Poll: Where are you along the cable divide?

[Teresa]

With all due respect to Pink Floyd:

 

We don't need no education... (The Wall, 1979)

...from audio evangelists who believe they have a divine mission to save us from ourselves.

 

I agree. A big 1+ from me!

[Teresa]

Of those who experience a difference between copper and silver, some prefer one and some the other. Which they prefer, if any, has no bearing on the reason for them experiencing a difference in the first place..

 

I am one of those who doesn't like the sound of silver speaker cable, in my system it sounded a little too shrill and threadbare.

 

Consistent reports of imaginary phenomena are not unusual. For example, many accounts of alien abductions share a number of elements. That doesn't make them true. In fact, alien abductions are about as likely to be real as are unmeasurable yet audible differences between cables.

 

How can you be sure aliens are not visiting, studying and/or abducting us?

 

“On November 4, 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way galaxy. 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting Sun-like stars.”

 

Consistent reports of real phenomena are no less unusual. Empirical evidence is not to be dismissed out of hand simply because you don't agree with it.

 

2+

 

+1

 

BTW, 90.08% of members voting in this poll do not agree with this proposition:

 

Snake oil: Cables make no difference whatsoever.

 

This is indeed good news.

 

That proves only what I said way back in post #49. Teresa worded the poll to get the results she wanted…

 

You proved nothing, as I replied in post 58

 

No hook was intended. I just wanted to find out if there were others like me who were in the middle of the cable divide and not at one of two extremes, people are thrown into at CA. And if others also hear more realistic deep low frequency energy with thicker gauge speaker cables. And if others felt that well constructed cables are important for good sound quality and durability.

 

Just because I hear fuller and more powerful bass with thicker gauge speaker cable and prefer well-constructed interconnects with good insulation I hate to be thrown in with the people who buy $10,000 cables. It’s not fair! In most other threads people only see two sides “snake oil” and “all cables sound different”. After the results of this poll I hope no tries to put people into the two extremes again but in the middle.

 

I don't believe all cables sound the same but I do believe good cables don’t have to be expensive. Did you even read the first post in this thread where I explained why?

[mansr]

How can you be sure aliens are not visiting, studying and/or abducting us?

 

“On November 4, 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way galaxy. 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting Sun-like stars.”

 

I can't be sure, but for them to do so would require some kind of entirely new physics, just like audible differences between copper and silver wire does.

[mansr]

It's kind of touching that you can hear subtle differences between cables and files with identical checksums, yet you can't distinguish between The Who and Pink Floyd.

 

Perhaps your system really is insufficiently revealing.

 

Perhaps, so too, is your audio equipment.

 

That made me chuckle.

[Jud]

I can't be sure, but for them to do so would require some kind of entirely new physics, just like audible differences between copper and silver wire does.

 

Perhaps just extraordinarily good refrigeration or, with "generation ships," ecosystem and engineering design. Not that I think they've been here. People really have no concept of the distances and thus lengths of time involved. Also, no reports of specific advanced technologies or even advanced knowledge to prove bona fides, like whether P=NP, or whether the Riemann hypothesis is correct.

[Allan F]

It's kind of touching that you can hear subtle differences between cables and files with identical checksums, yet you can't distinguish between The Who and Pink Floyd.

I have never said that I can hear differences between files with identical checksums. So, you must be confusing me with someone else. OTOH, I most definitely can hear differences between some cables and the differences are, on occasion, more than "subtle".

 

Of course, I know that The Wall was by Pink Floyd. No point explaining why The Who was on my mind at the time I posted.

[wouterk]

For what it is worth:

I have tried lots of different cables in the analogue domain: from sensible priced ones to rather expensive ones.

They all sound different, some even 'louder' than others.

Sound also depends on equipment at both ends.

I ended up with expensive cables between DAC and pre-amp and some sensibly priced home terminated XLR cables full silver. I am pleased with the end result.

I haven't felt the need to try lots of cables in the digital domain. Even a very cheap optical cable from computer to DAC did very well. There was little to distinguish my Mac mini with DAC setup to a 20.000USD SACD player.

[gmgraves]

No worries a Harley will never go fast enough to get anyone killed or injured, if it will start at all.

