[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif While not in the AES, the Computer Music Journal released a study done at MIT and published in 1988 that blind tested cables. The author's commentary is kind of absurd but the methodology is sound. You might have read it before: JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (requires journal access)

This paper concludes that cable differences are audible, but that listeners had no clear preference. It is an unusual study on a number of levels. They use a cartridge feed not a line level signal so the signal carried by the cable is a few mV rather than 2V. They also use 7M of one cable (the radio shack) and 1M of the other (the exotic cable) , nevertheless a statistically significant result was achieved.

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirebottleRon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone ever think that maybe if you take all the time you spend theorizing about cables making a difference and you used that time to find out for yourself that everyone would be better off? You guys will never have a blanket answer so why even kick it around?

Your contributions to this thread thus far have been far from helpful. There are some here trying to have an honest discussion and you keep chiming in with snide, condescending, dismissive remarks. If you think it is of so little value, then please move on.

Some of us want to know why one cable sounds (or could sound) better than another. If there's real information to be learned there, it can be applied, potentially, to making even better cables (for example). It is fair to ask if the basic premise is valid though -- that one cable sounds better than another. This is the Sound Science forum, after all. That it sounds better to you (whoever) is not in question. Why does it sound better to you is.

Why is it so troubling to you that there are people that want to understand that?

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif This paper concludes that cable differences are audible, but that listeners had no clear preference. It is an unusual study on a number of levels. They use a cartridge feed not a line level signal so the signal carried by the cable is a few mV rather than 2V. They also use 7M of one cable (the radio shack) and 1M of the other (the exotic cable) , nevertheless a statistically significant result was achieved.

It seems as if they used the cables as an interface with a turntable cartridge and those things do react to different loads and the cable is part of that load.

 

[ThePredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcN /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now a theoretical scientist might postulate that we don't have adequate tools to measure this properly. Sure, we now believe in quantum particles, but we still can't see them. We can only measure them indirectly and draw conclusions based on indirect measurements that are based on theories, whcih may be proven inexact over time. So perhaps the perceived differences in cables need to be understood and measured indirectly, based on an assumption that there is something here that is not clearly understood.

Why does everyone insist on (incorrectly) using quantum mechanics to prove their point?

The directness of proof of quantum particles is astounding, ranging from cloud chambers to a simple photomultiplier connected to a speaker (hell, a CRT television is direct evidence of quantum particles).

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why does everyone insist on (incorrectly) using quantum mechanics to prove their point? The directness of proof of quantum particles is astounding, ranging from cloud chambers to a simple photomultiplier connected to a speaker (hell, a CRT television is direct evidence of quantum particles).

Indeed! Quantum mechanics is actually better understood than a fair bit of relativity and hence Einstein receiving his Nobel for QM! My current position as a comp scientist working on quantum computing wouldn't exist if not for the wonderful solidity of QM from theory to practice. Remember folks, scientific theory =! colloquial use or theory!

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirebottleRon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Because its about arguing, not cables.

LOL.

Wow, sometimes a few words add up to something quite profound. I may have to add this to my signature.

 

[Barry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why does everyone insist on (incorrectly) using quantum mechanics to prove their point? The directness of proof of quantum particles is astounding, ranging from cloud chambers to a simple photomultiplier connected to a speaker (hell, a CRT television is direct evidence of quantum particles).

Because while the proof of quantum particles is now accepted. It was not always so. Eventually,after centuries of hypotheses, the proof was determined.

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif This paper concludes that cable differences are audible, but that listeners had no clear preference. It is an unusual study on a number of levels. They use a cartridge feed not a line level signal so the signal carried by the cable is a few mV rather than 2V. They also use 7M of one cable (the radio shack) and 1M of the other (the exotic cable) , nevertheless a statistically significant result was achieved.

Is 58% really significant? I guess that's the limitation of my understanding of statistics, but I think that even if it's statistically significant, it's not pragmatically significant. I did, however, overlook the interconnect being used as a cartridge feed. Regardless I think that the no preference aspect of the study tends to support cables not making a difference, or at least not a difference profound enough for it to matter.

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is 58% really significant? I guess that's the limitation of my understanding of statistics, but I think that even if it's statistically significant, it's not pragmatically significant. I did, however, overlook the interconnect being used as a cartridge feed. Regardless I think that the no preference aspect of the study tends to support cables not making a difference, or at least not a difference profound enough for it to matter.

I can't read the article so I might be grossly misinformed here, but 58% could be HUGELY significant. It just depends on how many trials were conducted.

