Trout

iTrader: (1)

You have made this statement with some authority, what is your basis for this?

There are some hi-fi publications that have tested equipment, including cables, carried out double blind where the equipment cannot be seen. In this situation certain cables score consistently better than others. Sounds pretty scientific to me.

As for measurement well that is a complete black art. Given all your research I am sure you are aware that electronic components such as amplifiers can be subject to just about every test known to man, however there is little relationship between the measurements and the subjective view of the amplifier.

Some Japanese amps have ultra low distortion levels and super high signal to noise ratios and yet result in a very poor subjective quality.

There are others that in theory are poor performers yet sound fantastic...


...well, I am assuming you do accept that amplifiers can sound different?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Yes.........but remember that the system was put together as a student from summer earnings in 1973.

Pioneer PL12D turntable, with SME headshell, and Shure M75 ED Type II cartridge.
Ferrograph F208 amp
Wharfedale 12", 6" and 1" drive units in home made custom cabinets., with Wharfedale crossover.

And it thrashed most systems into the ground at that time.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Perhaps it's that we all hear differently? What sounds great to one person MAY not suit another.
It's one reason I always tell people asking what speakers to put in their cars to go out and audition some

Power Junkie

iTrader: (1)

I have been a Pro Studio engineer for about 15 years and its true, we dont take much notice of the cables we use as long as they are of a good quality (not hifi stuff)
But lately i have been doing more work with Hifi systems and I was always a sceptic about the difference and value of the cables. I have now tried many different types and also working with a Cable company on new products, they Really do make a difference. If you dont believe it head to your local good HIFi shop and ask them to demo some for you, dont ask price or make just listen.

Dingdongler

Last question first, yes I accept my amplifier sounds better than yours

Could you please put up a link to the double blinded scientific tests that you mentioned? Though I may have strong opinions I am open minded.

I've done my best to try and back up my opinions (and they are opinions) with some interesting evidence (the audio myths video and the link to Russ Andrews being caught out as a cheat)
Though I agree this is nowhere near conclusive I think it hints at something.

So I'd be interested for you to provide a link to the scientific trials you talk of.

Thanks

Trout

iTrader: (1)

So at least we agree that objective 'measurement' does not have a relationship with sound quality - at least we got that one out the way - progress indeed

I am not sure if it is still true - however HiFi Choice used to carry out obsessive and meticulous double blind tests of all their equipment. And it was all set out behind a black net curtain so the testers could not see what was being tested. They also used to process everything in their lab for the objective tests too.

To be honest I don't know if they are still as rigourous so I will have to see if I can dig out some of the earlier material.

I am also intrigued by the caveat that has entered into all of this - as you have added the subjective rider of 'good quality' cables cannot be differentiated.

I guess the real question is where does good kick in.

For Naim it is an entry level Chord Chrysalis cable...

...but what about bell wire...

...it's just electrons and metal?!

Myles

iTrader: (40)

Electrons, metal, not forgetting the hammer anvil and stirrup. The Mk1 eardrum makes accurate testing almost impossible.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I think you missed the point of my post. I am not saying anything is better than anything else - I completely agree that whatever floats your boat, floats your boat. The type of sound, the delivery and the subjective quality are all that - subjective. Otherwise we would all have Naim systems

I am challenging that hypothesis that when it comes to cables all the floats are the same. So back to your point - according to DingleDongle - when it comes to cables - What sounds great to one person will sound exactly the same to another and swapping makes no difference.

Not something I support from my experience

Will

I will not beat around the bush! My **** is bigger than yours!!!

Trout

iTrader: (1)

To take that argument to its natural conclusion then there is no point in buying hifi!

The eardrum is not for testing it is for listening and if hifi is about music rather than '**** waving' then it is always going to be a subjective experience.

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

hah yea you don't beat the bush at all coz you're a gayer.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

In the interests of science - when I am talking about cables I am talking primarily about interconnects and to a lesser extent speaker cables.

Like in all things hifi - the nearer the source, the lower the voltages, the better everything should be done and the bigger the impact on the downstream output.

To me, power cables don't make any sense especially with a system with multiple, highly rectified power supplies that focus on mains isolation.

But that is just the floats in my boat

Will

i wouldn't beat the bush, I'd make slow passionate love to it with nice music from my brilliant hi-fi sysem

Myles

iTrader: (40)

Indeed, I hope you know I was agreeing with you.......

In my book, if someone enjoys listening to Floyd on a shrill tinny system, then they cannot be told that it is better than the classic Naim setup, and rightly vice versa.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

...and I have an album which is great in my iPod but dreadful on my main system

Dingdongler

Quote from Trout


There are some hi-fi publications that have tested equipment, including cables, carried out double blind where the equipment cannot be seen. In this situation certain cables score consistently better than others. Sounds pretty scientific to me.



