Speaker cables have shown to made a difference... does it matter?

[Brett a]

Nah, kind of funny actually.

Sorry. Perhaps I should have used an "I" statement.

I feel that those snarky posts are hurtful, offensive and disrespectful. I do not find attempts to demean and ridicule funny like you do.
.

 

[dumptruck]

My point is, I don't think it's possible. There is no way to clinically prove that any component is sonically superior to another (within reason, not comparing crap to high end)... do you think it's possible?

Well, I suppose we could ponder that all day, but my short answer is no, I don't really think that's possible, nor a reasonable goal. More reasonable goals would be answering questions like this in an objective manner:

- can anyone in this group of people really hear a difference between this ____ and this one?

- can this person with this setup really tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and FLAC file from the same source?

- here are two amps that are identical except for ____, which one does each person in this group prefer in this setup, if they can tell the difference?

To some people, answering these little questions is very interesting and often introduces new questions (what happens if I try that with my stuff? what if they had done it this way?). That's kind of how science works, right? It really has nothing to do with the "that doesn't tell me what I should buy" response.

 

[RichPA]

Sorry. Perhaps I should have used an "I" statement.

I feel that those snarky posts are hurtful, offensive and disrespectful. I do not find attempts to demean and ridicule funny like you do.
.

Neither do the moderators. The makers of such posts should consider themselves warned.

 

[SkyLounger]

Just as it is common to say that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", wouldn't it be better to just accept that perception of sound quality (no matter what piece of equipment is involved) is in the ear of the beholder and leave it at that?

It's not because I find my wife beautiful that I think you should agree with me, and conversely, it's not because I find my wife beautiful that there isn't more beautiful women than my wife on the planet?

 

[cwall99]

The question of whether one component sounds better than another is one that's personal and never wrong. Just like which band is better... I like what I like, and I don't have to defend it.

And that's a very different question than, "Is there really a difference?"

The purpose of any sort of test like this would be to determine whether we really hear a difference or not. The experiment in MN, I would argue, was not constructed to test that reliably.

Rather than doing a series of A vs B, I would only reveal that the wires had been changed (and sometimes, they might not be). I would then run a series of playbacks, perhaps as many as 20 or so, changing the music every so often to minimize the risk of listener fatigue (in this case, boredom, really) crowding the results.

Maybe that's what we do:

• Have four or five rounds of listening
• In each round, we listen to the same clip of music four times - once for each type of wire
• However, the order in which we use the wires within each round is randomized
• During each listening within each round, listeners rate each sample on some standard scales
• At the end, we tabulate the data and see how consistent we are, and whether a clear preference emerged

And for those of you who might be tempted to complain that this is just an effort to confuse the listener, it isn't. It is an attempt to separate folks from as many environmental cues that might tip the hand of the experimenter as possible.

As a listener, your role is to listen as closely as you can and evaluate what you hear. Focus solely on the stimulus in front of you.

 

[dumptruck]

Cwall, if that's the goal why not a completely standard ABX? That way, you can change the clip of music every time if you want, and there is no rating scale confusing things, and interpreting the data is straightforward.

 

[robgmn]

My point is, I don't think it's possible. There is no way to clinically prove that any component is sonically superior to another (within reason, not comparing crap to high end). Specifications are useful guidelines, but utilmately lacking IME. I guess the word 'clinical' has certain implications, such as "provable beyond doubt, we're done here"

Sure, it's a laudable goal, do you think it's possible?

Yes, there is and it can be based on majority opinion along with scientific measurement.

The proof lies in the existence of components that are known to be superior (a reference or control, as it were - as already accepted by majority opinion).
Compare the performance data of those with the "unknown" component.
If the data is very similar, you know the odds are good the "unknown" will perform similarly to the control (it's how ongoing QC is done on ANY product).

If the data is very different, then you have to follow up to see if that difference causes the component to sound less pleasing than the reference (majority testing again).

It's been done on many levels with any variety of products.
Take Rolex as a tangential example.
They make a watch that they have determined is aesthetically pleasing and sells a lot at a very high price.
If another company makes a watch that looks very similar, it will very likely sell.
If they make a radical change, they will likely test it with a smaller audience before making a huge production run.
If the samller audience favors the chnage, the larger audience will probably like it too.



And, people need to lighten up.
If you can't handle people poking fun at soemthing dear to you, you'd better not laugh at a joke or ever tell a joke yourself again; you'll likely be poking fun at something that is dear to someone else (as MOST humor does).

Jeez.

 

[JohnVF]

And, people need to lighten up.

I about spit my coffee out on this one.

How about this....why not stop treating listening to music as if it's a race or contest? We all win- we're listening to music! It may be fun to turn it into a science experiment, or to base decisions on that kind of thing. Just realize that we're not all here for that. Some of us just like to listen to gear.

And maybe that's it. It could be that we're not in the same hobby. We both might listen to music, or gear, but our intentions are different. I don't need an answer. I don't want or need the lead horse, the best of the best. I just want what "I" hear as the best, because the hobby to me IS listening. Its nothing else. I am in no way interested in winning. I just want to be in the race, with what I like to be running with.

 

[dumptruck]

And maybe that's it. It could be that we're not in the same hobby.

Not that anyone asked me, but...

I spend so much time with music enjoying/supporting/participating/collecting/etc. because it's one of the most important parts of my life. I simply love it.

