The "truth" about different speaker cables - Page 10

In context is was an $80,000 system

Wires? How about differences in fuses!

Here is a really interesting article complete with "scientific" graphs showing measurable differences between fuses.

http://www.affordableaudio.org/aa2009-06.pdf
I can hear it now.....no way a little piece of wire in a glass tube can make a difference.

And look further into the work of Jack Bybee. More stuff no one understands but him and the government (Navy). Could all of this show us that science is not all figured out yet and there is lots we don't know. Could be why Hawking is having such a tough time with his quantum mechanics and unified theory tying into Einstein's theories.

I like how the author related the sound differences. Not sure if I could hear it but some certainly may.

I still stand by my original question...

"Can anyone point to a link of real proof that there is someone - anyone - out there who can tell the difference correctly every time in a true double blind comparison. Someone who can do it any time, anywhere even with the equipment of his choosing, the only difference being the two cables tested.

That affordable audio article lost all credibility in my eyes when the author used what looked like a sloppily put together MSPaint diagram of how instruments soundstage differently between the two fuses.

keep standing!

How long have you been a headfi member? Have you read about anyone doing it.

No one that I recall has done double blind tests to see if they can pick out the same wire time after time.

If people hear a difference, great. If they don't, great. I'd be surprised if you could pick out your wife or significant others face from a pool of 4 or 5 faces by touch only- ten times out of ten while blindfolded.

What!

Are you suggesting a guy who is trying to express what he felt he heard has to be a wiz with a visual software program and lay it out more professionally OR do you believe he is foolish for trying to visually show what he felt he heard at all?

I would be in real big trouble since I could not even make a good freehand circle in paint.

i'm not saying yes or no the this whole question but let me add here that there's also people who beleave that more expensive OPTICAL CABLES, yes, OPTICAL CABLES for S/PDIF digital audio samples sound better than simpler, cheaper optical cables for few meters long cables! I just can't imagine how somone can beleave that there can be any difference between two bit perfectly exact streams! That's to say how absurdly the mind of a man poisoned by propagandas can see things!

lao

About Blind tests

I like this quote:

"blind listening tests fundamentally distort the listening process and are worthless in determining the audibility of a certain phenomenon."

Interesting article:

The difference between medical DBT's and audio DBT's | AVguide

And I guess we ought to dump all these lossless files and go with low bit rate files according to a great Swedish blind study and let's listen to them on a 30 year old Pioneer receiver. Who needs all this crazy headphone amp stuff.

Oh............wait a minute..........not all of us buy it!

The Jack Bybee stuff sets off my BS detector. If his stuff is really so great, he would tell you why, and quantify its superiority with data. Why? Because doing so would sell a lot of gear, and make him money, which is a strong incentive. If you rely on selling snake oil to suckers, you must price it high, because you are sucker-limited.

I also have a quantum black box waveform condensator that I'm working on. I got the idea while working under contract at the NSA doing crypto work. Definitely reduces out-of-band parasitic harmonics in a digital data stream.

I agree that we do not understand everything in an audio system. But I contend that the physics are pretty well elucidated, and engineering is pretty mature...at least at audio frequencies and bandwidths....leaving the rest of the system and environmental variables to give rise to most observed variation. The continued debate about the effect of X variable on audio fidelity is an artifact of social networks and a person's reluctance (or inability) to engage in good controlled experiments.

I almost wet myself laughing at the article especially the "map" of sound differences and the description of it, priceless, made my day, thank you.

As for the measurable differences , where do I start ?

1) Scale ?

2) This is the pattern of current going into a device not any audio output which is the bit you actually hear so er can they show any difference to system noise, distortion, frequency reponse and so on and can they show audible differences under proper i.e unsighted listening conditions, I won't hold my breath.

3) They say significant, I do not see *any* statistical tests here so significant at what level and at what magnitude ?

4) Overall noise levels ?

5) Sample rate seems to be 50hz , on a 60hz system ?

6)Current frequency (actual) varies from 59.9877 hz to 60.0178 - hmm could we be seing random variation here and how does it impact the measurements ?

7) Graphs inconsistent size making visual comparisons difficult. The diference between Fig 3 and Fig (power cord swap)

They look identical for 5th and 7th to me, but without the scale and missing actual measurements we just cannot tell. Actually we can tell ,if there is a difference it is **miniscule** and their text is misleading. I copied the graphs and dropped them into a document which I could examine easier than the pdf. Their claim for the power cord is utterly misleading.

