boutique cables and he was clear that we should look to good cable, well constructed of multiple copper filaments of good size thus precluding monster. He knew, he helped design the speakers so I cannot doubt him. 

Lastly, I have to not take all of these comments too seriously as when I look at the reviewers that scream the loudest that all amps, speaker cables, interconnects pre amps sound the same but yet to a person, they have relatively high end equipment. Why we do not all have radio shack receivers is a serious question boys and.....well.....boys. :laugh2:


----------



## lovinthehd

witchdoctor said:


> We know each other to well. Let's face it, you wouldn't try a new cable if it knocked on your door with a six pack and plugged itself in while you imbibed and listened to tunes.
> 
> I wish you well and am happy that you are happy (and I hope you wish the same for me):smile:


I have already "tried" all the "new" cables a long time ago, there's no need to do it again. 

I assume you have no idea of the technology inherent in anything you're encouraging people to spend time and money "trying"? 

What was your experience "trying" the SVS brand?


----------



## JBrax

Hmmm…
http://gizmodo.com/371536/300-audiophile-grade-power-cable-is-really-worth-15


----------



## witchdoctor

JBrax said:


> Hmmm…
> http://gizmodo.com/371536/300-audiophile-grade-power-cable-is-really-worth-15



Interesting, I never auditioned that one.

Check out the award given to the VD Nite, the one I am more familiar with:

http://v1.stereotimes.com/mwc0511044.shtml

"VIRTUAL DYNAMICS NITE II POWER CORDS ($1,100/5’ PAIR): When I installed these power cords, speaker cables, and interconnects into my system, it transformed it from really good sounding to WOW! But I’m singling out the power cords here because of the dramatic and immediate impact they had on my reference Electrocompaniet Nemo amplifiers. The way they provided current to my components seemed to boost the entire system’s level of power. The interconnects and speaker cables are top-notch performers as well, but it is the power cords that anchor the performance of the system. They are quiet, powerful, quick, transparent, and my reference. (Thomas)"


----------



## witchdoctor

tonyvdb said:


> If this thread was a court case it would have been thrown out long ago as all it has been from the start is "hearsay" you have not given one ounce of evidence that exspencive cables make a difference.


I cannot provide something that can only be provided by your own ears and brain. In home auditions are mandatory!:smile:


----------



## willis7469

witchdoctor said:


> If I were you I would get three new power cords to audition and plug them into that Onkyo receiver and test them for 25 days. My experience is this is much cheaper then buying a new receiver and will often provide better SQ than even the receivers one or two levels up the line, maybe even their flagship. Please don't believe me, just try it and see and you will have your proof.
> 
> This reviewer uses the same power cord I do and specifically says it made a bigger difference than upgrading his CDP
> 
> https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/review-virtual-dynamics-nite-power-cord-power-cord



Really?

I haven't seen you back the claim of OEM's and upselling with shoddy power cables other than conjecture. You may well be right, but someone new to this hobby who may be easily influenced should have at least something tangible to base a decision on. And don't tell me they should audition a cable for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## witchdoctor

_You may well be right, but someone new to this hobby who may be easily influenced should have at least something tangible to base a decision on._

Someone new to this hobby can do a risk free audition and decide for themselves. I suggest you do the same.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

witchdoctor said:


> You seem to have gone to enough audio shows, can you explain why most manufacturers use high end cables to demo their gear?


Why not? It is easier to get those for free than generic cables.


----------



## JBrax

I noticed you have power cords from that company and I was curious to see them. Google images promptly led me to those pics. I would be "miffed" to say the least.


----------



## NBPk402

Kal Rubinson said:


> Why not? It is easier to get those for free than generic cables.


Plus they look prettier.


----------



## JBrax

ellisr63 said:


> Plus they look prettier.


 And that's EXACTLY why they sell.


----------



## MatrixDweller

I agree that room and then room treatments have the biggest impact. You could have $100K speakers in a hard surfaced cube shaped room (10x0x10) and they will sound horrible no matter what cable you use. 

From personal experience, after treating my room I noticed a huge improvement in quality. The big thing is I even measured a huge improvement. Lay people who didn't know I added treatments or what the "art panels" were on my wall asked if i had bought something new because things just sounded a whole lot cleaner and detailed.

The high end cable companies never provide scientific measurements on A-B testing with normal copper lamp cord vs their braided cryo-treated counterparts. They do show graphs showing the skin effect and boast how their cables give better transient response or dynamic resolution. 

So shouldn't those be something that could be measured? Nothing so far has scientifically proven such claims. Blind tests haven't been able to prove anything.

The manufacturers of components want their components to be as good as possible because they will sell more of them. Most come with a 50 cent power cord. If it made that much of a difference, a measurable difference, an audible difference, don't you think they would spend an extra $2, $10 or even $50 to include a complex beautiful looking cable?


----------



## nova

witchdoctor said:


> Looking at those Acurus amps and Denon receiver I have to ask, what power conditioners have you auditioned? I bet those puppies get thirsty:smile:


I imagine the amps do, the Denon, not so much as the load is on the Acurus. Nothing fancy for power conditioners either as they are there to protect the equipment not to change, color or improve the sound. Tripp Lite, Belkin and Woods are the only ones I've used.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

willis7469 said:


> Wow Kal, that's one of the almost nonexistent(to my exposure level at least) times I've heard of an oem suggesting that. Thanks for posting your impressions of that experience. I respect your thoughts.


Thanks. FWIW, I still use the amp.


----------



## witchdoctor

JBrax said:


> And that's EXACTLY why they sell.


The question is really why are they not sent back for a refund? Because they work!:smile:


----------



## willis7469

Seriously? I've respectively and repeatedly ask you to simply provide your proof of scam, or conspiracy and you simply respond with "try this" and "try that", and what have you tried. 
I'm asking for you to be removed. Whatever your agenda, it doesn't belong here. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469

witchdoctor said:


> The question is really why are they not sent back for a refund? Because they work!:smile:



No. Because it's a hassle. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## witchdoctor

Kal Rubinson said:


> Why not? It is easier to get those for free than generic cables.


Free? Can you post a link?:smile:


----------



## witchdoctor

nova said:


> I imagine the amps do, the Denon, not so much as the load is on the Acurus. Nothing fancy for power conditioners either as they are there to protect the equipment not to change, color or improve the sound. Tripp Lite, Belkin and Woods are the only ones I've used.


I would offer this article for your consideration, my findings about power are consistent with the author:

http://mrgcustom.com/press/Electronic House Jan 2016 Issue - MRG Theater.pdf


----------



## witchdoctor

_From personal experience, after treating my room I noticed a huge improvement in quality. The big thing is I even measured a huge improvement. Lay people who didn't know I added treatments or what the "art panels" were on my wall asked if i had bought something new because things just sounded a whole lot cleaner and detailed._

I noticed a big improvement with room treatments too, thanks for sharing. They are more of a hassle to install than a cable but well worth it IMO.

As for testing and cable companies I don't know of any component manufacturer that routinely provides that data. I think the real risk for the manufacturer are product returns. Would you keep a cable that measured well and had all the data but didn't improve SQ? I wouldn't.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

MatrixDweller said:


> I agree that room and then room treatments have the biggest impact. You could have $100K speakers in a hard surfaced cude shaped room and they will sound horrible no matter what cable you use.
> 
> From personal experience, after treating my room I noticed a huge improvement in quality. The big thing is I even measured a huge improvement. Lay people who didn't know I added treatments or what the "art panels" were on my wall asked if i had bought something new because things just sounded a whole lot cleaner and detailed.
> 
> The high end cable companies never provide scientific measurements on A-B testing with normal copper lamp cord vs their braided cryo-treated counterparts. They do show graphs showing the skin effect and boast how their cables give better transient response or dynamic resolution.
> 
> So shouldn't those be something that could be measured? Nothing so far has scientifically proven such claims. Blind tests haven't been able to prove anything.


 Blind listening tests remove subjective bias which is the biggest factor leading to repeatable tests and repeatable results. Subjective auditioning results are all over the map depending on the auditioner's mood, how shiny the cable jackets are, and the price of the cables. 

Be careful of sales glossies by cable manufacturing using pseudo science. It's as unreliable as subjective listening comparisons. :wink2:


----------



## 3dbinCanada

willis7469 said:


> Seriously? I've respectively and repeatedly ask you to simply provide your proof of scam, or conspiracy and you simply respond with "try this" and "try that", and what have you tried.
> I'm asking for you to be removed. Whatever your agenda, it doesn't belong here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If it looks like a troll and squaks like a troll....


----------



## willis7469

3dbinCanada said:


> If it looks like a troll and squaks like a troll....



Lol. And I keep goin back...ugh. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nova

witchdoctor said:


> I would offer this article for your consideration, my findings about power are consistent with the author:
> http://mrgcustom.com/press/Electronic House Jan 2016 Issue - MRG Theater.pdf


Okay, now you really lost me. I don't think any of us disagree with the need to protect our equipment from power surges. What does that have to do with cables being the most cost effective way to increase performance of a home theater or stereo system?


----------



## tonyvdb

nova said:


> Okay, now you really lost me. I don't think any of us disagree with the need to protect our equipment from power surges. What does that have to do with cables being the most cost effective way to increase performance of a home theater or stereo system?


He's grasping at straws now.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

tonyvdb said:


> He's grasping at straws now.


Busy building a straw house that gets blown to pieces by the Big Bad Science.


----------



## nova

A good power conditioner will filter out some "noise" in power lines but a few caveats;
Any decent audio equipment has more than adequate input transformer and filter capacitors to prevent any "electrical noise". If you are proposing that a power conditioner will improve the sound of your system, that's just nonsense. If you have dirty power you have bigger issues than trying to get the most out of your audio equipment.
Same as cables, if it were there it would be measurable.


----------



## witchdoctor

nova said:


> Okay, now you really lost me. I don't think any of us disagree with the need to protect our equipment from power surges. What does that have to do with cables being the most cost effective way to increase performance of a home theater or stereo system?


The context is that POWER is equally important as the room and the equipment. The reviewer that awarded my Nite cable Most Wanted Component claimed that it made his $15,000 Electrocompianet amp sound the best it ever had. He is right IMO because those cables did the same for me. IMO your amps would absolutely sing if you fed them filtered power from a high quality power conditioner linked by a high quality cord, and it will cost much less than a new amp. Will it have the same SQ? Only you can decide.

Here is a Torus Power conditioner review:

http://www.soundstage.com/equipment/toruspower_rm15.htm

As for a power cable I would get the conditioner first, maybe not the Torus but you can try several.


----------



## witchdoctor

_If you are proposing that a power conditioner will improve the sound of your system, that's just nonsense. _

My power conditioner measures how many volts come from the wall and coverts it into a steady 120V. It is generally reading about 122 and my equipment sounds better with 120V. It also filters the power and made a big improvement in SQ. Here is a review:

http://hometheaterreview.com/monster-htps-7000-reviewed/

My experience concurs with the reviewers:

_The overall effectiveness of the Monster HTPS 7000 on my entire system from management to increased performance was entirely unexpected, and deeply appreciated. I particularly noted a more special soundstage._

Why is that so hard to believe?


----------



## witchdoctor

3dbinCanada said:


> Busy building a straw house that gets blown to pieces by the Big Bad Science.



All I see is that you seem afraid to try anything new, you still never tried a new cable have you?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

witchdoctor said:


> Free? Can you post a link?:smile:


We were talking about their use at show demos.


----------



## witchdoctor

_


3dbinCanada said:



Blind listening tests remove subjective bias which is the biggest factor leading to repeatable tests and repeatable results.

Click to expand...

_


3dbinCanada said:


> Fantastic, so when are you going to conduct one?


----------



## witchdoctor

willis7469 said:


> Lol. And I keep goin back...ugh.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There are plenty of other threads here...:smile:


----------



## willis7469

witchdoctor said:


> There are plenty of other threads here...:smile:



And you still won't provide evidence to back up the claim of this threads title. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469

witchdoctor said:


> There are plenty of other threads here...:smile:



And I'm sure no matter which thread I go to you'll be there flapping about a cable upgrade. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## witchdoctor

*Do You Need to Spend a Lot on Cables to Get Better SQ?*

Think of a cable as an investment. If you have a $21K system and new cables improved the SQ by 30% that would equate to a $7K boost in SQ. If you can get that much upgrade for $700 in new cables you made a wise choice. I think that type of improvement is possible with new cables but I can't do it for you. You must do your own audition. If you have questions about where to start please post and I will try and help.


----------



## witchdoctor

willis7469 said:


> And I'm sure no matter which thread I go to you'll be there flapping about a cable upgrade.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No:smile:


----------



## tonyvdb

A 30% boost in sound quality because of an "exspencive" cable!!! :huh:
Not a chance.


----------



## witchdoctor

Kal Rubinson said:


> We were talking about their use at show demos.


Are you claiming that vendors don't care what cable they use to demo their equipment as long as it's free?


----------



## witchdoctor

tonyvdb said:


> A 30% boost in sound quality because of an "exspencive" cable!!! :huh:
> Not a chance.


How do you know? You still haven't tried anything new and posted about it.


----------



## NBPk402

witchdoctor said:


> _If you are proposing that a power conditioner will improve the sound of your system, that's just nonsense. _
> 
> My power conditioner measures how many volts come from the wall and coverts it into a steady 120V. It is generally reading about 122 and my equipment sounds better with 120V. It also filters the power and made a big improvement in SQ. Here is a review:
> 
> http://hometheaterreview.com/monster-htps-7000-reviewed/
> 
> My experience concurs with the reviewers:
> 
> _The overall effectiveness of the Monster HTPS 7000 on my entire system from management to increased performance was entirely unexpected, and deeply appreciated. I particularly noted a more special soundstage._
> 
> Why is that so hard to believe?


Maybe because they are not that good of a product... mine has several outlets that have stopped working. I used to own their big amp, and I sold it, due to it being a poorly made amp. The amp had a hum which is pretty common with the amp...their solution was to put a cheater plug on it, and call it a day. That is a pretty poor response for a huge Audio Company when they have a design flaw, and refuse to take care of it "Under Warranty". The only reason I have the HTPS 7000 currently is I purchased it before I had the problem with their amp (if a few more outlets die on it I will throw it in the trash). Will it protect my equipment from a surge...no idea, so I purchased a Whole House Surge Protector. Would I purchase it again..No. Does it make my system sound or look better...No again. I am glad you are happy with them, because my experience was not good at all.


----------



## tonyvdb

witchdoctor said:


> How do you know? You still haven't tried anything new and posted about it.


Sure, you send me the cable of your choice and I will do before and after readings and post them.


----------



## willis7469

witchdoctor said:


> Are you claiming that vendors don't care what cable they use to demo their equipment as long as it's free?



Yes. And 30%? How on earth could you possibly come up with that number?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nova

*Re: Do You Need to Spend a Lot on Cables to Get Better SQ?*



witchdoctor said:


> Think of a cable as an investment. If you have a $21K system and new cables improved the SQ by 30% that would equate to a $7K boost in SQ. If you can get that much upgrade for $700 in new cables you made a wise choice. I think that type of improvement is possible with new cables but I can't do it for you. You must do your own audition. If you have questions about where to start please post and I will try and help.


I'm all for that but first show me the data that proves I will see a 30% increase in sound quality before I shell out the cash. Your subjective opinion on what you think you hear or what someone else thinks they hear is not good enough.

I'm waiting for you to "help" but you are not helping. Opinions are like... well you know... everyone has one. Prove it to me!


----------



## NBPk402

witchdoctor said:


> How do you know? You still haven't tried anything new and posted about it.


A 30% boost in performance would mean the results of a double blind test would mean you could pick it out the cable 100% of the time when testing cables...this to my knowledge has NEVER happened. Every double blind testing of cables that I have ever seen is right around 50%, which is the same as flipping a coin. Show us some double blind testing that gives a 90% (i'm giving you a 10% advantage) reliability in testing cables.


----------



## lcaillo

witchdoctor said:


> Don't make purchase decisions based on data, use data to shop. You need to create your own personal experience through an in home risk free audition. If you want to know what to audition first just ask and I will try to help. Here is an example but don't limit yourself to one brand:


Nice advice, but not very practical. There is little consistency in the provided data, and very litle data at all. Furthermore, the claims of most of the cable manufacturers rarely, if ever, substantiated with data, either measurements or blind listening tests.

I do not disagree with your suggestion that one listen for themselves, but I do take issue with your assersions about what is a scam. It makes no sense to me to think that vendors of equipment with rather well documented specifications and measured performance are conducting some scam by not telling us about the relative differences made by cables. On the other hand, there are certainly more dubious claims made by cable vendors. That is not to say that equipment manufacturers don't paint their products performance with much hype and dubious engineering claims, but they are of very different scale than the claims of the various cable vendors. 

I believe, like Jack, that cables CAN make a difference. I have not experienced great differences, and not been able to confirm much at all in blind testing. I have tested a several expensive power cables in situations where there was significant line noise and not been able to hear a difference, nor measure it any at all.

I think it would be useful if you could learn to characterize what you believe and what is anectdotal as such. What is fact and supported by an understanding of physics and electrical engineering is largely at odds with much of what you have suggested and hard to reconcile with experience for many of us. Sure, there are some who take a philosophical stand against most differences in equipment and cables, but most of us here actually have very open minds. Some of us have spent many many hours testing and listening to not only identify differences but to correlate them to measurements and the engineering behind the products. It is VERY hard to do in most cases. What is not hard to do is to confirm expectation bias and placebo effect. These are pervasive in perceived phenomena. The real scam might be that sellers use these well understood tendencies all the time. Sales people train to them all the time. If the industry devoted even a small part of the effort they put into selling ideas about why their products sound good to research into what actually does make a difference, we would all be better informed. But vendors primary job is to sell a product, whether it is a cable or an amp. 

Is it a scam at all? Only if you consider all marketing as such. What distinguishes the hobbyist from the consumer, IMO, is that the hobbyist tries to understand why and how what he/she experiences is so, and to some degree what is actually technology and what is psychology. My experience is that the best of this kind of hobbyist actually can experience more joy from the music (or the video) than the consumer chasing that next better cable or amp without really understanding how the differences are accounted for.


----------



## nova

witchdoctor said:


> Are you claiming that vendors don't care what cable they use to demo their equipment as long as it's free?


I think the point is that it makes no difference so if they are free... why not use a free cable.


----------



## NBPk402

nova said:


> I think the point is that it makes no difference so if they are free... why not use a free cable.


I agree. :T


----------



## nova

And, most likely, there is a little mutual back scratching going on.


----------



## willis7469

nova said:


> And, most likely, there is a little mutual back scratching going on.



Almost guaranteed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469

tonyvdb said:


> Sure, you send me the cable of your choice and I will do before and after readings and post them.


You read my mind!



nova said:


> I'm all for that but first show me the data that proves I will see a 30% increase in sound quality before I shell out the cash. Your subjective opinion on what you think you hear or what someone else thinks they hear is not good enough.
> Yes. And 30%? What if it gets 30% worse?
> 
> I'm waiting for you to "help" but you are not helping. Opinions are like... well you know... everyone has one. Prove it to me!


I've been waiting too. And waiting for one straight answer from him!!!



ellisr63 said:


> A 30% boost in performance would mean the results of a double blind test would mean you could pick it out the cable 100% of the time when testing cables...this to my knowledge has NEVER happened. Every double blind testing of cables that I have ever seen is right around 50%, which is the same as flipping a coin. Show us some double blind testing that gives a 90% (i'm giving you a 10% advantage) reliability in testing cables.



Totally agree. I posted a nice super in depth test that showed the same thing. Do you think I can get him to provide his opinion in a clear concise way? Not even. I wish I had an eject button...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tonyvdb

I'm serious, if these cables are such an improvement send me one of your choice and I will do a test of before and after with REW and post the results. 
Put your money where your mouth is witchdoctor.


----------



## Lumen

witchdoctor said:


> Well I think that the basic premise I made was that cables make the best bang for the buck upgrade in audio. I posted my own testing experience and validated it with links from other reviewers who shared my experience. The invitation is for other shacksters to find out for themselves if this claim holds water by auditioning a "new" cable, risk free in their own home. If they post about it "we" all benefit.
> 
> I never made a claim for one cable over another and you can see the premise behind all my posts is to encourage risk free auditions. I think a group of angry shacksters who never even made one post about a cable they auditioned encouraging other members not to test a cable themselves and make up their own mind is shameful. It is fine to say, I tried brand X and did not like it. It is wrong to say all brands are snake oil even though I have 0 experience with most of them.
> Am I wrong?


Yes. A premise supports a conclusion. One at which you seem to have arrived in a decidedly predetermined and unscientific manner. Your two premises simply do not support your pre-drawn conclusion that cables make a HUGE difference. The veil thrown over that particular speaker is thin, indeed. 

And you, sir, are the shameful one for resorting to name-calling.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

witchdoctor said:


> Are you claiming that vendors don't care what cable they use to demo their equipment as long as it's free?


Not at all because I cannot know. I suspect that they can decide, within some limits, with whom they want to work. It's promotion for all.


----------



## nova

Yanno, I'm not one to name drop but...
Growing up I had a very close friend who was friends with Ray Kimber, so I had the opportunity to meet him. My wife worked for Roger B. Hassing so I had opportunity to meet Roger, Shane Rich, Daren Egan, Brian Tracy, John Fenn and a bunch of other great people at RBH. I've been to the RBH facility many times and have seen their whole operation, the demo room equipment and a bunch of other stuff. Asked a bunch of questions about what I should include in my HT, never once did high dollar interconnects, power conditioners, cables or wire come up in conversation with any of them. I saw what they used in their demo rooms. Hence my bias toward the Acurus amps to power my RBH speakers. A good quality cable, interconnect or speaker wire is all that is required, no magic, no hype, no break in or other audiophile myths, just quality components.


----------



## willis7469

nova said:


> Yanno, I'm not one to name drop but...
> Growing up I had a very close friend who was friends with Ray Kimber, so I had the opportunity to meet him. My wife worked for Roger B. Hassing so I had opportunity to meet Roger, Shane Rich, Daren Egan, Brian Tracy, John Fenn and a bunch of other great people at RBH. I've been to the RBH facility many times and have seen their whole operation, the demo room equipment and a bunch of other stuff. Asked a bunch of questions about what I should include in my HT, never once did high dollar interconnects, power conditioners, cables or wire come up in conversation with any of them. I saw what they used in their demo rooms. Hence my bias toward the Acurus amps to power my RBH speakers. A good quality cable, interconnect or speaker wire is all that is required, no magic, no hype, no break in or other audiophile myths, just quality components.



Thanks nova. That was interesting. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nova

As an aside you'd probably all be surprised at which speaker was Roger's favorite. Not one of the highly acclaimed Status Acoustic speakers, not one of the Signature SE/R or even one in the Signature line. In fact he tried to talk me out of the 1266-SE that was my choice. His favorite was the MC-616C LCR.


----------



## willis7469

I will guess he finds it to be versatile?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nova

I suspect there is something about that speaker that endears it to him. IIRC he called it a "great little thumper".:smile: I have listened to them quite a bit and would be very happy with five of them., if I didn't have my current system.

There was nothing too fancy in the demo room (other than some really good speakers), Acurus ACT-3, a couple of Acurus amps and some Kimber Kable. No Power conditioners, high end cables, risers or any other voodoo snake oil.


----------



## willis7469

I also think what makes your story poignant is that you reported first hand about an oem that uses nothing more than just good ol quality bits. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## witchdoctor

tonyvdb said:


> I'm serious, if these cables are such an improvement send me one of your choice and I will do a test of before and after with REW and post the results.
> Put your money where your mouth is witchdoctor.


That is extremely open minded and I look forward to your review. I am not a vendor and have nothing financially involved in anything audio related. I suggest you contact a vendor for your cable audition request. I would recommend Signal Cable, Mapleshade Cables, SVS Cables and Audioadvisor.com as vendors with good return policies. Whether or not you like their wares only you can say.:smile:


----------



## tonyvdb

Oh no, this is not how it works. Most of those high end companies do have return policies but if you read the fine print there are restocking fees, return shipping costs and or interest for "borrowing" them. If your so confident then you arrange it.

SVS is not in that list as their cables are just nicely made decent priced fancy cables. No snake oil advertising.


----------



## witchdoctor

*Are We There Yet?*

Well we are past 100 posts and so far two people have actually shared their thoughts about actual cables they have auditioned and one person has actually volunteered to post about future auditions. 
Thanks to everyone for your posts and I look forward to hearing more about EXPERIENCE with in home risk free auditions. We even had a post from a professional reviewer (thanks Kal) 
I especially liked the post about room treatments and the story about Ray Kimber and the demo room was excellent:smile:


----------



## willis7469

*Re: Are We There Yet?*



witchdoctor said:


> Well we are past 100 posts and so far two people have actually shared their thoughts about actual cables they have auditioned and one person has actually volunteered to post about future auditions.
> 
> Thanks to everyone for your posts and I look forward to hearing more about EXPERIENCE with in home risk free auditions. We even had a post from a professional reviewer (thanks Kal)
> 
> I especially liked the post about room treatments and the story about Ray Kimber and the demo room was excellent:smile:



You weren't asking about impressions so that's kind of hilarious. Send me some. I'll try em. But I'm still waiting for a straight answer about this industry conspiracy. You know, the thing that's in your opening paragraph of THIS thread YOU started. Maybe you should have named it, "hey, look at all the threads I can link to overpriced cable reviews and how you need to audition them to totally push your mostly awesome system to totally crazy awesome!"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 3dbinCanada

witchdoctor said:


> All I see is that you seem afraid to try anything new, you still never tried a new cable have you?