To give a tangible example, if you flip a fair coin 1000 times, the chance of you landing heads 58% of the time is something ridiculously low, on the order of 0.01% iirc. In fact, the chance of you even landing heads 52-53% of the time in that example is already extremely unlikely



My guess, based on my limited knowledge of the article (i.e. what I read in this thread), is that the conductors of the study tried to exaggerate the effect of cables as much as possible. To that end, they might have tried to compare a "best possible case" cable against a "worse possible case" cable, or something along those lines.

If that's true, then I don't see the point of the article. I do believe that I would hear a difference between a halfway broken $5 instrument cable from guitarcenter and a $10,000 audiophile cable. A more pertinent comparison would be to test high quality cables against each other (i.e. $30 monster cables vs any of the supposed $10,000 cables)

 

[SmellyGas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif This paper concludes that cable differences are audible, but that listeners had no clear preference. It is an unusual study on a number of levels. They use a cartridge feed not a line level signal so the signal carried by the cable is a few mV rather than 2V. They also use 7M of one cable (the radio shack) and 1M of the other (the exotic cable) , nevertheless a statistically significant result was achieved.

7m vs. 2m????? Please tell me the cables were level-matched.

 

[SmellyGas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirebottleRon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Because its about arguing, not cables.

You're actually the only one arguing here. Everyone else is discussing. If you don't have the scientific background to engage in a scientific discussion in the SCIENCE forum, perhaps you should tap out.

Quote:

just don't forget to relax and listen to your system or you may be missing the entire point... Anyone ever think that maybe if you take all the time you spend theorizing about cables making a difference and you used that time to find out for yourself that everyone would be better off?

If you think this discussion is a waste of time, I find it a bit hypocritical that you are one of the more active participants! If people like to engage in scientific discussions in a sound SCIENCE forum, I don't see what's wrong with that. Perhaps you shouldn't be so judgemental of other people and how they spend their time.

 

[SmellyGas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawang /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't read the article so I might be grossly misinformed here, but 58% could be HUGELY significant. It just depends on how many trials were conducted.

When a test result is statistically significant, all it tells you is that the probabiblity the results were due to chance is low, usually less than 5% or less. It doesn't tell you at all if there were huge differences or small differences.

If cables truly made the profound differences in sound quality that people claim, then listeners should have absolutely no problem achieving near 100% accuracy.

 

[dvw]

A lot of discussion is centered around disagreement. I think we should consider some common ground. The only agreed facts are:
1.The audible difference cannot be measured
2.DBT results yields significant audible difference although the validity of the method is disputed.
IMO, the cable manufacturers held the truth to the cable myth.
I don’t know if anyone in this forum is involved in manufacturing. The process is simple; design the product, manufacture the product and validate the product.
Without any measurement or theory, how do they design the product? By trying different combination of material and then listen to it? How do they test and validate the manufacturing, by listening? Where do you find this golden reference (a manufacturing term)? What qualifies this person doing the listening? Can he pass DBT?
The pricing also does not make sense. A higher grade cable can easily cost ten times more than the lower grade cable. And the difference is said to be subtle. A $200K car vs a $20K car difference is not subtle neither is a $2M house vs a $200K house. The only product that’s similar is consumer market that I can think of is clothing. But brand name clothing still have seconds (with subtle defects). Occasionally I see tags that said inspected by x. Does cables have seconds or rejects? Would the tester reject the cable because the soundstage is 2meters off?
Just something to think about.

 

[jawang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmellyGas /img/forum/go_quote.gif When a test result is statistically significant, all it tells you is that the probabiblity the results were due to chance is low, usually less than 5% or less. It doesn't tell you at all if there were huge differences or small differences. If cables truly made the profound differences in sound quality that people claim, then listeners should have absolutely no problem achieving near 100% accuracy.

Seeing as how many people apparently can't tell the difference between 128kb/s and 320kb/s mp3s (see the test your hearing thread), it is not unreasonable to say that cables can make a profound difference in audiophile terms.

That is, IF (big if) people really can distinguish them with valid statistical significance (I have no idea if the article's data is truly valid).

 

[sanderx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmellyGas /img/forum/go_quote.gif P.S. If there are no known measurements that correlate with audible differences in cables, and blind cable comparisons don't yield big differences, then HOW ON EARTH do cable manufacturers research and design their cables to make them sound any different??

Exactly. If you effectively can't do R&D in any way, then how are you going to develop and test the products? Or even just test? With measurable properties of cables, its simple - you measure the cable. But with all the other ones supposed to exist but not measurable? How would Nordost or Cardas go about controlling sample to sample variance? Or any other boutique cable company?

Would they just switch the cable into their existing rig and make sure they heard no difference?