Dingdongler says


We can only progress with this discussion when you provide links to the statements you have made as quoted above. You insist these trials/tests have taken place and since you said 'sounds pretty scientific to me' I would presume this scientific data is out there for us all to enjoy. I'm talking just of the subjective stuff now, ie people being able to detect the difference with their ears

Please provide links to this data or have the decency to admit it doesn't exist. No more b8llsh1t, no more endless anecdotes of people ejaculating after they changed a piece of wire.

You questioned my proposition that this evidence doesn't exist here


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingdongler View Post
why has it never been scientifically proven that either you can hear a difference

Trout says

You have made this statement with some authority, what is your basis for this?




Please back up your counter argument with links to these double blinded tests you said had proven an audible difference can be established. I don't think you will because to the best of my knowledge they don't exist.

I have links to a number of trials that indicate the opposite, but I'll keep them up my sleeve for now

DCI Gene Hunt

Why.... if you're so confident post them..... what have you got to hide?

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Oh dear Mr Dingle you are starting to use pejorative language now - what happened to that confident objective swagger.

For reference I don't think I am questioning your 'proposition that this evidence doesn't exist here', I asked to you provide it

As I said above - when I got into hifi the material I used to read was subjected to the exact level of rigour I was talking about. The problem is that it was before the internet existed so I don't know if it exists online. I don't know if they still use the same approach and they what they publish is subject to subscription so I cannot link to it.

Maybe the other publications don't bother to go to such testing extremes as they don't need to as the differences are so obvious to hear


As a starter for you here is a comment from What HiFi in a response to a question on testing HDMI cables...

Re: Double blind testing for HDMI cables?
As Clare has often stated, that's just how we do test.
Consulting Editor, What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision / whathifi.com
Audio Editor, Gramophone

Given that What HiFi probably has the most comprehensive list of cable reviews, and they double blind test then there is probably quite a good case for saying there is at least statistical basis for difference - 'scientific' in your parlance

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Oh this is a good subject...

as a counter to whether cables sound different - here is a 'blind test' of a cheap market system versus a high end system.

Blind test

The results would indicate that the system you like is totally subjective and random!! With no preference to the Classe/Wadia system at all! Indeed a third could not tell the difference between a $700 system and a $12,000 system

So maybe cables do all sound different it is just the equipment that all sounds the same!


The deeper you get into this - and also based on my own experience - is that systems upgrades 'seem' to be backward compatible. The way the brain works is that it 'fills in' from what it has learned. So if you listen to a tune on a cheap Binatone and then on a high end system; when you go back to the Binatone you will perceive far more detail than when you first heard it. So it sounds 'better'.

There is research to back this up in visual perception but there is no reason to believe that it is not also true of audio perception. It is how the brain is designed to work by 'filling in' the blanks through a series of filters - otherwise we would not be able to process the world around us.

The outcome is challenging because it would mean that blind tests are not flawed by protocol but by our brains. Once you have heard the best system, all the others sound better.

It is not that they are all the same, but the differentials cannot be so easily perceived.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I am having a long breakfast with much interesting reading.

The conclusions you can 'scientifically' prove (assuming that Double Blind Testing is a reasonable testing protocol) are: -

a) DBT absolutely proves that there is no difference between hi fi systems/source quality (and by extrapolation their components) (Matrix Hifi, Swedish Broadcasting codec test)

b) DBT absolutely proves that there are consistent differences between audio system components/source quality (HiFi Choice; What HiFi who claim all their reviews are DBT; the BBC codec test)

c) DBT is absolutely proven to be totally flawed in its methodology and its ability to differentiate between components (reference the Swedish Broadcasting codec test)

d) And this is the most important - the BIGGEST factor in determining the outcome and observability in testing is the hypothesis of the person/group running the test. This seems to have the biggest single outcome. i.e. the vested interest drives the outcome. So the cable/component/source agnostics will set out to debunk audiophiles; audiophiles will set out to debunk the agnostics; and both can back it up with 'scientific' evidence.


So the only conclusion I can draw is to rely on personal experience. What floats my boat will float my boat, as ultimately it is about the subjective experience whether this is statistical or not.

I am sure for every reference I could find that proves that 'cables do sound different' there is an equally well argued one that proves that they do not. So I would change the hypothesis put forward by DingleDongle to, Where has it been scientifically proved that you cannot hear a difference?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Especially when one tester found that mains twin and earth, the solid stuff you use to wire a house, produced excellent results.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

No more do I

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I tried that once - made up some interconnects as solid core 13amp wire was the latest hot fad.

Even though you can't tell the difference between cables, and even though the placebo effect would have favoured the cable that took me a while to make and install, I didn't like it at all and took it out after a day

Dingdongler

Trout, I'm glad you've done some reading on the matter now.

You did insist that double blind tests 'that seemed pretty scientific to you' had proven audible differences between cables. Do you now accept that you cannot provide a link to a single scientifically sound trial/test that does so? Once you accept your error on this matter we can move on with the discussion which I hope like me you find interesting.

