[kiteki]

This one looks recent : https://sites.google.com/site/audiosocietyofminnesota/Home/april-2012-speaker-cable-listening-test

 
"Before this test 69% of our test subjects thought that speaker cables could make a significant difference. After this test, 86% believe that speaker cables can make significant differences.
 
Since no statistical tests of significance have been applied to the results it is not possible to demonstrate that one set of cables was found to be superior to any others in an objective sense. Subjectively, however, it was shown that cable C received more preference votes than the others with cable D, the prototype silver/Teflon, running in second place. Cable B fell more or less in the middle of the rankings. Cable A, the zipcord, was not preferred on any of the three comparison tests in which it was included, suggesting that, yes, these cheap and commonly used cables do not sound as good as cables designed for the audiophile market. Based on the results of this informal but honest attempt to address the questions posed earlier, it does appear that in this case at least, there was a preference for the expensive cables and a definite non-preference for the cheap zipcord. So cables do make a difference."
 
[size=12pt]Not sure if this is statistically valid, anyway it's not a negative result lol.  Next...[/size]

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnjn /img/forum/go_quote.gif

.....
 
4.  The statement that a speaker cable CANNOT possibly alter the sound and physics proves it....is uncontestably WRONG.  Physics does not prove it.  MIS-application of physics may, but reality is a different ball game.
 
5.  I have explained how the electrical parameters of a cable can alter the signal delay to the speaker, and how that can arise to the levels humans are capable of discerning.
 
 
........

 
Please clarify 4 which states both physics proves and does not prove. Please show in 5 how signal delay affects sound quality.

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

the time delay argument is both missing the conditions of the tests, and failing to apply real world physics - the tests are done with headphones, special tone burst signals, not loudspeakers
 
the reason not to use loudspeakers for such subtle timing tests is that the air path difference corresponding to 10 us is 3 mm - no home listener has 3mm accurate/repeatable positioning in their "sweet spot", many loudspeakers have a zoo of early diffractions from driver design, radiating surface edges, mounting, baffle edges even before the room propagation issues are added
 
that said I have posted a link to Pass Labs speaker cable tests - the measured results do appear to be on the edge of conventional estimates of audible frequency response variations - "the no cable ever makes a difference" is an overstatement

Nordmark used very specific stimulus and headphones to discern the lower limit of human threshold.  He found 5 uSec discernment when the signal was NOT dithered, and 1.2 uSec when dithered, with response out to 12 Khz.  As such, he measured lateralization, not localization.  The intent of the headphones was to eliminate the confounding variable "head position", which you allude to in paragraph 2.  My statement does not fail to apply physics, but explains the measured lower limit of human capability.  It is important to understand that we are capable of discernment at such extremely low differentials, but NOT capable of response of a bandwidth consistent with the inverted time differential, or about half a Mhz.
 
There is no reason not to use loudspeakers.  However, it is very important that the uncertainty of the listening position be considered and accounted for.  Your concerns here are EXTREMELY VALID, and point out WHY many contrived listening tests are abject scientific failures.
 
To use loudspeakers properly in image perturbation tests, the researcher must establish a reference position in space.  This can be done via the speaker signals, or it can be done via a 3rd source (as Greisinger did).
 
Your concerns about wavefront propagation/dispersion are also quite valid, and do indeed differ from those of the studio monitors used for the mixdown.  They also affect the image stability should the listener move sideways.  It is possible to make the image move with the direction of movement, opposite the movement, and stable.
 
Your last statement....  You have presented data inconsistent with what appears to be your stance.  I admire that.  It is wonderful to see another do so, thank you. 
Quote:

@jnjn
 
You seem overly concerned with hyperboles here. How many people care about the possibility of miniscule audio differences that cannot be reliably identified? We are discussing the audible difference to sound quality and the science forum does not mean you have to discuss hardcore science. I have no idea why you think this is logical.

That it can produce an audible difference to the human ear is unclear, but the tests show that whatever differences are present in cables it is clearly overshadowed by issues with how we perceive sound to the point that it is completely negligible after a relatively low level of quality has been met. What is the argument you are trying to bring in here? You keep making this fallacious science argument that has really nothing to do with the topic. Please stop using rhetoric instead of evidence.