I know better. I don't have too. Your auditioning methods are flawed from the very start and I have as much faith in your results as I do in my ability to flap my arms and begin to fly.


----------



## robbo266317

witchdoctor said:


> Robbo, why not just audition the Signal cables in the review and post your results? Why all the hubub if you can just see for yourself?


Unfortunately, as my profile indicates, I live in Australia and do not have easy access to try these out.


----------



## witchdoctor

*Is It Really This Bad?*

Going by the responses I have seen so far I am really surprised how deep these manufacturers have their hooks into the wallets of many of our posters. I look at the systems here and I see easy $10K+++ expenditures in pursuit of SQ. And then these same people are nearly moved to tears with the threat of conducting a risk free test of something new in their own home. Think about that for a moment. $5K on an amp, no problem. $20K on new speakers, chump change. $100 to test a new cable, wahhhhhh, snake oil, it doesn;t work, impossible. You can see by the level of ridicule being dished out how deeply the conditioning by the component manufacturers has sunk in. Think about that, some people prefer to spend tens of thousands of dollars and then simply close their eyes and "hope" they are right rather than test a $100 cable risk free to see if they can get better SQ. We are talking a risk free test here and nothing else.

Think how bad it is that they take time to attack and argue rather than conduct a simple experiment in their own home like a real scientist would. 

Yes, it is really this bad that people who are mad won't "listen", so sad!


----------



## witchdoctor

robbo266317 said:


> Unfortunately, as my profile indicates, I live in Australia and do not have easy access to try these out.


Hmmmmm, I will see what I can find out,


----------



## witchdoctor

robbo266317 said:


> Unfortunately, as my profile indicates, I live in Australia and do not have easy access to try these out.


See if this dealer will be helpful, they may be very willing to lend cables for in home auditions. They don't carry Signal but they have some other brands that are pretty recognizeable:

http://advanceaudio.com.au/


----------



## willis7469

*Re: Is It Really This Bad?*



witchdoctor said:


> Going by the responses I have seen so far I am really surprised how deep these manufacturers have their hooks into the wallets of many of our posters. I look at the systems here and I see easy $10K+++ expenditures in pursuit of SQ. And then these same people are nearly moved to tears with the threat of conducting a risk free test of something new in their own home. Think about that for a moment. $5K on an amp, no problem. $20K on new speakers, chump change. $100 to test a new cable, wahhhhhh, snake oil, it doesn;t work, impossible. You can see by the level of ridicule being dished out how deeply the conditioning by the component manufacturers has sunk in. Think about that, some people prefer to spend tens of thousands of dollars and then simply close their eyes and "hope" they are right rather than test a $100 cable risk free to see if they can get better SQ. We are talking a risk free test here and nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> Think how bad it is that they take time to attack and argue rather than conduct a simple experiment in their own home like a real scientist would.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is really this bad that people who are mad won't "listen", so sad!



You still haven't backed this up!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Savjac

Hmm interesting how far this has not come as it were. Is there not a different approach all of is positive and enlightened gents can come up with ?


----------



## witchdoctor

_SVS is not in that list as their cables are just nicely made decent priced fancy cables. No snake oil advertising.[/QUOTE]_

So will you try them?:smile:


----------



## 3dbinCanada

witchdoctor said:


> That is extremely open minded and I look forward to your review. I am not a vendor and have nothing financially involved in anything audio related. I suggest you contact a vendor for your cable audition request. I would recommend Signal Cable, Mapleshade Cables, SVS Cables and Audioadvisor.com as vendors with good return policies. Whether or not you like their wares only you can say.:smile:


How is he to test this if he acquired cable?


----------



## lovinthehd

witchdoctor said:


> So will you try them?:smile:


Why would someone who has functional cables need to try others? There's nothing to be gained. Why don't you order a set? You're the guy who likes to listen to cables....


----------



## willis7469

You still haven't backed up this thread.!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 3dbinCanada

witchdoctor said:


> _SVS is not in that list as their cables are just nicely made decent priced fancy cables. No snake oil advertising._




So will you try them?:smile:[/QUOTE]

How is he to test them? What's your game plan?


----------



## willis7469

3dbinCanada said:


> [/I]
> 
> 
> 
> So will you try them?:smile:




How is he to test them? What's your game plan?[/QUOTE]


Edit...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## J&D

Cable test plan...

Inject electrons into one end - count the electrons coming out the other end. If some are missing it must be an inferior cable......


----------



## J&D

When demonstrating my new subwoofer for a very good audiophile friend of mine I showed him the interconnect I was using and asked if he though this would provide a distortion free listening experience. He informed me that a high-end subwoofer cable should be used and he could definitely hear some very distinct muddyness in the bass. He suggested a couple of good options for me. I then let him know it was a wireless sub........


----------



## willis7469

J&D said:


> Cable test plan...
> 
> 
> 
> Inject electrons into one end - count the electrons coming out the other end. If some are missing it must be an inferior cable......



Lol!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469

J&D said:


> When demonstrating my new subwoofer for a very good audiophile friend of mine I showed him the interconnect I was using and asked if he though this would provide a distortion free listening experience. He informed me that a high-end subwoofer cable should be used and he could definitely hear some very distinct muddyness in the bass. He suggested a couple of good options for me. I then let him know it was a wireless sub........



That's hilarious. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469

I made a sub cable with rg-6. My old neighbor (rip) used to run Hamm radio and he'd get into my subs. The shielding worked. Shhh, it only cost about 10 bucks. Had to be junk right? Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## J&D

^Great work. I use RG6 for all of my wired subs. The price is right and it gets the electrons from point A to point B nicely.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

willis7469 said:


> That's hilarious.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I would have laughed him out my house :neener:


----------



## Kal Rubinson

J&D said:


> When demonstrating my new subwoofer for a very good audiophile friend of mine I showed him the interconnect I was using and asked if he though this would provide a distortion free listening experience. He informed me that a high-end subwoofer cable should be used and he could definitely hear some very distinct muddyness in the bass. He suggested a couple of good options for me. I then let him know it was a wireless sub........


So what?



willis7469 said:


> That's hilarious.


Nope. If the "friend" was trying to say that "he could definitely hear some very distinct muddyness in the bass" of a new and previously unheard sub and attribute it to the choice of cable, that would be hilarious. That the sub was really connected wirelessly is somewhat irrelevant although wireless is more complex than a simple cable and can be accomplished well or poorly.


----------



## J&D

Kal Rubinson said:


> So what?
> 
> Nope. If the "friend" was trying to say that "he could definitely hear some very distinct muddyness in the bass" of a new and previously unheard sub and attribute it to the choice of cable, that would be hilarious. That the sub was really connected wirelessly is somewhat irrelevant although wireless is more complex than a simple cable and can be accomplished well or poorly.


Maybe my description was not clear. He definitely thought the interconnect was the cause. Apologize for any confusion. Obviously the muddyness was caused by the wireless signal traveling through the garden outside first before reaching the sub.


----------



## Savjac

J&D said:


> Maybe my description was not clear. He definitely thought the interconnect was the cause. Apologize for any confusion. Obviously the muddyness was caused by the wireless signal traveling through the garden outside first before reaching the sub.


..Or the sub/room/listening position interaction was not well done.

Just sayin.:wink2:


----------



## willis7469

Still waiting for the OP to enlighten us mindless sheep as to this travesty of brainwashing. I wonder whose hooks are where.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Peter Loeser

Hey guys.

Did I miss an actual discussion about the real scam in audio?


----------



## willis7469

Peter Loeser said:


> Hey guys.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I miss an actual discussion about the real scam in audio?



Wow! I'm laughing so hard right now!!! I'm kinda feeling like we might get there eventually. If I just keep asking....lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Peter Loeser said:


> Hey guys.
> 
> Did I miss an actual discussion about the real scam in audio?


Not really.. OP states better audio components (aka high priced) are a scam when compared to upgrading speaker cables, interconnects, and power chords. 1) Most of us don't buy into the arguement and point to specific reputable white papers, not advertising glossies: 2) the OP ignore our recommendations and says buy better wires and listen for yourself... This is it where it goes circular between 1 and 2. I think that recaps it.


----------



## willis7469

Boy, it's quiet in here...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tonyvdb

willis7469 said:


> Boy, it's quiet in here


witchdoctor does not want to put his money where his mouth is and anti up to my challenge I gave him.
"Send me the cables of his choice and I will test them with true before and after results posted here"


----------



## JBrax

tonyvdb said:


> witchdoctor does not want to put his money where his mouth is and anti up to my challenge I gave him. "Send me the cables of his choice and I will test them with true before and after results posted here"


 I must admit it was an entertaining thread.


----------



## Tonto

I hoping it has died on it's own. I mean, there wasn't anywhere for it to go that I could see. No harm is appreciating expensive cables, I just don't see the cost/benefit ratio favoring the consumer. I'd be hard pressed to recommend a boutique cable. Actually, I wouldn't do it.


----------



## tonyvdb

Well considering at the time of this post 20 people have voted and he is the only vote in favour of high end cables I would say the concenses is it's not worth the investment. High end cables ARE a scam.


----------



## asere

Now Monster claims this. I don't buy it though!

Monster® Subwoofer 600sw Ultra High Performance Cable



Ultra-High Performance Subwoofer Cable 

Surround sound with deep, powerful bass is essential to the home theater experience. Without the right subwoofer cable, your favorite movies won’t have the thundering low end you demand. Many subwoofer cables lack adequate shielding for rejecting low-frequency noise; annoying buzzes and hums. Flimsy conductors without adequate power-handling capacity also limit subwoofer performance and bass response. There’s a better way--Monster® 600SW.



A High-End Subwoofer Cable for the High-End Home Theater

Monster® 600SW maximizes Dolby® Digital and DTS® surround sound performance for truly dramatic home theater. Dual solid-core bass conductors transmit low frequencies with ultimate power and accuracy, so your bass response is always deep, tight, and distortion-free. A second wire network maximizes frequency response and pitch definition. High-density dual-layer shielding ensures maximum rejection of noise and hum.


----------



## lovinthehd

asere said:


> Now Monster claims this. I don't buy it though!
> 
> Monster® Subwoofer 600sw Ultra High Performance Cable
> 
> 
> 
> Ultra-High Performance Subwoofer Cable
> 
> Surround sound with deep, powerful bass is essential to the home theater experience. Without the right subwoofer cable, your favorite movies won’t have the thundering low end you demand. Many subwoofer cables lack adequate shielding for rejecting low-frequency noise; annoying buzzes and hums. Flimsy conductors without adequate power-handling capacity also limit subwoofer performance and bass response. There’s a better way--Monster® 600SW.
> 
> 
> 
> A High-End Subwoofer Cable for the High-End Home Theater
> 
> Monster® 600SW maximizes Dolby® Digital and DTS® surround sound performance for truly dramatic home theater. Dual solid-core bass conductors transmit low frequencies with ultimate power and accuracy, so your bass response is always deep, tight, and distortion-free. A second wire network maximizes frequency response and pitch definition. High-density dual-layer shielding ensures maximum rejection of noise and hum.


Obviously an inferior cable since it can only pass LFE from DD and DTS....I want one that can also handle DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD. :wink2: They should add something about how long and thick it is, too. :laugh2:


----------



## asere

lovinthehd said:


> Obviously an inferior cable since it can only pass LFE from DD and DTS....I want one that can also handle DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD. :wink2: They should add something about how long and thick it is, too. :laugh2:


Well yeah. It mentions passing only LFE and DD but I don't think it really heightens the LFE effect.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## lovinthehd

asere said:


> Well yeah. It mentions passing only LFE and DD but I don't think it really heightens the LFE effect.



Of course it doesn't. Best a cable can do is simply pass the signal with as little harm as possible. If it starts "heightening" anything something's wrong.


----------



## asere

lovinthehd said:


> Of course it doesn't. Best a cable can do is simply pass the signal with as little harm as possible. If it starts "heightening" anything something's wrong.


I agree. MONSTER claims without their cable you loose the thundering effect for movie watching.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469

tonyvdb said:


> witchdoctor does not want to put his money where his mouth is and anti up to my challenge I gave him.
> "Send me the cables of his choice and I will test them with true before and after results posted here"


Surely he hasn't backed down so easily? Lol
Maybe the makings of an hts showdown is afoot?



JBrax said:


> I must admit it was an entertaining thread.


Absolutely! Most fun I've had in here for awhile. 



Tonto said:


> I hoping it has died on it's own. I mean, there wasn't anywhere for it to go that I could see. No harm is appreciating expensive cables, I just don't see the cost/benefit ratio favoring the consumer. I'd be hard pressed to recommend a boutique cable. Actually, I wouldn't do it.


Agreed. It was circular. I apologize for my contribution to that if I got on anybody's nerves. My point was not at all whether boutique cables are worth more. The name and intent of this thread was based on absolutely nothing but paranoia, and conjecture, and I feel like it was also an attempt to mislead the conversation into "free home trial, send it back if not satisfied" it worked, and I am going to hold his feet to the fire. ....if he comes back. 





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NBPk402

asere said:


> I agree. MONSTER claims without their cable you loose the thundering effect for movie watching.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Well if you haven't got a cable hooked up to the sub...you will not have the thundering bass effect for watching movies. LOL


----------



## willis7469

asere said:


> I agree. MONSTER claims without their cable you loose the thundering effect for movie watching.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



Monster has been lying to people since they hit the market. It's a bit like raising kids with the threat of losing privileges or toys etc to keep them in line("your system won't have impact, airy highs blah blah blah) vs positive reenforcement for good behavior((sorry got nothin). They use fear of missing out to make t you believe they have the missing link. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469

ellisr63 said:


> Well if you haven't got a cable hooked up to the sub...you will not have the thundering bass effect for watching movies. LOL



Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469

lovinthehd said:


> Of course it doesn't. Best a cable can do is simply pass the signal with as little harm as possible. If it starts "heightening" anything something's wrong.



This is my basic philosophy too. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JBrax

asere said:


> I agree. MONSTER claims without their cable you loose the thundering effect for movie watching. Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


 Well I'm gonna get me one because my thundering effect is pretty good as is.


----------



## lovinthehd

asere said:


> I agree. MONSTER claims without their cable you loose the thundering effect for movie watching.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



Most Monster marketing claims are to be ignored. Monster should be ignored.


----------



## willis7469

lovinthehd said:


> Most Monster marketing claims are to be ignored. Monster should be ignored.



And destroyed....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NBPk402

lovinthehd said:


> Most Monster marketing claims are to be ignored. Monster should be ignored.


Ever since Monster decided they owned the word "Monster", and started to sue everyone...they lost my business.


----------



## willis7469

ellisr63 said:


> Ever since Monster decided they owned the word "Monster", and started to sue everyone...they lost my business.



Yeah. That's petty. Just like Bose suing consumer reports( and others) for "accurately" reporting with negative reviews. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469

tonyvdb said:


> Well considering at the time of this post 20 people have voted and he is the only vote in favour of high end cables I would say the concenses is it's not worth the investment. High end cables ARE a scam.



Maybe the "Witch"- Doctor hunt is over. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## asere

Yeah I bought a monster power reference line conditioner many years ago. I see nor hear any difference from my Panamax one. That's a different subject though.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Savjac

I am not a fan of high end expensive cables in part because I do not have the money to invest in them. I think that folks with the means to buy not only the cables, but a system capable of resolving differences would think the high end stuff is the bees knees. So by this thought, the cables would not be snake oil...assuming of course there are differences of which I will not really know. I have heard systems capable of resolving much more than my present system in others homes however, I pretty much ignore how good things sound.

May I ask as to how many posters in this thread actually have been able to sit down and listen to these extremely costly cables ? I am pretty sure the OP has not done this, no way no how.


----------



## tonyvdb

He apparently has some and claims hears a difference however when asked to provide actual proof that they do make a difference that is when the fun begins.


----------



## lcaillo

If you believe someone is trolling, don't respond. If his intent was to promote discord, as opposed to sharing knowledge, then simply state your opinion and move on, or ignore it. When you post a statement like you just did in your last sentence, Jack, you are departing from the topic and commenting on the person...NOT OK. If you see a troll don't feed it.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

tonyvdb said:


> Well considering at the time of this post 20 people have voted and he is the only vote in favour of high end cables I would say the concenses is it's not worth the investment. High end cables ARE a scam.


To be very precise, the poll has clearly demonstrated that the majority of responders on this site believe that "_high end cables ARE a scam._" No poll can prove it. (Remember those 50,000 Frenchmen?)


----------



## Savjac

lcaillo said:


> If you believe someone is trolling, don't respond. If his intent was to promote discord, as opposed to sharing knowledge, then simply state your opinion and move on, or ignore it. When you post a statement like you just did in your last sentence, Jack, you are departing from the topic and commenting on the person...NOT OK. If you see a troll don't feed it.


I most humbly apologize. I have deleted the post and will take care not to repeat this.


----------



## willis7469

ellisr63 said:


> Ever since Monster decided they owned the word "Monster", and started to sue everyone...they lost my business.



Just think if Bose, monster, and beats(now part of Apple) formed a conglomerate. THAT might fit into the name of this thread. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 3dbinCanada

willis7469 said:


> Just think if Bose, monster, and beats(now part of Apple) formed a conglomerate. THAT might fit into the name of this thread.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Stop!! Your scaring me!! :grin2:


----------



## FargateOne

In all this interesting discussion (this thread and others related), I am still asking to myself:

For examble: a power cable of 1m (3 feet) from the outlet to the receiver.

How much to pay (at *the retail store*) for a good, state of the art well shielded and well mounted power cable? 25$ 50$? 150$? 250$...?

Or an other way to ask the same: where is the upper limit of a reasonnable retail price for a good 1m power cable$

Or when does a retail price begin to be a snake oil cable price?

Or is the scam begins at 25$ in our example?


----------



## lovinthehd

FargateOne said:


> In all this interesting discussion (this thread and others related), I am still asking to myself:
> 
> For examble: a power cable of 1m (3 feet) from the outlet to the receiver.
> 
> How much to pay (at *the retail store*) for a good, state of the art well shielded and well mounted power cable? 25$ 50$? 150$? 250$...?
> 
> Or an other way to ask the same: where is the upper limit of a reasonnable retail price for a good 1m power cable$
> 
> Or when does a retail price begin to be a snake oil cable price?
> 
> Or is the scam begins at 25$ in our example?


What happened to the power cord that came with the receiver? Or do you need a shorter or longer one? Why else would you feel the need to replace a perfectly functional power cord let alone pay an exorbitant amount for some fairy dust someone sprinkled on it?


----------



## 3dbinCanada

FargateOne said:


> In all this interesting discussion (this thread and others related), I am still asking to myself:
> 
> For examble: a power cable of 1m (3 feet) from the outlet to the receiver.
> 
> How much to pay (at *the retail store*) for a good, state of the art well shielded and well mounted power cable? 25$ 50$? 150$? 250$...?
> 
> Or an other way to ask the same: where is the upper limit of a reasonnable retail price for a good 1m power cable$
> 
> Or when does a retail price begin to be a snake oil cable price?
> 
> Or is the scam begins at 25$ in our example?



Unless your old power chord gets frayed or damaged somehow, buying a power cord on the premise of improving sound is a scam no matter what the cost. I don't know how a power cord can remove the noise in hundreds of thousands of miles of copper wire that is attached electrically to the outlet to which one connects the power cord.


----------



## willis7469

3dbinCanada said:


> Unless your old power chord gets frayed or damaged somehow, buying a power cord on the premise of improving sound is a scam no matter what the cost. I don't know how a power cord can remove the noise in hundreds of thousands of miles of copper wire that is attached electrically to the outlet to which one connects the power cord.



I agree with this, and even though I've gone through some of the sales literature, I don't know how's it's physically possible to "add" certain characteristics. There are so many isolated pathways once that cord gets to the avr that it just doesn't seem feasible that the power cord could have any responsibility in changing the output characteristics of my speakers. Those systems are designed to work with proper voltage, and aren't influenced by any other metrics. They see power, they work. IMO 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## J&D

What is a "well shielded" power cord anyway? Is the shielding to protect the electrons moving from the wall outlet to the internal power supply of the gear it is plugged into or is it vice versa? Confused as to what the necessity is for either scenario. All replacement power cords are marketed at solving one primary problem only - power cord envy.....


----------



## willis7469

Power cord envy.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Talley

I'd be more than willing to send my cables to someone for testing. It makes a difference


----------



## lcaillo

The question that is always so difficult is "what kind of testing?" We have struggle with this many times when we have done review sessions, listening sessions, and reviews. What I would be looking for is evidence of meaningful differene AND an some explanation of why and how that difference occurs. Those who are on the IHAD (I hear a differenence) side probably don't really care about how or why as much as knowing what changes they can expect. Those on the PITM (Prove It To Me) side likely won't believe there is a difference without hard data from blind testing, and some explanation. Then there are the rest somewhere in the middle for whom a better understanding is most important. In all three cases making decisions about how to approach testing is difficult. Power cables might be one of the easiest to do, but that statement comes from my bias that they likely don't make any difference and that the measurements to explain any effects should be fairly easy to do. Even there, however, there could be some Heisenberg like issues with actual measurements...


----------



## FargateOne

For sure I am one of the IHAD who would like to get some explanation of why and how that difference occurs with data and blind testing. But I understand how difficult it is to decide how to approach testing for this matter.


----------



## lcaillo

I am not just making the point, but asking for ideas. Not just about testing techniques, but what information is meaningful?


----------



## tonyvdb

lcaillo said:


> The question that is always so difficult is "what kind of testing?"


I would simply use REW and take a measurement before and after the swap of the cable in question. If a change is there it will be seen on the graph.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

tonyvdb said:


> I would simply use REW and take a measurement before and after the swap of the cable in question. If a change is there it will be seen on the graph.


I would also like to blind listening tests conducted as well to move listener bias to an unknown state.


----------



## willis7469

3dbinCanada said:


> I would also like to blind listening tests conducted as well to move listener bias to an unknown state.



I agree. I think the only fair way to evaluate is to have both blind(double, abx etc) and REW. Then we could attribute any differences(Devils advocate) to a cable design, and possibly including electrical measurements of the cables, for further relevance. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Talley

The reality is this. A small 3-6' piece of power cord is likely unaffected least by all the other variables involved with providing power to your equipment. You could say a larger diameter cable would produce better end result however alot of equipment (sources being one) only consume a max around 700 watts. Amplifiers would fall under power hungry situations and so would sub amps but dvr's, bluray players, apple tv... etc alot of the add on equipment this stuff only consumes 25-60 watts of energy. *My XMC-1 is a prime example only requiring 35 watts!!!*

How would a piece of equipment only needing 35 watts benefit from going from a 14awg cable (good for 12-15amps) to a 10awg cable???? the xmc operating is only .3 amps! you could operate this with a 18awg cord however CODE says all appliances shall have a minimum 16awg cable and that is still good for ~7 amps.

I'll save my beliefs for what a qood quality cable consists of because quite frankly I simply do not care to be part of another debate but I did want to share some "reality" on at least the ampacity side of things.

98.61% of users out there would not see any gains from any power cord replacement. The other remaining folks would by either very sensitive/good hearing and/or having very power hungry devices.

100% my opinion.


----------



## robbo266317

This is even less of on issue here in Oz as we run 240 volts. So a 10 amp cable in the US can supply 1100 watts, yet here the same cable can supply 2400 watts. 
(A lot of the audio gear we get is 110/240 auto-sensing with hard wired cabling.)


----------



## Savjac

lcaillo said:


> The question that is always so difficult is "what kind of testing?" We have struggle with this many times when we have done review sessions, listening sessions, and reviews. What I would be looking for is evidence of meaningful differene AND an some explanation of why and how that difference occurs. Those who are on the IHAD (I hear a differenence) side probably don't really care about how or why as much as knowing what changes they can expect. Those on the PITM (Prove It To Me) side likely won't believe there is a difference without hard data from blind testing, and some explanation. Then there are the rest somewhere in the middle for whom a better understanding is most important. In all three cases making decisions about how to approach testing is difficult. Power cables might be one of the easiest to do, but that statement comes from my bias that they likely don't make any difference and that the measurements to explain any effects should be fairly easy to do. Even there, however, there could be some Heisenberg like issues with actual measurements...


I guess that I would answer upfront I don't know. Electrical testing is beyond my understanding and ability. Physical testing appears relatively easy and most likely can be found in the specifications of the wire being used.

