Any prove cables make a difference?
Feb 24, 2007 at 5:44 AM Post #151 of 313
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif
This is a DBT-free forum.
cool.gif



Sorry, the other forums I'm on have a prominent "Debate Free" tag in the debate free forums (yes, really). I read the entire 7 page thread before posting presumed based on the huge "deb*ate" in this thread that "deb*ate" was acceptable.

Please accept my apologies if I have erred and tell me about acceptable use in this thread.
 
Feb 24, 2007 at 5:45 AM Post #152 of 313
Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundEdit /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It all depends on what part of the hobby is fun for you. I like to spend my money reasonably wisely. I like to be able to separate reality from hokum and to get good gear at fair price. To get the stuff that matters and skip the cr*p that doesn't. For me, that is fun. That is part of the hobby.

I also, frankly, like debates with smart people. I'll put up a strong fight based on what knowledge I have and maybe I'll learn something. I already have learned some things from this thread especially from some of the links. I expect people who strongly advocate claims to be willing to support their position. I try to be respectful and fact-based but I don't claim to be infallible or to know everything--and I can be wrong and not know it. But we all have different ways of "knowing." Many people are very intuitive and their subjective impressions are everything to them. My style is more empirical.



You make two very good points, and I respect your position. And a debate on these issues is fun from time to time. And I've learned also from folks who I disagree with. But if you hang around here long enough, you'll see why "we" get frustrated by constant thread krapping from certain people (a few of which have appeared in this thread), whose purpose seems not to engage in a fun debate or learn from others, but to advance a dogmatic position in a manner designed to offend people. When it pops up in every thread whenever someone asks about cables, you get sick of it.
blink.gif
 
Feb 24, 2007 at 5:48 AM Post #153 of 313
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Second, undertaking postive proof in a manner that would satisfy you and other "skeptics" (assuming it could be done) is really not within the scope of this forum, given the forum rules.


I don't expect positive proof, frankly. I'd like it but I know it is hard to come by. What I do expect is that people will qualify their claims when they are not proven so that I can correctly categorize claims in my own mind.
 
Feb 24, 2007 at 5:50 AM Post #154 of 313
Quote:

Originally Posted by reano /img/forum/go_quote.gif
To be honest I don't think Steve was taking that stance (just the way I read it anyway). JP thanks for your response and what is this cable that the 'local shop' makes? What makes you buy it? What sound differences do you hear compared with say another reasonable good cable? Please let me know I really am interested to hear. <--- Really (not a joke either). Also which cable that you have/had made the 'pretty nice' difference? Thanks


if you were actually interested you probably would not have slighted some really solid and long time members of thius board

peace enjoy your stay here
 
Feb 24, 2007 at 5:52 AM Post #155 of 313
Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundEdit /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't expect positive proof, frankly. I'd like it but I know it is hard to come by. What I do expect is that people will qualify their claims when they are not proven so that I can correctly categorize claims in my own mind.


That is a fair point. Personally, I try to stay away from saying what "must be true" or what others "must" be able to hear. I try to frame my comments with respect to cables in terms of what "I have heard."
 
Feb 24, 2007 at 6:22 AM Post #157 of 313
Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm not arguing the contrary to anything. Really my last posts have little to do about audio or cables. I'm only trying to clarify things about argumentation itself.


You are arguing to the contrary of me!
wink.gif


The "contrary" I was referring to was your claim that the burden proof of is not on the positive claimant. To the contrary, the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. I have already conceded that not every belief need be argued but your claim as to the burden of proof in "argumentation"--if one is too choose to argue--is incorrect. You can argue that one need not argue but you can't successfully argue that the positive claimant doesn't have the burden of proof. If I say I can "psychically" improve sound output of an amplifier with my mind is the burden of proof on me or should it be on someone who says that's impossible? It isn't possible to prove an unrestricted negative so the burden of proof is on the positive claimant.

I wouldn't argue the point but you and I disagree and we both want the last word. I takes only one person to disagree but two to argue.
 
Feb 24, 2007 at 6:30 AM Post #158 of 313
Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundEdit /img/forum/go_quote.gif
This is like a religious debate--very contentious and short on conclusive evidence.

Different cables do have measurable differences. These differences are completely irrelevant to a listener unless the differences can be heard. We only measure the capacitance, inductance, AC resistance etc as a way to empirically and quantifiably measure factors that relate to the way the cables will transmit an audio signal; however, electronically measurable differences do not necessarily entail audible differences. So, the fact that high tech measurements of a cables' specs are different doesn't automatically mean that you can hear a difference. Even if you can hear a difference that doesn't mean that one is necessarily universally "better" than the other unless you can show a strong statistical preference among many people. Even then the question of "better" is potentially still open. Is Coke "better" than Pepsi? Or is it a personal preference? (I'm speaking of near threshold of detection differences here, not, say, whether a system has 1k-5k response vs 20-20k and such.)

The only thing that matters is that you can hear a difference and that you like the difference--but the human mind is easily fooled especially near threshold of detection. So, it makes sense to make sure that the audible difference is real and repeatable by testing in a manner that takes the known psychology of human judgment and perception into account.

If the difference between two cables can't be differentiated in a properly designed ABX test then the the difference doesn't exist or it is so small as to be inaudible or irrelevant. Different doesn't have to mean better or worse but inaudible is irrelevant.

