Suggestion: ban all cable debates

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, Danaudio said:

wgscott I assume that in your opinion than that all DACs sound the same since it is all just 1 and 0's.

Have you actually gone out and listen to speaker cables of varying prices on a good system that would allow one to hear a difference or are you just a hater or partially deaf? j/k on the last one.

Seriously if you haven't gone and listen to cables or done any A/B testing yourself I would highly recommend it as I was a doubter just a few weeks ago. Still wish I was as I am lighter in the wallet because of this damn enlightenment or according to you imagination.

Must be nice to live in a world where you think that there are that many audiophiles who are just imagining that they are hearing a difference. I was stupid enough to give benefit of doubt to audiophiles who said there was a difference.  I wish I was as arrogant as some of you, then I would have more money in my wallet.

 

Dude.  Some folks here with components I would think about trading body parts for share wgscott's thinking.  Some people with <$500 systems share yours.  Your impression that folks who don't share your opinion can't hear is bias, pure and simple.

[Jud]

36 minutes ago, Danaudio said:

Dude when did I say that you have to hear a difference. I was just addressing the guys who say that there are ABSOLUTELY no difference and that audiophiles are audiophools. I think it is absurd that these guys think they are the only ones who are smart enough that they aren't fooled by cable companies. It is possible that they can't hear a difference but that doesn't mean others can't or are just imagining it. I don't doubt they can't hear it if they have gone to listen but many haven't gone even to listen and making arguments. That is the reason I ask if they have tried to go to have a listen. Someone else asked if they have listened and WG still hasn't answered the question.

 

Because lots of these folks have answered many times, and the answer is yes.

 

So now that they've listened, have you sought out measurements to try to see whether there is anything that corresponds with what you like (not just for cables)?

[Jud]

20 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Why not just try it? There is a lot of phenomena in audio that can't be measured, or measured easily, or just not currently understood fully (audio perception in humans, high-frequency effects, low-level physics of conductance, sub-atomic aspects, etc) if you need to mentally justify it before giving it a shot. At worst, you are out maybe $10-$20 in return shipping. 

 

Electromagnetism is "sub-atomic," but that doesn't mean it isn't thoroughly understood.

 

Everyone pro and anti seems to focus on the exotic and unknown. I don't know why.  We have plenty of examples in the design of equipment and systems where behavior of individual components is thoroughly understood, but that doesn't mean the first draft of the new amp design works perfectly, or there aren't ground/noise currents in the new system you set up.

 

Bruno Putzeys has stated in interviews there are measurable, audible differences between cables *as they are used in systems*, and he has described the types of differences.

 

Given this, it surprises me that:

 

- Some people continue to say it would violate the laws of physics for such differences to exist;

 

- Other people continue to say science can't tell us about what we're hearing.

 

It's almost as if folks are more interested in continuing to hear themselves argue than in finding out more regarding what Putzeys is talking about (and trying to duplicate any results he has obtained).

 

@The Computer Audiophile, any possibility of contacting Putzeys regarding writing something here?

[Jud]

30 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Still waiting for a reply ....

 

A very interesting idea.  What if the vibes have to be shorter wavelength/higher frequency?  But at least you could eliminate vibration at whatever Hz a human can manage (not the listener - the shaker might well hear a difference, though not one necessarily caused by the cable!).

[Jud]

24 minutes ago, Danaudio said:

The question is how do you measure soundstage width and depth or how do you measure tone? I definitely should be able to measure volume so when I have time I will measure volume and post a video. But then I am sure some of you will say that I could have doctored the video to show the difference in volume from my Nordost and monster cable 12awg cables. 

 

Soundstage: Measure phase and in-room effects.  Not hard.  Ever hear a soundstage suddenly expand as a song heads toward a climax?  Think that how to do this to a high degree of exactitude is not well known to music producers and speaker designers?

 

 I believe I have heard cables affect soundstage, so I would want to look at phase effects and noise susceptibility (I speculate noise might affect ability to hear the last tails of echoes and make the soundstage seem smaller).

[Jud]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

 

Someone should mount a cable in a vibration testing rig and measure it thoroughly. Of course, those who have such equipment have better things to do than chasing ghosts.