Being part of the IHAD group I look to listening to the product in a relatively familiar system, if available, utilizing very familiar pieces of music. This I am sure will not fly in the PTIM movement as I cannot present any hard data or explanation of why or why not. Like anything else being tested there are a great many variables including length of the cable, makeup of the cable, dielectric used about the cable and of course termination in way of how you wish the cables to attach between the amplifier and the speaker or between the amplifier and the components..As such over the years I have developed a certain standard cables that seem to sound very good to me and are fitted with very good terminations. The following are cables that are standard in my system and used on a regular basis:
Blue Jeans LC1 Analog Interconnects
Belden 5T00UP speaker wire
Belden 1694A Coax interconnect
Belden 1505F subwoofer cable 
Blue Jeans optical cable if needed

Rather simple stuff really, but by having a standard I can more safely hear differences when these components are exchanged for something else. Now to be sure I do not hear differences in everything and a good example is power cables. I tried changing them out but I did not hear anything. Cables of similar construction to the ones I think are standards sometimes sound too similar to call one different from another. One of the things that I have noticed of late especially in speaker cables is that the speaker cables made of 400 or 500 individual wires wrapped in a clear jacket tends to accentuate the top end of the music while allowing the bottom end to fall back a bit and not be as prominent. Speaker cables made of heavier gauge individual wires wound together in a well constructed package sound much more overall proper to me. That is no part of the sonic soundscape is more prevalent than any other part. Solid core speaker cable seems to have the ability to squash the high-end of the music while allowing mid-base down to the very deepest bass become much stronger.

As one can tell from some of my vague findings if properly done we can actually use some cable to dial in the sound of our system. For example my speakers can run bright when hooked up to certain cables and as such those cables cannot be used by me. Same with interconnects although to a less extent, however, in my opinion interconnects have somewhat less of a difference than speaker cables. In addition to not hearing any differences in power cables I hear no differences in subwoofer cables. I do know why and I really don't question it so much or at least have not question it so much I just know that it's not something I had truly investigated.

So in a long-winded way I really don't know the answer to "what kind of testing" beyond putting it in the system and listening. If we can hear a difference could a test then be constructed to find out why the difference is present. For example why would the original monster cable allow the speakers to have an inherent brightness that is different than my standard cables. Is it the construction internally that makes a difference? I would guess it has to be the makeup of the wire and the strand count but as usual I could be wrong :innocent:


----------



## Talley

I still have issues with sonic characteristics of metals. tin, copper, gold, brass, silver, steel, aluminum all have different sonics. This "could" be a difference amongst cables.


----------



## lovinthehd

Talley said:


> I still have issues with sonic characteristics of metals. tin, copper, gold, brass, silver, steel, aluminum all have different sonics. This "could" be a difference amongst cables.


 You've proven this to yourself with a blind test, and you can pick out the metal? With all the metals involved in the signal chain must really be frustrating....


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Talley said:


> I still have issues with sonic characteristics of metals. tin, copper, gold, brass, silver, steel, aluminum all have different sonics. This "could" be a difference amongst cables.


This is just subjective speculation on your part. Without blind testing, you are swayed by sight bias, not your ears.


----------



## DqMcClain

So... how do we go about finding out? Seems to me we need a few things in order to control the experiment:

1) AC power source
2) Array of cables of known origin and parameters
3) Fixed system of reasonable quality

If we know what's coming out of the wall, i.e. available current, voltage, frequency, and a measurement of the fluctuations over a given period of time, as well as the behavior of the AC under load. That takes care of #1.

As for #2, we need a fairly robust list of specs and measurements. Conductor material/physical dimensions, insulation material/physical dimensions, electrical specs (resistance, capacitance, etc). 

And for #3, the test system can be more-or-less anything, as long as it's decent. It should probably be capable of presenting a fairly significant current draw on the circuit so we can establish whether or not the behavior of the cables is dependent on current draw, and then operate the system at a few pre-determined levels. One of these levels should be near the safe limits of either the AC source or the components. 

Start with factory-supplied cables as a baseline, and vary based on availability of subjects. Measure with REW, and live listeners just as in an amp shoot-out or speaker shoot-out, then repeat blind. Seams relatively straightforward... any volunteers?


----------



## Talley

[BLANK-][/BLANK-]


3dbinCanada said:


> This is just subjective speculation on your part. Without blind testing, you are swayed by sight bias, not your ears.


unfortunately you are probably correct. although my brain tells me the krell is better because of it's infamous name and it's stout build I hear no difference between it and my xpa-7.... 

still sight?


----------



## robbo266317

Talley said:


> [BLANK-][/BLANK-]
> 
> unfortunately you are probably correct. although my brain tells me the krell is better because of it's infamous name and it's stout build I hear no difference between it and my xpa-7....
> 
> still sight?




In an earlier post you mentioned different metals influencing the sound, I was wondering if you could give examples?
One you mentioned was Aluminum cables...

I would like to know what cables you have experienced and their construction.


----------



## willis7469

Tally, I wonder if what you mean is you have a type of "material prejudice". Similar to sight bias, but equating sound quality to conductivity. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
I am definitely in agreement about IEC power cables being a spurious investment. While I do use what would be considered by many to be high end "audio jewelry", I have always spent pennies on the dollar for said cables.

When I still lived in Florida, Sound Advice (formerly part of the HiFi Buys/Tweeter empire) went OOB. Once it went to liquidators taking over the store, I was able to purchase thousands of dollars worth of Audioquest HDMI cables for silly cheap prices. Like $25 for a $300 HDMI cable and so forth.

The only expensive speaker cables I have are a pair of Kimber Kable 8TC's custom terminated with WBT connectors that I purchased in my 20s when I lived in Charleston, SC. Unlike most high end cables, Kimber Kable boasts stellar resale value and Read Brothers in Charleston sold them to be for 40% off MSRP.

To sum up, while I highly doubt spendy cables make a difference, if there is even a .00000001% chance that they do, provided you can find them silly cheap, what do you have to lose?
Best,
Jack


----------



## AudiocRaver

I for one would love to have someone hand me two sets of speaker cables that they are SURE they can hear a difference between, and let me see if I can too via simple A-B testing of some kind. Not saying I know that I would or would not. I really am curious.

For me, the time to switch between them might be a problem.


----------



## DqMcClain

AudiocRaver said:


> I for one would love to have someone hand me two sets of speaker cables that they are SURE they can hear a difference between, and let me see if I can too via simple A-B testing of some kind. Not saying I know that I would or would not. I really am curious.
> 
> For me, the time to switch between them might be a problem.


Herein lies the problem. Almost any situation requiring a cable swap takes too much time... so is it possible to construct a switch that is transparent enough not to skew the results? All you'd need is a pair of two-pole switches so A can be completely disconnected from the system while B is used, and vice versa. 

A power cable swap should be easy enough to pull off in less than a few seconds the old-fashioned way.


----------



## lovinthehd

Don't think it has a power cord option but there's this http://avahifi.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=271&Itemid=259


----------



## AudiocRaver

Sonnie has one of those, it is great for a lot of things. The speaker end of a speaker cable would have to be switched manually. And, no, it does not do power cords.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> I for one would love to have someone hand me two sets of speaker cables that they are SURE they can hear a difference between, and let me see if I can too via simple A-B testing of some kind. Not saying I know that I would or would not. I really am curious.
> 
> For me, the time to switch between them might be a problem.


I would be happy to Wayne, I can send two, three or four sets terminated to your liking. I find banana cables to be the easiest for change outs as it can usually be accomplished in under two minutes.
Just let me know...and no, these are not in anyway messed with, they are stock cables with ends that came from the factory or ends i installed. Here are the players

Original clear Monster cable - bought new no more that 6 months ago - 12 gauge
Monoprice - bought new no more than a year ago - 12 gauge
Blue Jeans cables- 10 gauge
Anti Cables - 12 gauge

I think the Monster cable and the Anti Cable would be a good fit for you. Just let me know.


----------



## tonyvdb

Guys, the blind listening test is not the ideal test here. Simply use REW as it will show or not show a difference if there is one. It's really that simple.


----------



## lcaillo

Tony, it might seem odd coming from the measurement guy, but I think you have to start with the listening tests and try to identify differences. Wayne has it right here. Someone who is sure there are differences between two cables could provide them for others to do blind testing on, as well as measurements. The only intellectually honest way to do it is to assume that there are differences, try to reproduce them, then if that is possible, explain them with measurements.


----------



## FargateOne

lcaillo said:


> Tony, it might seem odd coming from the measurement guy, but I think you have to start with the listening tests and try to identify differences. Wayne has it right here. Someone who is sure there are differences between two cables could provide them for others to do blind testing on, as well as measurements. The only intellectually honest way to do it is to assume that there are differences, try to reproduce them, then if that is possible, explain them with measurements.


A+++ :T (from a IHAD guy!) Blind test and measures would at least point to the right direction: illusions or something real might happens between 2 cables.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Yeah, it is one of the psychoacoustical wonders of the human brain that we can detect subtle differences in a stereo listening field that can be very difficult to measure. Not impossible, but difficult. Then if you can hear a difference, that difference might point one in a particular measurement direction to find it there, too.

For instance: noise floor. Take a favorite track with just a few instruments and "empty space" in between them in the mix, and add -60dB pink noise to it. I guarantee you can hear it, given the right circumstances, and it will be difficult to measure it as part of a stronger signal.

To declare that no difference can be heard because a couple of measurements show no difference is like suggesting that because science has not yet shown a phenomenon to be possible, it must be therefore not be possible. Kinda makes us slave to the science, where the science should be serving us. That's the way I see it, anyway.

Savjac: I would like to do a test with some of your cables. First we have to figure out a test approach. Then schedule a weekend when I can get Dennis to come over and help me / lend his ears to the project. Then there is also the little issue of having sooooooooo many projects under way already.:help:


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> Yeah, it is one of the psychoacoustical wonders of the human brain that we can detect subtle differences in a stereo listening field that can be very difficult to measure. Not impossible, but difficult. Then if you can hear a difference, that difference might point one in a particular measurement direction to find it there, too.
> 
> For instance: noise floor. Take a favorite track with just a few instruments and "empty space" in between them in the mix, and add -60dB pink noise to it. I guarantee you can hear it, given the right circumstances, and it will be difficult to measure it as part of a stronger signal.
> 
> To declare that no difference can be heard because a couple of measurements show no difference is like suggesting that because science has not yet shown a phenomenon to be possible, it must be therefore not be possible. Kinda makes us slave to the science, where the science should be serving us. That's the way I see it, anyway.
> 
> Savjac: I would like to do a test with some of your cables. First we have to figure out a test approach. Then schedule a weekend when I can get Dennis to come over and help me / lend his ears to the project. Then there is also the little issue of having sooooooooo many projects under way already.:help:


Good Morning

I understand, the cables are here and when you are ready, I will get them to you as needed. There is no rush, I am using another set of cables I came across so when you are ready.....then they are yours to test.

Second, thank you for your post above, I believe very strongly in what you say. Well done.


----------



## FargateOne

AudiocRaver said:


> (...) Kinda makes us slave to the science, where the science should be serving us. That's the way I see it, anyway.
> (...)


Well said !


----------



## AudiocRaver

A couple of thoughts on testing. Not sure if either of these would really be valid or not. Just have to try them and see.

1. Hook up speaker cables A to system, with appropriate resistive padding to protect the electronics, make a stereo recording of the signals at the speaker terminals. Change to speaker cables B in system. Make a stereo recording of the signals at the speaker terminals. Now you have recordings of those two "listening experiences" at least the electronic aspect of them at the speaker terminals. With reference-grade headphone amp and headphones, you can A-B compare the two stereo recordings for any difference. You can also, using DAW software, easily sync up those two sets of signals, invert one and sum together (= subtract one from the other), and if there is any "difference" signal, it will show up (this can work only because the "room" and its acoustical variables, including subtle background and LF noise, have been eliminate from the test). However, this method leaves out the possibility that the speaker characteristics might be subtly changed by the difference in cables, affecting their sound in some way.

2. I have a pair of binaural "ears" with built-in microphones that I use for headphone measurements. Using them, the two "listening experiences" for speaker cables A and B could be recorded for A-B comparison later, again using reference headphones/amp.

It will take some experimentation to determine if either of these approaches is useful for what we are talking about.

Also, if we determine that the A-B comparison rig that Sonnie owns might be useful, I could probably con him into shipping it to me for awhile.


----------



## willis7469

Wow Wayne. I like that for having sooooooo many(quote) projects you're looking at this head on. I've always admired that about your madness!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 3dbinCanada

lcaillo said:


> Tony, it might seem odd coming from the measurement guy, but I think you have to start with the listening tests and try to identify differences. Wayne has it right here. Someone who is sure there are differences between two cables could provide them for others to do blind testing on, as well as measurements. The only intellectually honest way to do it is to assume that there are differences, try to reproduce them, then if that is possible, explain them with measurements.


Lets be clear here though that listening tests need to be controlled and blind. The listeners cannot know which cables are being used. If this is not a blind listening test, then the results are merely a subjective opinion, nothing more. 

Personally I find it disconcerting that people believe that their hearing is better than what can be measured, yet humans cannot detect changes in amplitude less than 0.5 db.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> However, this method leaves out the possibility that the speaker characteristics might be subtly changed by the difference in cables, affecting their sound in some way.



Herein lies what I would guess to be the crux of the test. Doubtless the idea behind this type of listening test is to determine any changes that may be made, good, bad or just different while using the speaker cable in any given "System". I do realize that this may raise additional issues in the camp that feels there are no differences, but without testing any given item in this case speaker wires we cannot determine how said wires act in the reference system.

This would be somewhat akin to trying to determine spatiality of a system by attaching various gizmos to either the electronics or the speakers. I am not quite sure that the science of measurements has yet to measure the reproduction of said spaciality in any given room with any given system and/or the components therein.

It is for these reasons that I feel this idea may need to be reviewed a bit.



> 2. I have a pair of binaural "ears" with built-in microphones that I use for headphone measurements. Using them, the two "listening experiences" for speaker cables A and B could be recorded for A-B comparison later, again using reference headphones/amp.


I think this may be something to look into indeed.



> It will take some experimentation to determine if either of these approaches is useful for what we are talking about.


Agreed



> Also, if we determine that the A-B comparison rig that Sonnie owns might be useful, I could probably con him into shipping it to me for awhile.


Another interesting idea, However, if one end of the cable has to be changed out, what is the harm in doing both ends and not using a box ?


----------



## Savjac

3dbinCanada said:


> Lets be clear here though that listening tests need to be controlled and blind. The listeners cannot know which cables are being used. If this is not a blind listening test, then the results are merely a subjective opinion, nothing more.
> 
> Personally I find it disconcerting that people believe that their hearing is better than what can be measured, yet humans cannot detect changes in amplitude less than 0.5 db.


I would agree that listening tests need to be controlled, however, there is no reason to do it blind. We already know that using that method almost always results in something that shows as a negative issue. I know I am some sort of nutball on this matter, however so I wont say much, but science has to date not been able to prove or disprove a great many things. Science is discovering things every day and I am sure many of those discoveries are of the slap on the forehead type. This listening test may be one of them, and Audiocraver may be the one to discover it.


----------



## AudiocRaver

3dbinCanada said:


> Lets be clear here though that listening tests need to be controlled and blind. The listeners cannot know which cables are being used. If this is not a blind listening test, then the results are merely a subjective opinion, nothing more.


Completely agree. Sighted tests can get you started, give you a direction, but blind tests are necessary to remove biases.



> Personally I find it disconcerting that people believe that their hearing is better than what can be measured, yet humans cannot detect changes in amplitude less than 0.5 db.


Allow me to clarify my own belief in this regard. I do not believe that hearing capability, as regards to the subtle _possible_ sonic differences we are talking about in this thread, is better than our ability to measure, if we have figured out the right measurement to take. In some cases, we have not, at least that I am aware of. One of the psychoacoustical talents of the human brain is the ability to act as an excellent differentiator between left and right input signals (from our ears) and translate those differences into terms that then relate very well to experiences / memories / abilities in our visual and kinesthetic sensory realms. Some subtle difference in a complex sequence of two related (stereo) signals, and now that echo that was way over _there_ sounds _*closer.*_ The difference might be great enough that one can pick it out reliably in a blind test, yet our _usual_ measurement methods might not show it.

There might very well be complex amplitude/time-phase analysis methods that could do this easily. If any readers are familiar with such, I would love to hear more about them.

A problem with in-room measures is noise floor and repeatability. Absent an anechoic chamber, LF and background noise make super-precision in-room measurements nearly impossible.

In short, I agree in principle, and conditionally partially disagree in practice.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Savjac said:


> Another interesting idea, However, if one end of the cable has to be changed out, what is the harm in doing both ends and not using a box ?


For me, instantaneous switching is a must. I am not discounting the value of some kind of longer-term testing. But in my own tests from the past (amps, DACs), any time gap between A and B, more than a second or two, makes it much harder for me.

Adding a switch box for cable differences is probably as big a variable as the cables themselves.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> For me, instantaneous switching is a must. I am not discounting the value of some kind of longer-term testing. But in my own tests from the past (amps, DACs), any time gap between A and B, more than a second or two, makes it much harder for me.
> 
> Adding a switch box for cable differences is probably as big a variable as the cables themselves.


I guess Yes that does add another variable but one that is consistent with both sets of cables. Maybe one cable does not test well this way while the other shines....well not sure how true that is.
Never the less, the cables at the speaker ends would have to still be changed, is that correct ?


----------



## AudiocRaver

Savjac said:


> ...Never the less, the cables at the speaker ends would have to still be changed, is that correct ?


Yes


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> Yes


I see, then we do need a quick draw Mcgraw speaker cable changer. 
I think they should train like the Indy pit crew members.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Savjac said:


> I guess Yes that does add another variable but one that is consistent with both sets of cables. Maybe one cable does not test well this way while the other shines....well not sure how true that is.
> Never the less, the cables at the speaker ends would have to still be changed, is that correct ?


The unknown is whether the effect of the added variable is enough to "wash out" or overwhelm the effects of the variable under test, the cables. I am guessing we are looking for some pretty subtle differences.

It is so hard to say... I have been surprised by variables in the past. When reviewing the Vapor Audio Perfect Storm speakers... During the initial review process, three different amps, three easily discernible differences in sound, all totally unexpected and very much a surprise.

Then the same speakers at RMAF last fall... two different amps on two different days, and I could hear the difference just by walking into the room, did not know the amp had been changed until I asked about it. Another total surprise.

The point being... maybe there will be bigger differences than most of us expect. Then again, maybe not. I just love being indecisive.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Savjac said:


> I would agree that listening tests need to be controlled, however, there is no reason to do it blind. We already know that using that method almost always results in something that shows as a negative issue. I know I am some sort of nutball on this matter, however so I wont say much, but science has to date not been able to prove or disprove a great many things. Science is discovering things every day and I am sure many of those discoveries are of the slap on the forehead type. This listening test may be one of them, and Audiocraver may be the one to discover it.


There is every reason under the sun to make it blind. Hearing is influenced by other senses, especially sight and that has been proven time and time again. If the end results of a blind listening test is inconclusive, its not the test that is at fault, rather its the listener unable to distinguish differences.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

AudiocRaver said:


> Completely agree. Sighted tests can get you started, give you a direction, but blind tests are necessary to remove biases.


Sighted tests lead you to biased selection based on sight, not on just what you hear. That is the wrong road travelled. 




AudiocRaver said:


> Allow me to clarify my own belief in this regard. I do not believe that hearing capability, as regards to the subtle _possible_ sonic differences we are talking about in this thread, is better than our ability to measure, if we have figured out the right measurement to take.


The physics of signal propagation is very well understood and hasn't changed in 50 years. There is nothing else to measure. 



AudiocRaver said:


> In some cases, we have not, at least that I am aware of. One of the psychoacoustical talents of the human brain is the ability to act as an excellent differentiator between left and right input signals (from our ears) and translate those differences into terms that then relate very well to experiences / memories / abilities in our visual and kinesthetic sensory realms. Some subtle difference in a complex sequence of two related (stereo) signals, and now that echo that was way over _there_ sounds _*closer.*_ The difference might be great enough that one can pick it out reliably in a blind test, yet our _usual_ measurement methods might not show it.
> 
> There might very well be complex amplitude/time-phase analysis methods that could do this easily. If any readers are familiar with such, I would love to hear more about them.
> 
> A problem with in-room measures is noise floor and repeatability. Absent an anechoic chamber, LF and background noise make super-precision in-room measurements nearly impossible.
> 
> In short, I agree in principle, and conditionally partially disagree in practice.


So how would sighted tests which just introduce a very strong sub-conscious bias make a listening test any easier? I fail to see the logic.


----------



## Savjac

3dbinCanada said:


> Sighted tests lead you to biased selection based on sight, not on just what you hear. That is the wrong road traveled.
> 
> The physics of signal propagation is very well understood and hasn't changed in 50 years. There is nothing else to measure.
> So how would sighted tests which just introduce a very strong sub-conscious bias make a listening test any easier? I fail to see the logic.


I know this was not directed at me, but, blind tests introduce very strong sub conscious biases as well. Generally we are told that there is no difference to be heard
before we sit down. As such, we enter into the same bias as being sighted. As long as a difference can be heard, then there is a difference, it does not have to be repeated time and again to be true but in many cases it can be repeated.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Savjac said:


> I know this was not directed at me, but, blind tests introduce very strong sub conscious biases as well. Generally we are told that there is no difference to be heard
> before we sit down. As such, we enter into the same bias as being sighted. As long as a difference can be heard, then there is a difference, it does not have to be repeated time and again to be true but in many cases it can be repeated.


That is your interpretation of a blind listening test. I doubt very much that people entering a blind listening test would be told that. If they were told that upfront, then I can see a very real skew in the results. 

There has to be enough of a statistical difference in test results to indicate one way or the other. A one time shot is not going to provide you with enough evidence to make the results conclusive.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

3dbinCanada said:


> Sighted tests lead you to biased selection based on sight, not on just what you hear. That is the wrong road travelled.


Agreed.



> So how would sighted tests which just introduce a very strong sub-conscious bias make a listening test any easier? I fail to see the logic.


It would not make the blind test any easier but might make the results more acceptable to the subject. For example, I have no objection to pretrial non-blind auditions and comparisons as long as the test is completely randomized and blind for subjects and testers. Demonstrating their own statistical results from the blind tests to subjects who were convinced otherwise in non-blind auditions would be a powerful emotional tool in getting people to re-assess their biases.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Savjac said:


> I know this was not directed at me, but, blind tests introduce very strong sub conscious biases as well.


I don't buy this.


> Generally we are told that there is no difference to be heard before we sit down. As such, we enter into the same bias as being sighted.


No competent test designer would permit this unless he was testing for a bias and not an unbiased outcome. 


> As long as a difference can be heard, then there is a difference,.............


There may be a difference in subjective perception but it is biased by so many variables that it must be tested under controlled conditions in order to determine its consistency.

Of course, if you do not care about objective reality, that's OK. onder:


----------



## robbo266317

In double blind tests you shouldn't be told by the tester to expect or not expect a result. :nono:

They may give you a score card with the usual audio terms and ask you to rate each one, from say one to ten. eg, sound stage depth, vocal clarity, Bass muddiness or tightness, etc.

Then the test will be re-run with a random device selected, be it cable, amp, speaker or whatever item the test relates to (If it is cables then, of course, only the cables are swapped). This means that you may review item A, and then be asked to review the next one, which occasionally, is again item A. This checks that the apparent effect heard and reported is measurable and repeatable and not simply listener bias.


----------



## Talley

My uncle said that the issue with testing one vs. another is you need to limit yourself to 20-30 seconds of a clip that your brain will start to forget fine details beyond that so for those that listen to an entire song are really not helping themselves out at all


----------



## Savjac

Kal Rubinson said:


> I don't buy this.
> No competent test designer would permit this unless he was testing for a bias and not an unbiased outcome.
> There may be a difference in subjective perception but it is biased by so many variables that it must be tested under controlled conditions in order to determine its consistency.
> 
> Of course, if you do not care about objective reality, that's OK. onder:


Thanks for your reply Kal, been reading you for years so thank you for many reviews of note. 
Personally I do tend to think of this hobby as subjective as each person involved may have a different experience while listening to the same system. There is no objective listening tests imo as we all are showing our personal biases for different sounds. Some may put a priority on the bottom end, some the top end and others spaciality all of which tend to be subjective.
I tend to think that even science has a bit of wiggle room in the interpretation of its results. 
Can science tell us about which of two Steinway pianos in a room will any given professional pianist will choose for a concert the very evening he or she tries the pianos out ? Is there a method beyond playing them ?

Do professional reviewers do their reviews in a vacuum or for the most part do the reviewers have a good grasp on what is before them ? Should reviews in major journals be only done in a blind format ? Would that be considered subjective or objective ? Please know that I am in no way being negative about reviewers as you and others have taught us how to listen and actually created a language by which we describe what we hear going all the way back to J. Gordon Holt and Harry Pearson. Based upon my readings here and in other publications, the standard result of these blind listening tests is that there is not enough variation between the test answers so as to provide any acceptable results. And yet, we have a hobby based on the belief that what we have is what we like best....and not that $200 pioneer receiver that someone who designed a blind test theoretically found to sound the equal of the big names in the industry and yet failed to use one for their system. 