If you are seriously trying to put What HiFi forward as some sort of unbiased scientifically sound source of infomation you are on a different planet mate.

They are a commercial venture dependent on advertising revenue from the same companies whose products they review. You see no conflict of interests there?

Forget being unbiased or scientific What Hifi are not even factually correct most of the time

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Bell wire is silly thin though; it wouldn't produce fair results. Comparing to say, AWG 10, it has ten time less resistivity than AWG 20 (near enough bell wire). That affects impedances, which inturn affects reactance - depending on its length.

Audio drive circuits always have a predetermined reactance, but this is built into the speaker's crossover (of which is used to make many bookshelf units overcome the shortfalls of their undersized enclosures ) as well as the output stages of the amplifier (which is why with older technology amps it was important to match output and input impedances, modern stuff isn't so fussy). If the wire used inbetween is found to suffer excessive resistance or capacitance it will have an effect on the signal being sent through it, similar things apply if you have a load of excess cable coiled up together (inductive reactance).

If you want a decent test, then compare; standard grade copper 10AWG to some sooper-dooper audiophile 10AWG with both using the same termination method (same brand connectors) and same lengths then report back what you hear.

Whilst I'm on about termination methods; personally I solder direct to the terminals where possible - I hate moulded plugs with a passion; one can never see the quality of the internal joint without wrecking it by cutting it open. And there are so many really nasty "audiophile" grade connects that use moulded plugs, it is impossible to tell if they really are worth the price tag or just some overpriced Belkin rubbish. I use Belkin as a known high street example of a manufacturer selling poorly shielded cable with poor termination (badly crimped) hidden in a moulded plug and selling it in fancy packaging for ten or even a hundred times its actual value or worth. Seeing there is little set standard with audio cables, there is little stopping other manufacturers following suit (and many do IMO).

Better to build your own interconnects IMO. That way its the right length one needs, it uses known quality cable, uses a known quality level of sheilding (where required) , and is terminated with a good quality joint into a good quality connector. The beauty of this is that one doesn't need to pay though the nose to do this. Just invest in good high-temp soldering iron and a good cable crimper.

Myles

iTrader: (40)

Oh oh, this one is going to roll on and on.......

Dingdongler

It might do mate. I reckon old Trout face is busy searching for those trials he said existed. I'm onto a win win on this one. Either they don't exist and he needs to eat humble fish (get it?) pie, or they do and then I'm happy to consider changing my mind. If £1000 of cables can really improve the system I've spent £20k on then I'll have my wallet straight open. Seems a relative bargain as the only other way to easily improve my system now is changing my Quad amps for some mega expensive stuff.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

You're welcome - I had done plenty of reading on it before - I am just looking for something different now. Funny how when you look for something you can find it

I stand by what I said - HiFi Choice certainly used to have an obsessive approach to DBT which they used to review all components in a system. Can I be bothered to subscribe to see if they still do to post something up to keep you happy - then no

What I can say is that the test protocols were led by Martin Colloms who has led a number of interesting blind testing experiments and is recognised as an expert in this field - some of his tests support your argument and some don't. So it is an area that is not as straightforward as you originally stated.

So let's turn to What HiFi - of course they have a vested interest (if you read my earlier post you will see the most significant conclusion is that everyone has vested interests and these were the biggest single factor in outcomes). However, they also claim to utilise DBT and they also claim that their reviews and the reviewers do not have a relationship with the advertising department prior to publication. Indeed you can believe this as sometimes there is a turkey review next to a nice big advert for it. There is also evidence that whilst some products do well, others do not do well, irrespective of price point. (And on a personal note I do not have a particular favour for What HiFi as they are not the biggest fans of my system choice as I am sure you well know).

As I suggested in my post earlier - for every published test I could find there were at least as many counter tests or arguments as to why the test was not valid - on either side of the argument.

So please stick by your argument, please enjoy your proof, please feel free to undermine any opposing proof safe in the knowledge that the other side is doing exactly the same thing. When thinking about your proof, consider this 'scientific' test.

Swedish Broadcasting spent two years working on the broadcast codec standard. Over that period they did 20,000 double blind, triple stimulus, hidden reference tests with a group of 60 trained listeners. The outcome was to find the lowest bitrate that would support digital broadcast with no discernible loss of quality. Once they had made there decision they agreed an outcome and submitted their recommendation. The chair of the codec committee listened subjectively for ten minutes to the codec and rejected it due to a tone at 1.5khz. Once pointed out, easy to hear (or was it a placebo?).

And I stick by my conclusion made earlier today - my eyes are open to there is another argument - but the argument on both sides seems un-winnable. Your thesis is not one that is supported by my subjective experience so I am happy with the floats (cables) in my boat.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Now I understand why you can't hear the difference between cables

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I completely agree

The thesis being postulated is that cables do not sound different and it is scientifically proven.

So my question is where the line is drawn?