[dexter3d]

 
Quote:

You can actually be objective and quantify this.  Take the price of materials, labor, overhead, taxes, and allow a fair profit.  If the price is astronomically higher, then it's pretty safe to call something a scam.  

 
Excellent observation. I guess the majority of 'audiophile' USB cables (and several entire companies) would easily fall into this category. I would also add that you can judge what is a scam and what is not according to claims they make. If an 'audiophile' USB cable vis-a-vis standard one sounds like 'if the veil has been removed', opens up soundstage, gives more details, makes sound blacker/whiter/bluer whatever - it is safe to call a scam both such a product and such a review.

 

[upstateguy]

 
Quote:

 
 
Excellent observation. I guess the majority of 'audiophile' USB cables (and several entire companies) would easily fall into this category. I would also add that you can judge what is a scam and what is not according to claims they make. If an 'audiophile' USB cable vis-a-vis standard one sounds like 'if the veil has been removed', opens up soundstage, gives more details, makes sound blacker/whiter/bluer whatever - it is safe to call a scam both such a product and such a review.

Does this apply to coaxial cables as well? 
 
And what about the oldest buggaboo, interconnects?????
 
Same claims every time.  Are they scams too?
 
What about headphone cables?
 
Then there's tube rolling....... another subjective area that has a very "interconnect" feel to it.
 
USG

 

[dexter3d]

 
Quote:

What do other audio forums do with regards to this issue?  I don't frequent any, so I can't tell you, but some people here must know the answer to this.
 

Well, in AudioAsylum, there is no such prohibition. There is also a cable section with believers and unbelievers, but they somehow do not have any problems. I'd bet that Head-Fi with respect to its outright prohibition is quite unique in the world.
 
 
Quote:

we should also encourage and refine review methodology - DACs and amp could use more than blind tests, and errors in sighted tests can be reduced (important since it's hard to blind test headphones, only maybe with custom IEMs is it possible). More reviews need to volume match, headphone reviewers should have methods to standardize fit and we should all use some standard tracks. I see DBT as one part of improving methodology, not something that stands alone.

 
Great idea. Why not make a sticky with review recommendations? There definitely IS something to recommend, as currently head-fi is mushrooming with fanboy claims of night and day differences, just after unboxing..

 

[dexter3d]

Quote:

 

Does this apply to coaxial cables as well? 
 
And what about the oldest buggaboo, interconnects?????
 
Same claims every time.  Are they scams too?
 
What about headphone cables?
 
Then there's tube rolling....... another subjective area that has a very "interconnect" feel to it.
 
USG

Well, starting with USB cables is already a big step forward, as this area is the least complex of all. Even if we got rid of just ONE area of scam, that would be quite an accomplishment. This could easily be extended to 'audiophile' optical cables as well, as the speed of light is quite fast, and original specifications kinda allow the light to do its job pretty well... Or do we need to dwell into quantum mechanics here as well? That would be already two areas scam free - huge step forward.
 
Coaxial and analog - why not making a panel of unbiased (and cable-believing/hating, if there are any) professionals here in head-fi and see whether they could come up with any sort of conclusion, and put to scam at least a portion of verifiable claims? I saw in this forum scientists working in metalurgy, electronics, computer science etc - knowledge base is here. We could also use thorough measurement tests that have already been done here. It is quite easy to tell whether a cable has 'more bass' or is 'louder' (e.g. monster cable claims that their cables are louder, and they let you to experience that in their demonstrations..) Even a single review of a larger sample of different cables, written by such a panel, coupled with a well designed blind test where any interested believer could be invited, would be more authoritative than all fan-boy reviews here combined.

 

[imyself]

     Quote:

What do other audio forums do with regards to this issue?  I don't frequent any, so I can't tell you, but some people here must know the answer to this.

See the hydrogenaudio.org terms of service (especially #8) for an alternative approach:
 
Quote:

(from http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974)
 
8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

 

[TheAttorney]

Quote:

Well, in AudioAsylum, there is no such prohibition. There is also a cable section with believers and unbelievers, but they somehow do not have any problems. I'd bet that Head-Fi with respect to its outright prohibition is quite unique in the world.
 

