[Armaegis]

Quote:

Well, now.  Don't blame rich people for creating the art market.  They follow, enthusiasts lead, just like in hifi.  And paradoxically I believe the cable market is sustained by (comparatively) poor people.  They're desperate to upgrade, but can't afford the $5,000 amp they want, so they console themselves with a $500 cable.  Their passion and energy is deflected by economics into fruitless avenues, instead of fruitful ones.  You can see it all over this site.
 

I am sad that I'm not rich enough to be one of the poor people

 

[Rdr. Seraphim]

Dark brown, for semi-sweet chocolate sounds a bit more on the neutral to lean side, maybe a bit clinical at times; light brown, for milk chocolate for that buttery, smooth and just a bit less definition, but Oh so pure. 

 
Quote:

Quote:

Re cables sounding similar, e.g. Ag versus Cu, I always had the impression (not my personal experience) from the numerous reviews I've read over the years that silver exhibited a "bright" edgy sound and copper imparted more of a "warmish" character or darker hue to the sound (using subjective language). Of course these are generalizations or stereotypes, but it's interesting to me that there has been an "apparent" shift in perception with the introduction of some of the hyper-pure types of silver and copper. There seems to be a trend, that silver and copper are merging in sonic character. And on some of the ultra high-end stuff, it doesn't seem to matter what the material is (e.g. JPS Labs, an advertiser on Head-Fi). 

I painted my cables brown. Now the music sounds "chocolaty"

 

[akart]

lol. This is hilarious!

 
Quote:

Quote:

Re cables sounding similar, e.g. Ag versus Cu, I always had the impression (not my personal experience) from the numerous reviews I've read over the years that silver exhibited a "bright" edgy sound and copper imparted more of a "warmish" character or darker hue to the sound (using subjective language). Of course these are generalizations or stereotypes, but it's interesting to me that there has been an "apparent" shift in perception with the introduction of some of the hyper-pure types of silver and copper. There seems to be a trend, that silver and copper are merging in sonic character. And on some of the ultra high-end stuff, it doesn't seem to matter what the material is (e.g. JPS Labs, an advertiser on Head-Fi). 

I painted my cables brown. Now the music sounds "chocolaty"

 

[Kees]

I don't know of anybody that claims there are dragons flying around their house. There is no evidence they are.
 
I do know a lot of people that can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling. There afe measurable differences between cables, so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables.

 

[Slackboy72]

Quote:

I don't know of anybody that claims there are dragons flying around their house. There is no evidence they are.
 
I do know a lot of people that can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling. There afe measurable differences between cables, so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables.

Prove it.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

 
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Oh, and when I ask for scientific proof of the statement that the differences measured in cables have no audible consequences, it always stays awfully quiet....

No it does not
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
 
Twenty seven of the 28 test referred to are blind tests, there are no cable tests which result in a pass. Since a large scale test would be very difficult to do, a meta study of lots of smaller tests is the only other way to see which way the evidence leads us.
 
 

I found nothing relevant to my statement there. I asked for scientific PROOF of the assumption that the measured differences have no audible consequences. This assumption is key to the argument that cables can make no audible difference. You know as well as I do, that the fact that a lot of people are not able to hear the difference (under any circumstance DBT or other) is no proof for that assumption.
 
I don't in any way defend the ridiculously priced cable market that is also out there, but I do advocate to carefully choose the cables you use in your system, because it will make a difference. 
In my personal speaker system (I consider it a world class system) that means I use several different cables. None are more expensive than a few $100 and no ultra expensive cables (many $1000) I tried were any better. 

Blind testing is the scientific proof. Blind tests are recognised as a means of establishing the effectiveness of something when external possibilities are removed.


Quote:

I don't know of anybody that claims there are dragons flying around their house. There is no evidence they are.
 
I do know a lot of people that can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling. There afe measurable differences between cables, so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables.

Sorry, but that is failing to establish the link you believe in because you ignore other potential links.
 
Your argument is the same as "I worship the Sun, the Sun rises every morning, therefore my worshiping of the Sun is what makes it rise". That argument has worshiping as the link between the Sun and it rising in the morning. The reality is that the Sun would rise even when worshiping stops because it is gravity and orbits that make it rise and that is the link.
 
Your argument is that there are intrinsic differences in cables (the Sun) and you hear differences (worship) so therefore the intrinsic differences are the cause of those differences. Blind tests find that the link between cables and them sounding different is not there. (Which is the equivalent of stopping the worship of the Sun to see what happens next, the answer being it still rises in the morning). Sighted tests find that the link between cables and sounding better is there (so sighted tests are the equivalent of worship).
 
