Suggestion: ban all cable debates

[Samuel T Cogley]

That's just untrue. At least in the most part. Check out what Scientific Observation means. Here's a hint, it definitely involves using the senses of the observer. It can also mean using instruments, but not always. In many cases, instruments are not even the *primary* method of recording observations.

 

It is just flame bait when people claim otherwise. I suspect you may be a lawyer or someone else along similar lines, because "testimony" has a specific and very precise meaning in those fields, where most engineering fields define the same thing as an observation.

 

"Observation" in a scientific context is far different from someone claiming cables make extraordinary differences in sound quality. And the vast majority of those people have no background in science at all. They're consumers. For that, I still think "testimony" is closer to what it is. And, of course, testimony is notoriously unreliable.

 

And no, I'm not a lawyer. I've been in IT since the mid 80s.

[mansr]

"Observation" in a scientific context is far different from someone claiming cables make extraordinary differences in sound quality. And the vast majority of those people have no background in science at all. They're consumers. For that, I still think "testimony" is closer to what it is. And, of course, testimony is notoriously unreliable.

 

"Anecdote" is my word of choice.

[Samuel T Cogley]

You bet - there are audiophiles who are so in love with the hardware that they don't really care all that much about the music. And of course, that is perfectly okay.

 

Ok, thanks. This is the first time I've ever heard this. In my experience, there is a trope among "cable believers" that goes something like, "objectivists would rather argue than listen to music", which I never understood. Not saying that's you.

 

For the record, I listen to music at almost every opportunity I get. In the shower, on the way to work, at work, on the way home, at home, and I have a modest headphone rig by the bed that I usually fall asleep to. Although I have a TV and sometimes watch it, audio is the absolute center of my "entertainment complex". I also have a small collection of DAPs and IEMs that I use for walking around or shopping brick and mortar.

[Paul R]

"Observation" in a scientific context is far different from someone claiming cables make extraordinary differences in sound quality. And the vast majority of those people have no background in science at all. They're consumers. For that, I still think "testimony" is closer to what it is. And, of course, testimony is notoriously unreliable.

 

And no, I'm not a lawyer. I've been in IT since the mid 80s.

 

Okay - just a misjudgment on my part then.

 

But no - you assume that most people making that claim are "unscientific" or just making a wild ass unsupported statement.

 

This is simply not so - at least for the most part, Rather than what you have is a large group of very careful amateurs making careful, and often very controlled observations. And being unjustly discounted. There are folks on here with engineering degrees and creds that anyone should respect that report audible changes with reasons someone not paying attention will find incredible. (shrug)

 

Those are pretty careful observations. Not notoriously unreliable testimony!

 

 

-Paul

[Ralf11]

"Anecdote" is my word of choice.

 

and is what I have used in the past, and what I have always heard other scientists use - as in "merely anecdotal evidence"

 

nonetheless, a scientific study is often the follow-on to observational studies - from observations of the martian surface being followed by experiments (carried on rovers), to the experimental studies done in the 1800s after the observations of naturalists were recorded in their field notebooks

 

testimony is ok, esp. if ya wanna represent

 

in the US legal system, there are two types of witness evidence allowed - regular and expert

 

there is a little two-step dance required to qualify a witness as an expert

 

the word usage in the Observation post above suggests to me the poster is not a scientist and doesn't understand science very well

[Samuel T Cogley]

Okay - just a misjudgment on my part then.

 

But no - you assume that most people making that claim are "unscientific" or just making a wild ass unsupported statement.

 

This is simply not so - at least for the most part, Rather than what you have is a large group of very careful amateurs making careful, and often very controlled observations. And being unjustly discounted. There are folks on here with engineering degrees and creds that anyone should respect that report audible changes with reasons someone not paying attention will find incredible. (shrug)

 

Those are pretty careful observations. Not notoriously unreliable testimony!

 

I think we mostly agree. In my experience with professional audio and video production, high end cables don't get a lot of love in production facilities. Not saying there aren't exceptions. But you're not going to succeed in getting me to believe the OP of this thread has a background in engineering.

 

$10,000 Ethernet cables are just dubious, to use one rather glaring example. But I absolutely believe well constructed cables that are engineered to provide the best possible measurable performance are worth the cost. Cables that use batteries to bias the dielectric (to use another example), not so much.