If you want to say audio engineers don't like music, prove it. For someone who consistently requires scientific confirmation, you are making statements that you ask us to take at face value. I enjoy my modern recordings, what am I looking for in something like Born To Die to distinguish the issues of audio engineers not liking music? It is a legitimate question and you did not answer it. How are people suppose to be aware of these issues if questions regarding these issues are just met with pretentious and condescending insults?

The target market for the cable vendors.  And the lack of scientific rigor on the side of the audio establishment provides them a hole the size of the grand canyon within which  they can convince their market of the capability of their wares.
 
That's the whole point dude. Do you think I am here to support the cable vendor pseudoscience???  Don't be silly.  the end result of my foray into this cable stuff is the complete elimination of high cost cables.. 
 
Who is WE?  are you speaking for the entire human race, for every sound system on the planet, under all listening conditions?
 
When you are sitting in front of and listening to a speaker system which presents a virtual image strong enough to make you think the artists are in the room and the speakers have dissapeared, then get back to me, you will have some interesting things to speak about.
 
It is obvious you fear science.  Perhaps another forum where nobody understands it would be a better fit to you.
 
Your last paragraph is inconsistent with everything I have said.  Who were you addressing it to?
Quote:

I agree with you. But I have serious doubts about jnjn's science as well. 
And seriously, where do audio engineers come into the picture? 

That is certainly a reasonable and quite acceptable stance.  Please, if you do not understand something I have stated, just ask.  Be aware however, that DNZgamer will have a conniption if you ask me to explain transmission line theory, line to load mismatch, permittivity, acoustic lateralization and localization theory, or even high bandwidth low b-dot (mutual inductance) resistor design.  (The topic we discuss has significant reach into all of these disciplines, something I do not see the "guru's delve into.)
Quote:

 
So, from these results we see 24 individuals claimed to hear a difference, and 10 of them 'correctly' identified the more expensive system as the better sounding one.  I'd assume you'd then take those 10 individuals to the side and keep testing them, right?  To see if they can continue to identify which system is which, with a statistical outcome beyond chance.
 
Instead, they leave these results as they are, satisfied that 14 participants declined, 24 claimed to hear a difference and only 10 selected the expensive system as different.  I'm assuming these results, to them, indicate that the differences in the expensive rig are too subtle for any further investigation, they write "Shouldn't the differences be so evident that it'd be a child's game to pick the best?"
 
I'm not cherry-picking a flawed test here, I just covered this particular one because I've seen it linked to many times (for example on an objectivist blog) along with the Meyer & Moran study (which is an equally flawed study, for different reasons).
 
kiteki

You have provided a very astute observation here, well done. 
 
j

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

 
Please clarify 4 which states both physics proves and does not prove. Please show in 5 how signal delay affects sound quality.

I apologize for the lack of clarity.
 
Given cables with reasonable inductance and resistance...(no frequency rolloff)
 
When somebody claims that a speaker cable cannot possibly change the sound and physics proves it, it doesn't.  There has been only an acceptance that somebody else who said it must be correct.  No rigor, no understandings, just blind acceptance.  I note you accepted the statement that the line to load mismatch can delay the signal, I can embellish if you wish, but will discuss as if it is a given.
 
1.  Take a system, run a mono signal, sit in the sweet spot such that the image is localized to the exact geometric center of the speakers.
 
2. Take ANY cable pair whatsoever, add them in (assume a 10 uSec across the board delay (it will NOT be such of course, the speaker has varying impedance))
 
Repeat step 1.
 
For a mono signal, the cable change will NOT cause a side movement of the image.  The most you can possibly discern will be a front to back image shift, symmetry guarantees that.  For this test, all you could do is try to discern the changing image depth.
 
3.  Take the origional system, drive it in stereo where there is a centrally located image (I will call that the reference image). 
 
4.  Identify all image locations relative to the central reference image while in the sweet spot.
 
5.  Cable swap.  Repeat 4. (note that the sweet spot and reference image are used to normalize the setup, this makes head in vice arguments moot as you are forcing the subject to locate the reference then compare it to the target image.)
 
Off center images will shift relative to the reference image when both channels are equally delayed.  This is a consequence of a two source synthetic soundfield.
 
My recommendation to all is this:
 
If you suspect that a speaker cable can affect your system, do this trivially simple test. 
 