 

Sorry pet peeve of mine. I cannot understand why anyone would pay 20k+ euro for a motorbike that has not evolved since the 50's.

 

I know I'm not rational in this but still.

 

While a Harley-Davidson is certainly not my cup of tea, when it comes to motorcycles, I have to give the company this: If everything America built was as well made as a current Harley-Davidson, we'd still be the great country that we used to be, when the whole world wanted US products. And while you're right when you say that most Harley's haven't changed in design much since the 1950's, you're overlooking the Harley "V-Rod".

 

V-Rod 2016 Motorcycles  | Harley-Davidson USA

 

This bike has a Porsche-designed DOHC water cooled engine and is a thoroughly modern design in every respect. It is definitely not the rough-running 360 degree crank V-Twin engined "Hog" that you are thinking about.

 

On the other hand, If it's got an engine and wheels on it, I prefer it to be Italian! and that goes for motorcycles as well as cars. Give me a Ducati or an MV Agusta or an Aprillia.

[gmgraves]

how can you be sure aliens are not visiting, studying and/or abducting us?

 

“on november 4, 2013, astronomers reported, based on kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the milky way galaxy. 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting sun-like stars."

 

Of course, there is no way to be sure. First of all, one cannot prove a negative. For instance, Nobody can prove for sure that Atlantis, the "lost continent" didn't exist, but we can prove it did exist, by finding it. Until then, it's like Schrodinger's cat.

 

But having said that, there is no hard evidence that we are being visited, nor that any humans have really been abducted. In spite of lots of science fiction stories and even TV "documentaries", no implants made of some form of unobtainium or containing circuitry that we can't fathom have ever been found in any "returned" abductee. There just is no evidence. Now, are there sightings by people who can be trusted that nobody can explain? Sure. Could they be aliens? Again, sure, they could be... but the vast distances involved say that it is extremely unlikely. Still we can't discount it completely. But with every mobile phone on the planet having a camera in it, I find it strange that somebody hasn't gotten some credible pictures. After all, everything else that goes on in the world seems to get photographed by smart phones to the point of overkill!

[gmgraves]

Perhaps just extraordinarily good refrigeration or, with "generation ships," ecosystem and engineering design. Not that I think they've been here. People really have no concept of the distances and thus lengths of time involved. Also, no reports of specific advanced technologies or even advanced knowledge to prove bona fides, like whether P=NP, or whether the Riemann hypothesis is correct.

 

 

Maybe alliens just live for thousands of our years! Maybe they've found star-gates. Or maybe people just have extraordinary imaginations. We've seen that here, haven't we?

[gmgraves]

+1

 

BTW, 90.08% of members voting in this poll do not agree with this proposition:

 

 

Mass delusion is a well-known psychological phenomenon, Alex. People are easily fooled, ask any magician. All it requires is a bit of imagination mixed with a modicum of ignorance of the subject at hand, and people will believe most anything!

[bluesman]

Mass delusion is a well-known psychological phenomenon, Alex. People are easily fooled, ask any magician. All it requires is a bit of imagination mixed with a modicum of ignorance of the subject at hand, and people will believe most anything!

You left out the most important ingredient, George. The most susceptible "marks" want to be fooled and so they display a kind of response bias. I've never thought much of what passes for research in the social sciences, because the strength of evidence required to "prove" a finding to the satisfaction of the group is well below that for the physical, biological, computational and other basic sciences. But "getting it" has rewards for those who do. Those who love magic get fun and entertainment out of it, which they would not do if they questioned the reality of the illusion.

 

Of course, not all generally observed phenomena are provable and there may actually be some golden ears among us (of whom I, sadly, do not appear to be one despite believing that I hear a clear improvement in sound quality through my AQ USB cable over the cheap one that came with a stone-age printer). Maybe cables conduct an infinite number of sound "states" that coexist until someone tries to measure or judge the sound, just as the aforementioned cat is both alive and not alive. Maybe everything everybody hears or doesn't hear is there or not there at the same time, in an audio equivalent of quantum superposition.

[mansr]

Those who love magic get fun and entertainment out of it, which they would not do if they questioned the reality of the illusion.

 

I certainly enjoy a good magic show even though I know perfectly well none of it is real.

