Originally Posted by FallenAngel
Sure, I built a new pair of cables yesterday using the same materials I always use in my system (18AWG Cardas wire in Teflon with Yarbo 50RB RCA) because I need a slightly longer cable than before (1m instead of 2ft). I plugged it in and noticed that the cable sounded sharper in the highs and the bass wasn't as controlled. I switched back to my old pair and everything sounded right again. Switched again to the new IC and the bloated bass is back. It's not night-and-day difference but it's noticeable enough that I want to find out why it doesn't sound right. I know how my favorite tracks sound and when they don't, I get concerned.
Now this really confuses me; what exactly would qualify as "substantial evidence aside from personal experience"?
Um... that's not really blind-testing. Your methodology is extremely susceptible to placebo and internal expectations. If you know what cable is plugged in when you listen to the music, then it's not blind and can be skewed by placebo effect. I'm not saying that the placebo effect does exist, but there's no way to tell if it did occur (because if it did, it would be subconscious and not something you or any human being has control over).
And yes, as been stated before, I would consider some sort of controlled blind testing (hell, it doesn't really NEED to be double-blind, though it couldn't hurt) to be compelling.
Originally Posted by yotacowboy
Likewise, anything presented in that article is largely anecdotal as well. It's the itarwebs, folks.
Until I see Audioholics submitting papers to the IEEE, undergoing peer review, and publishing papers, I'd submit that THIER evidence isn't invalid either, and neither is it compelling.
So where does that leave us?
I'll say this: my original post was not done with the intent of defending the paper quoted in the first page. I simply am pointing out that, while a claim isn't verified by a lack of evidence against it, it also isn't meritless without evidence against it. The claims being put are indeed just a bunch of unbacked assertions, but they're neither true nor false without some sort of warrant.
That being said, there is comprehensive testing done on the cables in the various papers on the website, including double-blind testing. You can make the argument all you want that their source is biased, but if a guy out to sell sunglasses says that UV rays hurt your eyes, he's not wrong. Also, when you say that several citations were from one cable manufacturer (in another quote), I suggest you read the article "The Truth About Interconnects and Cables," which has tons of tests (including ABX and double-blind) and studies done primarily by a source that has no interest in selling cables (Elliot Sound Projects sells printed circuit boards and other miscellaneous DIY audio project kit).
Also, if you note the date on several of the articles, you'll notice they were published well before Audioholics opened up their storefront (the article I mentioned was from 2004) - sure it could all be a conspiracy, with them painstakingly laying out articles years (!) before opening their store in order to slowly goad people into buying their cables, which make up only a small section of their overall store stock... but that sounds like a step into the tinfoil-hat category.