• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Elevated speaker wire/cable

DaveVoorhis said:
None of what is provable?

Note that true proof is only found in mathematics; everything else is a matter of evidence.

Study of senses and behaviour rarely makes reference to subjective experience, which is unreliable, unquantifiable, untestable, and -- other perhaps satisfying anecdotal curiosity -- is of little scientific interest. Instead, experiments are devised to treat acts of sensing as objective, observable, testable, and measurable/quantifiable phenomena that provide evidence for or against hypotheses. For example, my hypothesis might be that listeners can perceive differences in speaker cables.

If we wished to find evidence for (or against) listeners being able to perceive differences in speaker cables, we wouldn't simply switch cables and ask the subject what he hears. That's subjective and subject to conflation with cognition, experimenter bias, expectation bias, etc. Instead, we set up a double-blind experiment to sometimes switch speaker cables and sometimes not -- without experimenter or subject knowing whether cables are switch or not -- and then have subjects indicate whether they believe the cable was switched or not over multiple trials and, ideally, under a variety of conditions. If subjects report a difference in sound when the cable is switched at a rate above chance, then that provides evidence that listeners can perceive differences in speaker cables.

Done with appropriate rigour, it is repeatable, reliable, and statistically allows for variability and fallibility, in precisely the same manner and to the same degree as every other natural science, including chemistry and experimental physics.

Whilst it doesn't deliver provable results in the mathematical sense, no experimental science can deliver proof, it can only provide evidence for or against hypotheses.
Click to expand...

Existentialism is the fallibility of the senses which calls into question any behavioral study based on perception. While trends can be identified and applied in a useful manner, there are always enough exceptions to the rule to deny the absolute status that is needed to elevate the result to scientific. In a sound quality test, the tester must rely on what the subject is saying because the tester has no way of independently verifying the subject's impression. It is physically impossible to perceive through the subject's senses, the subject could be embellishing or even lying. Even if the subject is sincere, the subject may be fooled or mislead by his own senses, the acuity of which is as infinitely variable as people are. That's not good enough to call trends identified in a listening test a scientific result.
 
SoCal Sam said:
Existentialism is the fallibility of the senses which calls into question any behavioral study based on perception. While trends can be identified and applied in a useful manner, there are always enough exceptions to the rule to deny the absolute status that is needed to elevate the result to scientific. In a sound quality test, the tester must rely on what the subject is saying because the tester has no way of independently verifying the subject's impression. It is physically impossible to perceive through the subject's senses, the subject could be embellishing or even lying. Even if the subject is sincere, the subject may be fooled or mislead by his own senses, the acuity of which is as infinitely variable as people are. That's not good enough to call trends identified in a listening test a scientific result.
Click to expand...

Well all I can say is I have seen the studies be “factual” in the over 2500 students I taught. Would love to hear your experiences on this subject as experiences do matter.
:beerchug:
 
cpt_paranoia said:
I fear you are confusing
psychoacoustics and 'woo'.

Perception and behaviour are also the subject of scientific study. Sonar operations are founded in science and engineering, not 'woo'.
Click to expand...

Not everyone can operate a sonar set. Not everyone gets the same result.
 
Smdh :dunno:

Edit: I am actually talking about playing back 1” RTR on great equipment and identifying sources with your ears. In a classroom and lab environment.
 
Last edited:
GChief said:
Well all I can say is I have seen the studies be “factual” in the over 2500 students I taught. Would love to hear your experiences on this subject as experiences do matter.
:beerchug:
Click to expand...

When I was debating in another cable thread that escaped "Cutting Edge", the salesmen made a similar reply with a study. From what I remember it was a group of Boston Philharmonic musicians or some other well trained group. I conceded their result and asked how the signal was being changed. They dodged the science question and ultimately could not provide any scientific evidence. They became obstinate and swarmed, calling into question my experience and my credentials - a tactic which is invalid. I am a listener, I make my own preference based on what I like, not what a group of golden ears likes. Your strategy is remarkably similar, the dodge is nearly identical. To say something sounds good because someone says it sounds good is circular.
 
GChief said:
Well all I can say is I have seen the studies be “factual” in the over 2500 students I taught. Would love to hear your experiences on this subject as experiences do matter.
:beerchug:
Click to expand...

Returning to the topic at hand, are you willing to say that risers change sound?
 
SoCal Sam said:
When I was debating in another cable thread that escaped "Cutting Edge", the salesmen made a similar reply with a study. From what I remember it was a group of Boston Philharmonic musicians or some other well trained group. I conceded their result and asked how the signal was being changed. They dodged the science question and ultimately could not provide any scientific evidence. They became obstinate and swarmed, calling into question my experience and my credentials - a tactic which is invalid. I am a listener, I make my own preference based on what I like, not what a group of golden ears likes. Your strategy is remarkably similar, the dodge is nearly identical. To say something sounds good because someone says it sounds good is circular.
Click to expand...

Whatever man, I just tried to relay an experience. This is a forum for doing such things. I could really give a crap what you do or don’t do with the info. :dunno:

Oh and myself and the others you speak of are conspiring against you :confused:

SoCal Sam said:
Returning to the topic at hand, are you willing to say that risers change sound?
Click to expand...

Talking of the OP I would say the same that was mentioned by someone else in one of the posts. If it was a noticeable change, I myself would lean towards some kind of interference. When the cables where moved out of the interference there was a noticeable change. But that opinion is biased as I chase EMI and RFI often at work.