Just some musings that I feel strongly about. Back to our regular scheduled program. :innocent:


----------



## Savjac

Talley said:


> My uncle said that the issue with testing one vs. another is you need to limit yourself to 20-30 seconds of a clip that your brain will start to forget fine details beyond that so for those that listen to an entire song are really not helping themselves out at all


Completely disagree here, like anything, we should live with something for a time and listen to more than 30 seconds. 
Can you imagine picking out a car by driving it less than a minute ?? There is a wealth of minutiae in them there musical notes.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Savjac said:


> Thanks for your reply Kal, been reading you for years so thank you for many reviews of note.


Thanks.



> Personally I do tend to think of this hobby as subjective as each person involved may have a different experience while listening to the same system. There is no objective listening tests imo as we all are showing our personal biases for different sounds. Some may put a priority on the bottom end, some the top end and others spaciality all of which tend to be subjective.


There is a difference between your conscious preference/ perception and whether or not there is a real and objective difference between two devices. It is not presupposed that they will be in agreement with you or not. However, the only way is to perform well-constructed blind, randomized tests. If you do not care, OK.


> Do professional reviewers do their reviews in a vacuum or for the most part do the reviewers have a good grasp on what is before them ? Should reviews in major journals be only done in a blind format ? Would that be considered subjective or objective ? Please know that I am in no way being negative about reviewers as you and others have taught us how to listen and actually created a language by which we describe what we hear going all the way back to J. Gordon Holt and Harry Pearson.


I doubt if many do objective blind tests but I do them occasionally when feasible. OTOH, my subjective observations are usually accompanied by JA's bench measurements.



> Based upon my readings here and in other publications, the standard result of these blind listening tests is that there is not enough variation between the test answers so as to provide any acceptable results.


I am not certain about your wording but, if the tests are well-designed (and few are), we should neither dismiss nor abandon them but use them to reflect on our subjective, sighted, biased impressions.



> And yet, we have a hobby based on the belief that what we have is what we like best....


I hope so.


> .......and not that $200 pioneer receiver that someone who designed a blind test theoretically found to sound the equal of the big names in the industry and yet failed to use one for their system.


A red herring.


----------



## Savjac

Ok, thank you for taking the time to respond, they mean a great deal.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Even where differences are subtle, I have no objection to sighted testing "just for fun," or for one's own info or for a purchase selection. We all do it all the time. But I can also see how easy it is to latch onto a preference and make the same choice repeatedly, how easy it is to be misled by any number of non-audio factors.

Blind testing: there are a lot of ways to set up a test. Some are extremely non-friendly toward distinguishing subtle differences. Others make it fairly easy, while remaining scientifically valid. While double-blind testing takes the test administrator out of the equation as far as influencing results, the test designer can have an agenda that shows up in the design of the test. As a test designer, I could define a test procedure that would almost guarantee that subtle cable differences would not be heard. Or I could design a test that is more listener friendly, where subtle differences might be heard by a discerning ear. I would lean toward the latter, where another test designer, perhaps with a "cables is cables" agenda, might lean toward the former.

The process we used in our amplifier eval a year ago had me completely lost. The process in oUr DAC eval last November was a diferent story, once I got the hang of that process.

Can the difference be measured? Probably, given the right measurement method. Every measurement contains noise. Will the desired parameter show up above the noise level, or be buried therein? If a difference shows up primarily as a change in frequency response, then simple FR sweeps will probably do the job. If the difference is perceived spatially, it is not such a simple matter to determine what particular measurement will show that difference. Phase? Impulse response? Square wave response? A small difference in low-frequency response, for instance, is easily buried in noise in an impulse response measurement, although, in theory, the information is there. "Just measure it" seems an overly-simplistic answer to me. A listening test first can help send the measurer to the right instrument and the right test and save a lot of time and energy. With too much data to sort through, the particular data points in question might be overlooked altogether. A human problem, but a problem nonetheless.

Savjac: My last car purchase decision took about 15 seconds driving that car.:wink2: Love ya man, keep talkin'.

Edit: If the difference you are trying to measure somehow has a transient nature, the whole measurement problem gets a WHOLE LOT harder. Luckily, that is unlikely with cables.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> Even where differences are subtle, I have no objection to sighted testing "just for fun," or for one's own info or for a purchase selection. We all do it all the time. But I can also see how easy it is to latch onto a preference and make the same choice repeatedly, how easy it is to be misled by any number of non-audio factors.
> 
> Blind testing: there are a lot of ways to set up a test. Some are extremely non-friendly toward distinguishing subtle differences. Others make it fairly easy, while remaining scientifically valid. While double-blind testing takes the test administrator out of the equation as far as influencing results, the test designer can have an agenda that shows up in the design of the test. As a test designer, I could define a test procedure that would almost guarantee that subtle cable differences would not be heard. Or I could design a test that is more listener friendly, where subtle differences might be heard by a discerning ear. I would lean toward the latter, where another test designer, perhaps with a "cables is cables" agenda, might lean toward the former.
> 
> The process we used in our amplifier eval a year ago had me completely lost. The process in oUr DAC eval last November was a diferent story, once I got the hang of that process.
> 
> Can the difference be measured? Probably, given the right measurement method. Every measurement contains noise. Will the desired parameter show up above the noise level, or be buried therein? If a difference shows up primarily as a change in frequency response, then simple FR sweeps will probably do the job. If the difference is perceived spatially, it is not such a simple matter to determine what particular measurement will show that difference. Phase? Impulse response? Square wave response? A small difference in low-frequency response, for instance, is easily buried in noise in an impulse response measurement, although, in theory, the information is there. "Just measure it" seems an overly-simplistic answer to me. A listening test first can help send the measurer to the right instrument and the right test and save a lot of time and energy. With too much data to sort through, the particular data points in question might be overlooked altogether. A human problem, but a problem nonetheless.
> 
> Savjac: My last car purchase decision took about 15 seconds driving that car.:wink2: Love ya man, keep talkin'.


You Know Audiocraver, I made my car purchase in about 60 seconds :rofl: Maybe I should not keep talking, I might embarrass myself further. As you may be aware I have been doing these tests correctly or incorrectly depending upon one's beliefs over the past, ahhh number of years and have put in place methodology to do same and would be happy to share with your good self should you wish.
I truly believe that like other interests or hobbies, baseball, photography, racecar driving and many other challenging hobbies, one must learn the intricacies of those hobbies and practice them on a regular basis to stay on top of your game. Listening is really no different in that the uninitiated might not hear some of the things we talk about in these pages. Another possibility is maybe any given system will not necessarily reproduce the differences we discuss and as such the listener even though somewhat experienced may not find any differences or changes obvious.

I agree with your statement that a listening test first can help send the measure to the right instrument and the right test needed to make a subjective statement of findings. In keeping the testing as simple as possible one might in time be able to keep the huge amount of data and differences to a minimum. So I do think maybe these thoughts that you have could be the answer to satisfying both camps, although I am most assuredly wrong in that thought. I have no idea what to look for and I would question the reader as to whether or not one could actually make a personal judgment if one were presented nothing but scientific readouts. Could those readouts of any given component translate into a sound or group of sounds in a system ? By system I mean source, amplification and the transducer taken together as a whole as opposed to components.

I wonder why there would be a problem to know what objects we are listening to or are about to listen to and have me given listening session. I feel we would truly have a problem if we would put forth craver speaker cables against jack speaker cables in a listening session as there would surely be some bias if we were the designers. However as one that does not design speaker cable I really have no dog in the fight so to speak as to which cable makes me feel at home. First however the main reviewer would have to know their system pretty intimately and in particular the new items being introduced into that system would then quite possibly appear as different.

Wow that is a lot of rhetoric for what should be a somewhat easy process. With that in mind I do have a couple of really nice dacs we could try. :hide:


----------



## Savjac

Kal Rubinson said:


> I doubt if many do objective blind tests but I do them occasionally when feasible. OTOH, my subjective observations are usually accompanied by JA's bench measurements.


Would you be able to reach a sound conclusion of what any specific item would sound like if you were to just read JA's figures. ( I have met him several times, what a nice man)



> A red herring.


Nope, a finding by Clarks crew...

Now this....


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Savjac said:


> Would you be able to reach a sound conclusion of what any specific item would sound like if you were to just read JA's figures. ( I have met him several times, what a nice man)


Nope. OTOH, it often informs me about what I had been hearing or, just as often, something I must have missed.


----------



## Savjac

Kal Rubinson said:


> Nope. OTOH, it often informs me about what I had been hearing or, just as often, something I must have missed.



Great, so that would tend to fit with our thoughts on listening, testing and looking for a correlation between the two as AC suggests. This might be a great way to go about some listening tests in the future although to a much lesser extent than JA.


----------



## DqMcClain

The last few posts illustrate very nicely a point I was dancing around in a thread about headphones.... there may be quantitative differences between two components that occupy the same purpose in a system, and those differences can be measured. The perfect example of this is tube amplification vs solid state amplification vs digital amplification. Assuming the quality of the components in question is sufficiently high, (i.e. NOT a cheap Class T amp against the best Class A vac tube you can buy) you can quantify the linearities or lack thereof for each design of amp, and rank them according to how linear they are. You can do exactly the same thing for efficiency (current draw vs acoustic output and heat loss for a given speaker), and rank them again. 

But what you cannot account for in a purely quantitative test is whether or not the listener LIKES the non-linearities. I've heard tube amps, and I love 'em... but the numbers tell a different story.


----------



## lcaillo

AudiocRaver said:


> Completely agree. Sighted tests can get you started, give you a direction, but blind tests are necessary to remove biases.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to clarify my own belief in this regard. I do not believe that hearing capability, as regards to the subtle _possible_ sonic differences we are talking about in this thread, is better than our ability to measure, if we have figured out the right measurement to take. In some cases, we have not, at least that I am aware of. One of the psychoacoustical talents of the human brain is the ability to act as an excellent differentiator between left and right input signals (from our ears) and translate those differences into terms that then relate very well to experiences / memories / abilities in our visual and kinesthetic sensory realms. Some subtle difference in a complex sequence of two related (stereo) signals, and now that echo that was way over _there_ sounds _*closer.*_ The difference might be great enough that one can pick it out reliably in a blind test, yet our _usual_ measurement methods might not show it.
> 
> There might very well be complex amplitude/time-phase analysis methods that could do this easily. If any readers are familiar with such, I would love to hear more about them.
> 
> A problem with in-room measures is noise floor and repeatability. Absent an anechoic chamber, LF and background noise make super-precision in-room measurements nearly impossible.
> 
> In short, I agree in principle, and conditionally partially disagree in practice.


We are very much on the same page, Wayne. One methodology that I have wanted to apply for some time that might allow us to get at subtle time scale differences is wavelet analysis.


----------



## tonyvdb

Whatever happened to the OP? Was he really just a hit and run poster? Seems more and more likely he was just here to get people to buy those pricy cables.


----------



## FargateOne

At least, let us do one test, as good as possible, and try to see where it goes. In french we say: le mieux est l'ennemi du bien !


----------



## willis7469

tonyvdb said:


> Whatever happened to the OP? Was he really just a hit and run poster? Seems more and more likely he was just here to get people to buy those pricy cables.



He's probably coming up with new ways to say try out these cables...... Seems he got beat up pretty bad elsewhere too. 
On the flip side, this thread is only getting more interesting. I'm really looking forward to see what Wayne, and everybody comes up with. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AudiocRaver

lcaillo said:


> We are very much on the same page, Wayne. One methodology that I have wanted to apply for some time that might allow us to get at subtle time scale differences is wavelet analysis.


I will have to study up on that!



Savjac said:


> As you may be aware I have been doing these tests correctly or incorrectly depending upon one's beliefs over the past, ahhh number of years and have put in place methodology to do same and would be happy to share with your good self should you wish.


Between you and me, I am constantly in the mode of comparing and evaluating and always challenging myself as a self-critic and truth seeker to be as unbiased and as objective as though doing blind testing. I do not know if that is even possible, but I do my best, then question myself and start over and try to do even better. I do not expect it to replace blind testing, though. At some point I count on real blind testing to validate my own critical listening processes.

I wonder, for what it is worth, how much of your negative opinion of blind testing is based on experience with blind testing that is, by design (consciously or unconsciously), weighted against success for subtle sonic differences. There are those who really do not want to hear that people can hear such differences and will create a test methodology that helps prove their point. Even some attempts to illustrate absence of agenda sometimes have agendas - scientists are people, too, although many would like us to believe otherwise. Ain't life funny! If you did blind testing and actually had some success with it and found that some of your own sighted testing was validated, perhaps your view of blind testing might be different?



> I have no idea what to look for and I would question the reader as to whether or not one could actually make a personal judgment if one were presented nothing but scientific readouts. Could those readouts of any given component translate into a sound or group of sounds in a system ? By system I mean source, amplification and the transducer taken together as a whole as opposed to components.


I have tried this off and on for years. My conclusion is: IT DEPENDS (thank you, Leonard). Looking at general specs and selecting for less-subtle sonic characteristics - lower distortion, flatter frequency response, etc - yes to a certain extent. I have tried to set up speakers, SS&I specifically, based on measurements, and have failed miserably every time. Once good initial SS&I have been achieved by ear, fine tuning with measurements helps immensely. Then looking at the measurements usually leads to "well of course, that SHOULD sound great, and it does." Those measurements after the fact can even help explain why a setup sounds so good, and such measurements have guided my understanding of SS&I phenomena over the last few years. But if I had to set up good SS&I based on measures alone, I would be embarrassed at the result.

It is precisely that experience that leads me to say: "Let me hear it first!" When reviewing, other than making sure I have not received a bad (poorly matched) pair of speakers, I prefer to listen before taking a bunch of measurements. The measurements often help explain what I have heard, and sometimes indicate something I might have missed, which sends me back to listen again, wondering, "OK, how did I miss that? Careless? Too subtle to hear? Wrong tracks to let me hear it?" Listening as a seeker of truth, science always supports the process and invariably leads to higher plateaus of pleasure in the end. Subjective and objective CAN work hand in hand, and CAN reinforce and enhance each other, but the mindset has its challenges. When I get out of my head and listen for fun, I don't tink there are many who love and enjoy the experience more than I do. I also don't think there are many who work harder at achieving the environment for that experience, FWIW. Not bragging - much - just pointing out that the work and the play (is there really a difference?), the objective and the subjective, constantly cannibalize and nourish each other. I will take the pleasure built upon truth over the pleasure built upon deception - self or otherwise - any day.

Wow, did I really say all of that out loud? Almost deleted that last paragraph, but I am listening to Deerhoof on YouTube, and their music inspires naked truthfulness, so there you go.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Talley said:


> My uncle said that the issue with testing one vs. another is you need to limit yourself to 20-30 seconds of a clip that your brain will start to forget fine details beyond that so for those that listen to an entire song are really not helping themselves out at all


I agree. Its also been proven that the accuracy of long term auditory memory is very poor and that the accuracy drops off substantially after 2 minutes in a comparison. That's why long term comparison tests are rather pointless.


----------



## AudiocRaver

3dbinCanada said:


> I agree. Its also been proven that the accuracy of long term auditory memory is very poor and that the accuracy drops off substantially after 2 minutes in a comparison. That's why long term comparison tests are rather pointless.


I agree as well. For me, with subtle differences, it is more like 10 to 15 seconds. There have been a few occasions where longer term testing has helped me realize a difference, but it was with differences that turned out to be relatively BIG, and I ended up a little embarrassed I had not noticed them much sooner.


----------



## Savjac

First let me say that this post is both beautiful and the way it was written and deeply thoughtful in the details presented, Thank You. I do hope I can learn from this missive.



AudiocRaver said:


> Between you and me, I am constantly in the mode of comparing and evaluating and always challenging myself as a self-critic and truth seeker to be as unbiased and as objective as though doing blind testing. I do not know if that is even possible, but I do my best, then question myself and start over and try to do even better. I do not expect it to replace blind testing, though. At some point I count on real blind testing to validate my own critical listening processes.
> I wonder, for what it is worth, how much of your negative opinion of blind testing is based on experience with blind testing that is, by design (consciously or unconsciously), weighted against success for subtle sonic differences. There are those who really do not want to hear that people can hear such differences and will create a test methodology that helps prove their point. Even some attempts to illustrate absence of agenda sometimes have agendas - scientists are people, too, although many would like us to believe otherwise. Ain't life funny! If you did blind testing and actually had some success with it and found that some of your own sighted testing was validated, perhaps your view of blind testing might be different?


Good question and since you have been so brutally honest I will as well. Yes I would imagine that a part of my negative opinion on blind testing is that differences howsoever large or small may no longer be apparent to me in the test. Further knowing, That after reading multiple articles Blind tests and double-blind tests, the results generally 10 to favor no differences or should I say no statistical differences although more often than not attendees do hear differences, they cannot do it enough times in a row to favor a scientific or at least a mathematical equation. As such it would seem to me, that like Thomas Edison when trying to discover which element would best serve his light bulbs, and he noted "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." Herein lies my problem with these tests in that people do actually hear differences but are relegated to matching those differences against the numerical probability of say getting it right more than half the time. I feel getting it right once constitutes some success. Accordingly I would be more than happy to do a blind test for my own education as like you I would like to know my own truth.





> I have tried this off and on for years. My conclusion is: IT DEPENDS (thank you, Leonard). Looking at general specs and selecting for less-subtle sonic characteristics - lower distortion, flatter frequency response, etc - yes to a certain extent. I have tried to set up speakers, SS&I specifically, based on measurements, and have failed miserably every time. Once good initial SS&I have been achieved by ear, fine tuning with measurements helps immensely. Then looking at the measurements usually leads to "well of course, that SHOULD sound great, and it does." Those measurements after the fact can even help explain why a setup sounds so good, and such measurements have guided my understanding of SS&I phenomena over the last few years. But if I had to set up good SS&I based on measures alone, I would be embarrassed at the result.


This is very telling and I must thank you for putting these thoughts forward as it does answer my reverse testing theory that Kal also answered in one of the threads above in that we really cannot tell how any given component is going to sound in any given system based upon the scientific test results provided. However, listening first and then applying some of those tests to the listening session will explain many things about what might have been heard or as your example says about set up of any given component. I have some of the components to be able to do these tests and measurements, however I must admit to a certain misunderstanding when it comes to reading the instructions of REW and implementing same into the workings of these tests. In other words I just don't follow. I am a hands-on kind I always have been and have never been able to really learn a thing by reading about it as much as I learn by doing it If that makes sense.



> It is precisely that experience that leads me to say: "Let me hear it first!" When reviewing, other than making sure I have not received a bad (poorly matched) pair of speakers, I prefer to listen before taking a bunch of measurements. The measurements often help explain what I have heard, and sometimes indicate something I might have missed, which sends me back to listen again, wondering, "OK, how did I miss that? Careless? Too subtle to hear? Wrong tracks to let me hear it?" Listening as a seeker of truth, science always supports the process and invariably leads to higher plateaus of pleasure in the end. Subjective and objective CAN work hand in hand, and CAN reinforce and enhance each other, but the mindset has its challenges. When I get out of my head and listen for fun, I don't tink there are many who love and enjoy the experience more than I do. I also don't think there are many who work harder at achieving the environment for that experience, FWIW. Not bragging - much - just pointing out that the work and the play (is there really a difference?), the objective and the subjective, constantly cannibalize and nourish each other. I will take the pleasure built upon truth over the pleasure built upon deception - self or otherwise - any day.


So it would appear the you are indeed a fan of the red pill as opposed to the blue one. I think, that in reading this wonderful paragraph I'm in complete agreement, I think.Like most things we do in life we must first work and then reap the benefits of said work by allowing ourselves, in the case of the reproduction of music, to move to another plane in our day-to-day existence that would allow us to enjoy what others worked so hard at trying to bring to us. There is no benefit in sitting in our rooms and turning on our stuff if we do not enjoy it as much as our minds melded to our equipment allow us to do. I remember very clearly in 1979, purchasing my copy of "The Wall", putting the album on the turntable, turning up the volume and within a safe three minutes being brokered mentally to a place I had really not been before. This is my first foray into high-end equipment and I had really not experienced the realm of dynamics, soundstage, and overall scale previously. This very column is one of those that decidedly made my choice for me as to what my main hobby would be thus overtaking photography by a wide margin. I don't really know that this experience is pleasure built upon truth is the album is made up of so many different internally constructed parts that I could never quantify exactly what I was or was not hearing. Nevertheless it rocked me to my very soul.



> Wow, did I really say all of that out loud? Almost deleted that last paragraph, but I am listening to Deerhoof on YouTube, and their music inspires naked truthfulness, so there you go.


Well there you have, personally I am truly glad that you did not as it will resonate With most if not all of us As fellows in this somewhat challenging hobby. I look forward to your next installment with great anticipation that all I can say is, bless you Wayne.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> I agree as well. For me, with subtle differences, it is more like 10 to 15 seconds. There have been a few occasions where longer term testing has helped me realize a difference, but it was with differences that turned out to be relatively BIG, and I ended up a little embarrassed I had not noticed them much sooner.


Well now I must say that I am quite lucky that I have not been as yet band with all of the strange missives I have presented, as suchI think I can get away with one more.

Taken as a whole I find that I agree with this statement however I would listen backwards of your presentation. I listen to a longer piece several times before I go back and listen to small sections to either ensure I'm correct or ensure I am incorrect into my beliefs. Frankly after rereading your posting you might actually be saying the same thing. I am so confused……:dontknow:


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Savjac said:


> Good question and since you have been so brutally honest I will as well. Yes I would imagine that a part of my negative opinion on blind testing is that differences howsoever large or small may no longer be apparent to me in the test.


My interpretation is that, if the test is proper, you are not really hearing the differences you think you are and your original perceptions are based on biases, internal and external, of your regular listening. I am not denying these perceptions but suggesting that they are the result of many influences, not just the sound.



> Further knowing, That after reading multiple articles Blind tests and double-blind tests, the results generally 10 to favor no differences or should I say no statistical differences although more often than not attendees do hear differences, they cannot do it enough times in a row to favor a scientific or at least a mathematical equation.


Unless you can see a procedural flaw, it indicates that there is no evidence of a difference. (Note my wording.) I think it tells you something about audiophilia.



> This is very telling and I must thank you for putting these thoughts forward as it does answer my reverse testing theory that Kal also answered in one of the threads above in that we really cannot tell how any given component is going to sound in any given system based upon the scientific test results provided.


That's a bit absolute. Measurements can be predictive of certain sonic characteristics but they do not (at present) completely encompass all characteristics. For example, there are features of a speaker's on-axis and off-axis FR which are reliably predictive of brightness or lack thereof.


----------



## Savjac

Kal Rubinson said:


> My interpretation is that, if the test is proper, you are not really hearing the differences you think you are and your original perceptions are based on biases, internal and external, of your regular listening. I am not denying these perceptions but suggesting that they are the result of many influences, not just the sound.


Understood, although not in complete agreement.



> Unless you can see a procedural flaw, it indicates that there is no evidence of a difference. (Note my wording.) I think it tells you something about audiophilia.


Again understood, especially your wording, and yet audiophilia exists. Do other hobbies create such scientific furver in way of of testing vs perception ?



> That's a bit absolute. Measurements can be predictive of certain sonic characteristics but they do not (at present) completely encompass all characteristics. For example, there are features of a speaker's on-axis and off-axis FR which are reliably predictive of brightness or lack thereof.


Understood and Thank You for this.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Savjac said:


> Well now I must say that I am quite lucky that I have not been as yet band with all of the strange missives I have presented, as suchI think I can get away with one more.
> 
> Taken as a whole I find that I agree with this statement however I would listen backwards of your presentation. I listen to a longer piece several times before I go back and listen to small sections to either ensure I'm correct or ensure I am incorrect into my beliefs. Frankly after rereading your posting you might actually be saying the same thing. I am so confused&#133;&#133;:dontknow:


The example I was thinking of as I wrote that was a noise floor discovery I made not too long ago. The HDMI connection from my music server had been in use regularly for several months, and I was very happy with its performance, or so I thought. One day as an experiment I connected my backup music drive to my Sony Blu-ray player and discovered I could play the tracks directly from it. I listened through an entire album, a Radiohead album I had heard numerous times, I was very familiar with, and marveled, I mean really was surprised and somewhat taken aback by how big and open the mix sounded, the spaces in between the sounds were so dark, like the vacuum of deep space. I did not remember the album sounding that good to me before .

When it finished, I went over to the music server and started it up on that side of the room, the very same tracks only coming into my system from a different source. Immediately I could tell there was a difference in the openness. I went back and forth several times to be sure. Once I determined it was indeed a noise floor problem, measurements confirmed that this was the case.

Some kind of AB testing might have led me to the conclusion faster, but the point here is that it was longer, unhurried testing during which I discovered that something was not right. Or rather that it sounded so much better than I remembered it did, which led me to comparing and measuring.