[Paul R]

I think we mostly agree. In my experience with professional audio and video production, high end cables don't get a lot of love in production facilities. Not saying there aren't exceptions. But you're not going to succeed in getting me to believe the OP of this thread has a background in engineering.

 

$10,000 Ethernet cables are just dubious, to use one rather glaring example. But I absolutely believe well constructed cables that are engineered to provide the best possible measurable performance are worth the cost. Cables that use batteries to bias the dielectric (to use another example), not so much.

 

We do agree in the main, and probably mostly in detail too. i think $20 Ethernet cables are pricey, and usually suggest that if someone feels their ethernet cables are making a dramatic difference, something else is wrong in their network. I often recommend that these folks try using wireless networking, which may sound a little counter-intuitive, but often produces satisfying results for them. (shrug)

 

Sometimes the armchair engineers drive me slightly bananas - as they latch onto something and defend it to death, come hell, high water, facts, observations, or even quantum tunneled cables. (grin)

 

There are certainly a lot of things we do not know about audio, and I strongly expect the things that puzzle us or are mysterious today, will be found to have simple and clear explanations in the future. Probably driven by observations that describe things that just "should not be!"

 

 

-Paul

[botrytis]

The tone of this forum is really dragged down by all these stupid debates. It seems as if some posters have nothing better to do than to start threads to sneer at their fellow audiophiles. I don't think they even think of other audiophiles as "fellow" audiophiles, sharing a common hobby. Rather, a target of derision to be harassed and bullied. This is a good example. What purpose do threads like these serve? How does it benefit the community? Does it do anything but boost the narcissistic tendencies of those who endlessly create such threads? And why is it that they are not satisfied with only creating one - they have to do it over and over again.

 

This forum is called computer audiophile. There are plenty of other forums where these people can go and scorn those whom they perceive are inferior to them. I think it is time to get this forum back on track - discussion of computer based audio.

 

Live and let live. If people say cables work and they say they can hear a difference, who am I to argue. If they can afford the expensive cables and like them, who am I to argue.

 

If we all respect each other's opinions, no should get butt hurt.

[bobbmd]

to paraphrase Gary Cooper: "YEP"

[gmgraves]

Okay - just a misjudgment on my part then.

 

But no - you assume that most people making that claim are "unscientific" or just making a wild ass unsupported statement.

 

This is simply not so - at least for the most part, Rather than what you have is a large group of very careful amateurs making careful, and often very controlled observations. And being unjustly discounted. There are folks on here with engineering degrees and creds that anyone should respect that report audible changes with reasons someone not paying attention will find incredible. (shrug)

 

Those are pretty careful observations. Not notoriously unreliable testimony!

 

 

-Paul

 

Well, the testimony is usually unreliable in my estimation because only scrupulously set-up tests with very tightly controlled parameters and unbiased oversight and a number of participants with a preponderance of those participants agreeing with both the methodology and the results. Otherwise it's just someone's opinion. That's the reason why science designed test equipment and a scientific method for using it. There is an axiom in engineering which states "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". And whether you believe it or not, claiming that something which, by all the rules of science, cannot make a sonic difference, is making a sonic difference, most assuredly is an extraordinary claim. But we have yet to see this extraordinary proof! Heck we haven't even seen any ordinary or even credible theories, much less proof. Just saying'.

[gmgraves]

Live and let live. If people say cables work and they say they can hear a difference, who am I to argue. If they can afford the expensive cables and like them, who am I to argue.

 

If we all respect each other's opinions, no should get butt hurt.