 

In fact one of the things Putzeys mentioned was triboelectric effects, so I guess the designer of the nCore amplifier had nothing better to do that day.

 

Or perhaps his scientific curiosity or level of humility about what he knew exceeded yours, at least on that day.

 

Edit: This is one of the areas where I'd like to see if anyone can duplicate the types of measurements Putzeys has apparently done.

[Jud]

36 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Just a guess, but I'm thinking Cardas would only post video that would help justify the existence of their products.

 

Sure, but nothing prevents anyone else from trying to duplicate those results or evaluating whether those results equate to differences in normal use in audio systems.

 

Edit: See example immediately above!

[Jud]

23 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Here is another one of Ric Shultz showing the effect of magnetism on the flow of electrons:

 

Magnetism affects electromagnetic current?  Who knew?!

[Jud]

27 minutes ago, esldude said:

Monoprice XLRs are fairly well made ridiculously cheap cables with plenty of shielding.  They also have lots of triboelectric effect.  You can hook them into a microphone pre-amp.  Bend them around and hear lots of static.  Not a tiny bit you barely hear.  Bursts of static easily heard.

 

Now a microphone preamp is giving an extra 50 db or so of gain along with possibly that much more for the rest of your system.  So just used as interconnects this noise is pretty well buried in other noise.  And I was talking physically bending the cable between your hands. 

 

I have taken such cable connected to a microphone preamp and recorded the result while playing music in the room as loud as I could stand it.  Laid the cable in a circle around a subwoofer with a big 50 hz tone playing.  Nothing above the noise floor of the gear showed up. Air coupling sound just isn't moving the strands enough to matter. I have not seen any cable as high in triboelectric effect as this Monoprice.  Other XLRs you can bend and hear nothing.  Some might maybe just barely put out something.  In the case of the Monoprice XLR the problem is they have several layers of shielding.  The shielding rubbing with in between layers of insulation is the cause of that noise.   BTW, you might remember Bruno Putzeys pointing out the two worst materials for this effect are teflon and silver.  

 

Very interesting stuff.  And now that you mention it, I think I may remember Putzeys talking about that.

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Sorry Jud, am I missing something?  Two Cardas videos and one Shunyata?  Which one of these isn't a marketing video?

 

Which part of "Sure" indicated I disagreed with that?

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

Fully agree with you on this, but maybe "cable scientist" would like something special to measure differences (if they are)

 

Roch

 

If it would lead to better sound (either better cables or telling me I shouldn't worry about them), I would like that.  Not for telling anyone else what to do.

[Jud]

13 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I was what you added with the edit:

 

 

You seemed to be referring to marketing videos as an example of "anyone else from trying to duplicate those results or evaluating whether those results equate to differences in normal use in audio systems."

 

I'm really confused about what point you were trying to make with your reply to my post.

 

Sorry for the confusion.  The example I was pointing to was esldude's criticism of the marketing videos in his post right above mine.  Remember I said people could try to reproduce the effects in the videos and/or evaluate whether those effects have anything to do with better sound quality in our systems.  esldude's post was a clear example of the latter.

[Jud]

17 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

You expected it to be bad, yes?

 

Do you expect no change in sound due to cables?

 

I guess expectations theory works!

[Jud]

14 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

You should have got the 12 gauge Belden.  It sounds vastly better.

 

Another option is to get gauge-invariant cables, as this will have the least arbitrary holonomic effect upon the phase.

 

Depends whether they are hooked to an integrable or non-integrable amp.

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I expect a "test" that does not address expectation bias is nothing more than an exercise in narcissism.  Care to wager on the "results" of this "test"?

 

Expectation bias is certainly a problem (among many) that ought to be addressed in setting up tests.

 

Did you form your opinion that cables don't make a difference as a result of a series of scientifically planned blind tests?

[Jud]

11 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

The issue isn't "cables don't make a difference".  The issue is "inexpensive cables suck".

 

I think I have heard cables making a difference, and inexpensive cables failing to suck.  I could easily be wrong about either or both.

[Jud]

36 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

- what kind of cables?  speaker?  RCA interconnects, or??

- and, was it a double-blind test?