I'm sure this level of detail with you to point out that
- it was a longer listening session during which the discovery was made and
- it was a difference that I could remember well enough for it not to be lost the minute or so it took me to go from one source to the other.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> The example I was thinking of as I wrote that was a noise floor discovery I made not too long ago. The HDMI connection from my music server had been in use regularly for several months, and I was very happy with its performance, or so I thought. One day as an experiment I connected my backup music drive to my Sony Blu-ray player and discovered I could play the tracks directly from it. I listened through an entire album, a Radiohead album I had heard numerous times, I was very familiar with, and marveled, I mean really was surprised and somewhat taken aback by how big and open the mix sounded, the spaces in between the sounds were so dark, like the vacuum of deep space. I did not remember the album sounding that good to me before .
> 
> When it finished, I went over to the music server and started it up on that side of the room, the very same tracks only coming into my system from a different source. Immediately I could tell there was a difference in the openness. I went back and forth several times to be sure. Once I determined it was indeed a noise floor problem, measurements confirmed that this was the case.
> 
> Some kind of AB testing might have led me to the conclusion faster, but the point here is that it was longer, unhurried testing during which I discovered that something was not right. Or rather that it sounded so much better than I remembered it did, which led me to comparing and measuring.
> 
> I'm sure this level of detail with you to point out that
> - it was a longer listening session during which the discovery was made and
> - it was a difference that I could remember well enough for it not to be lost the minute or so it took me to go from one source to the other.


Excellent, this is what I am talking about. This could now lead to another test of what is causing the discrepancy. I am not sure how you have everything set up but it sounds like many items were involved in this variable.


----------



## beyond 1000

*Re: Another Scam That Ticks Me Off*



witchdoctor said:


> Here is another scam. Beware of the cable company that claims to "save" you money. Look at the shoddy construction of this Monoprice cable and ask yourself, does it make any sense to partner this type of quality in a system costing thousands of dollars? There is a BIG difference between buying low price cables and just buying low quality merchandise. I think you need to compare at least 3 different brands of cables in various quality ranges before deciding what to go with, just like you would a speaker or turntable.
> 
> https://youtu.be/43mzUfZMSvY


I have a Marantz 8801 processor hooked up to an Anthem Statement P5 multichannel amplifier and a smaller Outlaw for my surround backs and I use Blue Jeans Cable LC-1s for interconnects. The LC-1s are solid with a great build and the system sounds fantastic. At the end of it all the soul of the system is the Marantz coupled to the Anthem.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Savjac said:


> Excellent, this is what I am talking about. This could now lead to another test of what is causing the discrepancy. I am not sure how you have everything set up but it sounds like many items were involved in this variable.


I solved a similar problem a few years ago, suspecting ground noise funnies, by changing from long RCA interconnects to TOSLINK (optical). In this case, a power conditioner (Furman PST-8D), with filtering isolation between outlet sets, did the trick.


----------



## AudiocRaver

A statement I have danced around and implied, but not made outright, and some are certain to disagree...

I believe it is _possible_ for sighted testing to be as effective as blind testing, but it is highly improbable that it is ever achieved by most listeners, even when they think they have. Of course, no one looks at an expensive amp or cable and thinks, "That sounds better," and then thinks, "But I am surely biased by the price and shiny finish and peer pressure, so my preference is suspect." Self-deception generally (always?) finds ways to hide itself, or it would not be so common in the world.


----------



## FargateOne

I am for "Let me hear it first!" for the simple reason that little change in toeing the fronts can make big difference in the SS&I but near no difference in REW curves. At least in my amateur experience.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> A statement I have danced around and implied, but not made outright, and some are certain to disagree...
> 
> I believe it is _possible_ for sighted testing to be as effective as blind testing, but it is highly improbable that it is ever achieved by most listeners, even when they think they have. Of course, no one looks at an expensive amp or cable and thinks, "That sounds better," and then thinks, "But I am surely biased by the price and shiny finish and peer pressure, so my preference is suspect." Self-deception generally (always?) finds ways to hide itself, or it would not be so common in the world.


As an observer I most certainly cannot find anything further to discuss about this post. I too believe that many good people may never be able to do this. I also agree in your second premise that those that can afford and listen to more expensive stuff are not likely to browbeat themselves into believing that they are exceedingly biased. I have not been very active in the high dollar range of goods and as such I tend not to worry so much about it other than to agree that yes it does look sharp and yes I've been told that maybe it might sound or perform better than this little dinky RadioShack piece that I have in my left hand that was made in 1969.

I did recently have a listen to acquaintances system that I would guess cost well into the $250,000 range and was completely shocked by the amount of great big fat cabling that was laying about floor behind the speakers and equipment. I don't mean average garden hose type cabling I mean something more akin to radiator hose cabling and I had to ask myself what is the difference. Because that is all that he had in the room I was unable to asked to listen to anything else but in reality I probably would not have had the nerve feeling that I would look rather stupid by asking him to lower the standards of what he felt his system should be. In the end of the day all I could do was shake my head and say that's the best audio system I've ever heard in someone's home by far. Maybe next time I go all bring something a little more down to earth and watch as he gives me the stink eye to go ahead hit the door Jack. :nerd:


----------



## lcaillo

AudiocRaver said:


> A statement I have danced around and implied, but not made outright, and some are certain to disagree...
> 
> I believe it is _possible_ for sighted testing to be as effective as blind testing, but it is highly improbable that it is ever achieved by most listeners, even when they think they have. Of course, no one looks at an expensive amp or cable and thinks, "That sounds better," and then thinks, "But I am surely biased by the price and shiny finish and peer pressure, so my preference is suspect." Self-deception generally (always?) finds ways to hide itself, or it would not be so common in the world.


I don't often disagree with you, Wayne, in fact, it is scary how seldom it happens, but I just can't accept much more than the assymtotic possibility that is always present in any probability on this point. The likelihood of ever achieving this in any reliable or useful manner is so remote that it might as well be considered impossible. Now as a goal, it is certainly reasonable to try to get there, and I have never seen anyone so close to being objective as a listener as you are, but still, subjective experience is impossible to parse the variables on, so it becomes impractical to think that one could meaningfully get there.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Savjac said:


> Do other hobbies create such scientific furver in way of of testing vs perception ?


One of my other hobbies was photography and the technology was/is science-driven.


----------



## AudiocRaver

lcaillo said:


> I don't often disagree with you, Wayne, in fact, it is scary how seldom it happens, but I just can't accept much more than the assymtotic possibility that is always present in any probability on this point. The likelihood of ever achieving this in any reliable or useful manner is so remote that it might as well be considered impossible. Now as a goal, it is certainly reasonable to try to get there, and I have never seen anyone so close to being objective as a listener as you are, but still, subjective experience is impossible to parse the variables on, so it becomes impractical to think that one could meaningfully get there.


Even as I wrote it, I knew it was a pretty silly notion. Consider it a personal goal and nothing more, certainly nothing I would ever try to base any statistical data up on. Is that better?


----------



## Savjac

Kal Rubinson said:


> One of my other hobbies was photography and the technology was/is science-driven.


My other hobby as well Kal and I agree with your point about the hardware being technology driven. The end result of the technology is of course subjective.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Savjac said:


> My other hobby as well Kal and I agree with your point about the hardware being technology driven. The end result of the technology is of course subjective.


Not in the same way. One can photograph the same scene under the same controlled conditions with the same camera and compare the results, side-by-side, from two lenses at the same time. One cannot do that in audio.


----------



## Savjac

Kal Rubinson said:


> Not in the same way. One can photograph the same scene under the same controlled conditions with the same camera and compare the results, side-by-side, from two lenses at the same time. One cannot do that in audio.


Ok I understand your point now, maybe someday this will be possible.....nahh


----------



## Gregr

NOTE: reversing speaker cables is potentially hazardous and/or not recommended for various reasons.
1. MIT uses an articulated polarity mechanism attached at the speaker end and may not work as effectively if at all when attached to the amplifier 
2. when a soft ceramic ferrite magnet is attached optimally to within 6-8" the speaker although this type cable may be safely reversed the EMI RFI reduction effect is minimized
3. in cases where the speaker cable is shielded often the shield is attached to the amplifier ground only leaving the speaker cable shield unattached at the speaker ground terminal of the RCA

In most other simple speaker cable connections, although the manufacturer may recommend a direction for connections these straight wire cable connections may be reversed relatively safely - following the manufacturers safety recommendations for disconnecting and connecting speaker cables.


----------



## Tonto

Gregr wrote:



> if quantum physicists are suggesting electric current is not necessarily the movement of electrons thru a medium…, at least not the mass movement of electrons as previously believed. What I’m suggesting here is - what if electric current is equally the mass movement of atomic micro particles such as hadrons etc etc? however what I am actually beginning to accept is electricity is as much simply an energy wave – and electromagnetic wave that perpetuates thru atomic structures within a conductive medium?


Now it's getting deep! They are actually describing the situation where the flow of energy actually transverses the area between electrons without a time lapse. I wish I could wrap my head around that! We are talking interstellar travel at that point.


----------



## lovinthehd

Tonto said:


> Gregr wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Now it's getting deep! They are actually describing the situation where the flow of energy actually transverses the area between electrons without a time lapse. I wish I could wrap my head around that! We are talking interstellar travel at that point.


In keeping with this line of thought how did salesmen like those who run these "high end" cable companies ever control such? Doubtfully they even understand such being from the marketing side of the world....


----------



## Gregr

while you all have fun with my last comment, I have another thought. Like Icaillo, Savjac and others I've been wondering about how to setup instant A/B switching (if it is in fact a possibility), well then I found myself wondering - we've been attempting to discover differences in amps, cables/interconnects and how to measure those differences but I wonder..., has anyone setup two identical systems (as practical) and running each identical system with a two second delay (or so) for real time A/B comps. Just a thought.

One more thought: if electricity is as much about the passing of charged particles as it is about an EM energy wave then I suggest comparing a quad shielded power cord with a non shielded etc etc

Peace thru Compassion

Happy listening :wave:


----------



## Gregr

...if/when two identical systems are established as of reasonably equal sound qualities then swap out testing variables. 

Happy Listening and Best Regards


----------



## Savjac

Gregr said:


> Reversing a speaker cable..., a reviewer suggested reversing speaker cables has an readily obvious effect on sound. If this is true, I wonder which meter might best show the variants if any and if this might be useful in determining an initial mode of measurement or maybe simply reveal an electromechanical sound phenomena beyond the scope of electromechanical measurement. Because the audio sound phenomena I think we are seeking to measure is mostly transient and at low volumes in relation to the audio program.
> I have another thought. With physicists breaking down the atom and discovering leptons, quarks and neutrinos and breaking these down to find hundreds of differing hadrons, baryons, mesons and now with the Hadrons Collider…, what next? My thought is this – if quantum physicists are suggesting electric current is not necessarily the movement of electrons thru a medium…, at least not the mass movement of electrons as previously believed. What I’m suggesting here is - what if electric current is equally the mass movement of atomic micro particles such as hadrons etc etc? however what I am actually beginning to accept is electricity is as much simply an energy wave – and electromagnetic wave that perpetuates thru atomic structures within a conductive medium? What are the implications for electromechanical sound engineering and reproduction and next measurement.
> 
> 
> Sorry if I sound behind the eight ball - I still have reading to do to catch up to where you all are today.
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards and Happy Listening


I do not feel that you sound like you are behind the 8 ball, you just went into things a little deeper than what might be normal daily thoughts.
I have no idea what is going on in the cables but I do actually have several of them that are purported to be directional. There is a mark or tab on each end of the cables suggesting which is the sending end and which is the receiving end. I have read many articles that say once the cable is used in a certain direction it should not be reversed, kind of like tires. 

I have them hooked the way they should be oriented, just in case, but when accidentally reversed and while not really listening in depth, I have heard no difference but then again my system or my ears may not be of enough quality to reproduce something like that. So it would appear that your post is not so far off base.


----------



## willis7469

Wayne, I would love it if could reach your goal of sight bias immunity. Unfortunately as males of the species, we are mainly sight driven, and responsive. The same way we respond to the female form, we respond to materials and textures. Much of our response to that is based on past experience and it's how we know what to expect from certain things. Like walking on thin ice, or even what sandpaper feels like. That's why IMO, it's imperative that test subjects are totally unaware. Self deception as you mentioned can not be allowed by us either as we are also ego-centric and must believe for the most part that we are "right". Obviously this goes much deeper. 
Here's a link to a site with a great variety of tests and tones. You can test everything from subwoofer pitch definition to stereo imaging. I thought it was relevant here since there is a "blind" test area including 16/8 bit resolution tests, db sensitivity tests and even a polarity test. I used AirPlay, but a 3.5 to RCA and a laptop or phone would work. It's a fun way to test yourself and your gear. If you really want to know how good you are. 
http://www.audiocheck.net/soundtestsaudiotesttones_index.php


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is a fun one too. 
https://www.goldenears.philips.com/en/introduction.html


----------



## Lumen

Sound of catching breath as snoring subsides - not from boredom, but from having been asleep like an anchored buoy in a somewhat stormy sea over which supersonic aircraft have just passed. Thread participation of late has "passed me by, don't make me cry, don't make me blue"

And like that Beatles song, "I love only you," the intellectually stimulating contributors to psychoacoustic and scientific discussion. Your passions are evident in the speed at which this thread has moved these past few days, and I'm a bit disappointed in myself for not having noticed; so please forgive my digging so far back into the timeline.



DqMcClain said:


> So... how do we go about finding out? Seems to me we need a few things in order to control the experiment:
> 
> 1) AC power source
> 2) Array of cables of known origin and parameters
> 3) Fixed system of reasonable quality
> 
> And for #3, the test system can be more-or-less anything, as long as it's decent. It should probably be capable of presenting a fairly significant current draw on the circuit so we can establish whether or not the behavior of the cables is dependent on current draw, and then operate the system at a few pre-determined levels. One of these levels should be near the safe limits of either the AC source or the components.
> 
> Start with factory-supplied cables as a baseline, and vary based on availability of subjects. Measure with REW, and live listeners just as in an amp shoot-out or speaker shoot-out, then repeat blind. Seams relatively straightforward... any volunteers?


Your description of "decent" equates to "a reference." I agree that any system can be a reference. But overuse of the term throughout our hobby is openly laughable. Sorry for splitting hairs between "decent" and "reference," but I believe it serves to clarify system capability. Pulling a rabbit out of the hat is the elusive trick the reference system must be able to duplicate. But where do we draw the line in what is "decent" and what is not. Decent for perceiving and/or measuring one particular sonic parameter such as distortion may not be sufficient for another such as spatiality. Some systems can pull off the sonic "magic" that others cannot (system setup issues being equal). I think we all agree speakers make the biggest difference; but after that our opinions diverge. At the extremes we have the all-amps-and-digital-gear-sound-the-same crowd vs. the everything-has-a-night-and-day-difference crowd. Reality lies somewhere in between (where I try to balance my own listening insecurities). What I'm trying to say is that the reference system must be capable of revealing the subtle differences we seek to identify. Not as simple as it appears on the surface. 



lcaillo said:


> Tony, it might seem odd coming from the measurement guy, but I think you have to start with the listening tests and try to identify differences. Wayne has it right here. Someone who is sure there are differences between two cables could provide them for others to do blind testing on, as well as measurements. The only intellectually honest way to do it is to assume that there are differences, try to reproduce them, then if that is possible, explain them with measurements.


How refreshing! I've too often heard the opposite: if measurements cannot detect a particular sonic parameter, then it doesn't exist. Seems closed-minded to me. :dontknow:



AudiocRaver said:


> Yeah, it is one of the psychoacoustical wonders of the human brain that we can detect subtle differences in a stereo listening field that can be very difficult to measure. Not impossible, but difficult. Then if you can hear a difference, that difference might point one in a particular measurement direction to find it there, too.
> 
> For instance: noise floor. Take a favorite track with just a few instruments and "empty space" in between them in the mix, and add -60dB pink noise to it. I guarantee you can hear it, given the right circumstances, and it will be difficult to measure it as part of a stronger signal.
> 
> To declare that no difference can be heard because a couple of measurements show no difference is like suggesting that because science has not yet shown a phenomenon to be possible, it must be therefore not be possible. Kinda makes us slave to the science, where the science should be serving us. That's the way I see it, anyway.


***crack*** outta the park! Uh, guess I gave away where I stand.



3dbinCanada said:


> Lets be clear here though that listening tests need to be controlled and blind. The listeners cannot know which cables are being used. If this is not a blind listening test, then the results are merely a subjective opinion, nothing more.
> 
> Personally I find it disconcerting that people believe that their hearing is better than what can be measured, yet humans cannot detect changes in amplitude less than 0.5 db.


Hi, 3dbinCanada. It seems that good seldom follows the phrase "with all due respect," so I won't use it (lame haha). :R
I'd just like to point out that amplitude is not the end-all-be-all of parameters to determine sonic quality. Neither is frequency response, or distortion, or any other traditional measurement - together or separately. Why? Because ear-brain interpretation cannot be separated from the equation. Yes, our hearing may be inaccurate compared to measurement gear. And no, our measurement gear can't explain some of the things we hear. The believe-in-measurements-at-all-costs camp often counter with "you can't possibly hear what we couldn't measure, so it's all in your head." Who is right? Science has not always been able to explain physical phenomena (think earth-centered universe), let alone psychoacoustic phenomena (think spatial soundstaging). It takes mental interpretation coupled with measurements to discover flaws in our belief system and advance the state-of-the-art in many disciplines, IMO. Also, see Jack's post immediately below:



Savjac said:


> Herein lies what I would guess to be the crux of the test. Doubtless the idea behind this type of listening test is to determine any changes that may be made, good, bad or just different while using the speaker cable in any given "System". I do realize that this may raise additional issues in the camp that feels there are no differences, but without testing any given item in this case speaker wires we cannot determine how said wires act in the reference system.
> 
> This would be somewhat akin to trying to determine spatiality of a system by attaching various gizmos to either the electronics or the speakers. I am not quite sure that the science of measurements has yet to measure the reproduction of said spaciality in any given room with any given system and/or the components therein.
> 
> It is for these reasons that I feel this idea may need to be reviewed a bit.


The task becomes even more of a challenge if you subdivide "spatiality" into "soundstage" (width/depth/height envelope) and "imaging" (width/depth/height specificity). :nerd:


----------



## Savjac

Lumen said:


> Your description of "decent" equates to "a reference." I agree that any system can be a reference. But overuse of the term throughout our hobby is openly laughable. Sorry for splitting hairs between "decent" and "reference," but I believe it serves to clarify system capability. Pulling a rabbit out of the hat is the elusive trick the reference system must be able to duplicate. But where do we draw the line in what is "decent" and what is not. Decent for perceiving and/or measuring one particular sonic parameter such as distortion may not be sufficient for another such as spatiality. Some systems can pull off the sonic "magic" that others cannot (system setup issues being equal). I think we all agree speakers make the biggest difference; but after that our opinions diverge. At the extremes we have the all-amps-and-digital-gear-sound-the-same crowd vs. the everything-has-a-night-and-day-difference crowd. Reality lies somewhere in between (where I try to balance my own listening insecurities). What I'm trying to say is that the reference system must be capable of revealing the subtle differences we seek to identify. Not as simple as it appears on the surface.
> 
> 
> How refreshing! I've too often heard the opposite: if measurements cannot detect a particular sonic parameter, then it doesn't exist. Seems closed-minded to me. :dontknow:
> 
> 
> ***crack*** outta the park! Uh, guess I gave away where I stand.
> 
> 
> 
> The task becomes even more of a challenge if you subdivide "spatiality" into "soundstage" (width/depth/height envelope) and "imaging" (width/depth/height specificity). :nerd:


Thank You and welcome back, just as you try to get out we drag you back in. 

I cannot help but agree with you, but you may have guessed that, and I have always wanted to try to dwell into the two things you mentioned above. What constitutes a reference system and expanding the definitions of the sound field a bit. 
I consider my system as a reference because it tells me to my present satisfaction, what is going on at different points in the overall grouping of components as well as the individual bits therein. When one thing changes the ultimate expenditure of energy into my listening environment should make itself known. There are some systems that would not be able to present differences into a perceptible way but those would be mainly off the shelf box systems. Then there are those like yours that could reproduce the sound of electrons cussing as they scrape against each other.
So do we put out systems on the block for all to see when we enter into these discussions ?

Further, the refining of terminology when discussing the sound stage or spaciality would be good. I have been referring to these things as a complete soundspace in that they should be able to present the sound on the recording in all its real or fake glory. When the recordings are of live concerts such as classical or unplugged as it were (The music kind and not the Matrix kind), we should be able to hear the venue itself. So does the sound stage we discuss now covering all the aspects in a recording or just the differences of placement, real or faked in the studio that is on the recording ? Do we need to go to surround recordings to meet this criteria or should I shut up about this and do these thought pieces in another thread ?


----------



## FargateOne

Lumen wrote:
" Science has not always been able to explain physical phenomena "

The most recent example of that is the difference between the prediction of Einstein's equation of relativity and the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. In 1929 Einstein himself did not belived in an expanding universe.

The proof of the expansion has been made 70 years, approx, later.

The mass of all visible mater in the Universe is responsible for only 5% of the energy needed for this phenomenum. What are the missing 95% made of? The most accepted scientific hypothese is "black mater" and "dark energy" 2 things that nobody has found yet AND one, black mater, which is bydefinition impossible to see!!!. 2 things that are supposed to explain *95%* of the problem!!.
In other word: a problem (as sound differences we IHAD guys think that exists) that the science can not explain for the moment but that it is fun to try to understand.:R So first try: 70 years and one proof to go!


----------



## Savjac

Most excellent, we have, in 30 pages gone from the possible scamming of consumers in way of price and presentation scams to the discussion of dark matter and things as yet undiscovered.
Awesome.


----------



## willis7469

Savjac said:


> Most excellent, we have, in 30 pages gone from the possible scamming of consumers in way of price and presentation scams to the discussion of dark matter and things as yet undiscovered.
> 
> Awesome.



Does that make this off topic? Or under topic? Or in a 3rd dimension next to topic? Yes! That's the one right there. Where's my delorean......
Hi Lou! :wave:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Savjac

willis7469 said:


> Does that make this off topic? Or under topic? Or in a 3rd dimension next to topic? Yes! That's the one right there. Where's my delorean......
> Hi Lou! :wave:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Yes !!! I guess you are sporting a gigawatt or two ? No wonder you are seeing things on an atomic level.


----------



## tonyvdb

Quick, where's the Flux Capacitor!


----------



## willis7469

tonyvdb said:


> Quick, where's the Flux Capacitor!
> 
> https://youtu.be/_Dvwd8Hyh-Y



Turn it up to 11....thousand!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AudiocRaver

For what it is worth, I say just keep right on talking.. it has become a little bit One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and I for one cannot wait to see what comes up next.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Gregr said:


> while you all have fun with my last comment, I have another thought. Like Icaillo, Savjac and others I've been wondering about how to setup instant A/B switching (if it is in fact a possibility), well then I found myself wondering - we've been attempting to discover differences in amps, cables/interconnects and how to measure those differences but I wonder..., has anyone setup two identical systems (as practical) and running each identical system with a two second delay (or so) for real time A/B comps. Just a thought.
> 
> One more thought: if electricity is as much about the passing of charged particles as it is about an EM energy wave then I suggest comparing a quad shielded power cord with a non shielded etc etc
> 
> Peace thru Compassion
> 
> Happy listening :wave:


Interesting idea, but the speakers could not occupy the same point in space, so their placement in the room will cause subtle differences in sound between them. You can never get to identical unless you go all the way to duplicating the entire room and then it is up to the human to jump between the two rooms as quickly as possible for the comparison. The human then becomes the A/B switch.


----------



## FargateOne

Maybe have we slipped unconsciusly (inconsciemment) in a parallel universe...


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> For what it is worth, I say just keep right on talking.. it has become a little bit One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and I for one cannot wait to see what comes up next.


----------



## AudiocRaver

willis7469 said:


> Wayne, I would love it if could reach your goal of sight bias immunity. Unfortunately as males of the species, we are mainly sight driven, and responsive. The same way we respond to the female form, we respond to materials and textures. Much of our response to that is based on past experience and it's how we know what to expect from certain things. Like walking on thin ice, or even what sandpaper feels like. That's why IMO, it's imperative that test subjects are totally unaware. Self deception as you mentioned can not be allowed by us either as we are also ego-centric and must believe for the most part that we are "right". Obviously this goes much deeper.
> Here's a link to a site with a great variety of tests and tones. You can test everything from subwoofer pitch definition to stereo imaging. I thought it was relevant here since there is a "blind" test area including 16/8 bit resolution tests, db sensitivity tests and even a polarity test. I used AirPlay, but a 3.5 to RCA and a laptop or phone would work. It's a fun way to test yourself and your gear. If you really want to know how good you are.
> http://www.audiocheck.net/soundtestsaudiotesttones_index.php
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> This is a fun one too.
> https://www.goldenears.philips.com/en/introduction.html


Excellent point, who would want to live life absent the joys of sight bias?

Of course , I am talking about developing the ability to consciously temporarily deactivate, or ignore or work around it somehow. "That is one great looking amplifier, but if I take that out of the equation, does that amplifier really sound any different from the cheap-looking one?"


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> Excellent point, who would want to live life absent the joys of sight bias?
> 
> Of course , I am talking about developing the ability to consciously temporarily deactivate, or ignore or work around it somehow. "That is one great looking amplifier, but if I take that out of the equation, does that amplifier really sound any different from the cheap-looking one?"


Oft times I wonder if this ability if you will, comes with time and boredom of trying out different components. If one becomes jaded enough after hearing both good and bad examples of pretty things, then maybe that bias will be kicked to the curb.