[Jud]

Mass delusion is a well-known psychological phenomenon, Alex. People are easily fooled, ask any magician. All it requires is a bit of imagination mixed with a modicum of ignorance of the subject at hand, and people will believe most anything!

 

What is actually quite pertinent about magic is that much of certain categories, such as sleight of hand, depends very sensitively on where and for how long human attention is focused. This is a body of knowledge built up through experience, that is now being confirmed by scientific research. Some of this work has implications for ABX testing.

[PopPop]

I don't think there is room in the pigeon hole for that, Jud. [emoji5]

[Jud]

I don't think there is room in the pigeon hole for that, Jud. [emoji5]

 

I am sure the proprietors here at Procrustes' Inn will make it fit.

[PopPop]

+1 Respect!

[semente]

I feel this saying doesn't quite fit. It also is needlessly provocative and harsh.

 

Maybe it is because I once believed the other way. I spent money on such items. Heard the differences, some exalted cables weren't my cup of tea and others were. Fine tuned it all very carefully by ear.

 

Was I fool? No. Was I fooled? Yes. Was the money wasted yes. Nevertheless it wasn't foolish in context.

 

When I finally came to terms with the idea the wire wasn't doing anything for me. Learned how we are all by our makeup as humans prone to being fooled just this way. You can hardly call someone a fool when they are subject to their own human nature which they can't guard themselves from initially. Like others improvements in gear made real genuine improvements in sound. The idea given by others wire could help too wasn't too outlandish. "Listen and see for yourself in your own system". By golly I did, and by golly it works. I knew it did, as I heard it.

 

Now I know better, I have the understanding to guard against my own unreliable tendencies, I have the experience investigating such to know just how easy that very scenario leads one into experiences of differences that are not really there in the physical world. They are there in our minds where our personal reality is experienced. So it is a sticky wicket if you will.

 

So I don't consider those hearing wire as fools.

 

BTW, if you have never read it, you might enjoy a thread I once started. Water Flows Uphill from almost 4 years ago.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/water-flows-uphill-11286/

 

Hi Dennis,

 

I give little importance to audio cables and none whatsoever to power cables.

 

Despite this I still value my listening impressions and abilities and was surprised to find noticeable improvements in Mario's test files; I was happy with the fact that all the theory supported inaudible differences between Redbook and High Res and I didn't really feel like buying into another format, especially now when used and even some new CDs are as cheap as chips (I still don't).

 

In the http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/playclassics-test-files-compare-file-formats-26703/ topic you said:

 

Okay, have had some time to spend on this under reasonably good conditions.

 

I listened to only the 24 96 and the 44 16. (...)

 

After a few listens I thought there was a difference at times. Especially in the decay in the hall of the piano. When I would go directly back and forth the difference wasn't really there. One afternoon when doing other things I put these two into random play mode so I wouldn't know at any given time which was playing. No differences were apparent to note.

 

So I ran these through an ABX test. 16 trials done twice. 10 of 16 and 9 of 16 done a couple hours apart. Had I gotten positive results or heard differences in the sighted part of the test with conviction I would have tried some of the in between rates and bit depths.

 

I follow all your interventions with interest and find your atitude of distrust for yours and everyone else's listening abilities perfectly justifiable by your past experiences - I understand it very well for I have fallen into some of those traps myself.

But I find it strange that instead of dismissing listening as a valuable assessment tool you have not tried to perfect it, to make it less unreliable or as easily mislead.

 

You criticise people for expecting improvements or differences in their sighted or "informed" listening but I wonder if you're not taking your ABX test with a predisposed negative bias that will distort the outcome of the test.

 

 

You mentioned that you thought there was a difference; if you feel like it, I suggest that you go back to Mario's original files, choose to one Redbook track and listen to it listen once or twice a day for a week or more.

After you've become deeply accustomed to the music and the recording acoustics and the mechanical noises of instrument(s) give the 24/96 a listen; just don't try to dismiss your perception with your rational "beliefs", free yourself from all preconceptions and just listen.

If you do try please do report in the PlayClassicsTest Files thread.

 

Cheers,

Ricardo

[Jud]

 

You criticise people for expecting improvements or differences in their sighted or "informed" listening but I wonder if you're not taking your ABX test with a predisposed negative bias that will distort the outcome of the test.

