[491326]

The question is fine except he's asking if the science is established and the correct response is "no, there's no evidence you can hear any difference in a properly conducted experiment" but that would fall foul of the text in the forum description:

"...this, and the other forums (other than the Sound Science forum), are DBT and ABX-free zones and posts about either will be moved or deleted"

so all he'll read is one-sided "typing" about the audio qualities of this or that metal.

I have a theory that we just aren’t measuring the right things

I’m not too familiar with audio science, but if there was a repeatable way to measure “transient speeds” and “decay”, then I think the talk around cables can become more civilized. As the store owner of an IEM shop once told me, people can’t talk when they can’t agree on the rulers they measure with.

Also, as someone studying another scientific field, I think people use the word science with too much authority. Science changes too much, too fast.

 

[sehnsucht]

 

[mvvRAZ]

Surely if you can define what you mean by a term - and if you can't then what are we discussing - then we can measure it. You can measure the speed of a car, can't you. But you can't measure it's mood, or purpose, or desirability. So, now we can measure the speed of different cars. "I think red cars are fastest". We can measure that. Make a faster car and paint it blue - does it slow down? No, not really.

Ok, so someone says "I think platinum cables are great for decay". What do you mean by decay? Define it, then get a platinum cable and cables made from other metals, and measure them. Well, was platinum better? Tick the box marked yes or no. Why wouldn't you be able to measure it. Do you believe there's something complicated about the low speed, low power world of audio electronics?

Perhaps you can't measure it but you can hear it. Personally I'd keep trying to find a way of measuring it because if you can hear a difference surely you can measure it because ears are, in a very real sense, measuring tools. OK, so now we do a test where the person tested doesn't know what metal is used but they listen to a few cables and point out the one made of lead. Should be simple, right? I mean they sound different. That would be a good test. I'm sure they exist and are used whenever a claim that a given metal is better, and that i'm just failing to find these tests whenever I look.

Is science changing fast? As a method for testing a hypothesis I'd not say it's changing at all.

Buddy why don’t you just head back to ASR and spam with the other members about AB techniques - or are you too bored of confirming the same crap over and over again to each other so now you need to be toxic on other forums

We don’t need or want your toxicity here, this is a forum for high end cable discussion, you quoted the rules yourself

Even if we assume that cables are all a placebo and don’t have a large enough effect for us to hear, this is something we both enjoy discussing and purchasing - this is a hobby in which the only relevant metric is enjoyment, and as far as that is concerned cables more than check out for us

 

[sehnsucht]

 

[mvvRAZ]

I'm not sure I've said anything remotely toxic; however you seem to think I talk "crap" and should "head back over" somewhere or other which you could argue isn't very nice.

Cables are definitely not a placebo - sound is measurably improved; at least, when connected at each end.

The sound is measurably improved yes. However, in a standard AB test of a song or two long you generally speaking can’t consistently tell them apart

The general consensus between those who do enjoy the benefits of cables is that those differences are something you notice over time and extended listening

Aspects such as soundstage width, depth, texture, etc etc are something nobody’s been able to measure yet, and I don’t think any of us are interested enough in measurements to actually go to the trouble of finding ways

 

[Wyville]

Is science changing fast? As a method for testing a hypothesis I'd not say it's changing at all.

Luckily it is, or I would be out of a job.

Jokes aside, this thread was created to have a place without these discussions. Not because it isn’t interesting, but rather because the discussion is everywhere and it is nice to have a thread without it to just talk cables.

 

[mvvRAZ]

Honestly I’m sorry for being this rude but this is the one place where I don’t have to put a disclaimer every time I discuss a cable

 

[ChrisIsAwesome]

Healthy curiosity within a larger context, definitely not trying to throw accusations or start a debate haha. I appreciate the responses.

I've heard how much headroom there is for cables in iem's now and excited to find out more.

 

[491326]

Is science changing fast? As a method for testing a hypothesis I'd not say it's changing at all.

I’m not going to address the other stuff. Just this.

Have fun with big data mate.

 

[sehnsucht]

 

[491326]

I think you're missing the point. The scientific process isn't changing. Construct a hypothesis, test it, is it repeatable etc. Dunno why you think "big data", testing cables etc is exempt from that. Personally I have no problem with people pretending silver cables sound better than copper, but when someone asks a genuine questions I think we owe it to them to be honest and say there's no science behind it and they're better off getting regular, normal priced cables.

lol, if that's the case, I think I should say that scientific testing involving humans has been leaning towards big data studies since a decade ago. But no matter, I digress.

Bringing this "talk" back to audio, sure I can form a hypothesis, somehow get enough people for a double blind study, and probably recruit a large enough population that represents an "even" number of "cable believers" and "naysayers." If it does "prove" something, which isn't even a thing, in the end, the hypothesis is still a hypothesis. It doesn't magically get upgraded into a theory or law or scientific fact. People would doubt the results due to my stated interest in cables. What about any other confounding variables like the level of experience a listener has? The level of fatigue that day? The gear he/she is testing with? Maybe all these variables are accounted for, then what about validation of my methods? Peer reviews?

What I'm saying is, scientific experimentation isn't just rigorous testing, it takes an accumulation of evidence over time by multiple parties for something to be even considered plausible. Otherwise, you can find any goddamn scientific paper and say that what it concludes is true.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)75696-8/fulltext

 

[olddude]

Whatever. Both of my Zeus' came originally with silver/copper hybrid cables and, using a fairly detailed (not to say analytical) DAP (the AK SP1000SS) and the incredibly detailed Zeus, the sound hurt my ears as it veered into shrill and thin. Replacing these cables with a copper cable removed the shrillness and added timbre. We can argue about whether moving from a 4-wire to an 8-wire of the same cable changes the sound (to me it does), but that hybrid cable shrillness would be apparent to all.

Other than that, the kind of talk above belongs for the most part, on the Sound Science thread. Here it is just about opinions.

 

[Wyville]

I think you're missing the point. The scientific process isn't changing. Construct a hypothesis, test it, is it repeatable etc. Dunno why you think "big data", testing cables etc is exempt from that. Personally I have no problem with people pretending silver cables sound better than copper, but when someone asks a genuine questions I think we owe it to them to be honest and say there's no science behind it and they're better off getting regular, normal priced cables.

Look, statements like this just end up in arguments. It is not constructive and this thread is not the place for it. Again, this isn't because the discussion itself can't be interesting, but because people are tired of the endless arguments and want just one thread that is kept free of it. It isn't that people here are anti-science either. To take one part of your statement as an example, I can explain to you in great detail how the scientific process has changed over time and how it continues to evolve because it happens to be my expertise. But really, I just come here to get away from the less than constructive arguments. Let's stick with the spirit in which this thread was created.

 

[491326]

Look, statements like this just end up in arguments. It is not constructive and this thread is not the place for it. Again, this isn't because the discussion itself can't be interesting, but because people are tired of the endless arguments and want just one thread that is kept free of it. It isn't that people here are anti-science either. To take one part of your statement as an example, I can explain to you in great detail how the scientific process has changed over time and how it continues to evolve because it happens to be my expertise. But really, I just come here to get away from the less than constructive arguments. Let's stick with the spirit in which this thread was created.

Let’s just mute him or something

 

[mvvRAZ]

Let’s just mute him or something

+1

Not only that, the dude that asked the original question already stated he’s hearing a difference when going to the gold 16, which renders the whole discussion on “if” there’s a difference pointless