 

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

There are measurable differences between cables, so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables.

Kees, there's an unsupported jump in that argument, surely?  I would agree with "There are measurable differences between cables, so there are grounds to think that there might be audible differences between them."
 
Then it becomes a question of finding out how big (and where) the measured differences need to be before the threshold of audibility is reached.
 
An analogy might be: there are two coffee cups in front of me, supposedly identical, but at a micro level one must be larger than the other; how much larger must it be before the difference is detectable by my naked eye?

 

[Happy Camper]

When an agreeable definition of "difference" that all parties can reference, a dialog can develop. We don't all speak from the same experiences (other than musicians and sound professionals). And I would imagine there is wide acceptance on what.
 
Audio is a tool to bring emotion to the listener. We all have individual preferences that make up that emotion. Once satisfied, most are more forgiving of lessor performance as part of the experience, so long as that emotion is maintained. We are listening to the music and ignoring anything not part of the experience.
 
Then there is a breed of hobbyist/professional that will not stop until they can prove the pinnacle point by evidence that they accept as empirical and supported by existing tools and methods of scientific logic. This breed don't really listen to the music, they are engrossed in the analysis of the sound.
 
The opposite view will try any plausible attempt to make a difference in what they hear. The hearing is so concentrated on the finer nuances of the sound that they aren't listening to the music. They can positively tweak a system to sound exactly how they feel it should be according to their artistic illusion.
 
Both obsessive types are debating the viewpoint while most are enjoying the view.
 
 
 
 
 

 

[limpidglitch]

Or, to put it simply: Measurable ≠ Audible.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

 
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Oh, and when I ask for scientific proof of the statement that the differences measured in cables have no audible consequences, it always stays awfully quiet....

No it does not
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
 
Twenty seven of the 28 test referred to are blind tests, there are no cable tests which result in a pass. Since a large scale test would be very difficult to do, a meta study of lots of smaller tests is the only other way to see which way the evidence leads us.
 
 

I found nothing relevant to my statement there. I asked for scientific PROOF of the assumption that the measured differences have no audible consequences. This assumption is key to the argument that cables can make no audible difference. You know as well as I do, that the fact that a lot of people are not able to hear the difference (under any circumstance DBT or other) is no proof for that assumption.
 
I don't in any way defend the ridiculously priced cable market that is also out there, but I do advocate to carefully choose the cables you use in your system, because it will make a difference. 
In my personal speaker system (I consider it a world class system) that means I use several different cables. None are more expensive than a few $100 and no ultra expensive cables (many $1000) I tried were any better. 

Blind testing is the scientific proof. Blind tests are recognised as a means of establishing the effectiveness of something when external possibilities are removed.


Quote:

I don't know of anybody that claims there are dragons flying around their house. There is no evidence they are.
 
I do know a lot of people that can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling. There afe measurable differences between cables, so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables.

Sorry, but that is failing to establish the link you believe in because you ignore other potential links.
 
Your argument is the same as "I worship the Sun, the Sun rises every morning, therefore my worshiping of the Sun is what makes it rise". That argument has worshiping as the link between the Sun and it rising in the morning. The reality is that the Sun would rise even when worshiping stops because it is gravity and orbits that make it rise and that is the link.
 
Your argument is that there are intrinsic differences in cables (the Sun) and you hear differences (worship) so therefore the intrinsic differences are the cause of those differences. Blind tests find that the link between cables and them sounding different is not there. (Which is the equivalent of stopping the worship of the Sun to see what happens next, the answer being it still rises in the morning). Sighted tests find that the link between cables and sounding better is there (so sighted tests are the equivalent of worship).
 
 

Quote Prog rock man: "Blind testing is the scientific proof. Blind tests are recognised as a means of establishing the effectiveness of something when external possibilities are removed."
Not true. Blind testing is not proof, nor is it considered to be proof by any scientist. "When external possebilities are removed"????? Is this in any way the case here?
 
 
Your argument is the same as "I worship the Sun, the Sun rises every morning, therefore my worshiping of the Sun is what makes it rise". That argument has worshiping as the link between the Sun and it rising in the morning. The reality is that the Sun would rise even when worshiping stops because it is gravity and orbits that make it rise and that is the link.
 
Quote Prog rock man: "Your argument is that there are intrinsic differences in cables (the Sun) and you hear differences (worship) so therefore the intrinsic differences are the cause of those differences. Blind tests find that the link between cables and them sounding different is not there. (Which is the equivalent of stopping the worship of the Sun to see what happens next, the answer being it still rises in the morning). Sighted tests find that the link between cables and sounding better is there (so sighted tests are the equivalent of worship)."
 