----------



## AudiocRaver

My turn.

There are parallels here with the seeking of Truth, as with spirituality for instance. Through AB testing we are trying to induce an experience in which The Listener is led to having no choice but to report the truth as accurately as his perceptions will allow.


----------



## lovinthehd

Savjac said:


> I do not feel that you sound like you are behind the 8 ball, you just went into things a little deeper than what might be normal daily thoughts.
> I have no idea what is going on in the cables but I do actually have several of them that are purported to be directional. There is a mark or tab on each end of the cables suggesting which is the sending end and which is the receiving end. I have read many articles that say once the cable is used in a certain direction it should not be reversed, kind of like tires.
> 
> I have them hooked the way they should be oriented, just in case, but when accidentally reversed and while not really listening in depth, I have heard no difference but then again my system or my ears may not be of enough quality to reproduce something like that. So it would appear that your post is not so far off base.


Unless the cable you're talking about is something like a redmere hdmi cable for extended distance, what cables are directional? Is there a shred of science behind such claims? Cannot believe it is anything but marketing nonsense from what I've read over the years.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

AudiocRaver said:


> Interesting idea, but the speakers could not occupy the same point in space, so their placement in the room will cause subtle differences in sound between them. You can never get to identical unless you go all the way to duplicating the entire room and then it is up to the human to jump between the two rooms as quickly as possible for the comparison. The human then becomes the A/B switch.


How about a perfectly symmetrical room with a swivel chair?


----------



## Savjac

lovinthehd said:


> Unless the cable you're talking about is something like a redmere hdmi cable for extended distance, what cables are directional? Is there a shred of science behind such claims? Cannot believe it is anything but marketing nonsense from what I've read over the years.


I would Submit that this is the reason we are here discussing these conundrums. I have interconnects as well as speaker cable that are marked directionaly and I have been instructed to install them as per their marks. I have no clue if there's a shred of science behind such claims and the discussion herein is trying to find a higher truth as to whether or not this is marketing hype. I am going to try to come at this from the positive and say that these engineers that design these cables have a pretty good idea of what they're talking about, however, there is indeed the possibility that all of this is nonsense.
I don't want to write off these claims just because folks don't believe it, I would like to see proof either way beyond speculation.

Might you as a participant in these threads have any inside knowledge as to why you feel it is nothing more than marketing nonsense other than what you have read. In other words might you have any hands-on experience with this which would allow for a more reasonable basis to support your theory.


----------



## Savjac

Kal Rubinson said:


> How about a perfectly symmetrical room with a swivel chair?


I think on one hand that this would be wonderful and on the other hand this would be problematic. Imagine if you will the testers listening for 20 seconds in room "A" then spinning about 180° to listen to 20 seconds in room "B" and then repeating this fun carnival ride for hours on end. Personally I think this is a great idea if just a bit expensive for the average guy or gal. (Do you remember Enid Lumley ?)


----------



## AudiocRaver

AudiocRaver said:


> My turn.
> 
> There are parallels here with the seeking of Truth, as with spirituality for instance. Through AB testing we are trying to induce an experience in which The Listener is led to having no choice but to report the truth as accurately as his perceptions will allow.


Oops, wasn't done.

The Seeker of Truth benefits from honing the skill of being his own best critic, absent all signs of negativity, for the sake of the clearest possible thinking and reasoning processes. In my own life, I find myself applying this principle toward the seeking of Truth in audio with as much focus and enthusiasm as I do in the seeking of Truth in spirituality. It is a Wonder to me that one can be so dismissive of external evidence, in either of those realms of thought. But, Faith gives permission, and sometimes demands, that we believe and choose and report something to be true that is not in evidence in terms that are currently well understood. It is fascinating that *a.* faith can find its way into the thought and behavior patterns of hobbyists in an area like audio. And *b.* That Seekers of spiritual truth seem so often to have no room for critical thinking skills in their collection of Truth seeking tools.

One would think what evidence would be Paramount in the seeking of any kind of Truth. I can tell you that is not always the case.

I have probably said too much, hope that offends no one.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Kal Rubinson said:


> How about a perfectly symmetrical room with a swivel chair?


Kal, you rascal, that is brilliant.


----------



## willis7469

lovinthehd said:


> Unless the cable you're talking about is something like a redmere hdmi cable for extended distance, what cables are directional? Is there a shred of science behind such claims? Cannot believe it is anything but marketing nonsense from what I've read over the years.


Without the burden of evidence, I must agree with this. I've used cables of all sizes and lengths, and applications and have never purposefully or accidentally seen or heard any difference. This could be due to the fact I wasn't looking because I wasn't expecting any difference. That I'll admit. 
Maybe on a sub atomic level it would matter but I don't operate there so...



Kal Rubinson said:


> How about a perfectly symmetrical room with a swivel chair?


That's what I was thinking!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469

Savjac said:


> I would Submit that this is the reason we are here discussing these conundrums. I have interconnects as well as speaker cable that are marked directionaly and I have been instructed to install them as per their marks. I have no clue if there's a shred of science behind such claims and the discussion herein is trying to find a higher truth as to whether or not this is marketing hype. I am going to try to come at this from the positive and say that these engineers that design these cables have a pretty good idea of what they're talking about, however, there is indeed the possibility that all of this is nonsense.
> 
> I don't want to write off these claims just because folks don't believe it, I would like to see proof either way beyond speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> Might you as a participant in these threads have any inside knowledge as to why you feel it is nothing more than marketing nonsense other than what you have read. In other words might you have any hands-on experience with this which would allow for a more reasonable basis to support your theory.



Maybe it's so people don't get lost behind their AV racks! J/K
My suspicion is that it related to the power of suggestion, and the idea that when you have something unique such as a cable that shows you which way to hook it up we feel it's somehow capable of more. To me, it's like putting arrows on a garden hose(ends notwithstanding) and expecting the water to flow differently. The Irony here is that maybe I'm the one who's wet!
I may not have inside knowledge per se but, my business built underwater cameras for a long time. We sourced cables of all kinds on spools of untold lengths. Even the tiniest cables that we would solder to delicate wafer boards didn't care which end was which. Just like it doesn't matter what direction the satellite cable feeding my house is going. Or the 25,000 feet of cat5 that's in my house doesn't care. 
Jack, I know that's not the science you were looking for but maybe my broad strokes can help. If there really is more to this, I'd be quite receptive to the see evidence. 
Ok, I feel like my clutch is slipping now. Lol
This has turned into quite thread indeed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lovinthehd

Savjac said:


> I would Submit that this is the reason we are here discussing these conundrums. I have interconnects as well as speaker cable that are marked directionaly and I have been instructed to install them as per their marks. I have no clue if there's a shred of science behind such claims and the discussion herein is trying to find a higher truth as to whether or not this is marketing hype. I am going to try to come at this from the positive and say that these engineers that design these cables have a pretty good idea of what they're talking about, however, there is indeed the possibility that all of this is nonsense.
> I don't want to write off these claims just because folks don't believe it, I would like to see proof either way beyond speculation.
> 
> Might you as a participant in these threads have any inside knowledge as to why you feel it is nothing more than marketing nonsense other than what you have read. In other words might you have any hands-on experience with this which would allow for a more reasonable basis to support your theory.


Well my basic understanding is that the audio signal is AC in nature, which means flow goes in both directions constantly, so how could it make a difference? I've read comments from quite a few electrical engineers who say its nonsense to boot. Let's turn it around, why do you think this directionality has some basis in fact? Have you read some of the nonsense these cable marketers come up with aside from directionality? Its snake oil as far as I can tell and that seems to be the opinion of those who study such things. No science/proof/tests from the cable guys, just claims so I tend to simply see it as nonsense. Can you name any engineers involved with this science of directionality? I seriously doubt the engineering of a cable goes beyond choosing gauge/dielectric and other usual factors, but the marketing department comes up with the direction stuff. 

Any engineers out there that can comment?


----------



## lcaillo

Assuming you know the design of the cables and the system and everything is symmetrical, you would probably be making a safe assumption that a difference in directionality is not possible. Some manufacturers intentionally build their cables to be asymmetrical. One way that it can make a difference is if the cable has a shield that is connected only at one end. Typically you would want the shield connected at the source end, but I would say you want it connected in the direction that gives the lowest noise and/or ground current. Some cables actually have matching components built into them. Depending on how they are designed and the length of the cable they may actually be legitimately directional. 

I don't think that there is much value to these designs, and mostly the differences are likely irrelevant in most cases. My point is that we should not assume we know everything and we should not make assumptions about variables we don't fully understand. It is not scientific to assume no effect before knowing the whole story. The only intellectually honest way to approach these questions is to take the perspective that Wayne has...find someone who is certain that they have products that have a difference then assume there is a difference to find. If you exhaust every imaginable way to duplicate the effect and still don't find anything, then there probably is not a difference that is not accounted for by expectation bias or other psychological phenomena. It could be that we also have not thought of everything.

Science is full of research that proves nothing and comes to conclusions that are faulty because the experimenter made assumptions about variables that might have explained things differently. Starting with a belief that you don't admit and that you don't experimentally control for is not good science.


----------



## Savjac

willis7469 said:


> Maybe it's so people don't get lost behind their AV racks! J/K
> My suspicion is that it related to the power of suggestion, and the idea that when you have something unique such as a cable that shows you which way to hook it up we feel it's somehow capable of more. To me, it's like putting arrows on a garden hose(ends notwithstanding) and expecting the water to flow differently. The Irony here is that maybe I'm the one who's wet!
> I may not have inside knowledge per se but, my business built underwater cameras for a long time. We sourced cables of all kinds on spools of untold lengths. Even the tiniest cables that we would solder to delicate wafer boards didn't care which end was which. Just like it doesn't matter what direction the satellite cable feeding my house is going. Or the 25,000 feet of cat5 that's in my house doesn't care.
> Jack, I know that's not the science you were looking for but maybe my broad strokes can help. If there really is more to this, I'd be quite receptive to the see evidence.
> Ok, I feel like my clutch is slipping now. Lol
> This has turned into quite thread indeed!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Willis my friend, I am indeed open to all trains of thought bit philosophical or scientific in order to move my beliefs forward from a place of "I don't know". As I had mentioned early on in this thread is my strong belief that I can hear difference between some cables and that I would like to someday be able to fill in a database of sorts that would tell me to some extent what specific makeup, winding, dielectric or whatever is involved in these items can produce a certain type of sound. For example I noted with interest that the original monster cable which was made up of numerous very fine threads of copper reacted in a certain way that was different than a solid core copper speaker cable. I don't know why it is just my belief that it happens. Further I'm really not sure if all speaker cable manufactured similarly to the monster original will have the same sensibilities. My specialty over the last 36 years has been in causality with specialties in metallurgy and machinery. It almost everything there is indeed a truth howsoever well hidden that theoretically with sufficient investigation training, testing and having fellows examine your findings the truth shall be set free. I believe that in using your broad strokes there are hundreds of thousands of reviews over the years that present findings wherein the reviewer has indeed heard differences in any given item within an audio system. Conversely there are probably hundreds of thousands of good people out there that would swear they do not hear the difference in these components, as such it would seem a very daunting matter to overcome when looking at it from a very large view, i.e. all components, however maybe just looking at one or two components might result in a better understanding of where the truth might lie. It's easy to proclaim Occam's razor which states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected, As being the ruler by which we should measure our findings however in this case I don't know which side would have the fewer assumptions sense it would appear there may not be a legitimate and conclusive proof of our findings. Please note I say findings are not sure beliefs is the right word to cover all of this.

So stand proud with your thoughts of broad strokes as its these type of entries that motor us down the path of discovery, While all the while keeping in mind the wisdom of the sage lyricist Mr. Graeme edge whom wrote the following very deep bit of information:

"I think, therefore I am....I think" "Of course you are my bright little star, I've miles and miles Of files, Pretty files of your forefather's fruit and now to suit our great computer, You're magnetic ink."

" I'm more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be."

"There you go man, keep as cool as you can. Face piles And piles Of trials With smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave And keep on thinking free."


----------



## Savjac

lovinthehd said:


> Well my basic understanding is that the audio signal is AC in nature, which means flow goes in both directions constantly, so how could it make a difference? I've read comments from quite a few electrical engineers who say its nonsense to boot. Let's turn it around, why do you think this directionality has some basis in fact? Have you read some of the nonsense these cable marketers come up with aside from directionality? Its snake oil as far as I can tell and that seems to be the opinion of those who study such things. No science/proof/tests from the cable guys, just claims so I tend to simply see it as nonsense. Can you name any engineers involved with this science of directionality? I seriously doubt the engineering of a cable goes beyond choosing gauge/dielectric and other usual factors, but the marketing department comes up with the direction stuff.
> 
> Any engineers out there that can comment?


I am indeed sorry lovinthehd that you believe this negativity feeling that this is all nonsense. It appears that this is already been dismissed by you in that you ask if I have read some of the nonsense the cable marketers come up with aside from directionality. Further is mention that this is snake oil as far as can be told by an opinion of those who study such things. Some of the science proofs and tests that are mentioned are beyond me as I am really not a physicist nor do I have a PhD in engineering that would help me write a paper on this. I can say with some respectability of my background that the engineering of the cable goes far beyond choosing gauge/dielectric and the usual factors although having said that I do agree the marketing departments come up with some strange stuff.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> Oops, wasn't done.
> 
> The Seeker of Truth benefits from honing the skill of being his own best critic, absent all signs of negativity, for the sake of the clearest possible thinking and reasoning processes. In my own life, I find myself applying this principle toward the seeking of Truth in audio with as much focus and enthusiasm as I do in the seeking of Truth in spirituality. It is a Wonder to me that one can be so dismissive of external evidence, in either of those realms of thought. But, Faith gives permission, and sometimes demands, that we believe and choose and report something to be true that is not in evidence in terms that are currently well understood. It is fascinating that *a.* faith can find its way into the thought and behavior patterns of hobbyists in an area like audio. And *b.* That Seekers of spiritual truth seem so often to have no room for critical thinking skills in their collection of Truth seeking tools.
> 
> One would think what evidence would be Paramount in the seeking of any kind of Truth. I can tell you that is not always the case.
> 
> I have probably said too much, hope that offends no one.


Wonderful post and i cannot feel that you said too much at all. 

Frankly I think would be all very hard pressed to find evidence at all levels in seeking any kind of truth, occasionally a belief that a thing is true can as you say lead us to the point theoretically where evidence respects the truth.


----------



## FargateOne

OH please, tell me that we do not need to apply the quantum physic principle of uncertainty (after a certain point in atomic scale world, the instrument itself influences the result) to our tests to find why some cables seem to make differences for ancient cable atheist like me !!!
Are we cursed !?


----------



## lovinthehd

FargateOne said:


> OH please, tell me that we do not need to apply the quantum physic principle of uncertainty (after a certain point in atomic scale world, the instrument itself influences the result) to our tests to find why some cables seem to make differences for ancient cable atheist like me !!!
> Are we cursed !?


 no! We just need to immerse ourselves in the intergalactic slime known as cable marketing. Once fully anointed you are immune to any reality! Measurements are obviously not necessary let alone any other type of justification other than the magical 10% rule! Go marketers!


----------



## AudiocRaver

Life is full of surprises and I love them.

As evidenced in our DAC and amp evaluations of the last year, the smallest change in thought process or attitude can make the biggest difference. I failed miserably in the blind amp eval exercise, and - after making a subtle yet critical change in my thinking processes during the DAC eval exercise - made a complete turnaround and did quite well at picking the same DAC over and over, based on very subtle audible differences. The mental-procedural change was tiny yet critical.

How significant are our attitudes and beliefs when we do a listening test like we are talking about? If, as a listener begins a blind test, someone makes a comment like, "You would have to be deaf to not pick out the better _XYZ-component_ in this pairing," can intimidation and peer pressure skew one's clarity of thought and ability to do well. I am absolutely certain they can. Pressure, self-doubt, negativity, indigestion, a bad mood, any and all can sway one's clarity. All this points to the importance of

double-blind
a neutral-friendly test atmosphere

A $50,000 challenge to pick out an amp or cable or whatever is NOT a neutral-friendly test atmosphere. Reputations and personal agendas and large amounts of cash are on the line and the pressure to perform, to prove a point, to _WIN,_ can be immense.

I am all for double-blind except that the complexity in equipment and setting up and executing is already almost overwhelming, so we have never gotten there. I am satisfied with well-executed blind testing in a neutral agenda-free setting where there is no winner or loser whatever the final data may say. I have no problem with sighted testing before hand to get listeners familiar with the gear and what to listen for. Add to that a test procedure that is listener-friendly, puts minimum/no stress or pressure on the listener and helps him feel in control and comfortable with the process and has the simplest selection burden possible, totally free of tricks to throw the listener off or undue complexities. Make the rules of the test clear and simple and stick to them. Respect manufacture recommendations such as directionality or polarity or right- / left-handedness or whatever. Be open-minded and give it claimed difference a _chance_ to be heard.


----------



## AudiocRaver

FargateOne said:


> Are we cursed !?


You are just noticing it?:devil:


----------



## lovinthehd

Savjac said:


> I am indeed sorry lovinthehd that you believe this negativity feeling that this is all nonsense. It appears that this is already been dismissed by you in that you ask if I have read some of the nonsense the cable marketers come up with aside from directionality. Further is mention that this is snake oil as far as can be told by an opinion of those who study such things. Some of the science proofs and tests that are mentioned are beyond me as I am really not a physicist nor do I have a PhD in engineering that would help me write a paper on this. I can say with some respectability of my background that the engineering of the cable goes far beyond choosing gauge/dielectric and the usual factors although having said that I do agree the marketing departments come up with some strange stuff.


LOL obviously I am also indeed sorry that you feel all this marketing has value or that you believe there is engineering involved in directionality of cables.


----------



## Savjac

lovinthehd said:


> LOL obviously I am also indeed sorry that you feel all this marketing has value or that you believe there is engineering involved in directionality of cables.



I would change the words "feel all this marketing" to I am unsure if this marketing has any value as marketing is more or less meant to sell a product and not much more. What I am interested in is the validity of the statements made by those that mark the cables and sell them to consumers. At present I am unsure of what value if any, one way cables have. Therein lies the reason for my post.

I will be focusing my attention on these sets of cables in my own system with as much of an objective mind set as possible, considering just a few years ago, I without any experience to back up my beliefs, thought, as do you, that these claims were nuts. Recent experiences over the last several years have me believing much more than I used to. Only way to know for sure is to do it so I will.


----------



## FargateOne

lovinthehd said:


> LOL obviously I am also indeed sorry that you feel all this marketing has value or that you believe there is engineering involved in directionality of cables.


I believe not a word in marketing about cable because, at least, I have the chance to test it at home and return it after a month if I am not satisfy. After that, I decide with all the uncertainty we are discussing here. I have made a little not so scientific test (http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...ks/142610-i-cable-atheist-16.html#post1406426 post 158). It does not meet the standards that we are talking about here. I know, power cords are not the best to test because I am sure that power cords are more likely snake oil than interconnect RCA cables. 
Hopefully, someone here can push the experience to an other level. At home I don't have the place or the equipment to do it (and I say nothing about WAF !!). But, I will (soon hopefully) repeat my experience this way (like someone has suggested) : 1- standard power cord of the receiver directly in the outlet, to measure with REW; 2- snakes cables and snakes bar from the outlet to the receiver, to measure with Rew; 3- go back to std power cord directly in the outlet and to measure wih Rew. I'll send the results.
It will not be good, but it will be better than nothing and be a beginning.


----------



## Boxozaxu

witchdoctor said:


> If I were you I would get three new power cords to audition and plug them into that Onkyo receiver and test them for 25 days. My experience is this is much cheaper then buying a new receiver and will often provide better SQ than even the receivers one or two levels up the line, maybe even their flagship. Please don't believe me, just try it and see and you will have your proof.
> 
> This reviewer uses the same power cord I do and specifically says it made a bigger difference than upgrading his CDP
> 
> https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/review-virtual-dynamics-nite-power-cord-power-cord


Will my system sound even better if I bypass the power cord completely and run the Romex 14/2 wire from my outlet directly into my receiver? OR is there something special that the power cord is doing to the electricity as it passes through it?


----------



## willis7469

Boxozaxu said:


> Will my system sound even better if I bypass the power cord completely and run the Romex 14/2 wire from my outlet directly into my receiver? OR is there something special that the power cord is doing to the electricity as it passes through it?



I was gonna ask this same thing. I've done this before but not for the same reason. Hmmm...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lcaillo

I remember Enid Lumley. What are you suggesting? :foottap:


----------



## tonyvdb

Its simple to make a power cord from Romex. Good question and I already know the answer..."No difference"
You can buy C13 ends and make your own for a fraction of what high end places charge for the entire cable.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Gregr said:


> NOTE: reversing speaker cables is potentially hazardous and/or not recommended for various reasons.
> 1. MIT uses an articulated polarity mechanism attached at the speaker end and may not work as effectively if at all when attached to the amplifier
> 2. when a soft ceramic ferrite magnet is attached optimally to within 6-8" the speaker although this type cable may be safely reversed the EMI RFI reduction effect is minimized
> 3. in cases where the speaker cable is shielded often the shield is attached to the amplifier ground only leaving the speaker cable shield unattached at the speaker ground terminal of the RCA
> 
> In most other simple speaker cable connections, although the manufacturer may recommend a direction for connections these straight wire cable connections may be reversed relatively safely - following the manufacturers safety recommendations for disconnecting and connecting speaker cables.


Where are you getting this?


----------



## willis7469

Reversing speaker cables is potentially hazardous? Wow...
I've knotted mine by pushing in the wrong direction. Is that the same?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Savjac

lcaillo said:


> I remember Enid Lumley. What are you suggesting? :foottap:


I loved reading her posts, she could tell the difference between a 6' cable and a 5'10" cable ...or so she wrote. If I remember correctly she spoke to the possible problems with cable direction some 20+ years ago right up until she passed.
She was the one that taught me about how to tell if a component is plugged into the wall correctly.

Fond memories of Enid and her boss, Harry.


----------



## tonyvdb

tying a knot in your speaker wire could also be a hazard as the electrons might not slow down enough at the sharp bend and fall out of the cable and start a fire :nerd2:


----------



## willis7469

lcaillo said:


> I remember Enid Lumley. What are you suggesting? :foottap:



http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/687awsi/#rUPxuKtiYYZyrdBB.97

Is this what you mean Leonard?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469

tonyvdb said:


> tying a knot in your speaker wire could also be a hazard as the electrons might not slow down enough at the sharp bend and fall out of the cable and start a fire :nerd2:



Hahaha! Good point! My Yamaha amp has been engineered for great handling, so this is less a concern for me but others may benefit. 
Reminds me of a gal that used to clean my office. She saw an extension cord on the floor, and promptly picked up, and propped it so it was facing up, and then explained that all the electricity would escape if it were to lay on the ground. Wow, laughed about that one a lot. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Savjac

tonyvdb said:


> Its simple to make a power cord from Romex. Good question and I already know the answer..."No difference"
> You can buy C13 ends and make your own for a fraction of what high end places charge for the entire cable.


To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, "When a distinguished scientist states that something doesn't matter, he is very probably wrong."
tee hee:innocent:


----------



## Savjac

willis7469 said:


> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/687awsi/#rUPxuKtiYYZyrdBB.97
> 
> Is this what you mean Leonard?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Enid wrote for the absolute sound and she had great ears and writing skills, I loved reading her stuff.


----------



## Gregr

I wrote this at about 2am - my bad - the rca referenced is/was meant to be a speak-on. Sorry I don't proof read.
As far as where i got the info, well its readily available, I only mentioned the general categories, that was enough for me.

Actually the only potential benefit to speaker cable directionality IMHO is after speaker cable mod's it might help with assessing any benefit to mod's if the cables remain in identical orientation.


----------



## Savjac

I think you have a point there as many folks believe there are difference so if the cables are always installed in the same direction no one can come back and say.....maybe things sound different because the cables were not properly installed.


----------



## Gregr

Savjac said:


> I think you have a point there as many folks believe there are difference so if the cables are always installed in the same direction no one can come back and say.....maybe things sound different because the cables were not properly installed.


Yes exactly and that I don't try to convince myself there is or is not a diff.
Wow, this conversation was restarted about the time I signed-on in 2009 and is still moving in a tentative poss direction and more important individuals including myself are inclined to discover a true scientific approach in testing variables. For some of you old timers the conversation includes brainstorming and creating hypothesis and even mention of theories. I don't believe this is a simple answer like I felt in 2009 - I'm not even sure why I thought the diff in amps was obvious I don't ever remember ever wondering before that time. 