 

Agreed but there is another side of this issue to consider. Neophytes to the pursuit of good sound, are often told by audio salesmen that they absolutely NEED to buy certain cables or their new multi-thousand dollar system won't sound good at all. Case in point. I have a friend who's a doctor of psychology and a really smart guy. But he is technically all thumbs. He wouldn't know a volt from an Ohm! He saved up for a couple of years and went to his local dealer in Seattle WA where he lived. He bought VTL's most expensive preamp, and their 85W/pc power amplifier and a pair of Martin Logan Vantage Loudspeakers. I suspect that he paid around $12000 for that gear. Anyway, not knowing any better, he let the salesman talk him into some MIT speaker cables, and a set of Nordost interconnects. The cables cost him more than THE EQUIPMENT. This salesman also explained to him that he lacked the expertise to install this equipment himself and further sold him on paying the technician a further $2000 to hook the equipment up (delivery, of course, was free from this dealer. Isn't that nice?), Luckily, he called me when he got home from the dealer to tell me what he had bought. I just about blew a gasket. I told him to get on the phone before they delivered his equipment and cancel all of those cables. I also told him to inform them that he appreciated the free delivery, but would not be needing the services of their technician. I then sent him to MyCableMart.Com for his interconnects, and to SewellDirect.Com for his speaker cable while I was on the phone with him, and we both went to those sites simultaneously so I could show him what to buy. Total bill from those two sites? about $40! On Skype I walked him through putting his system together (he had a CD Deck and an FM tuner, and that was all he needed at the time). By doing this I saved him $15,000! Money that he DID NOT have to spend, and wouldn't have known the difference if he had spent it because he had nothing with which to compare it. So, even if one believes in boutique cables affecting the sound of a system, That dealer ripped him off big-time.

 

This is why I think these debates are not just useful on this forum, they're essential. And if these neophytes listened to a bunch of different cables and made the decision to buy the high-priced spread THEMSELVES, then of course, that is their decision and they have only themselves to blame if it turns out that there were cheaper alternatives that were just as good. My motto here is forewarned is forearmed. At least here, the neophyte gets a balanced picture of both sides of the argument. He can go listen to cables knowing that:

 

1) Many CA members have electrical degrees and say that cable sound is imaginary and if one thinks he hears a difference, it's all in his (or her) head.

 

2) Price is no basis for selecting cables. Even those who are True Believers agree that the cable that sounds the best to your ears is the one you should buy irrespective of price.

 

3) Even Believers will tell you that no matter how much your cables cost, the end result will be subtle compared to things like speakers, cartridges, DACs, disc players, amps and preamps and the result is only going to be as good as the weakest link in the system. I.E. If you connect a $40 CD player off the internet to a pair of $2,000 Nordost Valhalla II interconnects, it's still going to sound like a $40 CD player. Or, as they say in India: "you can put a pair of gold and diamond earrings on a goat. But it's still only a goat!"

[wwaldmanfan]

as they say in India: "you can put a pair of gold and diamond earrings on a goat. But it's still only a goat!"

Yes, but if you put those earrings on a cow, that would really be something special.

[Harpy]

[JS21]

Agreed but there is another side of this issue to consider. Neophytes to the pursuit of good sound, are often told by audio salesmen that they absolutely NEED to buy certain cables or their new multi-thousand dollar system won't sound good at all. Case in point. I have a friend who's a doctor of psychology and a really smart guy. But he is technically all thumbs. He wouldn't know a volt from an Ohm! He saved up for a couple of years and went to his local dealer in Seattle WA where he lived. He bought VTL's most expensive preamp, and their 85W/pc power amplifier and a pair of Martin Logan Vantage Loudspeakers. I suspect that he paid around $12000 for that gear. Anyway, not knowing any better, he let the salesman talk him into some MIT speaker cables, and a set of Nordost interconnects. The cables cost him more than THE EQUIPMENT. This salesman also explained to him that he lacked the expertise to install this equipment himself and further sold him on paying the technician a further $2000 to hook the equipment up (delivery, of course, was free from this dealer. Isn't that nice?), Luckily, he called me when he got home from the dealer to tell me what he had bought. I just about blew a gasket. I told him to get on the phone before they delivered his equipment and cancel all of those cables. I also told him to inform them that he appreciated the free delivery, but would not be needing the services of their technician. I then sent him to MyCableMart.Com for his interconnects, and to SewellDirect.Com for his speaker cable while I was on the phone with him, and we both went to those sites simultaneously so I could show him what to buy. Total bill from those two sites? about $40! On Skype I walked him through putting his system together (he had a CD Deck and an FM tuner, and that was all he needed at the time). By doing this I saved him $15,000! Money that he DID NOT have to spend, and wouldn't have known the difference if he had spent it because he had nothing with which to compare it. So, even if one believes in boutique cables affecting the sound of a system, That dealer ripped him off big-time.