1.  Connect BOTH speakers to one amplifier channel. (this guarantees identical speaker drives and mono content)
 
2.  Listen at the sweet spot to see that your speakers are symmetrical and identical.  Drifting of any frequency content away from one central image must be removed as a factor.
3. Swap ONE cable.
4.  Listen at the sweet spot. Listen for side shift of any content.
 
If the image remains stable and centered for all frequency content, the cable you tested DOES NOT make a difference you can hear.  AND IT NEVER WILL.
 
If some of the content shifts off center, then the cable DID make an audible difference. (but you are not done)
 
The real question then becomes, if you use both cables, will the return to at least some symmetry cause the change to become inaudible.
 
j

 

[Prog Rock Man]

I get from that, different speaker cables will cause the sweet spot to be in different places. Is that correct?
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Kiteki, I cannot get your post to quote so copy and pasting instead......
 
 
"Ok so for starters, the speaker cables used on both rigs are exactly the same, so they're not testing speaker cables in this case.  Now let's skip straight to the test results...
 

The results showed:

38 persons participated on this test

14 chose the "A" system as the best sounding one

10 chose the "B" system as the best sounding one

14 were not able to hear differences or didn't choose any as the best.

 
This means 38 people were involved in the test, each person was given 1 choice as to which system they considered to "sound the best".
 
So, from these results we see 24 individuals claimed to hear a difference, and 10 of them 'correctly' identified the more expensive system as the better sounding one.  I'd assume you'd then take those 10 individuals to the side and keep testing them, right?  To see if they can continue to identify which system is which, with a statistical outcome beyond chance."
 
 
I agree that further testing of those who do make correct identifications is needed. Further testing is needed to see if there really are golden ears who can reliably pick out which system is which.
 
"Instead, they leave these results as they are, satisfied that 14 participants declined, 24 claimed to hear a difference and only 10 selected the expensive system as different.  I'm assuming these results, to them, indicate that the differences in the expensive rig are too subtle for any further investigation, they write "Shouldn't the differences be so evident that it'd be a child's game to pick the best?"
 
Yes, I agree the expectation is it will be as easy in blind testing to pick out differences found in sighted. People get a big shock when that does not happen.

 

[CrystalT]

I outright ignore anyone who mentions anything regarding cables, or "burn-in." Especially since burn-in isn't even the correct term for what's happening.

Sent from my LG-VM670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

I get from that, different speaker cables will cause the sweet spot to be in different places. Is that correct?
 

No.
 
The term "sweet spot" refers to the location in space which provides the centering of the image we perceive, assuming all frequencies in a mono signal are at the same spot..
 
The assumption that the sweet spot is independent of frequency, that is the question.  My single channel image test looks specifically at that.
 
If for example, the speaker tweeters do something such that one cable really causes a big delay while another doesn't, the sibilance of a female vocal would leave the sweet spot, you'll "see" that as an "out of body" sibilance...  Like setting one channel of an eq arbitrarily high at 10Khz, so that a central vocal sibilance shifts towards one side.
 
In one important way, the test I've detailed is an absolute...If, using one amp channel with one wire A, one wire B, no detection of a shift of any frequency content is heard, then there is absolutely no difference that can possibly be caused by cable B with respect to A.  None, zip.  Nada.  (the amp must behave of course)
 
j

 

[Prog Rock Man]

So one part of the overall sound will shift out of the sweet spot?
 

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

So one part of the overall sound will shift out of the sweet spot?
 

Yes, IFF (if and only if) one cable has caused a change of sufficient magnitude.  Remember, this requires the same amplifier channel used on both speakers, so that any affect on the amplifier is eliminated as a possibility, be it distortion, phase or amplitude funnies, or even oscillation or instability.  It also assumes a reasonable damping factor as well.
 
 
The fastest possible cable is one which has an impedance equal to the load, but doing so requires inductances in the 10 nH per foot  and 380 pf per foot area.  As the speaker unloads at higher frequencies, the amplifier will begin to see the capacitance of the cable so may have problems.  This is important if the amplifier open loop frequency response remains above unity gain while the speaker has unloaded...this can oscillate a "hot" amplifier.
 