 
Actually, AudioAsylum does have exactly that prohibition, and Cables is ONE of the areas affected. I'm not a member, but I took the liberty of copy & pasting their reasons:
 
Certain areas of the Asylum have been designated as DBT (Double Blind Testing) free zones. In these designated areas, the topics of DBT and ABX are strictly off limits. Any post related to these topics will be subject to deletion.
These rules cut both ways:
 

1. Pro-DBT posts are not allowed.
2. Anti-DBT posts are also not allowed.
3.  

Why are DBT discussions not allowed?
Quite simply, the reason is that these topics rarely spark a productive exchange. While a vast majority of Asylum inmates are firmly in the middle ground, the topics of DBT and ABX tend to force polarization and quickly degrade into death spiraling flame wars.
 
Is DBT bad?
Some think so. Others do not. From a strictly scientific viewpoint, DBT has proved to be the only method that is generally accepted for determining the audibility of small differences between audio equipment and cables. It does work.
A problem exists when these tests are either done poorly or when specific results are extrapolated erroneously. DBT is also not necessary for determining personal preferences.
 
What's the difference between DBT and ABX?
DBT is a scientific methodology. Some believe that ABX is closer to a religion. ABX is actually a sub-set of DBT. Years ago, a group of audiophiles developed a box that was dubbed the ABX Double Blind Comparator. The purpose of the box is to allow fast switching between two things to be compared, A versus B.
Fast instantaneous switching has many advantages. One's audio memory is short. Research has shown that one is more accurate in detecting small differences when the time between test stimulus is reduced.
The controversy then becomes the question of what effect the ABX box may have on the audio signal. Is the box totally transparent? What effect does adding additional cabling have on the results? Proponents would argue that these issues are irrelevant and that the advantages of fast switching out weigh any possible problems that are non-existent anyway. Opponents simply roll their eyes and respond with, 'Get a clue'. Discussions get nastier quickly.
 
Isn't this being unscientific?
Again, some may think so. In reality, there are many methods for determining preferences and accuracy of audio components. Measurement data is far more accurate than one's ears. DBT is simply one procedure. DBT does a great job in removing bias from comparisons. However, DBT does not imply that differences do not exist, only that these differences in this test, are below the levels of general audibility.
Many people feel that the true character of individual components is only realized after long term listening and living with the component in question. These people would argue that it takes time to fully appreciate or understand certain subtle differences that exist in various audio components.
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

 
Quote:

 

 
.........
 
R&D?  More nonsense.  There's no way to actually develop a cable.  According to believers, you can't test a cable with any known test equipment.  Further, believers claim that A/B listening tests don't work.  That might be convenient when arguing for cables, but it also means that every single specialty cable on the market is a complete shot in the dark.  Without testing, there can be zero development.  Otherwise, you'd have to go through an infinite number of prototypes and - even then - there would be no reliable way to judge the prototypes against each other!
 

.........
 

A blindingly obvious, why didn't I think of that brilliant point Uncle Erik.

 
Quote:

What do other audio forums do with regards to this issue?  I don't frequent any, so I can't tell you, but some people here must know the answer to this.
 
..........

 
What Hifi has no ban, lets such threads develop and they either peter out or get locked. But to do that there is a very dedicated and hard working moderator.

 

[RonaldDumsfeld]

If anyone is curious about ABX and/or DBT I recommend downloading and installing foobar from http://www.foobar2000.org/ then downloading the ABX component from the component page into the component directory.
 
The best way to learn is by doing and in 10 minutes you will understand far more than hours of reading. 

 

[dexter3d]

Quote:

Actually, AudioAsylum does have exactly that prohibition

 
Didn't realize that, as they obviously don't advertise that. After comparing hydrogenaudio and audioasylum policies, I think guys in hydrogenaudio actually have balls. And that forum shows that it is not an utopia to have a forum where at least some kind of evidence for your claims is required

 

[Uncle Erik]

In other words, hydrogenaudio doesn't need to rely on advertising revenue from cable companies. Good for them.