People should use whatever the heck they like but they shouldn't be offended if they advocate their preference and are asked for sound reasons why. People take skepticism of their subjective opinions as a personal affront even when the skepticism is principled rather than personal.

Subjective impressions are evidence and so are anecdotes (in spite of the common phrase to the contrary), they just aren't solid or conclusive evidence. They definitely aren't proof.

The high end audio market lives on threshold of detection improvements and is ripe with known frauds. It seems entirely reasonable to wish to examine claims in a systematic manner that accounts for human factors given the **huge** amounts of money involved and the logarithmic increments of cash required for incremental sound improvements. It is up to claimants to prove their claims not the other way around. Anecdotes and personal opinions are not proof.

Cable guru Bruce Brisson (Monster Cable and MIT) said he was going to huge test in 2000 but I've not heard that this was ever done.


Buddy, I would have to agree with you completely and would like to have this argument conclusive. There ARE measurable differences among different cables, but there are no devices that can tell how a cable would "sound" so measuring anything about it is completely useless. Therefore, since there is no way to measure how a cable sounds, it's also completely useless to debate on proof of a cable sounding different.

It seems like the only real way to measure that a cable sounds different is to hear it. I've said this before.
 
Feb 24, 2007 at 6:38 AM Post #159 of 313
Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Therefore, since there is no way to measure how a cable sounds, it's also completely useless to debate on proof of a cable sounding different.


Well, useless to debate proof of sounding different in a DBT-free forum anyway
wink.gif
 
Feb 24, 2007 at 6:44 AM Post #160 of 313
We can put this to rest once and for all. If someone is interested and lives in southern california, we can all get together and do a blind test. There will be a very high-end cable made out of exotic materials. Then there will be two other cables that look exactly the same: another one of the high-end cable and the other is a cheap RatShack cable. And you have to say whether cable A or cable B matches the high-end cable. this would be done on what is my opinion a very hi-end DAC, amp, and headphone (or speakers). i'm sure many of us can score 16/16 on this.
 
Feb 24, 2007 at 6:48 AM Post #161 of 313
I actually did a test comparing cables using measuring techniques and found measured differences in signal levels and frequency response. I do not contend this is the last word on the topic, since I only took a crude measure of frequency response and there could be many other sonic features differentiating cables, which could be harder to measure.

The point is - some differences are real and not just in your head.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=155351

I would have thought these differences would have been very difficult to detect on listening tests. Although as I note, if you had three sets of cables in a system showing the same effects you would get a larger difference.

The effects of many such things may be very subtle, not easily detected in a simple A/B comparison. But with careful listening you may detect them and decide that you prefer one set-up over another.
 
Feb 24, 2007 at 6:51 AM Post #162 of 313
Quote:

Originally Posted by cotdt /img/forum/go_quote.gif
We can put this to rest once and for all. If someone is interested and lives in southern california, we can all get together and do a blind test. There will be a very high-end cable made out of exotic materials. Then there will be two other cables that look exactly the same: another one of the high-end cable and the other is a cheap RatShack cable. And you have to say whether cable A or cable B matches the high-end cable. this would be done on what is my opinion a very hi-end DAC, amp, and headphone (or speakers). i'm sure many of us can score 16/16 on this.


Hmm, in what forum can such things be discussed. Perhaps if it was SBT it could be discussed?
 
Feb 24, 2007 at 6:53 AM Post #163 of 313
Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundEdit /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Hmm, in what forum can such things be discussed. Perhaps if it was SBT it could be discussed?


It's a single blind test, so we can discuss it!
 
Feb 24, 2007 at 7:04 AM Post #164 of 313
Quote:

Originally Posted by cotdt /img/forum/go_quote.gif
We can put this to rest once and for all. If someone is interested and lives in southern california, we can all get together and do a blind test. There will be a very high-end cable made out of exotic materials. Then there will be two other cables that look exactly the same: another one of the high-end cable and the other is a cheap RatShack cable. And you have to say whether cable A or cable B matches the high-end cable. this would be done on what is my opinion a very hi-end DAC, amp, and headphone (or speakers). i'm sure many of us can score 16/16 on this.


There's already an extensive thread discussing a possible test or series of tests regarding cables, i.e., how to construct a test that might shed some light on the issue. It more or less got nowhere, because of differences over testing methodolgy, what exactly should be tested, etc. The test you're proposing has a number of problems, of course, including, but not limited to, the fact that listening on unfamiliar equipment is not very useful.
 
Feb 24, 2007 at 7:20 AM Post #165 of 313
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif
There's already an extensive thread discussing a possible test or series of tests regarding cables, i.e., how to construct a test that might shed some light on the issue. It more or less got nowhere, because of differences over testing methodolgy, what exactly should be tested, etc. The test you're proposing has a number of problems, of course, including, but not limited to, the fact that listening on unfamiliar equipment is not very useful.


Pretty ironic, though I'd disagree with the "unfamiliar equipment" part. If the stuff wasn't so esoteric and expensive you'd think such parties would be like a wine tasting party for audio hobbyists and happen every week. However, some of the way esoteric device makers are actually invited to apply to the randi.org prize until the rule change goes into effect--but that should be a subject for a different forum...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top