[analogsurviver]

Aw yeah, here it is. AS dropping his nonsense into the ring.

Look ... - if you need graphs, DBT AB, countless peer reviewed papers and references in order to even consider that something might be true - your problem.

I never said that the above is not important - but it is NOT the final arbiter. Or else we would never have had Stradivaris and Guarnieris - or colonelkernel8s - for that matter.

Explaining - exactly why, how, etc something is both subjectively and objectively better - not just different - to a person like you would take far too much time - and can not be done without the actual real listening on real equipment.

Now we get a few weeks of pointless back and forth

Nope - don't have time to waste anymore ...

 

[bigshot]

It's not your time being wasted. It's ours.

 

[steady339]

"All too often, science is presented as trafficking in absolute truths. On the contrary, science is a framework for interpreting, systematizing, and predicting nature based on empirical observations. That is to say, a well accepted 'theory' (framework for understanding/predicting nature) can always be upended with sufficiently compelling contrary evidence." (Inna Vishi,, P.h.D Applied Physics & Physics,Stanford University, on Quora)

 

[SoundAndMotion]

"All too often, science is presented as trafficking in absolute truths. On the contrary, science is a framework for interpreting, systematizing, and predicting nature based on empirical observations. That is to say, a well accepted 'theory' (framework for understanding/predicting nature) can always be upended with sufficiently compelling contrary evidence." (Inna Vishi,, P.h.D Applied Physics & Physics,Stanford University, on Quora)

Absolutely!! I doubt you’ll find much argument.... except on the part I bolded. The more “well accepted” the theory, the more difficult “sufficiently compelling” becomes.
Some will argue difficult means impossible, but really it might mean very, very difficult.
What’s your view?

 

[sander99]

"All too often, science is presented as trafficking in absolute truths. On the contrary, science is a framework for interpreting, systematizing, and predicting nature based on empirical observations. That is to say, a well accepted 'theory' (framework for understanding/predicting nature) can always be upended with sufficiently compelling contrary evidence." (Inna Vishi,, P.h.D Applied Physics & Physics,Stanford University, on Quora)

I am confident Inna Vishi doesn't expect that we one day discover that 1 + 1 = 3, or that one day some cable X will be "more audible transparent" than any other audible transparent cable. These things don't depend on new 11+ dimensional membrane theories or different than expected god-particles.

 

[bigshot]

Just because something might exist, it doesn't mean it does. You go with the knowledge you have and keep an open mind when solid verifiable evidence to the contrary comes up... but not before.

 

[steady339]

of

Absolutely!! I doubt you’ll find much argument.... except on the part I bolded. The more “well accepted” the theory, the more difficult “sufficiently compelling” becomes.
Some will argue difficult means impossible, but really it might mean very, very difficult.
What’s your view?

"The physics community has become much larger, much more thoroughly documented, and much more specialized. This means that it is increasingly difficult to have a debunkable theory become universally accepted before it is disproven. " (Inna Vishi,, P.h.D Applied Physics & Physics,Stanford University, on Quora)

 

[sonitus mirus]

Your quotes aren't really providing much to justify the ridiculous cost of the cables in your signature, if that is your point.

 

[bigshot]

If it is, he’s completely misunderstanding the quotes.

 

[steady339]

IMHO cables, like other audio pieces can be and are tuned for a targeted sound. That typically is a sound with more perceived clarity, without harshness to the human ear. The goals of studio monitoring and home listening are different, so the same cable choices for studio monitoring may not be the best choice for a home system. In my experience, audio system tuning with the right cables has made for more natural sounding, longer listenable sessions without harshness, in the sound of my home system. I feel this is the gist of the "believers" argument for buying expensive cables. After all, how would all the major hi-end cable manufacturers stay in business for all these years if there was only an imaginary difference in the sound between their better cables and a $10 cable?

S

 

[bigshot]

IMHO cables, like other audio pieces can be and are tuned for a targeted sound. That typically is a sound with more perceived clarity, without harshness to the human ear.

