Cable Science - Page 4

I never got to do any collages in college, that would have been fun. Not even any dioramas.

The discussion has degenerated to the back-against-the-wall perspective of "I don't know nor care why, but I insist there is a difference and I don't include what you consider evidence in my assessment." Pretty much kills it dead, doesn't it? Enjoy your cables, gentlemen, there's very little time on this earth and if you're happier with your money in the wallet of someone who puts the conductor in a really fancy package and his product in your chain then I'm not going to look down on you, but I do insist that it be treated scientifically, and not mysteriously, at least in this forum. Just this one. Please?

If the road to wisdom starts by giving up on empirical inquiry I pick knowledge over wisdom, and I spent several years reading a lot of dead guys' and a few living guys' perspectives on wisdom, knowledge, and being, getting a pretty piece of paper that says I'm specifically qualified in philosophy

I love the counter-argument that since there are so many competing extraordinary claims regarding cables, even if one were proved accurate it would essentially invalidate more than it would validate. I mean, don't get me wrong, if you could show me a shred of evidence I would be embarrassed as hell to have argued the point for so long, but I would run through the streets proclaiming your truth (or, well, SOME guy's truth - winners and losers with the one mystery property that we can't define until we figure out what it is)... But it's going to be a pretty embarrassing day for cable advocates too, isn't it? (No, of course not, there would then clearly be ANOTHER undiscovered mystery property that only affects their cable, etc., you see where it goes...)

I mean, this isn't a real discussion anymore. Dark matter and dark energy have been brought up as being somehow analogous or applicable to transmission of an electric signal at low frequencies. That is just playing around, isn't it? Black holes, wormholes, WHITE holes, eleven dimensions, strings and super strings, why is there something rather than nothing, why should there be nothing rather than something, and where in the universe has the best cup of coffee are all equally far-out but inapplicable things.

And so we again prove Prog Rock Man's Law that "as an online discussion on cables grows longer, the probability of it turning to philosophy approaches 1 (100%)" (with apologies to Mike Goodwin).

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotJeffBuckley 

I mean, this isn't a real discussion anymore. Dark matter and dark energy have been brought up as being somehow analogous or applicable to transmission of an electric signal at low frequencies. That is just playing around, isn't it? Black holes, wormholes, WHITE holes, eleven dimensions, strings and super strings, why is there something rather than nothing, why should there be nothing rather than something, and where in the universe has the best cup of coffee are all equally far-out but inapplicable things.

I agree that it is a futile act to try and explain the potentially unexplained with notions that aren't fully elaborated (for good reason!) on a forum. The words get 'too big' to have meaning (at least for me).

What isn't futile to note (as I've repeatedly stated) is that the double blind tests are still far from scientific, and the write-ups are certainly very seldom of scientific quality (and published in strong journals or conferences after double blind reviewing of the papers by their peer academics). Double blind A/B and ABX tests are only barely better than a market assessment review from a scientific perspective. There is essentially no control over a crap-load of variables that are clearly not independent, and are thus simplified to an extent that is well beyond the theoretical understanding of how the interplay between electronics and neural (as well as behavioral) psychology works. Furthermore, the sample sizes are considerably smaller than they need to be for the results to be statistically significant. That rules out the quantitative approach for the double blind tests as scientifically valid. From a qualitative perspective, the double blind tests do not focus on the 'why' questions anywhere close to enough. If an individual reviewer may sometimes believe A is X and sometimes B as X, does this mean that there is no difference between A and B, or does that mean that the reviewer needs more times to familiarize themselves with the sound signature of A and B, needs a different kind of music to do this reliably, needs a different start of the day to be at ease enough to tell the difference, or is all this just hokum? Those are examples of qualitative questions that are never answer in an elaborated way in the double blind tests. Ergo, the tests are not valid from a qualitative perspective either. 

Basing an argument on a best guess - which is the closest we can come to argue that the double blind tests are - is still preferable to sticking a wet finger up to see where the wind comes from. That doesn't make this conclusively true, or even remotely 'true enough' to be called generalized. Thus, the die-hard 'no-difference' group is not basing their arguments on science. That is a myth. If I were to bet on which side holds up over time (and I'm a conservative poker player), I'd still put a sizable stack on their end but I most definitely wouldn't go all-in as there are too many outs for the double blind tests themselves to be flawed. I seriously question that all skeptics have read up on the tests they defend, and compared them with the demands in terms of rigor and relevance held by science. Thus, as much as there is a bandwagon effect on the 'audible-difference' group, there is also a bandwagon effect among the 'no-difference' group. Ironically, both bandwagon members of the two groups share one thing - they believe, rather than know.