Since many of these boutique cables sell themselves as matched z, or low inductance, whatever, it's important to make sure the amplifier reaction doesn't confound the test.
 
john

 

[DNZGamer]

Quote:

Who is WE?  are you speaking for the entire human race, for every sound system on the planet, under all listening conditions?
 
When you are sitting in front of and listening to a speaker system which presents a virtual image strong enough to make you think the artists are in the room and the speakers have dissapeared, then get back to me, you will have some interesting things to speak about.
 
It is obvious you fear science.  Perhaps another forum where nobody understands it would be a better fit to you.
 
Your last paragraph is inconsistent with everything I have said.  Who were you addressing it to?
That is certainly a reasonable and quite acceptable stance.  Please, if you do not understand something I have stated, just ask.  Be aware however, that DNZgamer will have a conniption if you ask me to explain transmission line theory, line to load mismatch, permittivity, acoustic lateralization and localization theory, or even high bandwidth low b-dot (mutual inductance) resistor design.  (The topic we discuss has significant reach into all of these disciplines, something I do not see the "guru's delve into.)
You have provided a very astute observation here, well done. 
 
j

 
So basically, you are now bashing me for not having amazing speakers when I started a topic about Headphones. Just proof that you have no idea what is going on here. Why don't you get back to me once you are on the same page. When you can reliably distinguish cables with an HD800 then I will care.
 
Fear science? We have discussed science a long time since you started ranting about things no one cared about. Can you make one post where the foundations aren't just blatant fallacies?
 
Also why are you talking to Proton about me being adverse to science? I have had Proton explain a lot of things to me in the past. The difference between you and him is that I have yet to find any of your claim at science relevant to this discussion and half of it is just completely unfounded claims that you declare as fact. When asked for an explanation, you continually deflect, make insults and make non-sense statements about me.

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

I don't like working in absolutes. I think for me, it only matters that cables are generally proven to make differences so miniscule, it is almost impossible to reliably distinguish. In this situation, the DBTs are the most important source of information for me.
 
If they cannot be reliably distinguished, it means the pricing of high end cables is meaningless and pointless for sound quality which strikes it off of my consideration for audio equipment. It also strikes off the credibility of reviewers who discuss cables with very clear effects like better bass extension, bla bla bla. 
 
I personally am not concerned about the science behind it as I am not gonna educate myself on a new science just to confirm peoples findings. I only care that extremely discerning listeners cannot discern cables even with the most ridiculous high end setups that I can only dream of having and hence it makes up for most likely less than 1% of the SQ of any setup. 

 
Quote:

No matter what they claim, if you don't believe them then and believe otherwise, simple testing will solve the question for you personally. I don't get why there is so much discussion on science and other things that just don't matter to the average listener. It only takes one person to prove that cables actually do make a difference yet with all the pro-cable audiophiles out there, not one has come out to refute this theory?
 
Again, whatever difference cables make it is obviously not worth any significant amount of money. I think running around in circles discussing semantics on whether there is a registered electrical difference or theoretical super senses is pointless. 

 
Quote:

 
How is testing not simple? People can hear differences in headphones and amps when blind (although not always accurately but the difference is detectable in DBT conditions). Why is it so complicated to get a cable tested to see if it makes a significant difference sonically? If it is so hard to pick up then it isn't a worthy way to spend your money. 

The science on science forum is just a fallacy. There is no need to discuss this hard science in detail at all. We are looking for appreciable differences to recommend to consumers which is the discussion of the topic. 

 
Quote:

@jnjn
 
You seem overly concerned with hyperboles here. How many people care about the possibility of miniscule audio differences that cannot be reliably identified? We are discussing the audible difference to sound quality and the science forum does not mean you have to discuss hardcore science. I have no idea why you think this is logical.

That it can produce an audible difference to the human ear is unclear, but the tests show that whatever differences are present in cables it is clearly overshadowed by issues with how we perceive sound to the point that it is completely negligible after a relatively low level of quality has been met. What is the argument you are trying to bring in here? You keep making this fallacious science argument that has really nothing to do with the topic. Please stop using rhetoric instead of evidence.

If you want to say audio engineers don't like music, prove it. For someone who consistently requires scientific confirmation, you are making statements that you ask us to take at face value. I enjoy my modern recordings, what am I looking for in something like Born To Die to distinguish the issues of audio engineers not liking music? It is a legitimate question and you did not answer it. How are people suppose to be aware of these issues if questions regarding these issues are just met with pretentious and condescending insults?