 

 

How many DBTs, as opposed to SBTs, are you aware of in audio?

[Jud]

Double blind testing is where neither the test administrator nor the subject knows which item is being used.

 

Therefore at least the vast majority of audio tests are set up as single blind rather than double blind.  Does anyone know of a double blind audio test under the correct definition?

 

People do like to talk (inaccurately) about double blind tests in audio because it sounds so science-y.

[Jud]

41 minutes ago, mansr said:

Yes, the computer knows, but it isn't affected by the knowledge. Therefore, a computer-administered (single) blind test is equivalent to a human-administered double blind one.

 

It can be.  But contemplate a test "administered" by computer, taken at the request of someone you know does not believe there are audible differences between the two files you are listening to.

 

In this connection, have a look, for example, at the academic work regarding effect of teacher beliefs concerning student abilities on student scores in tests (even on material not covered in the teacher's class, and without teacher interpretation regarding scoring, e.g., multiple choice or true/false rather than essay).

[Jud]

55 minutes ago, mansr said:

That argument applies equally to any type of test.

 

Well, no.  Consider a double blind test of a medication.  Neither you nor the people involved in setting up the test and its administration know whether what you are taking *should* have an effect.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

That would be true if testing a substance picked at random. In reality, the test substance is usually picked because either a) you believe it will have the desired effect, or b) someone else believes it will and you wish to disprove them (e.g. snake oil). Of course, the nurse handing out the pills might now know what is being tested, but the patient surely knows what he or she is suffering from.

 

That would also be true in a correctly done double blind test incorporating a placebo.  Neither the nurse handing you the pill, you, or anyone involved with the test knows whether you are taking the "real thing" or a sugar pill.  So there are no expectations of efficacy or lack of it on the part of those conducting the test or those taking part in it.  That is what *double* blind testing does.

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

 

I think the point is that someone in a study, whether it be double blind or not, has an idea what they are evaluating whether that be a pill or change in sound.  If for a pill the medicine has to either be so harmless that anyone could take it or it would have to be specific to the patient's need.  With audio cables you could withhold what is actually being changed.  This isn't hard to do.  The caveat in either case is that the tester knows they are evaluating medicine or the difference in sound related to the change of something depending on the study.  Some kind of information needs to be revealed to the tester.

 

Certainly the subject in your hypotheticals knows *what* is being tested.  But they don't know what is being tested *on them* - the "real thing" or placebo.  And in a double blind test, neither do the people conducting it.  So again (and importantly), in a DBT there are no expectations on the part of the subject *or those conducting the test* as to what the outcome will be for that individual.

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

If the subject knows what is being tested it could bring expectation bias into play regardless of it being a DBT.  As in, I know I'm being asked to provide my opinions of any change in sound so I expect to hear a change in sound.  The placebo, or not switching cables when asking the subject for an input on any perceived change in sound, is the best way to flush out potential bias.  It may be the only way.  If a perceived change in sound is noted when the cables weren't changed that goes against the tester's credibility, or speaks to their potential bias.

 

This can be accounted for by experimental protocol.  For example, cables can be shrouded so neither the test administrator nor the test subject knows whether A and B are different cables or identical.  But as I mentioned earlier, if the test administrator believes no cable change will make a difference, this negates the double blinding.

[Jud]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I have no idea where your animus towards validated testing comes from, Jud.  Double-blind testing is the gold std. for such tests.

 

You also dislike rapid A/B switching for some reason.  However, rapid A/B testing is known to be effective for discriminating the rank order of speakers in [1] repeated trials and [2] between different observers, and Floyd Toole has published several studies to that effect.

 

Other scientists have attempted to see if there is anyway around Toole's results but AFAIK have failed.

 

You should try to understand science, rather taking potshots at people and using loaded phrases like "sounds so science(y)"

 

 

 

That's what it is, sheer animus and taking potshots at people.

 

I can promise sincerely that I will try better (every day in fact) to understand science.

[Jud]

14 hours ago, esldude said:

The second link is in the direction of someone pointing me to a good article on evolution and its effects to find an article written by the director of the Creationists institute.

 

Holy moly, for a second there before reading more closely, I thought someone had linked to a Discovery Institute article!