This doesn't change that we have some pretty sophisticated electricity-related measurements that seem repeatable to the point where any differences that may be found are incredibly hard to repeat in a controlled fashion, and appear to have minimal effect on the outcome. What we don't have is a conclusive proof that measurements actually map to specific listening impressions. Faults in our extant understanding of electronics are not likely (but remain plausible as long as any new finding fits within the current theorems), but do we really have metrics that capture all potential listening experiences? If we don't, then we still have a fair bit to go in figuring out the relationship between electronics and perceived experiences. If we can't find metrics for everything (and to get philosophical on you - we couldn't without an agreed upon universal truth, which is highly debatable that it exists), well... maybe then we shouldn't trust quantitative approaches to tell us the full answer to questions like this? It may be that the exceptions rather than the norms have a more revealing story to tell.

Having stated the last sentence, it may look as if I am in the 'audible-difference' group. I'm honestly not set in my beliefs (and I recognize them as beliefs only) about cable, which is a large reason for me to test some cables for headphones (in accordance with the different - and potentially magic - hypotheses), i.e. so that I can test them myself to see if I actually find differences. For speaker cable (and other cables in my speaker set-up) I have been able to pick out the ones I use as my favorites in double blind (and unscientific, i.e. flawed) tests, but the differences haven't been groundbreaking and the tests may be affecting the results. However, I run a rather simple Canare speaker cable to my bi-wiring speakers rather than some of the fancy (and MUCH more expensive) stuff that we were given when I worked in the industry (many years ago), so I definitely don't fall for price = performance. I still have a boatload of fancy cables in a closet somewhere rather than use it. I may actually dig some of it out and try to make headphone cable out of it instead...

Finally, just as a reminder that re-cabling is far from only about potential sonic impact, I actually have three criteria that have nothing to do with sound quality when considering cables that in themselves make re-cabling fun to follow. One, they can look extraordinarily nice, and given that the cables are visible in living rooms, libraries, and other areas where we spend thousands - I certainly see this as highly valid in itself. Two, I like a sturdier cable rather than some of the flimsier ones that we see to avoid causing tears if I accidentally get snagged on a chair or something. Three, I much prefer a thicker cable as my small parrots don't bite on them while they have to be watched at all times when I have my IEMs with their thin cable out, but thicker typically means heavy and that's not ideal although a certain mass 'feels right'. Thus - I don't think any thread will change the beliefs of yey or nay sayers, as both are based belief to a certain degree. 

Here is a quote from Nordost's website

"Because cable really is a matter of life and death!

Ultra-Precision Tolerances and Manufacturing Technologies

Let’s face it: no one’s going to die if their A/V cabling isn’t perfect. On the other hand, astronauts, pilots, surgeons and heart patients all stake their lives—and the lives of others—on the performance of cables thinner than a human hair. And when medical, military and aerospace professionals trust their lives to a cable, they’re putting their trust in Nordost.

Unique among ALL audio and video cable manufacturers, Nordost applies the same space-age technologies, high-quality materials and exacting production tolerances to hi-fi that are demanded by these other cutting-edge, life or death fields. That means tolerances of less than one-millionth of an inch, with absolute precision and consistency: Cables whose construction must survive extremes of temperature and humidity, attack by chemical solvents and physical abuse that would destroy any other product. This “trial by fire” enables Nordost to make products that not only sound better, but products that can withstand several lifetimes of tough use and sound even better than the day they were made.  Best of all, thanks to the industry’s most precise and consistent manufacturing processes, THE NORDOST CABLE YOU BUY WILL MEASURE AND PERFORM EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE CABLE WHICH THE REVIEWER RAVED ABOUT!"

I like the way Nordost allude to their cables being used in medical, military and aerospace applications, which they are not. Certainly in military applications resilience is the most important factor as cables are expected to work in the most extreme conditions. As for transferring of data including data to be used for communications so in the audible frequency range, so long as it works, that is fine. The idea that a cable could improve the clarity, sound stage or bass of the communication is not considered as there is nothing inherant in a cable that can do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik 

Just how do you delevop something when all scientific measurement is allegedly irrelevant?
 

Was this part directed to me or the pipe dream that Nordost lives in? On second thought, you must be meaning Nordost, as all I did was point out that A/B and ABX double blind tests unfortunately haven't been up to scientific standards. 
 

It's all very well that technically you cannot completely rule out that cables are doing things unknown to science. However, taking that approach with everything quickly leads you to insanity. We have to evaluate claims reasonably based on all the evidence before us - the claims for cables seem ludicrously implausible.

If we take the position that, as cables cannot be completely disproven believing in them is beyond criticism, I must introduce you to dragon in my garage. Same principle, just degrees of ridiculousness.

EDIT: The reason that skeptical cable investigations are not always conducted with perfect scientific method is quite possibly because the people who could do so have better things to do with their time, in the same way as quantum physicists don't trouble themselves with disproving the notion that the force of gravity is in fact produced by invisible elves.