 
Quote:

 
So basically, you are now bashing me for not having amazing speakers when I started a topic about Headphones. Just proof that you have no idea what is going on here. Why don't you get back to me once you are on the same page. When you can reliably distinguish cables with an HD800 then I will care.
 
Fear science? We have discussed science a long time since you started ranting about things no one cared about. Can you make one post where the foundations aren't just blatant fallacies?
 
Also why are you talking to Proton about me being adverse to science? I have had Proton explain a lot of things to me in the past. The difference between you and him is that I have yet to find any of your claim at science relevant to this discussion and half of it is just completely unfounded claims that you declare as fact. When asked for an explanation, you continually deflect, make insults and make non-sense statements about me.

Bashing???  Really?  Where?  Show us.
 
Who said anything about amazing speakers?
 
You have been ranting about your desire that science not be discussed.  Would you like me to copy your words verbatim??  It's what, 4 or 5 posts of rants?
 
What you consider relevant is immaterial.  You've been avoiding the discussion of science like a luddite.  Your claiming that a "sound science" forum should not have any science discussed.  REALLY??
 
As I've stated, I can back up anything I've stated, but you have to ask.
 
j
 
ps..weird, the posts did come along for the ride...I'll hilight the interesting rants..
 
pps.  Had you been paying attention, you would have learned that in headphones, we can hear at the 1.2 uSec interchannel level.  Even if the impedances are scaled, the problem is still there.  Meaning, science must be involved. Sorry..

 

[DNZGamer]

So a bunch of quotes that state I do not personally concern myself with the science and only the practical real world differences in terms of sound as to avoid a constant debate regarding the possible existence of minute and irrelevant differences between high end cables and regular ones means that I have an aversion to science?

Why is it that you are the only one in this topic who has come to this conclusion? Again, you aren't fooling anyone. You said you would back up anything you say yet the things I specifically asked you to back up, you have completely ignored and buried under your fallacious interpretations of my posts. 

 

[anetode]

jnjn: Nordmark, 1972, are you referring to this? I'm quite amazed there was any result from a sub-10us difference, aside from perhaps localization, and I'd like to understand the leap from that to your claim that these delays would introduce an audible difference of any import.

I guess my problem is the use of the word audible. That is an objective measure. It either makes a measurable change, or does not. If the difference is not audible (objective) then I do not think we should use the term.

How about "psychoacoustic difference"? Audible implies a verifiable, consistently detectable change.

pps Science has nothing to do with music

I agree, let's work to get rid of this "sound science" subforum, it's clearly missing the point of audiophilia.

You guys put a lot of energy into nothing.

That's how the Universe came about. I take your condemnation as a compliment.

I guess its a modern way men are able to interact with other humans and some kind of competition which also is a form of feeling alive in their solitude righteous life.

...and I take your projection as transparent as 7N OCC silver.

 

[anetode]

People keep referencing these cable blind tests without being specific, like your above post "a large body of negatives", well when someone links to a negative then we can discuss how valid / extensive / fair it is.  We don't currently need to discuss the positive results if there aren't any. =p  However, we can dicuss the reasons why there aren't any.

My hunch and experience on the situation is that the cable subject is more about the scientific view of how cables work plus the lack of positive blind-test results, which has led to the view that they all sound the same.  My hunch is that the amount of cable blind-tests with negative results is limited and most of the tests are flawed.  The reason I think so is that I see people speak of "countless tests" a lot without referencing any specific tests, and when I do see links to specific tests they're usually flawed. 

Your hunch runs contrary to the obvious conclusion. You've found that people who are familiar with cable DBT results refer to the evidence as voluminous and one-sided, but your personal bias leads you to offer the alternative hypothesis is that there really aren't that many such tests and that most of them are flawed. This is pseudoskepticism.

If you're wondering about all these countless tests, take my previous advice in this thread and go to a library and look them up in a database (otherwise, some links don't come cheap). There you will find properly designed and peer reviewed DBTs accompanied by thorough statistical analyses. Sticking to internet-only sources puts you at a disadvantage. Not only that, but it sometimes comes across like you're asking others to do all the research legwork for you and claiming that they're wrong if they don't.