 

[TheAttorney]

As I understand it, hydrogenaudio deliberately set out to be only suitable for sound scientist types. I.e. they positively discourage (or even disallow non-substantiated reviews). I.e. the whole site is one big "Sound Science" forum. And that is perfectly fine. Like-minded people should always have the freedom to set up whatever site/forum they choose.
 
But I think head-fi aims to cover a much wider scope than that. It's the cosmopolitan, multi-cultural, mult-age nature of head-fi that appeals to me. Topics can go in all sorts of directions with all sorts of unexpected insights, and I'm happy to put with a few inevitable irritations along the way.
 
And finally, to follow a sub-topic: hydrogenaudio members may be clever. They may even be right. But they will NEVER get invited to one of SB's cool parties

 
 

 

[xnor]

Quote:

As I understand it, hydrogenaudio deliberately set out to be only suitable for sound scientist types. I.e. they positively discourage (or even disallow non-substantiated reviews). I.e. the whole site is one big "Sound Science" forum. And that is perfectly fine. Like-minded people should always have the freedom to set up whatever site/forum they choose.
 
But I think head-fi aims to cover a much wider scope than that. It's the cosmopolitan, multi-cultural, mult-age nature of head-fi that appeals to me. Topics can go in all sorts of directions with all sorts of unexpected insights, and I'm happy to put with a few inevitable irritations along the way.
 
And finally, to follow a sub-topic: hydrogenaudio members may be clever. They may even be right. But they will NEVER get invited to one of SB's cool parties

 
There are a lot of cool, non-science guys there and topics can also go in all sorts of interesting directions.
You see it as a science forum, others see it as a forum with protection from BS and bold claims.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

In other words, hydrogenaudio doesn't need to rely on advertising revenue from cable companies. Good for them.

Game. Set. Match.
 
How many of those sponsors over on the right sell fraudulent cables?  Most of them.  Do they want to sponsor a place that exposes them as frauds?  No.  Do they sponsor Head-Fi?  Yes.
 
QED

 

[Spelaeus]

 
Quote:

Quote:

Game. Set. Match.
 
How many of those sponsors over on the right sell fraudulent cables?  Most of them.  Do they want to sponsor a place that exposes them as frauds?  No.  Do they sponsor Head-Fi?  Yes.
 
QED

You may want to bold your signature for this one...
 

 

[mike1127]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dexter3d /img/forum/go_quote.gif
To my humble mind, hearing BIG differences in USB DATA CABLES completely invalidates all other observations of that person with regard to SQ, ... Therefore, when such a person writes hearing big differences in USB cables, people have the right (I would say, an obligation) to debunk them INSTANTLY, here and now.
 
...
 
...you can claim respect for your fragile _beliefs_, even when those are like the earth is 6000 years old...
 
...
 
3) Flame prevention. Idea that blind testing suggestions may generate pages of unnecessary flame topics, departing from the original topic. But heck, are 'ooh ahh how nice' replies any better than a gentle debunking statement?
 

You refer to your humble mind, but your subsequent statements (obligation to debunk instantly, "fragile beliefs") do not seem humble, in my opinion.
 
To me, the problem with allowed DBT-related discussions is they immediately throw the thread off topic. And there are people who are ready to jump in with dramatic, all-caps, bolded, exclamation-pointed statements on either side. It's monotonous and boring for me, and worse it disrupts the conversation that the rest of us want to have.

 
Quote:

A guy is making an extraordinary claim in his review (in that case=particular expensive data cable makes a big difference). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The only legitimate way of dispelling all misperceptions (or even more wicked stuff) is blind testing.
 
Censorship is when a guy who makes an extraordinary claim....

Not everyone sees the claim as extraordinary. To say it's extraordinary is to take a point of view that will be immediately perceived as debatable, and the debate pit bulls will sink in their teeth and there goes that thread.

 
Quote:

Well, in AudioAsylum, there is no such prohibition. There is also a cable section with believers and unbelievers, but they somehow do not have any problems. I'd bet that Head-Fi with respect to its outright prohibition is quite unique in the world.
 

Excuse me, Audio Asylum does have DBT-free zones. And in my opinion, AA has more flamage than Head-Fi. AA is not the model I want to follow.