It is quite a bit different. If I see the sun rise every day (like I hear a difference in cables every day), I think that the sun is probably actually rising every day, even if I don't know what causes it (like wise I assume there are actually audible differences caused by cables). 
The measurements of differences in cables confirm that my assumption is very plausible, like the measurements of astronomist make it very plausible that the sun will actually rise every day.
The fact that a lot of people hear a difference is like the fact that a lot of people also see the sun rise every day, it makes it more likely that it is really happening.
There are only a few blind people that don't see the sun rising and declare that it cannot be happening.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Quote:

There are measurable differences between cables, so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables.

Kees, there's an unsupported jump in that argument, surely?  I would agree with "There are measurable differences between cables, so there are grounds to think that there might be audible differences between them."
 
Then it becomes a question of finding out how big (and where) the measured differences need to be before the threshold of audibility is reached.
 
An analogy might be: there are two coffee cups in front of me, supposedly identical, but at a micro level one must be larger than the other; how much larger must it be before the difference is detectable by my naked eye?

I agree that you frase it better than I did. I stand corrected here.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Blind tests remove all other possibilities as to the cause of cables sounding different; placebo, bias, expectation etc and leave only hearing as the way of identifying a difference. If you claim you can hear a difference then you should be able to pass a test where hearing alone is the means of telling that difference. But of all of the tests that I can find, people cannot reliably hear a difference.
 
Surely to show there is an audible difference, a link that can be heard, you need to be able to pick out differences by purely listening?

 

[acidtripwow]

I know cables made a difference in my systems.  The interconnects I really liked were like $900 retail.  Ouch!  Did you guys read the latest Absolute Sound where they reviewed $25,000 and $40,000 cables?  Now that's crazy!  But I'd love to have a set.

 
I also tried some HDMI cables that were like $40.  They sucked bad.  The picture on my TV became fuzzy.  I also tried them on my PC and found the same thing.  I went back to my $5 cables from Newegg and things were much better.  I also just received some cheap  HDMI cables from Monoprice and found one of them to be bad,  The sound would drop out when I changed stations. 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

I know cables made a difference in my systems.  The interconnects I really liked were like $900 retail.  Ouch!  Did you guys read the latest Absolute Sound where they reviewed $25,000 and $40,000 cables?  Now that's crazy!  But I'd love to have a set.

 
I also tried some HDMI cables that were like $40.  They sucked bad.  The picture on my TV became fuzzy.  I also tried them on my PC and found the same thing.  I went back to my $5 cables from Newegg and things were much better.  I also just received some cheap  HDMI cables from Monoprice and found one of them to be bad,  The sound would drop out when I changed stations. 

The HDMI cables you have bought have been faulty, lines, sparkles, fuzz are known problems and no one is going to disagree that in that case, cables did make a difference. As for the seriously expensive cables, when a series of blind tests show that they make an identifiable, repeatable difference by just listening, then I would change my stance.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Kees, with regards to your comment that blind testing is not considered proof by any scientist, I found that to be intriguing, so I went a googling and found that whilst not correct, it is not used anywhere as much as I thought that it was. From a 1998 paper in the journal of Scientific Exploration.

"A survey of recent papers published in a range of scientific journals
showed that the use of blind methodologies is very rare in the so-called
hard sciences. In the physical sciences, no blind experiments were found
among the 237 papers reviewed. In the biological sciences, there were 7
blind experiments out of 914 (0.8%). There was a higher proportion in the
medical sciences, 6 out of 102 (5.9%), and in psychology and animal behavior,
7 out of 143 (4.9%). By far the highest proportion (85.2%) was in parapsychology.
A survey of science departments in 11 British Universities
showed that blind methodologies are neither used nor taught in 22 out of 23
physics and chemistry departments, or in 14 out of 16 biochemistry and molecular
biology departments. By contrast, blind methodologies are sometimes
practiced and taught in 4 out of 8 genetics departments, and in 6 out of 8 physiology
departments. I propose a simple procedure that could be used to detect
possible experimenter effects in any branch of science, by comparing the
results of a given experiment conducted both under open and blind conditions."

A search of Science Magazine’s website finds no references to blind or ABX testing. Googling blind testing finds audiophile, wine, parapsychology and homeopathy references, where the aim is to disprove claims of effect. There is little to do with mainstream science., though this link is a good one to show where blind testing has been used effectively in industry with regards to a detector

http://www.skepdic.com/control.html

But there is no doubt that blind testing is a scientific approach that under the correct conditions is acceptable evidence

http://www.experiment-resources.com/

And in particular here

http://www.experiment-resources.com/double-blind-experiment.html