One extreme theory when observed in its entirety leads me to question myself "The Heisenberg Uncertainty theory." Heisenberg himself presents the "Observer Effect" as another potential reason for mathematical differences in any measured phenomena and reason to doubt any listening/listener perceived experience otherwise not accounted for..., is there no answer. Maybe the best we can do is simply "enjoy our creations"


----------



## Gregr

Nah, i'll follow this topic until we discover a foundational solution to build upon in successive approximations. :heehee: :grin2:


----------



## Lumen

willis7469 said:


> Hahaha! Good point! My Yamaha amp has been engineered for great handling, so this is less a concern for me but others may benefit.
> Reminds me of a gal that used to clean my office. She saw an extension cord on the floor, and promptly picked up, and propped it so it was facing up, and then explained that all the electricity would escape if it were to lay on the ground. Wow, laughed about that one a lot.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They're crawling out of the woodwork now! You can't make this stuff up... I once knew a rookie engineer who became frustrated while debugging a rack of automated test equipment. My not-so-kind-hearted colleagues decided to prank him by suggesting cable routing was to blame. Taking the bait, Mr. One-Sandwich-Shy-of-a-Picnic asked how that could be, to which they replied: "Cabling needs to run vertically so the electrons flow downhill." I'm unsure how he ever survived on the factory floor, but his cables always ran vertically from then on! In retrospect, I think he was hired by a relative.


----------



## Lumen

Gregr said:


> Nah, i'll follow this topic until we discover a foundational solution to build upon in successive approximations. :heehee: :grin2:


If you keep halving the distance between your starting point and your destination, you'll theoretically never arrive. In practice, however, you're close enough that it doesn't matter. Unlike those who say changing cables doesn't matter, there are some who believe in cumulative conjunction - my term, I know. It means that a single cable pair may make no difference, but swapping out all cables for ones of the same brand, metallurgy, geometry, etc. is key to exposing their subtleties, imagined or not.

EDIT: I should have said "may be key" instead of "is key".


----------



## Gregr

I've heard of that metallurgy thing..., seems to me some of the Japanese cable/interconnect companies are producing test results that show diff - do you suppose they are only saying that to charge higher prices for cables? That's just brilliant - I wish I had thought of that. So you just sit in this lonely cubicle all day and think of these things..., oh and how to add a little magic to someone' life when predisposed to magical thinking. :R >


----------



## AudiocRaver

I wonder how hard it would be to create a cable design that showed some measured difference due to termination impedance or something like that, even though audible difference was small or none at all?

Another thought, I wonder how hard it would be to create a cable design that made the sound WORSE than normal when it was hooked up backwards, and sounded normal (i.e. better) when hooked up in the prescribed manner?


----------



## DqMcClain

Ah, Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox... I once used this as an excuse to be late to my calculus class in high school. The teacher was simultaneously Amused and Not Amused, even after I opened the door. Take that, Schrodinger!

It's buried in the thread farther back than I want to dig... but the issue Lou raised with my choice of the word "decent" is fair, and perhaps "reference" would have been a better word. What I was driving at was that the test system needs to meet some minimum level of quality, but need not be prohibitively expensive. We obviously don't want to test cables using a bunch of Targ-Mart House Brand gear, but it also shouldn't be necessary to step completely outside the systems any of us have built for our own purposes. 

If the argument from cable manufacturers/marketers is that their cables make a huge difference when integrated into "my" system, then the entity that conducts the test shouldn't need to go to any more trouble than any of us have in order to construct a system of sufficient quality to experience the difference or lack of difference the cables claim to make. Granted, some of us have gone to more trouble than others... but essentially, any of us could conduct a scientifically valid test to determine the effect of various cables in comparison to others.


----------



## Gregr

I agree totally about decreasing the distance but I'm not sure if it is always by .5 between point A and the destination..., I'm not sure this is algorithmic or voodoo numerology phenomena - not sure phi could be ruled out entirely though..., the aesthetic is mostly subjective in this case all the same, it all depends on who is listening and how and what to and where and when.??

P.D. Oespensky(The Psychology of Mans Possible Evolution, 1910) wrote about four levels of consciousness - the last two subjective and finally objective. Oespensky explains the subjective experience must be understood completely before being able to become objective in reality, fully lucid..., a PhD and M.D. and time to assimilate the info, but by that time their hearing is gone - so what's the point, right. 

It may not be a requirement but for my own satisfaction many hours of listening is/was a requisite for music appreciation. I was happy with my sub/sat system in the 80's but I had not yet experienced 5.1. I keep thinking about Atmos but I mostly listen to music using the front three speakers. I'm just slow..., methodical... :innocent:


----------



## Savjac

Gregr said:


> Yes exactly and that I don't try to convince myself there is or is not a diff.
> Wow, this conversation was restarted about the time I signed-on in 2009 and is still moving in a tentative poss direction and more important individuals including myself are inclined to discover a true scientific approach in testing variables. For some of you old timers the conversation includes brainstorming and creating hypothesis and even mention of theories. I don't believe this is a simple answer like I felt in 2009 - I'm not even sure why I thought the diff in amps was obvious I don't ever remember ever wondering before that time.
> 
> One extreme theory when observed in its entirety leads me to question myself "The Heisenberg Uncertainty theory." Heisenberg himself presents the "Observer Effect" as another potential reason for mathematical differences in any measured phenomena and reason to doubt any listening/listener perceived experience otherwise not accounted for..., is there no answer. Maybe the best we can do is simply "enjoy our creations"


I am not so sure that we are not opening the doors to the barn before the horse is actually born. I sincerely believe that we all have to listen before we can hear in other words we need to be educated and how to observe and in this case listen to anything before we can actually hear what were talking about. One cannot jump into the cockpit of a Navy fighter and expect to start fly and land the plane without some sort of intense training or experience over a long period of time.


The same the analogy tends to go for audio as well. If we were to plug-in new speaker cables for example what should we hear that would give us some insight into what is going on. Not only are our systems capable of resolving these differences are gears have to be capable of recognizing these differences. Does one cable allow the music to roll over you better than the other cable, does one cable put performance in a better musical perspective, does one cable just make you happier listing to what to listen to than the other. There's many different perspectives that must be considered when putting forth an opinion on any of these things.

The least effective of the opinions I have seen are based on people's beliefs that it must be snake oil or must be marketing issues. Either way I get the feeling that the people that call everybody else out for being able to hear a difference show a significant amount of hubris for never even listening. I would like to be able to get a better handle on how to listen what to listen for and in time more of us could then here what is being presented. Now not everything will make a difference in that may be our ears are rooms or equipment is just not up to it and in that case we've reached a point where we really don't need to go much further but may be in a different direction ? Having such a great group of folks that are following this thread can seriously lead us to some positive answers and possibly even some possible ways to find out what makes these differences happen. Some differences are there, oh boy they are, so why not worked together to figure out what's going on?


----------



## lovinthehd

Savjac said:


> I am not so sure that we are not opening the doors to the barn before the horse is actually born. I sincerely believe that we all have to listen before we can hear in other words we need to be educated and how to observe and in this case listen to anything before we can actually hear what were talking about. One cannot jump into the cockpit of a Navy fighter and expect to start fly and land the plane without some sort of intense training or experience over a long period of time.
> 
> 
> The same the analogy tends to go for audio as well. If we were to plug-in new speaker cables for example what should we hear that would give us some insight into what is going on. Not only are our systems capable of resolving these differences are gears have to be capable of recognizing these differences. Does one cable allow the music to roll over you better than the other cable, does one cable put performance in a better musical perspective, does one cable just make you happier listing to what to listen to than the other. There's many different perspectives that must be considered when putting forth an opinion on any of these things.
> 
> The least effective of the opinions I have seen are based on people's beliefs that it must be snake oil or must be marketing issues. Either way I get the feeling that the people that call everybody else out for being able to hear a difference show a significant amount of hubris for never even listening. I would like to be able to get a better handle on how to listen what to listen for and in time more of us could then here what is being presented. Now not everything will make a difference in that may be our ears are rooms or equipment is just not up to it and in that case we've reached a point where we really don't need to go much further but may be in a different direction ? Having such a great group of folks that are following this thread can seriously lead us to some positive answers and possibly even some possible ways to find out what makes these differences happen. Some differences are there, oh boy they are, so why not worked together to figure out what's going on?



The barn analogy doesn't work much for me. 

The least effective posts for me are those who assume the marketers must have a valid point, despite tons of science to the contrary. Audiophiles are called audiophools for a very good reason. IMHO.


----------



## Gregr

Savjac said:


> I am not so sure that we are not opening the doors to the barn before the horse is actually born. I sincerely believe that we all have to listen before we can hear in other words we need to be educated and how to observe and in this case listen to anything before we can actually hear what were talking about. One cannot jump into the cockpit of a Navy fighter and expect to start fly and land the plane without some sort of intense training or experience over a long period of time.
> 
> 
> The same the analogy tends to go for audio as well. If we were to plug-in new speaker cables for example what should we hear that would give us some insight into what is going on. Not only are our systems capable of resolving these differences are gears have to be capable of recognizing these differences. Does one cable allow the music to roll over you better than the other cable, does one cable put performance in a better musical perspective, does one cable just make you happier listing to what to listen to than the other. There's many different perspectives that must be considered when putting forth an opinion on any of these things.
> 
> The least effective of the opinions I have seen are based on people's beliefs that it must be snake oil or must be marketing issues. Either way I get the feeling that the people that call everybody else out for being able to hear a difference show a significant amount of hubris for never even listening. I would like to be able to get a better handle on how to listen what to listen for and in time more of us could then here what is being presented. Now not everything will make a difference in that may be our ears are rooms or equipment is just not up to it and in that case we've reached a point where we really don't need to go much further but may be in a different direction ? Having such a great group of folks that are following this thread can seriously lead us to some positive answers and possibly even some possible ways to find out what makes these differences happen. Some differences are there, oh boy they are, so why not worked together to figure out what's going on?


I agree we have a long way to go in so many ways. I don't believe for a minute the answer is simply"...not everybody can hear a difference" nor "people in possession of their senses are not hearing a difference." There is a good group here and I believe most observe as I do the breadth and depth of info as advisement as we go about our daily lives. I only hope in this case we trip over something in our discussion that leads to better testing parameters, newer measuring tech/equip, detailed questionnaires (better data gathering) for observations GTG's 

Bottom line - I hear differences without making changes to my system - I hear subtle changes in music repro beyond recording quality and mastering ability, the same recording will sound different from one day to the next or it can. But I believe this has been discussed already..., there is the mind/brain conundrum.


----------



## Savjac

lovinthehd said:


> The barn analogy doesn't work much for me.
> 
> The least effective posts for me are those who assume the marketers must have a valid point, despite tons of science to the contrary. Audiophiles are called audiophools for a very good reason. IMHO.


Interesting lovin, I am not speaking about marketers and never have. I am really not one to believe all that junk as anything more than hype and maybe in some cases downright mis-information. Also I dont consider myself an audiophile, but rather a guy on a journey.


----------



## willis7469

Savjac;1430442 Also I dont consider myself an audiophile said:


> Not sure why, but I thought of David Carradine when I read that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AudiocRaver

Gregr said:


> I hear subtle changes in music repro beyond recording quality and mastering ability, the same recording will sound different from one day to the next or it can.


Sorry, you have me really puzzled here. Can you explain please?


----------



## Savjac

willis7469 said:


> Not sure why, but I thought of David Carradine when I read that.


That is a good idea, I could be walking the path to enlightenment with a few trick battles along the way. Righteous my brother...


----------



## FargateOne

lovinthehd said:


> (...) Audiophiles are called audiophools for a very good reason. IMHO.


I little bit hard here. Maybe I can help.

Dear forumers,
I cleaned the walls and the ceiling of our home theater room this morning. To recompense myself for a well done job, I listened my favorite sound track "Pirates of the Caribbean"
Guess what:yikes: I heard a difference in the sound! Can you believe it!!?? Not only walls and ceiling was brighter and more colorefull but also were my basses and mid fr and HF of my beloved system! The SS&I was better too.!! 
I was a clean wall atheist !!>:x

More seriously as Savjac said : "Some differences are there, oh boy they are, so why not worked together to figure out what's going on?"


----------



## AudiocRaver

Not all audiophiles are audiofools. I consider myself to be an audiophile and I am constantly on the lookout to avoid audio foolishness. Do not worry, I am sure you meant nothing personal by it, just clarifying A little


----------



## AudiocRaver

FargateOne said:


> I little bit hard here. Maybe I can help.
> 
> Dear forumers,
> I cleaned the walls and the ceiling of our home theater room this morning. To recompense myself for a well done job, I listened my favorite sound track "Pirates of the Caribbean"
> Guess what:yikes: I heard a difference in the sound! Can you believe it!!?? Not only walls and ceiling was brighter and more colorefull but also were my basses and mid fr and HF of my beloved system! The SS&I was better too.!!
> I was a clean wall atheist !!>:x
> 
> More seriously as Savjac said : "Some differences are there, oh boy they are, so why not worked together to figure out what's going on?"


On one hand, the fact that you were so surprised by the change is interesting. You were not looking for it at all apparently. On the other hand, being sure there were no other changes is sometimes difficult. The fact that you had a loud vacuum cleaner running for an hour or so while you cleaned up could have temporarily altered your hearing curve slightly, bringing about the perceived change. I am not trying to put a damper on your excitement about the change. Simply pointing out that controlling all possible variables is not a simple task.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Making a first stab at a controlled test setup. Using binaural ears at the LP, and recording there and then listening back with headphones, on the plus side, one can instantly switch back and forth between test recordings, a test condition that is important to me, but on the minus side, although the result is in stereo, most of the subtlety of a good soundstage is lost. Noise floor is also not great.

Separation is a problem with the binaural ears, a pair of stereo mics on separate stands with a good insulating layer in between them would probably work better for what we're trying to do.

Thinking about a really fast cable change, it would take three extra people, one at the amp and one at each speaker. Then, their presence in the room becomes another big variable.


----------



## AudiocRaver

I should try a recording with a mic in front of each speaker, just far enough away in the direction of the LP to get good full frequency response. Capturing the essence of a good Soundstage is not a simple task at all, and I fear that the idea of recording different cable "performances" to compare instantly is essentially flawed, as long as microphones are used.


----------



## lcaillo

Savjac said:


> I loved reading her posts, she could tell the difference between a 6' cable and a 5'10" cable ...or so she wrote. If I remember correctly she spoke to the possible problems with cable direction some 20+ years ago right up until she passed.
> She was the one that taught me about how to tell if a component is plugged into the wall correctly.
> 
> Fond memories of Enid and her boss, Harry.


I have fond memories as well, but mostly as entertainment, not as serious information. Now let me be clear, TAS and IAR, where she was a contributor, were very important in the history of the high end audio business. They provided a way for audiophiles to learn about equipment that they would otherwise never know about. They also, and I mean BOTH, contributed greatly to the mystique of the esoteric in audio and are largely responsible for the debate that we engage in this thread. I won't say they did more harm than good, but they certainly moved the industry in a direction of belief in effects that had little, if any, justification in the form of experimental data or engineering. Enid certainly made a contribution in terms of rather retentive attention to cleaning vynil, and certainly could write engaging and interesting articles, but much of what was delivered was simply hard to digest as serious information. One had to really wonder at what point this obviously intelligent person chose to simply push the limits of what her readers would believe. Remember, the point of TAS and IAR were no different than People or Newsweek. The point was to sell the rag. Peter and Harry were marketers themselves, not some Quixotic heros tilting at the windmill of audio magic, though many of us wanted to believe that. 

I admit to that in my early days in the audio industry I wanted to believe much of what I heard from vendors about the effects on the sound of their cables, electronics, or accessories. It certainly made it easier to sell the products if you believed what they gave you. I rather quickly became skeptical when I began to apply some of the skills and knowledge acquired in engineering, psychology, and statistics. I really became skeptical when I learned some of the sales techniques like "prediction-proof" demo techniques. 

So how does this rememberence of a writer that is perceived as either a golden-ear goddess or a purveyor of silliness relate to this thread? Well, I would argue that it is the essense of this thread. We had a user start it by stating basically stating that there is some magic in cables that accounts for more differences than much of the equipment that we use. This is no different than Enid stating that the direction of the faucet on the sink affected her sound. Perhaps she was playing with us when she wrote that, but the fact is that many people experience changes in the sound they hear based on equally esoteric varibles. And they really DO have those EXPERIENCES! Whether or not they are based in the reality of differences in the sound that arrives at their ears is what this debate, and thousands of others really are about.

This debate gets at the very heart of what it means to experience life, IMO. Those who fall on the extreme of assuming that most equipment really does not make a difference miss a great deal, I believe. And those that argue that their personal experience is real to the point of excluding much data and analysis also miss a great deal, I believe. If they are each happy in that place then that is fine. What we are about here is respecting both and trying to find as much of the objective truth as possible, while still being able to suspend belief enough to believe that Miles Davis is actually playing in the next room while I am typing this. We also strive to get to a new level of understanding of what we hear and how it is affected by the very complex technology and our very complex perceptual system experiencing it. For being willing to engage in this kind of debate and interaction and actually add something useful to the experience, I thank all of you. Mostly, I appreciate my friend Wayne, in whom I have found a kindred spirit. An engineer who can actually experience life and find meaning in more than just the technology, but still make every attempt to quantify what he can. A human being willing to share his experiences, yet never hesitant to accept a challenge to his ideas or beliefs. A scientist who, fully understanding the limitations of what we can objectively measure, always pushing the limit of what we can learn. A philosopher who inherently understands how the meaning of the incompleteness theorem , uncertainty principle, and expectation bias cloud our understanding, but applies his knowledge in a manner that illuminates complex systems so that helps the rest of us can relate. I constanly strive to do as well...I hope you all realize how much of a treasure we have in him.


----------



## lcaillo

AudiocRaver said:


> I should try a recording with a mic in front of each speaker, just far enough away in the direction of the LP to get good full frequency response. Capturing the essence of a good Soundstage is not a simple task at all, and I fear that the idea of recording different cable "performances" to compare instantly is essentially flawed, as long as microphones are used.


If we could capture at a high enough sampling rate, then do some differential analysis of correllated sounds, we might find some parameters that describe what is encoded in the stereo recording about soundstage. Then if we could do the same with mics oriented and with response patterns similar to the ear, we might find similar parameters at the listening position...

Some pretty complex autocorrelation and filtering, perhaps something like wavelet analysis, may be neccessary to identify the parameters, but I continue to believe it can be done.

We just need someone to pony up the investment in a large and flexible listening room, some good mics, high speed data capture equipment, and a license for Matlab, and we can go at it.


----------



## AudiocRaver

One of my hopes, if we could get good enough quality from somewhere in the room, who was to employ the technique of inverting one of two signals and adding them together, effectively subtracting, and seeing what stuff is left over.

Ooh, ooh, ooh, I just got it, one channel at a time, it has to be done one channel at a time, just like taking measurements with REW. I was stuck on the idea that since we were trying to capture a stereophonic experience, it had to be all recorded in one pass. Obviously, the processing power of the psycho acoustical brain helps us differentiate between the left and right information that is reaching us during the listening experience, and we can get closer to that with separate left and right recordings, plus we have the opportunity to play with the synchronization of those two recordings to try to achieve enhanced soundstage timing phenomena.

We'll give it a try.


----------



## AudiocRaver

I think it is time for a new thread. We have had a lot of fun with this one, but if we are going to move forward with any serious work here it should be under a proper title.


----------



## willis7469

AudiocRaver said:


> I think it is time for a new thread. We have had a lot of fun with this one, but if we are going to move forward with any serious work here it should be under a proper title.



Agreed. You lead, we'll follow. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JBrax

willis7469 said:


> Agreed. You lead, we'll follow. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 What? Why? Something tells me Witchdoctor is sitting back having a chuckle. One of the most active threads in recent memory and it started out with…? I've actually forgotten how did this thread start?


----------



## AudiocRaver

JBrax said:


> What? Why? Something tells me Witchdoctor is sitting back having a chuckle. One of the most active threads in recent memory and it started out with…? I've actually forgotten how did this thread start?


I agree with JBrax that it has been in refreshingly active thread with lots of fun discussion. Carry on, no problem.

Right now I am just experimenting a little for fun. When I am ready to start documenting details about test and measurement techniques, I will put them in a separate thread.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> I think it is time for a new thread. We have had a lot of fun with this one, but if we are going to move forward with any serious work here it should be under a proper title.


Oops, I hope I did not cause any issues by dragging this out of line. I dont want to see that i messed it all up.
I have been a thread killer in the past, I guess I need to type less and think more.....:dontknow:


----------



## AudiocRaver

Recording the tracks separately makes all the difference in the world. From the left speaker I recorded the left and right ears of the binaural head, then from the right speaker I record the left and right ears of the binaural head. Left ear with left speaker and right ear with right speaker are the main ones, the other two I am experimenting what to do with them. Suggestions? Right now I am inverting and then mixing them in at a low level, not sure if it's better or worse, it is different though. Anyway, separation and definition are way way better than they were initially. If I can just get the noise floor down, I have hopes for the technique Maybe. Might have to stay up for a late night session. Now I need a really horrible sounding set of cables to throw in my system. Or maybe that is what I have already, who knows at this point?


----------



## JBrax

AudiocRaver said:


> Recording the tracks separately makes all the difference in the world. From the left speaker I recorded the left and right ears of the binaural head, then from the right speaker I record the left and right ears of the binaural head. Left ear with left speaker and right ear with right speaker are the main ones, the other two I am experimenting what to do with them. Suggestions? Right now I am inverting and then mixing them in at a low level, not sure if it's better or worse, it is different though. Anyway, separation and definition are way way better than they were initially. If I can just get the noise floor down, I have hopes for the technique Maybe. Might have to stay up for a late night session. Now I need a really horrible sounding set of cables to throw in my system. Or maybe that is what I have already, who knows at this point?


 Hahaha! If that is the last post of this thread it is the perfect summarization! Mic drop…and new thread.


----------



## FargateOne

Savjac said:


> Oops, I hope I did not cause any issues by dragging this out of line. I dont want to see that i messed it all up.
> (...)....:dontknow:


Something tells me that you were not alone to drag out of line...I cleaned my walls and ceiling !... remember!


----------



## Savjac

FargateOne said:


> Something tells me that you were not alone to drag out of line...I cleaned my walls and ceiling !... remember!


Ok then, I will let you take the blame....shame on you. :innocent:


----------



## Lumen

DqMcClain said:


> It's buried in the thread farther back than I want to dig... but the issue Lou raised with my choice of the word "decent" is fair, and perhaps "reference" would have been a better word. What I was driving at was that the test system needs to meet some minimum level of quality, but need not be prohibitively expensive. We obviously don't want to test cables using a bunch of Targ-Mart House Brand gear, but it also shouldn't be necessary to step completely outside the systems any of us have built for our own purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> If the argument from cable manufacturers/marketers is that their cables make a huge difference when integrated into "my" system, then the entity that conducts the test shouldn't need to go to any more trouble than any of us have in order to construct a system of sufficient quality to experience the difference or lack of difference the cables claim to make. Granted, some of us have gone to more trouble than others... but essentially, any of us could conduct a scientifically valid test to determine the effect of various cables in comparison to others.


Good point - Extravagant claims should be easily refuted independently of a system's reference status! In that context, each of us works within our world of reality, which should allow for differences to be heard. We should expect refined systems coupled with trained listeners to reveal more differences, IF ANY, than less capable systems and beginners. And we all need to be vigilant of refraining from generalizations based on lower-tier capability or listener training.

But I believe the story changes when extravagant claims move from the realm of pseudo-science toward rational designs founded in core engineering principles. Notice I did not say "out of the realm" as that would imply dismissing pseudo-science altogether. I think there's a middle ground as yet unexplained by what can be measured with current technology

Cables are said to present the least amount of subtle difference even in a system of refined capabilities. Whether or not that difference is real or just in the mind of the observer is fiercely debated here and elsewhere. IMO that serves to derail the underlying focus on generalizations made to reach blanketed conclusions. Myself included, we should be wary of parroting mantras of "It makes no difference because science says so." Especially if one has limited listening experience with a system of borderline refinement. I mean to insult no one or their systems; I merely wonder how pure-science advocates usually take such a strong stance as to refuse consideration of any other viewpoint.


----------



## Lumen

Egads! I'm late to the party again. Totally agree on the the fresh thread concept. Leonard, your words captivate as much as Wayne's contributions impress. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AudiocRaver

I'm afraid the idea of trying to record the listening experiences to compare cable sets is not going to do much good. The core problem is that such a recording just does not sound all that good compared to being there, and trying to catch subtle differences gets pretty tough when the system is not at least pretty good.

I agree with the premise that we ought to be able to find a way that anyone with a decent system can try for themselves. Besides being cumbersome and slow to set up and work with, this approach just doesn't sound that good. I am just going to let the idea simmer for a day or two and see if anything else pops up.


----------



## lcaillo

No need to record it if you can capture at the speaker terminals with a high enough rate, then do differential analysis.


----------



## AudiocRaver

One interesting premise of this whole discussion is the belief, or lack of understanding, about the ears and hearing, the belief if something sounds slightly different today compared to yesterday, that it must be a change in the system and that it could not be their hearing that has altered somehow. It is easy to accept that vision adjusts to light level for instance because we can see the iris opening and closing as light gets darker and brighter. Why is it so hard to accept that our hearing is highly adaptable, too? Add to that suggestability, and the hearing makes a pretty poor reference instrument.

Just trying to keep up with acoustical variations is enough to keep my head spinning. My chair nudges over a little every time I sit, something gets moved, a setting gets changed... I don't get putting that much trust in the ability of the ear to discriminate micro details over a span of days or weeks when it can barely keep up with a lot of the big ones.

