Are Non-believers happy with their systems?

[BobMcN]

Just what I was afraid of. A simple question of "are you happy" degenrated into a cables do/don't make a difference thread. In the interest in answering the poster's original question ...

Yes, I am happy, but I am a tried and true audiophile who does believe in cables and system synergy and room treatments and setup and such. But it took me a long time to get away from that overly critial listening mode and into a more laid back "I like music" mode.

However ... I also am completely happy with music on my porta-pro's and CD Walkman on my way to work. I guess I'm just a music lover at heart.

Bob

[JaZZ]

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik

Humans are terrible test equipment. Biases, emotions, physiologic changes, and a laundry list of other problems cloud our every judgment.

When it comes to my personal sonic criteria and preferences, my ears are the best test equipment I can imagine. Not anyone else's, and not any measuring equipment. Because my human senses are the best tool for verifying how well my human demands are covered by a specific audio component. Of course it has to be a long-term satisfaction, not just a brief excitement.

Another remarkable thing about cables is the trust and belief supporters put in the manufacturers. Do you really think that manufacturers are non-profits, in business to advance scientific understanding, and to provide products from the goodness of their hearts?

Most of us audio freaks are adult and self-responsible. And we know that business is there to make money, not to distribute goods. The only question is if the goods serve my own purposes. If they do, it's alright.
.

[Pars]

Good post Uncle Erik. I am a non-believer (more or less) and am happy with my system (speaker rig, and the HP system is good enough). I do DIY cables at times, or buy inexpensive ICs (Audioquest) or speaker cables (Kimber). I started down the cable path, but quickly decided that given the insane prices and hype, it wasn't where I wanted to go. Cables can make some differences in sound (although they really shouldn't). They are in effect pretty expensive tone controls; I prefer to spend any money I do spend on the system on more meaningful equipment. I have done some power cables (Bob Crump Asylum Cables) and really notice no difference with these, but wouldn't expect to with good PSUs in equipment.

Just as a note, I noticed one or two of you looking at the DEQ2496. Nice piece of equipment, especially at the ridiculously low price. I used to have one of these with the mic (to do room correction), and noted that it is not transparent via the analog section (A-D-A). This was the only way that I could use it, so I wound up selling mine as I didn't feel like modding it. The room correction curves on mine were surprisingly gentle, so I didn't mind giving it up. From what I understand, they sound much better if you keep them in the digital realm.

[Currawong]

I think TheAttorney's post made some good points. It reminds me of the debates over Ultrasone's headphones and the S-Logic system, which is marketed strongly by them. Not everyone who's tried them had dramatic experiences of the sound all around their head. I think it's indeed a case of high expectations.

From my experiences, I've decided, so far, that new, brand-name cables (not DIY) under $200 is worthless as the difference they make is close to stuff-all. So I completely understand anyone with a considerably less than $1000 system believing they are a waste of time and a load of snake-oil. I have a system worth considerably more than $1000, so I have a considerably larger investment in cables, so there is a noticeable increase in clarity between basic cables and expensive ones (most of which I bought second-hand, or in the future would look to DIY).

I think TheAttorney's original question is best asked of people who have already made a significant investment in a rig, of at least $1000. For the above-mentioned reasons, asking people who have only made a much smaller investment does not invite the suggestion that their cables are lacking, let alone that they should invest as much in them as they have in an individual component or their headphones.

[TheAttorney]

The consensus response to my original question is that yes, non-believers are indeed happy with their systems. And where they accept their systems could be improved, they are happy to live with that limitation. The believers are also happy with their need/want to upgrade.

So how is it that both sides can be right? I've always assumed that there is no overall difference in hearing ability, intelligence or affordability between these groups. I've already given my take on the answer to this - the analogy/story of the transistor radio on page 5. Some of you may have missed it because Cable Wars broke out around that time. Anyway, every story deserves a happy ending, so...

The moral of the story is:

Non-believers are happy with their transistor radios

Audioholics are happy with their transistor radios - with 5 tweeters arranged in a mystical star formation

The Attorney is happy with just listening to music because he has run out of money to do anything else

And some of us are never happier than when we're arguing about who is the happiest

[Bullseye]

^C'mon, you are putting price ranges as an excuse "not to hear sound differences" *To currawong*

If cables were supposed to change SQ they should do it NO MATTER WHAT EQUIPMENT. They don't, with any equipment.

Reductio ad absurdum

[Currawong]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

^C'mon, you are putting price ranges as an excuse "not to hear sound differences" *To currawong*

If cables were supposed to change SQ they should do it NO MATTER WHAT EQUIPMENT. They don't, with any equipment.

Reductio ad absurdum

The differences between radioshack cables and the ones I have that were <$150 (possibly <$200, but I don't recall the prices I paid for some of them, and then there are the DIY ones using cheap, but good cables and plugs) make so little difference I wouldn't consider it "worth it". It's not an excuse, I spent some time trying them and spending time listening very carefully, but the level of difference was was tiny, such that the position of the headphones on my head affected the sound significantly more.