 

 

 

I don't think so. Dennis has a lot of practice at these tests, is quite comfortable with them, and has taken such tests where he did find positive outcomes. I am betting on a different reason.

[bluesman]

I am sure the proprietors here at Procrustes' Inn will make it fit.

Hmmmm- that sure gives new meaning to the cable rack.........

[DigiPete]

. . .

 

P.S.: if I am not mistaken Cookie Marenco is not too fond of digital processing of recorded signals.

 

 

Nobody's a fan on unnecessary digital processing, so that is a mute statement.

 

 

99.99% of all vinyl has had more digital processing than a professional room compensating DSP.

The rest is pure analogue audiophile with all the associated acoustic flaws.

 

Actually, any A/D or D/A process probably has more digital processing than a professional room compensating DSP.

 

 

My brilliant 8260 Genelecs apply 5-10 filters to linearize 19 - 24kHz to ±3dB in my acoustically flawed livingroom.

With 29 - 21kHz ±1 dB / 23 - 40kHz -6 dB out of the box it really is all room correction ;-)

I hate to think about WAF slaves with no DSP ;-)

[Allan F]

I don't think so. Dennis has a lot of practice at these tests, is quite comfortable with them, and has taken such tests where he did find positive outcomes. I am betting on a different reason.

With respect, Jud, allow me to disagree. Dennis has clearly shown a bias, especially as evidenced by his "epiphany" whereby he came to reject the differences he formerly heard as no longer "real". Expectation bias goes both ways. As you know, more than a few questions have been raised about the validity of most ABX tests.

 

IMO, there is no practical difference between rigorous bias and sloppy bias.

[esldude]

Hi Dennis,

 

I give little importance to audio cables and none whatsoever to power cables.

 

Despite this I still value my listening impressions and abilities and was surprised to find noticeable improvements in Mario's test files; I was happy with the fact that all the theory supported inaudible differences between Redbook and High Res and I didn't really feel like buying into another format, especially now when used and even some new CDs are as cheap as chips (I still don't).

 

In the http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/playclassics-test-files-compare-file-formats-26703/ topic you said:

 

 

 

I follow all your interventions with interest and find your atitude of distrust for yours and everyone else's listening abilities perfectly justifiable by your past experiences - I understand it very well for I have fallen into some of those traps myself.

But I find it strange that instead of dismissing listening as a valuable assessment tool you have not tried to perfect it, to make it less unreliable or as easily mislead.

 

You criticise people for expecting improvements or differences in their sighted or "informed" listening but I wonder if you're not taking your ABX test with a predisposed negative bias that will distort the outcome of the test.

 

 

You mentioned that you thought there was a difference; if you feel like it, I suggest that you go back to Mario's original files, choose to one Redbook track and listen to it listen once or twice a day for a week or more.

After you've become deeply accustomed to the music and the recording acoustics and the mechanical noises of instrument(s) give the 24/96 a listen; just don't try to dismiss your perception with your rational "beliefs", free yourself from all preconceptions and just listen.

If you do try please do report in the PlayClassicsTest Files thread.

 

Cheers,

Ricardo

 

Yes, I think people ignore when I say I have gotten positives. One example from a few months back. Resampling software. There is a older version I can listen to and don't really think it is different. Yet dotting I's and crossing T's I tried it in Foobar ABX. Felt completely uncertain, and expected random results. Instead I hit 19 of 20 followed by 17 of 20. Looking at what is left from that resampler I would not have expected that. Since sigma delta DACs are sometimes said to have noise floors sensitive to such residuals I tried it on two more DACs all with different chips. 18 of 20 and 19 of 20. So I don't think it was a sigma delta effect. Just a quick note, the resampler in Reaper seems like it slightly roughens sound quality and I can ABX it as well. Not usually 19 of 20, but 15 or 16 of 20 often enough it corroborates that I do hear it.

 

I do think taking enough such tests you are comfortable with them is important. I have run across a couple or three other things I can hear blind while thinking it sounds the same. Doing that prevents you from throwing in the towel when it seems hard and to really start guessing. Then are things I heard different as am doing it blind and do get positive results. The flip side is the much larger number of things I am pretty sure I can hear a difference between and cannot do it better than random guessing. So experience is helpful. Relaxed awareness is helpful.