I think wormholes are far out. You guys think that? They are seriously far out. I need to, like, get some of that wormhole stuff going on... in a cable, man, you know?

That would be really far out...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trasselkalle 

 

I agree that it is a futile act to try and explain the potentially unexplained with notions that aren't fully elaborated (for good reason!) on a forum. The words get 'too big' to have meaning (at least for me).

 

What isn't futile to note (as I've repeatedly stated) is that the double blind tests are still far from scientific, and the write-ups are certainly very seldom of scientific quality (and published in strong journals or conferences after double blind reviewing of the papers by their peer academics). Double blind A/B and ABX tests are only barely better than a market assessment review from a scientific perspective. There is essentially no control over a crap-load of variables that are clearly not independent, and are thus simplified to an extent that is well beyond the theoretical understanding of how the interplay between electronics and neural (as well as behavioral) psychology works. Furthermore, the sample sizes are considerably smaller than they need to be for the results to be statistically significant. That rules out the quantitative approach for the double blind tests as scientifically valid. From a qualitative perspective, the double blind tests do not focus on the 'why' questions anywhere close to enough. If an individual reviewer may sometimes believe A is X and sometimes B as X, does this mean that there is no difference between A and B, or does that mean that the reviewer needs more times to familiarize themselves with the sound signature of A and B, needs a different kind of music to do this reliably, needs a different start of the day to be at ease enough to tell the difference, or is all this just hokum? Those are examples of qualitative questions that are never answer in an elaborated way in the double blind tests. Ergo, the tests are not valid from a qualitative perspective either. 

 

Basing an argument on a best guess - which is the closest we can come to argue that the double blind tests are - is still preferable to sticking a wet finger up to see where the wind comes from. That doesn't make this conclusively true, or even remotely 'true enough' to be called generalized. Thus, the die-hard 'no-difference' group is not basing their arguments on science. That is a myth. If I were to bet on which side holds up over time (and I'm a conservative poker player), I'd still put a sizable stack on their end but I most definitely wouldn't go all-in as there are too many outs for the double blind tests themselves to be flawed. I seriously question that all skeptics have read up on the tests they defend, and compared them with the demands in terms of rigor and relevance held by science. Thus, as much as there is a bandwagon effect on the 'audible-difference' group, there is also a bandwagon effect among the 'no-difference' group. Ironically, both bandwagon members of the two groups share one thing - they believe, rather than know.

 

This doesn't change that we have some pretty sophisticated electricity-related measurements that seem repeatable to the point where any differences that may be found are incredibly hard to repeat in a controlled fashion, and appear to have minimal effect on the outcome. What we don't have is a conclusive proof that measurements actually map to specific listening impressions. Faults in our extant understanding of electronics are not likely (but remain plausible as long as any new finding fits within the current theorems), but do we really have metrics that capture all potential listening experiences? If we don't, then we still have a fair bit to go in figuring out the relationship between electronics and perceived experiences. If we can't find metrics for everything (and to get philosophical on you - we couldn't without an agreed upon universal truth, which is highly debatable that it exists), well... maybe then we shouldn't trust quantitative approaches to tell us the full answer to questions like this? It may be that the exceptions rather than the norms have a more revealing story to tell.

 

Having stated the last sentence, it may look as if I am in the 'audible-difference' group. I'm honestly not set in my beliefs (and I recognize them as beliefs only) about cable, which is a large reason for me to test some cables for headphones (in accordance with the different - and potentially magic - hypotheses), i.e. so that I can test them myself to see if I actually find differences. For speaker cable (and other cables in my speaker set-up) I have been able to pick out the ones I use as my favorites in double blind (and unscientific, i.e. flawed) tests, but the differences haven't been groundbreaking and the tests may be affecting the results. However, I run a rather simple Canare speaker cable to my bi-wiring speakers rather than some of the fancy (and MUCH more expensive) stuff that we were given when I worked in the industry (many years ago), so I definitely don't fall for price = performance. I still have a boatload of fancy cables in a closet somewhere rather than use it. I may actually dig some of it out and try to make headphone cable out of it instead...

 

Finally, just as a reminder that re-cabling is far from only about potential sonic impact, I actually have three criteria that have nothing to do with sound quality when considering cables that in themselves make re-cabling fun to follow. One, they can look extraordinarily nice, and given that the cables are visible in living rooms, libraries, and other areas where we spend thousands - I certainly see this as highly valid in itself. Two, I like a sturdier cable rather than some of the flimsier ones that we see to avoid causing tears if I accidentally get snagged on a chair or something. Three, I much prefer a thicker cable as my small parrots don't bite on them while they have to be watched at all times when I have my IEMs with their thin cable out, but thicker typically means heavy and that's not ideal although a certain mass 'feels right'. Thus - I don't think any thread will change the beliefs of yey or nay sayers, as both are based belief to a certain degree. 

