Bog standard pseudoscience - but in the end you have to bear in mind that there are cable companies who sell their cables with marketing literature mentioning entirely their build quality and all the rare metals they used - then rely on their customers to preach the wonders of their cables regarding sound quality from the rooftops.
They could write quite literally anything they wanted there that sounds vaguely reasonable and it wouldn't have a significant effect on sales IMHO
So far every cable company has marketed themselves on built quality (with one neatly side stepping its cables discolouring) and that cables measure differently.
"SHOCK: NOT ALL OFC IS THE SAME!
Ecosse's OFC has but 40-parts per million grains (an impurity in the copper) versus normal Copper, which has about 235PPM grains. It is these grain boundaries which cause irritating distortions and have a deleterious effect on sound. This purification of our copper drastically reduces the formation of copper oxides substantially reducing the distortion caused by the grain boundaries.
The sound of an UHP-OFC copper cable is smoother, cleaner, and more dynamic than the same design made with standard high purity copper."
All I needed to know about cables and cable companies, came in a very heated thread on here. The cable manufacturer said, "The pricier the cable, the better it will sound." That, my friend, is why people "hear" differences...power of suggestion. I wish I had no conscience. I would sell super duper uber cables that can harness the power of 6 gods, and one kindergartner for good measure.
I think the question of cable perception is interesting. People's subjective experience is affected by cable changes, and we have tons of anecdotal evidence for this. But under test conditions the experience disappears! That's pretty cool. It's not like marketing information is forming a new opinion about a toilet paper, body wash, or a car; peoples aural perception of the world is being altered by ideas or bias.
Possibly it's social-proof, anticipation of a change, or some complex combination of ideas that results in a change of "actual" perception. It's freaking bizarre really. I have a few questions about cables.
Q1: Does the subjective experience of a cable change return to a listener if a blind test has shown no difference?
Q2: If cables exist that sound better; logically there must exist worse sounding cables. Can anyone point out to me a really,really bad sounding cable?
People's subjective experience is affected by cable changes, and we have tons of anecdotal evidence for this. But under test conditions the experience disappears!
Thanks for the correction and clarification. Makes sense.
Let me rethink my first question in that light.
ETA. Way more fun to think that the effect was playing peak-a-boo than just being a statistically invalid observation.
Edited question.
Q1: Does the subjective experience for the listener change when in a blind test they fail to differentiate between cables? Would the disclosure of this new information change the "illusion" of diference?
It is not clear with many ABX tests, but there are some where the subjects admit to guessing as they could not hear any difference. That is what I did with mine and it is why I gave up and never published it as it was not completed with enough switches. I also saw no point in publishing a series of guesses.
It would be a very interesting extra for future ABX tests to ask the subjects if they were guessing or really thought they could still hear a difference.
I need to find my software that has the web address. This little blog will give you the basic outline of concepts. I have based much of my interpersonal communication for the last 11 years on this stuff.
http://person-develop.blogspot.com/2006/10/types-of-human-nature.html
lion-beaver-otter-and-golden-retriever.................nick, you must have read about this? This is how it was done in Greek times.
Just remember headphone amps and cables are communication devices.
A better way to explain it would then be the ability to reliably differentiate between cables drops as the listener has less information as to which cable they are listening to. So
- ''night and day' hype is only true when the listener knows exactly what cable they are listening to and has prior knowledge of that cable i.e. they have read and believe the hype.
- I heard a difference but it was small, but worthwhile means they know what they are listening to, want to justify to themselves the purchase of that cable but are not fully falling for the hype.
- I cannot hear any difference means the ears dominate and the hype has had no effect and they are not going to self justify the purchase.
- in a blind test, where an opinion is asked about any changes, they are invariablty small but worthwhile, as some of the knowledge needed to reliably identify the cable has gone. Here they are not actually asked to identify the differences, just comment on them if there are any.
- in an ABX test all clues to the cable have been removed and any knowledge of hype is useless and now people cannot identify a difference.
For me all of the above again shows the difference is in the listener, who they are and how they are listening to the cable. The cable maker has a bigger influence over the results than the cable itself, which has had no influence.
Because they have heard something (yay for bias), they are of the (mistaken IMO) opinion that their senses are reliable in this regard and thus any science or proof or amount of testing cannot ever hope to nullify the impregnable wall of evidence (to them) of what they heard.
As we can never provide any evidence that will overcome this evidence that they feel to be valid, it is ultimately impossible to deter believers from their path, because from their perspective their decision is entirely rational, based on what they heard, not on irrational belief. Oh the irony...
Actually in some cases, when a "believer" submitted to a blind test and was, as expected, shown the absence of difference, he could realize that something was wrong about his perception. Later on he was one of the strongest opponent of "cables matters" in his audio club. I'll try to find the reference, as it's a while since I've read this.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