Sorry to say, buy your friend is more than just thumbs technically.

All this proves is that your friend had no business walking into an a/v store.

[Teresa]

...On the ABX testing. I've seen bandied about that the 'invalidity' of it is based on the weakness of echoic memory. If that's the case then your sighted evaluations where you are hearing a difference are just as equally invalid because of echoic memory...

 

Exactly, echoic memory is way too short and is not to be trusted either sighted or blind!

 

This is why I believe long-term listening is the only way to discover differences that makes one’s music more enjoyable. In the rare event you are able to hear a difference (sighted or blind) AB’ing back and forth, the one slightly louder or the one with more bass is usually chosen as being the best but in reality it ends up being the worst sounding one with long-term listening.

 

In addition the one with more constricted dynamic range which causes the music to be louder in the softer parts also gives the wrong answer in AB’ing. So even in the rare case when the differences are large enough to be heard AB’ing, what one picks as the best sounding one is actually the worst sounding one. Long-term listening is the only thing that has ever worked for me.

 

I'm sorry there is no quick solution to finding if differences exist or which one sounds better. Take you time and listen to a wide variety of music you love.

[Teresa]

The tone of this forum is really dragged down by all these stupid debates. It seems as if some posters have nothing better to do than to start threads to sneer at their fellow audiophiles. I don't think they even think of other audiophiles as "fellow" audiophiles, sharing a common hobby. Rather, a target of derision to be harassed and bullied. This is a good example. What purpose do threads like these serve? How does it benefit the community? Does it do anything but boost the narcissistic tendencies of those who endlessly create such threads? And why is it that they are not satisfied with only creating one - they have to do it over and over again.

 

This forum is called computer audiophile. There are plenty of other forums where these people can go and scorn those whom they perceive are inferior to them. I think it is time to get this forum back on track - discussion of computer based audio.

 

Great post and I agree.

 

I can't think of a reason a cable denier would visit a cable thread or start one of their own other than to belittle those who have discovered cables do make an important difference to their music.

 

That said I did think those giant cables in wgscott's post you linked very funny. Things can be carried too far.

[bobbmd]

but SILVER earrings on anyone ward off vampires and werewolves

[GUTB]

I just tested two speaker cables back-to-back for the first time. The contestants are:

Cheap OFC cables from Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01N3XZABC/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Audio Sensability Testament:

http://audiosensibility.com/blog/products-2/speaker-cables-2/#!/Testament-Single-Wire-Speaker-Cables/p/15258110/category=2595835

The Audio Sensability cables are, as far as I know, the cheapest Japan-sourced OCC cables available. Star-quad, teflon insulation and significant dampening, but no special technology or proprietary geometry, etc.

The difference is NOT subtle. I don't want to overstate the difference, but it was significant enough that, if you were to blind-fold me and tell me I was listening to different amps I would easily believe you. Both sets were heavily burned in, at least 400 hours on both sets prior to the shoot-out. The cheap OFC cables (pro stock cables are also OFC) flatten the soundstage (same width, but dimentionality/air is greatly reduced) and reduction of dynamic resolution which is noticeable as a softer, less extended attack of notes -- this is a phenomena I've associated with increased noise. I can't imagine anyone could sit in front of my system and not hear the difference, it's pretty obvious. 

[esldude]

23 minutes ago, GUTB said:

I just tested two speaker cables back-to-back for the first time. The contestants are:

Cheap OFC cables from Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01N3XZABC/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Audio Sensability Testament:

http://audiosensibility.com/blog/products-2/speaker-cables-2/#!/Testament-Single-Wire-Speaker-Cables/p/15258110/category=2595835

The Audio Sensability cables are, as far as I know, the cheapest Japan-sourced OCC cables available. Star-quad, teflon insulation and significant dampening, but no special technology or proprietary geometry, etc.

The difference is NOT subtle. I don't want to overstate the difference, but it was significant enough that, if you were to blind-fold me and tell me I was listening to different amps I would easily believe you. Both sets were heavily burned in, at least 400 hours on both sets prior to the shoot-out. The cheap OFC cables (pro stock cables are also OFC) flatten the soundstage (same width, but dimentionality/air is greatly reduced) and reduction of dynamic resolution which is noticeable as a softer, less extended attack of notes -- this is a phenomena I've associated with increased noise. I can't imagine anyone could sit in front of my system and not hear the difference, it's pretty obvious. 

