Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › The "truth" about different speaker cables
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The "truth" about different speaker cables - Page 8

post #106 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundogan View Post
100% accuracy is not needed to determine a statistical significant difference: ABX test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I would find a result of 100% rather suspiscious actually
Cable A: lamp cord - $0.50
Cable B: Pear ANJOU Speaker Cables - $7,250

If the result wasn’t 100% from the this test, I’d be suspicious.
post #107 of 309
Well, with 100%, you can suspect (more than a 'normal' result) something went wrong with the actual test or subject that made the subject choose one of the cables based on something other than the actual difference (or lack of).

And like I said, 100% is not needed to conclude a difference from an ABX test.
post #108 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundogan View Post
Well, with 100%, you can suspect (more than a 'normal' result) something went wrong with the actual test or subject that made the subject choose one of the cables based on something other than the actual difference (or lack of).

And like I said, 100% is not needed to conclude a difference from an ABX test.
Cool, I’ll take the lamp cord.
post #109 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundogan View Post
100% accuracy is not needed to determine a statistical significant difference: ABX test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I would find a result of 100% rather suspiscious actually
If you have a faulty cable that you can measure as being faulty and likely to give very audible differencies, why would you consider the 100% result suspicious?

If you have 2 cables, one with capacitance of 30pF/m and another with 300pF/ m then its just a matter of cable length as to when one of them runs into issues with what the amplifier can drive and audible artifacts. Its the "any distortion we can measure or calculate is lower than ever demonstrated to be audible" where abx normally comes in...

Unfortunately people have very little idea just how wrong a cabling would need to be to give likely to be audible differences.
post #110 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwmclean View Post
Cool, I’ll take the lamp cord.
Do you have any other complaints besides being unshielded that you have against lamp cords? The ones that do actually have copper conductors inside, that is.
post #111 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanderx View Post
Unfortunately people have very little idea just how wrong a cabling would need to be to give likely to be audible differences.
I don't think that's the issue. I for one am aware of the theoretical considerations about cables and the little measuring differences among them (the same applies to amps and sources, BTW). But some people – including myself – just leave theory aside and focus on the sound (in a relaxed real-world situation, nota bene).
.
post #112 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanderx View Post
If you have a faulty cable that you can measure as being faulty and likely to give very audible differencies, why would you consider the 100% result suspicious?

If you have 2 cables, one with capacitance of 30pF/m and another with 300pF/ m then its just a matter of cable length as to when one of them runs into issues with what the amplifier can drive and audible artifacts. Its the "any distortion we can measure or calculate is lower than ever demonstrated to be audible" where abx normally comes in...

Unfortunately people have very little idea just how wrong a cabling would need to be to give likely to be audible differences.
It is written on the article. If I remember correctly they gave an example when unless the cable was 3 Km long you would not notice anything...
post #113 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanderx View Post
If you have a faulty cable that you can measure as being faulty and likely to give very audible differencies, why would you consider the 100% result suspicious?

If you have 2 cables, one with capacitance of 30pF/m and another with 300pF/ m then its just a matter of cable length as to when one of them runs into issues with what the amplifier can drive and audible artifacts. Its the "any distortion we can measure or calculate is lower than ever demonstrated to be audible" where abx normally comes in...

Unfortunately people have very little idea just how wrong a cabling would need to be to give likely to be audible differences.
Well, suspicious only means you might want to check the actual test for errors for example. If nothing wrong with it and the 100% result stays, its okay.
100% scores are unlikely (over a large number of subjects), but can happen ofcourse.
post #114 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullseye View Post
It is written on the article. If I remember correctly they gave an example when unless the cable was 3 Km long you would not notice anything...
You can do things to the cabling that would have effects over shorter distances. You know, if you take a knife to it or degrade the contacts etc Maybe we should start a myth that curly headphone cords degrade sound quality due to being air core inductors Which they of course are.
post #115 of 309
lol, this is rediculous. Those who feel its ok to throw away money, let them do it. For those who understand and have known or have family members who are audiophiles who know it is bunk, we have more money for source, can upgrades than "magic cables"
post #116 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoYouRight View Post
lol, this is rediculous. Those who feel its ok to throw away money, let them do it. For those who understand and have known or have family members who are audiophiles who know it is bunk, we have more money for source, can upgrades than "magic cables"
Yes, you are in a really comfortable position, the more so if all amps and souce devices sound the same to you as well. Saves you a lot of money.
.
post #117 of 309
amps, sources sound different, though volume matching is helpful for those that are harder to distinguish. the cable thing is really not worth it, you might hear a slight difference, but it's purely random and not worth 4,000$usd for 1% difference.
post #118 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoYouRight View Post
The cable thing is really not worth it, you might hear a slight difference, but it's purely random and not worth $4,000 for 1% difference.
Thanks! Luckily I just paid ~$1500 for 0.5% difference so far.
.
post #119 of 309
I thought this was interesting (old): A Spat Among Audiophiles Over High-End Speaker Wire

I'm currently on the fence. On one hand, we have an abundance of literature that suggests there is little effect of cables on signals in the audible frequency band in addition to literature that illustrates the existence of psychosomatic/neurological effects (placebo). Combine this with the apparent lack of evidence from cable makers to support their claims and one can't help but have a healthy basis for skepticism.

On the other, there is also evidence that people perceive sensory inputs in a vast number of interesting ways, including pathologies like being able to "taste" colors. It's also suspected that early exposure to musical training changes the brain structure in ways different from non-musicians, based on observable differences in the gross anatomy of the brains of musicians and non-musicians. It's therefore possible that some people may in fact be able to perceive subtle differences in cable designs in ways that scientific theory is unable to explain.

There's a remarkable similarity between the marketing of cables and dietary supplements. Now I think I'll go admire my silver cables while drinking some Ginko Biloba tea.
post #120 of 309
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › The "truth" about different speaker cables