Quoted for truth.  A lot of people involved in the discussions here don't understand this. There was another member (whose posts I wish I had saved) whose job it was to conduct proper double-blind trials who explained in detail what you've summarised well above. To be more harsh, I'd say this forum has a big confirmation bias focus.

There's much I feel like writing, but more useful, I want to post a quote from someone I know that is more significant than this discussion, but encompasses such circular discussions as ones about cables and about any subject as happen on forums and elsewhere all over the world:

The true measure of intellect is seen in the ability of a person to re-evaluate what they believe to be true when additional and clarifying knowledge is received, and then apply this knowledge in their life so as to intimately embrace the higher truth that has been revealed in the endeavor to receive still Higher Truth. That most people are incapable of making this critical re-evaluation of what they already believe, is simply a reality of life that inhibits man from making any real intellectual and spiritual gains in life.  

This is why I've asked the question before: Are people interested in finding the truth or just arguing their beliefs?   This is a question you have to ask yourself, at any time about anything you feel strongly about. Most people are too lazy to have any interest in the former. 

I'll agree, the evidence that was produced specifically to counter the idea that audio cables do audibly different things is not always conducted from a scientifically perfect viewpoint.

However, the initial supposition that cables do these things has not a shred of evidence behind it presented in a way that is not even as scientific as the sometimes wholly unscientific DBTs that are done.

The few tests that have been done, however lacking they may have been in scientific vigour, supported what was suggested by existing theory.

As I said a few posts ago, it is all very well to walk in and seemingly take the higher ground and point out how we're all a bunch of hypocrites, but the fact remains that such apparently level-headed thinking falls apart when you try to apply such thinking to other fields and discliplines. You simply cannot be that open minded if you want to construct a vaguely plausible model of the world around you. Imagine if for every conceivable objection to a theory, even those that were fundamentally flawed, we smugly decided "Oh, it's impossible to decide either way."

The onus is on the cable companies to present a shred of evidence to support their ideas. I put it to you that it is you who misunderstand - you assume that people such as myself take DBTs and the like as the ultimate evidence there is no difference. It isn't - I still would hold my beliefs with equal vigour if  no DBTs had ever been conducted, not because I'm a narrow-minded hypocrite who wants to just shout my beliefs from the rooftops, but because no evidence has been presented to the contrary. DBTs are simply interesting anecdotes which can be used to illustrate an argument.

The core of the hard-core objectivist belief is that there has not been a shred of scientific evidence ever produced to demonstrate cables work. DBT are just the icing on the cake. We can trust in the measurements and theory as we do not need to know how a number relates to listening experiences. We can null signals in the analogue and digital domain to prove that there is no difference of any significance. If there is something we cannot measure, no-one has yet put forward any evidence as to what it is, how to affect it and the like.

TL;DR: Those who point to the hypocrisy and irony of the objectivist position as maintained here are completely missing the point. How's that for irony? It is not necessary to consider a theory that has yet to be even laid down, let alone fleshed out.

There is nothing wrong with the idea that current scientific principles may be mistaken. What is wrong is positioning the doctrine of the cable companies as if it is a legitimate scientific theory.

There has been no concerted attempt to relate cable construction to sound. There has been no attempt by the cable companies to conduct the kind of scientifically vigorous tests whose absence their customers complain of. There isn't even a theoretical basis put forward - the cable companies simply misappropriate and distort obscure branches of modern science if they want to try to justify their products.

My complaint is not against the argument for cables. My complaint is that none has yet put forward such an argument, yet people persist in referring to the cable issue as a "debate."

Try this analogy for size:

I declare, along with a few thousand other people, that the colour of my wallpaper affects the sound of my hi-fi. As a group, we put forward no single coherent argument - some people try to put forward scientific arguments as to why this works, but they are found to not be new theories, but merely distortions of existing ones that make little sense. Others simply take the fact they think they can hear a difference as evidence, despite evidence from other areas of science to the contrary. Some others attempt to draw correlations between wallpaper colour/texture/composition and sound, but their opinions are inconsistent and contradictory.

Serious scientists consider investigating such unsubstantiated claims as below them, but a few people trying to persuade the wallpaper-believers of their error conduct various tests. However, as laypersons their tests, whilst they seem to render the possibility of wallpaper making a difference even more unlikely and are thus used in attempts to persuade them of their mistake, are not scientifically conclusive.

The wallpaper believers misunderstand the stance of the people trying to persuade them, attack the testing methodology and thus consider the plausibility of their position vindicated.

I don't think I need to point out where our hypothetical believers made an error of judgement.

Whilst the above initially seems to not relate directly to measurements, only to criticism of the various blind tests that have been conducted, that all leads back into the idea of the absence of any argument. If measurements do not cover everything, define that which they do not cover. Until someone can make even a primitive attempt at doing that, the "You can't measure it" argument is invalid for the reasons laid out above.