The same is true for all the other comparisons, really, load the graphs into a document and compare them carefully


8) Mix and match of variables (compoinents) makes comparisons really flaky.

9) As a set of experiments it is very poorly documented

10) No measurements ! Where are the figures so we can make a judgment !

As stated in each of my posts, since March of 2008. Nope, Probably because no one can reliably tell the difference.

Probably because no one can reliably tell the difference.

Agreed. Spend (or waste) your money any way you see fit, but when someone says that there is a difference as though it were a fact, that doubters like myself are justified in saying 'Show Me'.

You are correct to say that there is much about science we still do not know. However, the science of electricity is quite well settled. If it can't be measured electrically, it does not exist.

Apparently, you haven't seen my wife.

I've watched these discussions for a couple years now. I'm willing to bet anyone that by using ANY means at their disposal, no one can tell the difference in two cables with the same electrical properties beyond random chance, using their hearing alone. - Even if they were to listen for a month on each round.

I'm like Fox Mulder... I WANT to believe. Even if I can't ever hear it myself. I just need some real evidence.

kinda like drugs

Nick Charles you make lots of points on that article.

I am not trying to makes sense of it, merely pointing out someones "scientific" attempt to point out some "measurable" differences. This is precisely why I gave up reading spec sheets with THD%, IM%, slew rate, frequency bandwidth going out to 400Khz, etc.

I don't care so much about the measurements.
I listen to it and if I like it and feel it is good value for me, I buy it. I also laughed when I heard many $50,00 to $100,000 + systems at RMAF over the last 4 years. It is amazing what is out there that to me does not sound so different from what I like with my much lower priced system.

Yet here we are at headfi trying to get more scientific info to ease our minds, justify a purchase or to become more educated. All worthy uses of our time. And lots of good thought and discussion.

A healthy dose of skepticism is great especially when it relates to you and your health. I just love the way the docs and drug companies tell you to just take this pill and your symptom will be relieved. The docs have no clue how it will affect you and don't even get me started with the trials and blind studies. Yet most of us just accept it and take cholesterol lowering pills never mind the many time greater risk of side effects, because it is easier than giving up the fast food crack we might eat.

At least all we have to damage here for the most part is our wallets!

I'm of the same opinion. This is the kind of stuff that really hurts the argument for cables and tweaks, rather than help it. To someone (like myself) who reads scientific articles on a daily basis, the results presented in that paper are meaningless for all of the reasons you outlined. Furthermore, statements like

"They would have to describe the proprietary filtering mechanism in more detail than they care to." and

"Please understand that a magician never tell anybody his tricks....;.-)"

lead one to believe that it's pure snake oil. Any reputable electronic component manufacturer supplies detailed technical information when requested. Let's assume that they have filed the proper intellectual property rights protection documents (patents), so disclosing the technology should be a non issue.

Finally, making a giant assumption that these "directional" AC line fuses actually do anything to affect noise levels etc, there's no explanation on how that could possibly affect the power coming out of a properly designed, high quality rectifier.

I don't agree that they are worthless in all cases (99% of people should be able to tell the difference betwwen Bose and B&W 801s), however for detecting fine differences, DBTs probably are worthless. This is the primary reason why I like to see measurements. Our perceptions are biased, but a properly conducted set of experiments on the components themselves will not be.

It seems that the author is bent on using false dichotomies to argue against DBT. Of course poorly executed DBT are worthless, but that's not an argument against them. Furthermore, arguing that medical DBT is nothing like audio DBT doesn't serve any purpose but, again, to present a false dichotomy. The correct alternative is to use a well executed subjective DBT of the type that are used by clinical psychologists and corporate marketing.

However, I think it's fair to say that we will never actually see an audio DBT that meets these criteria. There's simply no motivation for anyone to finance it. Pepsi can throw a million dollars on a study to used as marketing, but that would be a heavy burden for cable companies I suspect.

I'd hope that most people aren't using these arguments to justify purchases one way or another. Listening, whether scientifically valid comparison or not, is quite frankly half the fun of high end audio. However, as a scientist, it's really quite offensive to see a lot of audiophile junk science. In some respects, I'd say that the scientific community has an obligation to educate people against such shenanigans.

Thanks, but it's quiet LONG. =(