:beerchug::beerchug:
 
Last edited:
I don't know about speaker wires, but I do know that how I lay out the power cord on the floor matters, not that I can probably hear the dfference. But, I can watch the noise floor on the Behringer raise/lower with the orientation of the cord. Of course we are talking in the -90 dB range, but the difference can be seen on the display so I try to shoot for the lowest value.
 
toddalin said:
I don't know about speaker wires, but I do know that how I lay out the power cord on the floor matters, not that I can probably hear the dfference. But, I can watch the noise floor on the Behringer raise/lower with the orientation of the cord. Of course we are talking in the -90 dB range, but the difference can be seen on the display so I try to shoot for the lowest value.
Click to expand...
Shielded cord would probably help here.
 
SoCal Sam said:
Existentialism is the fallibility of the senses which calls into question any behavioral study based on perception. While trends can be identified and applied in a useful manner, there are always enough exceptions to the rule to deny the absolute status that is needed to elevate the result to scientific. In a sound quality test, the tester must rely on what the subject is saying because the tester has no way of independently verifying the subject's impression. It is physically impossible to perceive through the subject's senses, the subject could be embellishing or even lying. Even if the subject is sincere, the subject may be fooled or mislead by his own senses, the acuity of which is as infinitely variable as people are. That's not good enough to call trends identified in a listening test a scientific result.
Click to expand...
Behavioural scientists working in psychology, anthropology, physiology, medicine, sociology, psychophysics (which encompasses psychoacoustics), and so on are well aware of the potential for (say) participant confusion or deception confounding results, so wherever possible experiments are designed to minimise the possibility of confusion and deception, and they repeat the same study under a variety of conditions.

Obviously, the potential for invalid results -- for whatever reason -- does exist, but it exists in any experimental science. It is no less the case in (say) experimental physics or chemistry, and probably more reliable than in speculative observational sciences like archaeology and historical linguistics.

Note that results based on statistics are certainly good enough to call trends a scientific result. Indeed, they're how scientific results are obtained in most of science.
 
SoCal Sam said:
Returning to the topic at hand, are you willing to say that risers change sound?
Click to expand...
I'm highly skeptical of everything, but I'm willing to say that risers might change sound. I suggested some ways in post #2.

The way to resolve such debates is not through speculation or exclamation but experimentation, under appropriately controlled (i.e., double-blind, and with all due rigour) conditions. Speculation is fine for developing hypotheses and defining experiments, but it doesn't give us answers.

That said, there are obviously big parts of science for which there's little compulsion to replicate past experiments -- e.g., we've known the Earth is a globe for more than 2500 years; no need to repeat experiments just for a few "Flearther" zagnuts and trolls -- or conduct them in the first place when well-established models in physics, chemistry, etc., preclude them. I'd say the latter largely applies to cable suspension, but the conclusion is not a slam dunk. Therefore, experimentation needed.
 
Last edited:
restorer-john said:
Consider there are a lot of slab-on-ground homes where there is a giant grid-array of rebar a few inches below the carpet in the concrete. It can cause all sorts of interesting issues in my experience.
Click to expand...

This is what I am more interested in "why" would it matter?

Do people who have good experiences live in conventional housing, apartments, the 34th floor of a skyscraper?

What's underneath these floors? Wiring, plumbing ect.

Is there a big wad of wires running under your floor that head to the rest of the house for example.

My room is last in the chain I dont have much going on electrically in my house there in nothing eclectically going on anywhere near my room or under it ( just a basement/garage) .

There is no computer or tv in the room just the system.

The tv is 30ft away in another corner of the house as is the router, the washer and dryer is 40 ft away in another corner on an outside wall.

I live in the woods not near anything.

My room is pretty dead.

I cant imagine for the life of me my why my cables would care about running ten feet along my 70 year old solid oak floor.

With out knowing what's up, down, or around this phenomenon for "each" persons experiences I am not going to put much thought into it..
 
restorer-john said:
Consider there are a lot of slab-on-ground homes where there is a giant grid-array of rebar a few inches below the carpet in the concrete. It can cause all sorts of interesting issues in my experience.
Click to expand...

My house is on a concrete foundation there seems to be no space or elevation between the two. Maybe it could be what you mentioned.
 
NH-MAN said:
Do people who have good experiences live in conventional housing, apartments, the 34th floor of a skyscraper?
Click to expand...

Probably worse in an apartment.

I had a house where in summer, when the ground was really dry, there was a distinct induced very low level hum in longer line level cables that lay on the floor. I traced it to the hot water system (3.6Kw). It was somehow coupling to the reinforced steel in the concrete slab as when I turned it off, the hum went away. Lifting the cables up solved the problem.

It got me thinking about how effectively (if at all) the rebar is earthed to the ground or does it rely on the cement. I must admit, I've never noticed a distinct earth point when a slab is poured for a house, have you?
 
imral3 said:
This plus, the elevated wires are now much closer to the audio gods.
Click to expand...

I'm convinced: Gonna "elevate" my entire rig to the "next floor up" (i.e., walk-in attic) directly above my present "listening room", cut a big hole b/w the two levels, and have a whale of a time hearing the exciting "new sounds" that are bound to emerge from the rig and thus enhance my listening experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom