Why do the 'pro-cable' side refuse to accept the science and do blind tests?

Because the anti-cable side won't accept that, despite science, they DO hear a difference.

And so the debate rages on...

Cognitive dissonance

Be sure to read the section on the Belief Disconfirmation Paradigm.

After all, there's more evidence for ghosts, UFOs and bigfoot than there is for cables.

Here's my take on things: Nice things are nice to have, I make my own cables because I use high quality parts. Why? Not because I can hear a difference, that's for sure, even with my hearing ranging from 12Hz to 26kHz, a curse I assure you. I do it because they're much more reliable and long lasting, and better looking!

Not once has someone been able to a/b cables in a controlled environment, but people still believe in the Bible so maybe cables aren't so crazy...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik 

 

After all, there's more evidence for ghosts, UFOs and bigfoot than there is for cables.

  LOL

I knew this one guy in high school who swore aliens exist and they will reveal themselves to the general public within the next couple years. If that happens I'll eat my hat buy a HM-801 and buy expensive cables. (not really)

Because science is man's attempt to explain the unknown. Science is constantly evolving to fit the observed. Once proved wrong, a new theory is created to cover the ignorance of the last attempt. Not saying that all science is bogus but not everything is neatly covered by it either. If you want to gamble your money on the chance that there is a difference in sound, it's your coin. I have heard differences in presentation with power cords, ICs, capacitors, silver wound transformers, etc. I don't need someone's subjective opinion to determine mine. Science has changed since I was in high school in 1970 and you are trying to tell me it has a handle on something as subjective as sound?

IMO

Here's the thing, sound isn't subjective, it's quanizable, and until I see someone who can a/b cables and prove it, I'm unconvinced. 

Happy, your idea of science changing is a bit naïve. While there are new theories, they generally build off the previous idea. E=MC^2 looks an awful lot like K=1/2MV^2 don’t you think? Infact, in most cases, for a theory to be correct, it must be able to not only explain old observations, but new observations as well. One of the reasons why string theory is still highly theoretical and hasn't been lifted to a higher status. Cables are psychological or chemical, but they have nothing to do with the cable, and just the one hearing it. This is why the argument goes on.

Is OJ a murderer, because the jury said no?  

I am using science to choose my cables.  I perform test, (swaping cables) and observe the improvement or degradation, (through music) and put those lessons into effect by keeping the cables I liked best in my system (results).  Sorry I can't put that on a graph for you, or make it fit to be what you want.  I'm not here for what you want, Im here for my music.

 Maybe the better question is why a large proportion of the anti-cable people seem to be angry, bitter, and desperate to prove their side.  

At a recent minimeet with XLR1 and myself, we swapped cables in his system because he was not a big believer in cables.  I still don't know how he feels, and I don't care.  His rig makes him happy, and if thats the case, why should I "save" him.  He doesn't need to be saved.

If you would like this thread to be for anti cable post only, let me know and I'll remove my own post.

How ever you get your music, just get it!  Thats all any of us should care about, however far the individual wants to take it, let them.

None of you pro cablers have mentioned being able to DBT cables... care to explain?

When you go home after a long day and put on the headphones, do you begin a series of DBTs, or do you relax and enjoy the music.  The problem I have with DBT, (and I can only speak for myself) is that it never represents a real life listening experience.  In fact DBTs have nothing to do with music.  Their all about the science, not about the experience.

 I accept that that science cant show me the difference between cables, but I don't listen through science, I listen through my ears, and if my ears discern an improvement, then thats what I go with.  

If you trust measurements more than your ears, then pick the cables with the beast (insert whatever) as shown by the latest test.  I choose my ears to make my decisions, and how my body reacts to the experience.

You have to use it.

The believers make the hypothesis that cables make a difference, then either leave it at the hypothesis level or refuse to acknowledge the results of testing.

Every time cables have been put to the test, whether by listening or using test equipment, they fail.  Every time.  For those who haven't read it, Carl Sagan's Dragon In My Garage essay is a pretty good summary of how cables allegedly "work."

I'm tired of seeing theory and hypotheses presented as fact and there's nothing wrong with requesting evidence.  If someone says that you have to spend X amount on something to keep from "ruining" the sound, I want to know why.  People who call those who question "bitter" or "haters" usually have very good reasons why they don't want to answer the questions.  Those types of accusations are nothing but a dodge.  Even if there really is something to cables, there are many questions that need to be answered.

edit: this was responding to
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kboe 

 

 Maybe the better question is why a large proportion of the anti-cable people seem to be angry, bitter, and desperate to prove their side.  

 

From what I've seen, I agree that some in the co-called "anti-cable" camp project unnecessary anger and bitterness in some arguments.  The desire to spread correct (or "correct," depending on what you think) information can be unfortunately distorted.  Nevertheless, just to bring a different perspective on the issue, I'd just like to point out a possible reason or sentiment behind their actions.

Many in the anti-cable camp have scientific or technical backgrounds, and they usually possess both a greater understanding and appreciation of the principles underlying the issue than most laypersons.  Their training and their jobs require them to apply these or similar principles all the time, so it's something ingrained into them and part of the culture.  In my own field the professional association lists this short code of ethics.  Numbers three and five (and six) are most relevant to this discussion:

http://www.ieee.org/membership_services/membership/ethics_code.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by headbob 

Because the anti-cable side won't accept that, despite science, they DO hear a difference.

 

And so the debate rages on...

Of course they do - that's what dbt types are arguing.  The only extra step anyone has to make to demonstrate that their experience is based on the cable is, under the same conditions that they do hear a difference, still hear this difference when they do not know which cable they are listening to.  I never understand why such a wonderfully simple and universally accepted methodological control makes people get so philosophical.  Science is just observation and description without obvious mistakes.