SS&I is easier in wome ways because the kinesthetic and visual systems provide additional reference info.

"Faith requires no evidenced." OK, thats kinda cool, then by what criteria does one choose his beliefs? About audio? It is conveniently conducive to delusional thinking. If someone says they have a strange way to get their evidence, I get that, but "I don't need no stinking evidence..." That borders on being a little scarey. Truth is not always convenient, it jusy IS.

Is the faithful listener CREATING the alternate listening universe he believes in? That mind set exists, too. If so, man up and tell us, "I am creating a better-sounding cable with my creative intention and with faith, I'll let you know when it works." Could reeally cut down on manufacturing costs.


----------



## AudiocRaver

lcaillo said:


> No need to record it if you can capture at the speaker terminals with a high enough rate, then do differential analysis.


I think that is a better approach to try. The way that the speaker is influenced by the difference in cable characteristics should show up at that point, should it not?

Trying that "invert and add to see what the difference is" approach with a room recording is pretty ridiculous. Working just with electrical signals, it might have a chance.


----------



## AudiocRaver

I forgot to mention, there is enough randomness in the acoustical recorded signal that subtracting two recorded experiences to get the difference, there is a whole lot of stuff left over across the whole frequency range. I was surprised how much difference there is even with careful recordings.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> I agree with the premise that we ought to be able to find a way that anyone with a decent system can try for themselves. Besides being cumbersome and slow to set up and work with, this approach just doesn't sound that good. I am just going to let the idea simmer for a day or two and see if anything else pops up.


First, Thank You for going to all the trouble of trying to tie some science in with the used based listening findings ? As you mention, it seems at this point that we have not found an easy and/or repeatable way to do this.

When I try to listen for differences, I make sure that the components are easily accessible, as are the cables and I just change them out, go back and listen. Come to think of it, that might be why I like to try longer periods between changes such as whole songs or cuts if you will.
Actually while typing a thought hit me that if some differences can be heard in this slower and more cumbersome approach even more may be heard in quicker change overs, say done by an accomplice. 

While watching an episode of how its done today I noted how easy something would be to repair or disassemble an item once we know how it went together. iFixit does that for our electronic gear. Can we imagine how hard it would be to take apart an iPod touch to change the battery without some gentle instruction from an outsider ? With no visual cues as to how these things are created and how they work, it becomes quite the task to reverse engineer them. I would love to be able to do that with cables, in that understanding what makes them work differently and why did the manufacture cause them to be created in such a way as to be different from the main stream. Yes, this falls under the heading of the royal scam indeed which is what got us here in the first place and trying to deconstruct some cables that cost more than my home could be a bit tricky.

So I guess that leaves us with a belief, one that is open to differences and closed to hype. If I handed you two sets of cables that you had no notion of what to expect and couple that with no idea of cost...or essentially a blank chalkboard, could you ignore all those little technicalities and just sit back and listen, knowing full well that differences, if any, may or may not be present ? I know you would be honest enough to speaketh the truth. Only if differences are heard by others, then we could look further as to what is masking said differences. If you do hear a difference, then there you have it, now you can try and put together things that are the same in what others are hearing. I do believe this is the easier way to move forward. But what do I know. :rofl:


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> One interesting premise of this whole discussion is the belief, or lack of understanding, about the ears and hearing, the belief if something sounds slightly different today compared to yesterday, that it must be a change in the system and that it could not be their hearing that has altered somehow. It is easy to accept that vision adjusts to light level for instance because we can see the iris opening and closing as light gets darker and brighter. Why is it so hard to accept that our hearing is highly adaptable, too? Add to that suggestability, and the hearing makes a pretty poor reference instrument.


I would submit that our hearing has helped kept us out of the mouths of hungry beasties for untold millennia which would tend to support the thought that hearing makes an awesome reference instrument. Recent events with Surround Sound, recently culminating in Dolby Atmos has also shown that our ears are quite capable of taking in, rendering and making all of the aural clues readily understanding. That is multi tasking to the power of 10.



> Just trying to keep up with acoustical variations is enough to keep my head spinning. My chair nudges over a little every time I sit, something gets moved, a setting gets changed... I don't get putting that much trust in the ability of the ear to discriminate micro details over a span of days or weeks when it can barely keep up with a lot of the big ones. SS&I is easier in some ways because the kin-esthetic and visual systems provide additional reference info.


.
Every day there can be found substantive differences in way of barometric pressure, temperature, feelings, headache and what have you which can easily mess with our perceptions. Being one who is very susceptible to sinus issues, I can say there may be days before things may sound right again. By right I mean more of a usual and typical train of thought, that i have been accustomed to. 




> "Faith requires no evidence." OK, that's kinda cool, then by what criteria does one choose his beliefs? About audio? It is conveniently conducive to delusional thinking. If someone says they have a strange way to get their evidence, I get that, but "I don't need no stinking evidence..." That borders on being a little scary. Truth is not always convenient, it just IS.
> 
> Is the faithful listener CREATING the alternate listening universe he believes in? That mind set exists, too. If so, man up and tell us, "I am creating a better-sounding cable with my creative intention and with faith, I'll let you know when it works." Could really cut down on manufacturing costs.


Whenever we work towards a goal, we exercise faith. We show our hope that we will, in due course, find an answer for something that as yet, we have not been able to find. The opposite mind set exists in the professional doubting society that would have us believe that our journey to find an answer is fruitless even thought they cannot un-prove a thing. We all need evidence, just which of us are ready to continue to move along the highway of belief and which of us would shut down that highway with extreme prejudice.


----------



## willis7469

Savjac said:


> I would submit that our hearing has helped kept us out of the mouths of hungry beasties for untold millennia which would tend to support the thought that hearing makes an awesome reference instrument.
> But how many of us didn't make it? Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever we work towards a goal, we exercise faith. We show our hope that we will, in due course, find an answer for something that as yet, we have not been able to find. The opposite mind set exists in the professional doubting society that would have us believe that our journey to find an answer is fruitless even thought they cannot un-prove a thing. We all need evidence, just which of us are ready to continue to move along the highway of belief and which of us would shut down that highway with extreme prejudice.


But what of those that want what they believe so much to be true that they can't see the truth in from of them? :wink:
I think Wayne was on to something not too far back with the hearing/brain/psychoacoustic thing. 
Simple changes in mood, or choosing a music selection that might be half hearted can take you out of the "critical listening" game, and you might not realize it. I also read Wayne say he was an audiophile, but not in the same way many of them are associated. That's where I place myself too. The reason I say that is because I care about my sound, and improving it. Not because I'm some elitist snob who thinks the only way to audio heaven is the road paved with gold plated gear. 
Earlier I followed Wayne's prompt to start a new thread to merge this on going conversation with. I think now though, the title should stay as a reminder. Not of any real scams in audio of which there certainly are, but of all the places this thread has weaved. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Savjac

willis7469 said:


> But what of those that want what they believe so much to be true that they can't see the truth in from of them? :wink:
> I think Wayne was on to something not too far back with the hearing/brain/psychoacoustic thing.
> Simple changes in mood, or choosing a music selection that might be half hearted can take you out of the "critical listening" game, and you might not realize it. I also read Wayne say he was an audiophile, but not in the same way many of them are associated. That's where I place myself too. The reason I say that is because I care about my sound, and improving it. Not because I'm some elitist snob who thinks the only way to audio heaven is the road paved with gold plated gear.
> Earlier I followed Wayne's prompt to start a new thread to merge this on going conversation with. I think now though, the title should stay as a reminder. Not of any real scams in audio of which there certainly are, but of all the places this thread has weaved.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ok. All I really asked was try it, y'all might like it...or dont try it either way. 
It seems the fine gents in the dont try it have won our hearts and minds...and while my mind may be messed up, a recent MRI finds proof that I still have a brain...and yes my wife asked to see the proof :blink:


----------



## willis7469

Sorry jack, thought I'd rib ya since I've been out a da loup a couple days. I might even concede that IF my system could resolve any differences in cables, good OR bad they'd be lost due to my rooms acoustics. Lol 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Savjac

willis7469 said:


> Sorry jack, thought I'd rub ya since I've been out a da loup a couple days. I might even concede that IF my system could resolve any differences in cables, good OR bad they'd be lost due to my rooms acoustics. Lol
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Thanks for da rub, I guess i needed one. Your system can most probably do the deal...ifin you did not live so far up nort wit the Timberwolves


----------



## willis7469

Savjac said:


> Thanks for da rub, I guess i needed one. Your system can most probably do the deal...ifin you did not live so far up nort wit the Timberwolves



If you's was closer I'd have ya up nort here, we could howl avay wit em!!!
This is spring in da nort. I get excited for spring, and winter shows back up....










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lovinthehd

Savjac said:


> Ok. All I really asked was try it, y'all might like it...or dont try it either way.
> It seems the fine gents in the dont try it have won our hearts and minds...and while my mind may be messed up, a recent MRI finds proof that I still have a brain...and yes my wife asked to see the proof :blink:


Why try to fix something that isn't broken though? Why does it appeal to "try" different cables if they're of proper construction, material and gauge? Does the professional recording, broadcast or performance areas of audio even bother with such super cable nonsense? No. Just because someone advertises or has some shill of a reviewer recommend some bla bla cable has some exotic winding/supercopper/dielectric then that makes it worth judging as an audible component? What makes it an attractive proposition? The idea that it may be cheaper than some exotic component?


----------



## AudiocRaver

I personally have no problem with that, try it and see if you like it, approach to this. At the moment, when my system is at its best, I have a hard time imagining a cable change making enough of a difference to make me sit up and take note and say "Wow, that is really something better." That is what it would take to impress me about a cable. But it can happen.

I realize while thinking about this, that the big improvements to my system in recent years have come from two directions. 1, Something about the system is bothering me and in order to figure out what it is that's bugging me leads to Improvement or change that makes a big difference. 2, A change of some kind that I did not expect to make a difference, did make a big difference that surprised me.

So I am a little skeptical, but still open minded.


----------



## Savjac

Thank You for your input lovinthehd.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Savjac said:


> I would submit that our hearing has helped kept us out of the mouths of hungry beasties for untold millennia which would tend to support the thought that hearing makes an awesome reference instrument. Recent events with Surround Sound, recently culminating in Dolby Atmos has also shown that our ears are quite capable of taking in, rendering and making all of the aural clues readily understanding. That is multi tasking to the power of 10.


Or is it the flexibility and adaptability that have kept us alive, and prevent our getting stuck listening to the frogs while the tiger sneaks up behind us, and keep us from being able to LOCK IN a reference sound?

OR

Maybe it is a recent genetic aberation that allows some to do that, really lock in a sound. WEIRDOS! They must be eliminated! (Abradolf Linkler will help liberate them from their inferior genetic material!!). Sorry.



> Every day there can be found substantive differences in way of barometric pressure, temperature, feelings, headache and what have you which can easily mess with our perceptions. Being one who is very susceptible to sinus issues, I can say there may be days before things may sound right again. By right I mean more of a usual and typical train of thought, that i have been accustomed to.


Absolutely. Random thermal molecular collisions in the air... There is no such thing as _same._



> Whenever we work towards a goal, we exercise faith. We show our hope that we will, in due course, find an answer for something that as yet, we have not been able to find. The opposite mind set exists in the professional doubting society that would have us believe that our journey to find an answer is fruitless even thought they cannot un-prove a thing. We all need evidence, just which of us are ready to continue to move along the highway of belief and which of us would shut down that highway with extreme prejudice.


The many meanings of the word FAITH. "I want it to be true so I convince myself that it is, regardless of evidence otherwise," is a version. But if one's faith creates a better sounding cable, it should then sound better for everyone, and new evidence should support the improvement. Faith may start out defying evidence, but should ultimately be fully supported by new evidence. No?


----------



## AudiocRaver

lovinthehd said:


> Why try to fix something that isn't broken though? Why does it appeal to "try" different cables if they're of proper construction, material and gauge? Does the professional recording, broadcast or performance areas of audio even bother with such super cable nonsense? No. Just because someone advertises or has some shill of a reviewer recommend some bla bla cable has some exotic winding/supercopper/dielectric then that makes it worth judging as an audible component? What makes it an attractive proposition? The idea that it may be cheaper than some exotic component?


Good question. Sometimes curiosity takes over our reason. Sometimes we get caught up in silly time wasters. Sometimes we make great new discoveries.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> Or is it the flexibility and adaptability that have kept us alive, and prevent our getting stuck listening to the frogs while the tiger sneaks up behind us, and keep us from being able to LOCK IN a reference sound?
> 
> OR
> 
> Maybe it is a recent genetic aberation that allows some to do that, really lock in a sound. WEIRDOS! They must be eliminated! (Abradolf Linkler will help liberate them from their inferior genetic material!!). Sorry.


Look, I am really not of this planet, I am from the planet "What It Is" and we have mega super senses that allow us to hear, see and taste things that normal humans cannot. We do have the sense of smell, unfortunately, let me tell you some of my species do smell...bad. 




> Absolutely. Random thermal molecular collisions in the air... There is no such thing as _same._


I knew there was an explanation, I feel much better now, I am not the same as a random weirdo, but rather, a weirdo with class. 





> The many meanings of the word FAITH. "I want it to be true so I convince myself that it is, regardless of evidence otherwise," is a version. But if one's faith creates a better sounding cable, it should then sound better for everyone, and new evidence should support the improvement. Faith may start out defying evidence, but should ultimately be fully supported by new evidence. No?


Well there you have it, "A"version of faith that seems to support the there is no evidence (As yet ) and as such it does not exist. And yet, there is another side that says millions of fine earthlings do believe in these differences and an exact answer as to why has not yet been discovered, kind of like those fine folks acting out parts in the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy. There also that fact recently uncovered that as noted in the movie Transformers, Dark of the Moon, a other worldly copy of The Ark landed on the moon and although many believed it to be there, it was not discovered until 1969 when we stepped on the moon. This is all so simple you know...


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> Good question. Sometimes curiosity takes over our reason. Sometimes we get caught up in silly time wasters. Sometimes we make great new discoveries.



Perfect, this is the answer to all answers, two answers, equally potent. By just trying something, we seem to have a 50/50 chance at a great new discovery. Kind of like listening to opinions on a great steakhouse, one may try it and cringe at the poor flavors while another may do the happy dance after the first bit. To me this is called Adventure. Try it you might like it....an old adage from the days of small television screens.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Watching a episode of Top Gear, the hosts driving supercars at top speed on a test track, sometimes the answer to the question "Why?" is simply... _Why Not?_


----------



## Savjac

:surrender:


----------



## Boxozaxu

What happened to the arsonist who built this pile of tinder and dropped a match on it???

Typical.


----------



## JBrax

Boxozaxu said:


> What happened to the arsonist who built this pile of tinder and dropped a match on it??? Typical.


 Honestly, I think he's sitting back having a chuckle. 400 posts and the most active thread in recent memory.


----------



## Savjac

Want I should keep it going ?? :rofl:


----------



## DqMcClain

Savjac said:


> Want I should keep it going ?? :rofl:



I feel like the real scam is in claims that aren't just unsubstantiated, but cannot be substantiated. There's a thread about wall color and ambient light where the literature referenced as background reading is all based on solid and well-documented science. The net effects are subtle, and entirely based on the viewer's perception... but everything checks out when you dig into the facts. I feel like this is where we could go on the cable issue with some valid testing. 

I'm not opposed to the concept that fancy cables may sound different, even if empirical data doesn't support a conclusion that our experience leads us to. The error is not in our ears at this point, but in the data collection itself. If the phenomenon exists according to our perception, it stands to reason that there should be some method of documenting it. What I AM opposed to is using fancy-sounding jargon wildly outside the context in which it exists to try and sell something expensive. If it really does something different, I'd like to know what it is before I spend money on it. 

Is anyone actually interested in attempting to run tests?


----------



## Savjac

I was just kidding, this thread seems to have run its course.


----------



## FargateOne

DqMcClain said:


> I feel like the real scam is in claims that aren't just unsubstantiated, but cannot be substantiated. (...)
> I'm not opposed to the concept that fancy cables may sound different, even if empirical data doesn't support a conclusion that our experience leads us to. The error is not in our ears at this point, but in the data collection itself. If the phenomenon exists according to our perception, it stands to reason that there should be some method of documenting it. What I AM opposed to is using fancy-sounding jargon wildly outside the context in which it exists to try and sell something expensive. If it really does something different, I'd like to know what it is before I spend money on it.
> 
> Is anyone actually interested in attempting to run tests?


Hopefully yes someone. 

Speaking of tests, blind test is needed of course. I had an idea. Can we think about a way to wrap all the cables to be tested in the same "jacket", "cloth", "enveloppe" "wrapping" (lack of vocabulary here sorry) leaving apparent only the 3 pins going into the input or the outlet. One person wraps the cable, put a number on the covering enveloppe and gives the cables to who makes the test. Also the enveloppe could have the same stiffness, color, surface etc.


----------



## lcaillo

DqMcClain said:


> I feel like the real scam is in claims that aren't just unsubstantiated, but cannot be substantiated. There's a thread about wall color and ambient light where the literature referenced as background reading is all based on solid and well-documented science. The net effects are subtle, and entirely based on the viewer's perception... but everything checks out when you dig into the facts. I feel like this is where we could go on the cable issue with some valid testing.
> 
> I'm not opposed to the concept that fancy cables may sound different, even if empirical data doesn't support a conclusion that our experience leads us to. The error is not in our ears at this point, but in the data collection itself. If the phenomenon exists according to our perception, it stands to reason that there should be some method of documenting it. What I AM opposed to is using fancy-sounding jargon wildly outside the context in which it exists to try and sell something expensive. If it really does something different, I'd like to know what it is before I spend money on it.
> 
> Is anyone actually interested in attempting to run tests?


There has been a great deal of discussion of what kind of testing might be meaningful. In this thread.

To say that because something is perceived it should be measurable is, I believe, a great oversimplification. The perception could be completely the result of psychological factors with no basis in physical differences in the sound. In those cases it would not be measurable in terms of acoustic or electronic measures. That does not mean that the effect cannot be experimentally discovered, but in the real world the variables are very difficult to account for. Expectation bias and placebo effects are quite well documented and understood. And they explain much of what is "heard" by many. Still, IMO, there is much to do to identify real differences where they do exist, and correlate them to technological explanations.

Even identifying differences exist or not is very difficult. But we keep poking at it and trying it, learning more as we go. 

What is a scam and what is not gets very personal and individual experiences and beliefs drive much of that decision. A scam is something everyone should be aware of because someone is trying to take their money and in return give them something less than or different than they expect. If someone sells you a cable and says it will do X then you find it does it, for you, whether you hear it because you expect to hear it or not, is it a scam? I have to say it is no different than buying jewelry to make you beautiful and attractive. If you think it does then it does what they sold it to do.

Claims of scams and snake oil themselves are boring discussions to me, and this one is no different when it focuses on the original question, which IMO was trolling. It gets interesting when we get down to what makes a difference in sound and how to determine it, or when people relate experiences that might point to actual differences. Someone just saying they heard something with no good reasoning or testing behind it really does not do it for me.

This thread got interesting when we got more into the philosphy and technology of actually how to find differences. We could have dozens of threads discussing that and it would remain interesting to me because we don't have answers. Yet. 

I


----------



## AudiocRaver

Got busy.

Getting ready for AXPONA!

FWIW, I want to give a try recording at the speaker terminals with different cable types, then subtracting the recorded signals to see/hear the difference. Might tell us something. Maybe next week.

Another idea. I have a selector that allows selection between two amps. That could be two identical amps with different cable types under test. If we can figure out a way to remote-control switch between cables at the speaker end, we could do some serious listening tests. Or 2 identical speaker sets side by side. Or 2 identical pairs of small 2-way speakers, over/under.

Thoughts?


----------



## Savjac

Getting ready for Axpona as well. Headin out tomorrow for Friday attendance.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Savjac said:


> Getting ready for Axpona as well. Headin out tomorrow for Friday attendance.


Super, we will get there about noon.


----------



## AudiocRaver

One thing we have to be careful about when talking about the limits of human hearing, is conditions under which a test is made. I was just sitting with Room EQ Wizard, the signal generator now allows you to add different amounts of distortion, harmonic by harmonic, and you can fairly easily find your own threshold for when you begin to hear the Distortion being added in. For that particular test, the threshold seems to be between one quarter and one half of a percent harmonic distortion, your mileage may vary. With music, I believe around 1% is the commonly accepted threshold for being able to hear harmonic distortion.

With speaker cables, we are not even sure exactly what difference we are listening for. It will be interesting if we can identify a difference electronically and then try to figure out what part of the music that would be affecting so we know what to listen for for a difference.

For me, it will have to be a marked improvement. If a cable sounds different but not better, so what? Better of course is very subjective.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> Super, we will get there about noon.


I believe I am going to spend the night with an audiophile friend who is indeed the king of soundstage. Then we will have some chow Friday morning and head up, will be there about noon as well.

Hope to see you Wayne.


----------



## chashint

Boy howdy this thing just keeps kicking..............



witchdoctor said:


> Anyone who has been reading the thread here on audio cables must have noticed the fireworks on display. Apparently some shacksters feel that paying a lot of money for high end cables is a scam. I think that is getting it backwards. Think for a moment, if you manufactured speakers let's say why would you want your customers to make their $2000 speakers sound like a $3000 speaker by simply changing speaker cables? That makes 0 sense if you manufacture speakers, of course you want them to buy the $3000 speaker.


Claiming "$2000 speaker A" can be improved to level of "$3000 speaker B" with different speaker wire = Scam
Would the same wires make "$3000 speaker B" improve the same percentage to equal "$6000 speaker C" ??



> Why would you want a customer make your $2000 processor sound like a $4000 processor by changing the power cord and interconnects? Wouldn't you rather they get the $4000 processor?


Claiming "$2000 processor A" can be improved to level of "$4000 processor B" with different interconnects and a new power cord = Scam



> The real scam in audio is spending huge $$$ on component upgrades when a simple cable upgrade could get you most of the way there for relatively little money.
> Then when I see people promote this scam here as a way of being intelligent I have to wonder where that comes from. Has the component manufacturing industry really been this effective on making people spend big $$$ on new components? Apparently yes.
> OK, now you want data right? According to audio reviewer Thomas Campbell:
> " interconnects and speaker cables make the largest per-dollar difference of any component or accessory. "
> http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue7/signal.htm
> I got news for you, you don't have to take any of this on faith. Nearly all of these cable vendors provide risk free in home auditions.


All claims above = Scam



> So, stop being scammed by the component manufacturers on spending big $$$ on components. Get good components and unleash 100% of their potential with some decent cables. Remember, interconnects and speaker cables make the largest per dollar difference of ANY component or accessory. Just take the time to test risk free and prove it to yourself.


Claiming interconnects and speaker cables make the largest per dollar difference of ANY component or accessory = Scam



Turn out the lights 
The party's over 
They say that 
All good things must end 
Call it tonight 
The party's over 
And tomorrow starts
The same old thing again 

But the crazy crazy party 
Never seen so many people 
Laughing dancing 
Look at you you're having fun 
But look at me 
I'm almost cryin' 
That don't keep her love from dyin' 
Misery cause for me the party's over 
Turn out the lights... 

Once I had a love undyin' 
I didn't keep it but I tried 
Life for me was just one party 
And then another 
I broke her heart so many times 
I had to have my parting wife 
I had to have my party 
Why broke her heart so many times 
But one day she said 
Sweetheart the party's over 
Turn out the lights...


----------



## AudiocRaver

Not saying that I agree with any of the claims, but here is the way I would look at it if I did. I would not say that a cable could improve the sound of anything. I would say that if a component or speaker or system does not sound as good as it should, bad cables might be to blame as a constriction or restriction to the good sound. And moving to better cable opens the bottleneck so to speak and allows the good sound to occur. So $4,000 speakers might only sound like $1,000 speakers with a bad set of cables but will never sound better than $4,000 speakers, even with the best possible cable.

This is a way of looking at it, not agreeing.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

AudiocRaver said:


> Not saying that I agree with any of the claims, but here is the way I would look at it if I did. I would not say that a cable could improve the sound of anything. I would say that if a component or speaker or system does not sound as good as it should, bad cables might be to blame as a constriction or restriction to the good sound. And moving to better cable opens the bottleneck so to speak and allows the good sound to occur. So $4,000 speakers might only sound like $1,000 speakers with a bad set of cables but will never sound better than $4,000 speakers, even with the best possible cable.
> 
> This is a way of looking at it, not agreeing.


Can we put some more qualifications around bad cables such as;

improper diameter for run length of cable
physically damaged or oxidized cable
poor connectivity between amp and speaker (loose connection or bad solder joint if terminating in hardware


----------



## AudiocRaver

3dbinCanada said:


> Can we put some more qualifications around bad cables such as;
> 
> improper diameter for run length of cable
> physically damaged or oxidized cable
> poor connectivity between amp and speaker (loose connection or bad solder joint if terminating in hardware


Excellent idea, it pays to be specific. We might add to your list:

cable with some combination of inductive/capacitive/resistive characteristics which degrade amplifier performance or degrade the amplifier/speaker interface significantly.


----------



## lcaillo

This thread is closed due to drifting off topic.


----------

