Audiophile cables, an interesting question. - Page 17

I get that part.  Different cables which are considered "good enough" by the usual RLC standards can measure differently by tiny but statistically significant amounts.

My point was that if there are golden ears who can actually hear that sort of thing there is no reason to suggest that those differences disappear when they no longer know what cable they're listening to.

Originally Posted by Chris J 

When I say this I am thinking of all the various differences in cable construction beyond differences in RLC:

twisted, coaxial, flat

shielded, unshielded

different types of shielding

radically different insulation materials

rather surprising that you can do all those things when designing a cable but NOT screw up the sound.

I would argue that there often are differences in various cables which can be measured, perhaps we just can't hear them as they are buried or swamped by other distortions and/or noise.

Or the effects are outside the audio bandwidth. In other words, insignificant.

Russ Andrews was claiming there are measureable differences in various power cables which appears to be very true,  they lost their case because they could not prove their ultimate claim: the differences are audible.   If the power supplies in your audio equipment have an adequate power supply noise rejection ratio, then having a "better" audio cable or a superior power conditioner may very well be irrelevant.
 

I guess its a matter of semantics then.

In that situation I'd say that I thought I heard a difference but the evidence indicates that I didn't actually hear anything different and my perception was influenced by other factors.

Loose terminology will lead to misunderstandings and outright equivocations.  I think such tight definitions are important in these types of discussions.  In colloquial usage its ok to saw that you "saw" or "heard" something in a dream because pretty much everyone understands that dreams are only in your head and saying that you "saw" or "heard" something is simply shorthand because being more precise and saying that you perceived or experienced something is inconsistent with the normal flow of casual conversation.  If you did happen to be in a discussion about the nature of dreams then you'll probably have to use more precise language to enable clear communication.

For example, if you grant Harley's premise that real audible differences disappear under controlled conditions then it implies the components actually perform differently based on the listeners knowledge of them or something else along those lines.  As there is no evidence to imply that this does happen, no known mechanism to enable it, would probably overturn a great deal of well supported science if it was true, and because the listener's subjective experience is already explained by psychology such a hypothesis is untenable until it is backed up with substantial evidence.

That's why precise language is useful.