 

So one of your statements:

But I find it strange that instead of dismissing listening as a valuable assessment tool you have not tried to perfect it, to make it less unreliable or as easily mislead.

 

I have done some messing about with that. NUMBER ONE is you must match levels. Must do it. Being able to switch quickly is the next part to doing good comparisons. If you wish to do sighted comparisons those are still vitally important. You will often find even if you think you hear differences the magnitude of differences is greatly diminished if you match levels and can switch quickly. If you have spent very little time and don't have an opinion yet, you quite often will find yourself flummoxed at things sounding so close to the same even sighted.

 

Beyond that things get so murky that normal listening as an assessment tool is so degraded it would only be useful with truly large differences. Yet I have done it, and had the normal practice common among audiophiles for years that trying something a couple weeks and taking it out of the signal chain is how I knew what I thought of it. And doing so gave me great confidence in my appraisal. That appraisal stood the test of time solidly. (as long as I knew the gear in use)

 

My current opinion is the longer you do that, the more opinion you express even privately, the greater the likelihood of biasing or corrupting your experience. It takes so surprisingly little to plant a germ of an opinion in your head that sighted it will grow and dominate your ability to hear in your head what your ears are actually hearing it becomes impossible to get meaningful results. It can reinforce itself without your knowledge so you never believe it is happening. Even months later without conscious awareness that old template of a pattern that grew inside your mind will spring forth to alter your subjective experience from what is real. A big part of our brain activity is pattern matching. If you give it a shortcut with sighted knowledge, it will in the interest of efficiency pull out the old pattern at a moment's notice to use with what you are hearing.

 

There are a number of accidental experiences that reinforce that. Here is one. Mixing some recorded music I had an idea how I might make an instrument appear on one side, slide to the other, shimmer and then coalesce into a central tight image of that instrument over the first few seconds after it appears. I worked on it for several hours. Finally making changes and doing things I thought I had it. Not quite perfect like I imagined, but pretty darn good. As I was comparing plain to my imaging tricks the phone rang. I had a short conversation, and then hit the play button I had paused. It was the plain version rather than the gimmicked one. So I went to solo the gimmicked version, only I was on the gimmicked version. I played it again, and sure enough it shimmered and then focused. But that stuck in my mind and bothered me. Next day I dropped both versions into Foobar ABX. They sounded the same. I let two other people listen and they didn't know what I was talking about as it sounded the same either way. I had convinced myself and superimposed my desired result onto what I was hearing. For weeks afterward if I knew what it was I heard the imagined effect which I knew for sure was not real. Yet it was there matching a pattern in my mind that couldn't be wiped out.

 

So any way, back to perfecting listening as a valuable tool. Match levels and be able to switch quickly. Moving to long term listening just increases the chance of biasing yourself and starting to build a pattern in your mind. Level matching is essential, and how do you do that between today and tomorrow? How do you match levels if one session was a Saturday afternoon with noisy neighbors doing yardwork, and the other is a quiet Sunday evening? Even if the signal is the same, the noise is very different and effectively like hearing it at a different volume. Your memory beyond about 15 seconds is like an MP3 of the actual aural perception. 90% of the raw aural info is thrown away. Continuing to reinforce whatever pattern of highlighting this vs diminishing that in your memory pattern intensifies itself each time you repeat it that way. And each repeat makes you more confident, comfortable and easy in believing in your memory. It is quite the trap in the right circumstances.

[Allan F]

I've never thought much of what passes for research in the social sciences, because the strength of evidence required to "prove" a finding to the satisfaction of the group is well below that for the physical, biological, computational and other basic sciences.

That may provide a reason for being skeptical and questioning the evidence but, IMO, it falls far short as a basis for rejecting it.

[esldude]

But I find it strange that instead of dismissing listening as a valuable assessment tool you have not tried to perfect it, to make it less unreliable or as easily mislead.

 

One other thought about this. It helps to use non-music comparison signals in some ways.

 

Many audible differences are frequency response effects. Using pink noise will usually show that up quite well if you can switch quickly at matched levels. You won't find yourself contemplating the emotional impact thru unit A was better than thru unit B on the pink noise signal. Nor will you describe the extra ease, depth, and space of one vs the other using pink noise. So pink noise is a good quick test signal to use even sighted.