Cables can degrade sound if they are not functioning to spec. They can’t improve sound. If they work, they work. If they are defective or inappropriate for that particular use, the degree of degradation isn’t subtle. Manufacturing a functional cable is simple and inexpensive. Amazon sells wires that work just as good as any other. If you are hearing differences, especially if you are hearing improvements in sound, the odds are that it’s due to expectation bias. A simple blind listening test would show that. If you are interested in finding out the truth we are happy to show you how to do a controlled test.

 

[steady339]

bigshot, you did not address any of my points about the better hi-end cables functioning to tune the sound of a home system. I tire of the “scientifically impossible“ argument as a last word on this controversy. I feel that long-term listening offers a much better judgement over the sound of audio pieces. Short-term, double-blind listening can fool a listener’s perceptions and judgements.

 

[old tech]

After all, how would all the major hi-end cable manufacturers stay in business for all these years if there was only an imaginary difference in the sound between their better cables and a $10 cable?

S

For the same reason that homeopathy, astrology and so on still exist.

 

[bigshot]

bigshot, you did not address any of my points about the better hi-end cables functioning to tune the sound of a home system.

That's because every answer I would give beyond that would direct you right back to the obvious point made in the answer to the first question. I'll answer them if you want...

The goals of studio monitoring and home listening are different, so the same cable choices for studio monitoring may not be the best choice for a home system.

The goal of both is the same... to pass the signal from one component to the next with no loss in fidelity. It isn't their job to color the sound, simply convey it. If you want to color the sound, you would do that using DSPs, tone controls or EQ.

In my experience, audio system tuning with the right cables has made for more natural sounding, longer listenable sessions without harshness, in the sound of my home system. I feel this is the gist of the "believers" argument for buying expensive cables.

I think that the reason "believers" think the way they do is because they rely on error prone subjective impressions instead of hard facts. They ignore the effects of expectation and validation bias as well as perceptual error. If they simply applied some controls to their listening test to eliminate these things, they wouldn't need to believe, they would know.

After all, how would all the major hi-end cable manufacturers stay in business for all these years if there was only an imaginary difference in the sound between their better cables and a $10 cable?

Because they have very good marketing departments, and as P. T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute." Some of those suckers are hooked so firmly, they refuse to even consider that their impressions might not be accurate. They become cheerleaders for the very people who are picking their pockets. Irony!

Hope this helps!

 

[steady339]

For the same reason that homeopathy, astrology and so on still exist.

That's because every answer I would give beyond that would direct you right back to the obvious point made in the answer to the first question. I'll answer them if you want...
You side step my point here.


The goal of both is the same... to pass the signal from one component to the next with no loss in fidelity. It isn't their job to color the sound, simply convey it. If you want to color the sound, you would do that using DSPs, tone controls or EQ.
The way I understand it (my grandson makes his living as a studio engineer in L.A.) studio monitors are designed to reveal every detail of a recording so an engineer knows what is actually there on the recording, but not necessarily to sound good in a home system. Popular audiophile speakers like Sonus Faber are designed to be forgiving of imperfections in recordings.


I think that the reason "believers" think the way they do is because they rely on error prone subjective impressions instead of hard facts. They ignore the effects of expectation and validation bias as well as perceptual error. If they simply applied some controls to their listening test to eliminate these things, they wouldn't need to believe, they would know.
You again ignore my argument about audiophiles using cables to fine tune the sound of their systems. You seem closed to my argument and fall back on the perceptual argument here.


Because they have very good marketing departments, and as P. T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute." Some of those suckers are hooked so firmly, they refuse to even consider that their impressions might not be accurate. They become cheerleaders for the very people who are picking their pockets. Irony!
I would agree that there is far too much holkum sold in the audio community. I especially take issue with the high prices charged for cables in relation to the BOM. But I would say that some of these products, despite the high prices, do work to fine tune an audio system (my main point),
Hope this helps!