I think you can't handle the idea that someone can both be sensible and perceive a difference, because it would mean you'd have to alter your view -- one that is, by your own admission, not from your own experience or reasearch. Absurd indeed. You may as well tell me all about Japan without ever travelling here.

[olblueyez]

Originally Posted by Currawong

The differences between radioshack cables and the ones I have that were <$150 (possibly <$200, but I don't recall the prices I paid for some of them, and then there are the DIY ones using cheap, but good cables and plugs) make so little difference I wouldn't consider it "worth it". It's not an excuse, I spent some time trying them and spending time listening very carefully, but the level of difference was was tiny, such that the position of the headphones on my head affected the sound significantly more.

I think you can't handle the idea that someone can both be sensible and perceive a difference, because it would mean you'd have to alter your view -- one that is, by your own admission, not from your own experience or reasearch. Absurd indeed. You may as well tell me all about Japan without ever travelling here.

Bullseye

[Ashirgo]

Oh, forgive me, but in cables there is more magic than logic. You must needs have the best equipment to hear the difference, because "lower" systems (just as the circles of Hell or Heaven) cannot reproduce the sound with such fidelity as to make these cable differences explicit. And if you cannot understand/accept it, your level of arcanum is probably too low.

[Uncle Erik]

Originally Posted by JaZZ

When it comes to my personal sonic criteria and preferences, my ears are the best test equipment I can imagine. Not anyone else's, and not any measuring equipment. Because my human senses are the best tool for verifying how well my human demands are covered by a specific audio component. Of course it has to be a long-term satisfaction, not just a brief excitement.

But can you trust your own perceptions?

Here are some optical illusions. They all prey on weaknesses in human perception, biases and expectations.

You also have weaknesses, biases and expectations from what you hear, feel, smell, and taste.

We're not that good at seeing the world clearly. We have to design tests and build machines to bypass our biases, expectations and limits of perception. That might seem counterintuitive, but there's no other way to know for sure.

[JaZZ]

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik

But can you trust your own perceptions?

I think, yes. That doesn't mean I have never fallen victim to placebo effects. But I don't believe in consistent delusion.

I can swap my cables anytime and do so occasionally, and the results are always 100% identical («as if the effect was real!»), meaning cable X and cable Y show exactly the same characteristic as always. Or I switch between my two best DACs: they always show the same characteristic differences on a comparable sonic level. My Corda Symphony even allows for different filter characteristics. And although my two favored filters have the same frequency response, they sound different and show the difference consistently. Despite the fact that technically speaking the only difference is in the characteristic of the filter ringing, which is in the ultrasonic range and therefore shouldn't matter.

Here are some optical illusions. They all prey on weaknesses in human perception, biases and expectations.

I like these optical illusions, but I can't see how they correspond to acoustic illusions.

You also have weaknesses, biases and expectations from what you hear, feel, smell, and taste.

Yes, human senses are not 100% reliable, but they are still the best tool for judging what matters to them.

We're not that good at seeing the world clearly. We have to design tests and build machines to bypass our biases, expectations and limits of perception. That might seem counterintuitive, but there's no other way to know for sure.

Some people have a better opinion of human capabilities than you, and I belong to them. If you have the means to control your biases -- by a critical attitude and simply by repeating the comparison on and on -- and get consistent results, then you have every right to be «sure».

I guess you wouldn't mind judging amps (since you make them yourself) or headphones without the detour via DBT. So everybody has a different threshold for relying on his own senses. If the sonic effects of cables were barely noticeable, I wouldn't bother myself -- which means I would also renounce DBT, as they're not worth it.
.

[ILikeMusic]

But I don't believe in consistent delusion.

Actually placebo effect lends itself perfectly to that. Once you 'know' something to be true you're much less likely to doubt it going forward, leading to a consistent state of perception (or mis-perception.)

[JaZZ]

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic

Actually placebo effect lends itself perfectly to that. Once you 'know' something to be true you're much less likely to doubt it going forward, leading to a consistent state of perception (or mis-perception.)

I knew that this argument would show up. But it isn't really valid. With a medical placebo you have no possibility to control if what was administered to you was a real medicament or a placebo. In the case of cables or audio effects you can test it anytime and again.
.

[ILikeMusic]

Originally Posted by JaZZ

I knew that this argument would show up. But it isn't really valid. With a medical placebo you have no possibility to control if what was administered to you was a real medicament or a placebo. In the case of cables or audio effects you can test it anytime and again.
.

But the crux is in how you 'test' it. If the test isn't blind then performing it time and time and time again won't make any difference, in fact once you get an erroneous subjective impression then all you're likely to do with continued subjective impressions is solidify it, right or wrong.

[cswann1]

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic

But the crux is in how you 'test' it. If the test isn't blind then performing it time and time and time again won't make any difference, in fact once you get an erroneous subjective impression then all you're likely to do with continued subjective impressions is solidify it, right or wrong.

I'd like to jump in and say that I agree with this logic. If you know before hand what you are changing in a test, and have made the test before, you are more likely to make the same conclusions. Only a blind test will make your results matter on repeated testing to verify results consistently.
Of course the above statements are assuming we're talking about a subjective test of something where your own perception is the result of the test.