So arrange for someone to swap cables and blind fold you.  See if you get the same results. 

[gmgraves]

On 3/18/2017 at 2:20 AM, JS21 said:

Sorry to say, buy your friend is more than just thumbs technically.

All this proves is that your friend had no business walking into an a/v store.

Pretty elitist attitude if you ask me. What this really proves is that the debate over cables serves a useful purpose. That is to say, reading these debates will give newcomers a heightened  awareness of Caveat Emptor when it comes to taking someone else's (especially a salesperson's) recommendation about cables. In this case, the salesman's interest was most assuredly to increase his commission by selling my friend expensive cables (with huge markups), without regard to his actual needs.

Even if the salesperson actually thought that the stuff he was selling to my friend was good value in terms of what it did for the sound of that system, the fact that my friend had no baseline from which to make such a decision for himself should have caused the salesman to back-off. What I told my friend to buy were good quality interconnects and speaker cables, but are pretty generic. Now, if, after listening to this system with the cables that I had him buy, he decides that he'd like to dabble in the world of exotic cables and interconnects, he will have an idea of what he is looking for and can walk into an audio salon and arrange to try different cables in his system on a trial basis. If, after trying a number of them, he decides for himself that $10,000 worth of MIT speaker cables, and/or $6000 worth of interconnects float his sonic boat, then I have no problem with him spending HIS money for what he believes gives him an improved audio experience. My beliefs and experience notwithstanding.

[Ralf11]

What we really need is not a debate over cables but a debate over specific types of cables.

 

e.g. speaker cables are one category - and could make a difference for a highly complex speaker 

category 2 is interconnects - there the issue is noise, which balanced solves but RCA may not

 

category 3 is all digital cables

3a. USB - I keep hearing about noise and consequent jitter

3b. Toslink - how could this matter?

3c. Ethernet - 

etc.

[Jud]

10 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Toslink - how could this matter?

A few ways -

- Lower bandwidth than USB or coax, which could be problematic at higher resolutions and/or for multichannel

- Quality of manufacture of optical cables can be important (particularly things like correct termination), though to basic operation rather than subtleties of sound quality

- Conversion of optical signal to electrical in the DAC can be done in a more or less noisy way

- Jitter seems to be problematic for at least some Toslink setups (e.g., the old Airport Express used to put out more than a nanosecond jitter over its optical connection); remember this is SPDIF, so not under control of the DAC's clock

[Samuel T Cogley]

TOSLINK uses a red LED, not a laser as some believe.  This is why the range is so limited.

[ron spencer]

Robert Harley of TAS should moderate the proposed Cable subforum. We all know that one should spend $50,000 on Shunyata power supplies and cables to get the best sound. Anything less and you are not really "listening". Never mind the fact that you will need room treatments as well. I think I'll delete all my music now and drink my CD optimizer spray...what's the point?

[Samuel T Cogley]

17 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Pretty elitist attitude if you ask me. What this really proves is that the debate over cables serves a useful purpose. That is to say, reading these debates will give newcomers a heightened  awareness of Caveat Emptor when it comes to taking someone else's (especially a salesperson's) recommendation about cables. In this case, the salesman's interest was most assuredly to increase his commission by selling my friend expensive cables (with huge markups), without regard to his actual needs.

I've spent lots of time over the years at other audio forums, and this is one of the seamier undersides of high end audio.  In my experience, some forum posters who fancied themselves as the Next Up And Coming Audiophile Social Media Personality would relentlessly flog a particular manufacturer's products (usually cables) and make it a point to be a visible shill at audio shows in an effort to get product either at a significant discount, or even for free.  Then to prime the pump even further, would post lots of pictures of the show in the form of a "report" (a "service" to fellow audiophiles) and be sure to name drop the A-Listers, with copious use of superlatives like, "awesome", "incredible", "mind blowing", etc.

Personally, if someone got a product for free, or at a discount because of their "relationship" with the vendor, their "honest" review of the product is nearly meaningless, if not completely so.