I spend so much time messing around with audio equipment (and talking about it on the internet) because I'm a geeky guy that's always loved science and technology and tinkering with things, and my love of music makes it a natural fit. I'm interested in understanding what makes things "good", not how to identify and obtain what's "the best".

 

[JohnVF]

Not that anyone asked me, but...

I spend so much time with music enjoying/supporting/participating/collecting/etc. because it's one of the most important parts of my life. I simply love it.

I spend so much time messing around with audio equipment (and talking about it on the internet) because I'm a geeky guy that's always loved science and technology and tinkering with things, and my love of music makes it a natural fit. I'm interested in understanding what makes things "good", not how to identify and obtain what's "the best".

What I meant was, more precisely, we're all in this for very different reasons. That's not a bad thing, just an observation- and it could be why we all have such heated discussions. I don't enjoy tinkering with things, I'm not really that intrigued by the "why" of any of this, though I kind of thought I was at one time. I'm really not. But I am interested in different gear, and what it sounds like (and sometimes why, but not so much).

The hobby to me is listening to different gear and talking about it. I enjoy talking about the relative merit of this and that (and this to that) but I am not at all objectively focused on it. When I think something is good, that is good enough for me. I get irritated when people tell me that its not good enough. Why not? I'm not telling them to use it. I am the only one who has to listen to it (and my poor girlfriend who sees more gear come and go than she'd care to). The gear comes and goes because, again, I like hearing different gear. I like comparing the results subjectively. But that doesn't seem to be allowed by some, in their "rules for living" or whatever (not referring to you Dumptruck, I get that you're just coming at it from a different perspective).

 

[VinylRob]

><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>‏

What does it matter?

I was listening to an old copy of Let it Bleed by the Stones last night on the Decca UK label and was once again amazed and rewarded by another old dusty favorite on my shelf and was also thinking... (I don't know why) what does it matter?

I don't know why I started doing this because I really wasn't thinking about the why part at all. I was kind of trying to see just what cables in my kit meant to the way I experience the music, I guess.

First I traded out the mains cables on my power amps for some run of the mill computer IEC's and the bass line became softer, fuzzier, and less viscerally snap satisfying. Both Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman had lost some of their attitude.

Second I exchanged the XLR 6m IC set from the Pre-amp with stock studio Mogami that I had laying around and the detail and ambient qualities that were in such sharp relief at the outer edges of the stage faded. I also noticed some of the rhythm just didn't sound as convincing in spirit and both Keith and Mick Taylor's guitars were not as identifiable for their brand. Nicky Hopkins piano was becoming more generic keyboards. At this point there was a confusion, things were sounding out of whack and I can't intellectualize all the out of place stuff that was now happening in the sound stage.

Third I replaced the XLR 1m IC from the phono-amp to the pre-amp. By this time the mandolin, fiddle, and autoharp were just a smeared, somewhat messy affair, all trapped in kind of a big hair ball together. Even the horn bits lost some of their brass and projection and now sounded like lacquered beginner's instruments (like the kind you start out with in public school band practice) rather than the sound of the Memphis horns. So than it came to me, pull out the cheapo domestic Abkco pressing and see how it holds up in juxtaposition to the nice Brit copy and the changes. It was weak but not as bad as I remembered.

So I couldn't take it any more and I hurried to put everything back in place with my stupid ass ridiculous priced boutique (to some) cabling. Ah, back to the sound that I have been tricked into believing (kidding) is like real music. So than it came to me again! Put on the two pressing and see how they sound track for track. Well, with the kit back in place the two pressings could not be more different. The original Brit killed the Cheapo and proved once again why pressings matter, it was not even close, honestly.

My final thoughts after staying up half the night screwing around with my kit... I like what I like and if something, anything, brings the music more apparent and real (to Me) that is where I'm staying. If cables in My kit didn't matter, I would have more cash to buy more first pressing vintage vinyl (Yummy), sadly, reluctantly, with get pain and anguish, zip cord just will not do it at My house.

*Your results may vary.

Happy Listening!

 

[JohnVF]

What does it matter?

I was listening to an old copy of Let it Bleed by the Stones last night on the Decca UK label and was once again amazed and rewarded by another old dusty favorite on my shelf and was also thinking... (I don't know why) what does it matter?

I don't know why I started doing this because I really wasn't thinking about the why part at all. I was kind of trying to see just what cables in my kit meant to the way I experience the music, I guess.

First I traded out the mains cables on my power amps for some run of the mill computer IEC's and the bass line became softer, fuzzier, and less viscerally snap satisfying. Both Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman had lost some of their attitude.

Second I exchanged the XLR 6m IC set from the Pre-amp with stock studio Mogami that I had laying around and the detail and ambient qualities that were in such sharp relief at the outer edges of the stage faded. I also noticed some of the rhythm just didn't sound as convincing in spirit and both Keith and Mick Taylor's guitars were not as identifiable for their brand. Nicky Hopkins piano was becoming more generic keyboards. At this point there was a confusion, things were sounding out of whack and I can't intellectualize all the out of place stuff that was now happening in the sound stage.

Third I replaced the XLR 1m IC from the phono-amp to the pre-amp. By this time the mandolin, fiddle, and autoharp were just a smeared, somewhat messy affair, all trapped in kind of a big hair ball together. Even the horn bits lost some of their brass and projection and now sounded like lacquered beginner's instruments (like the kind you start out with in public school band practice) rather than the sound of the Memphis horns. So than it came to me, pull out the cheapo domestic Abkco pressing and see how it holds up in juxtaposition to the nice Brit copy and the changes. It was weak but not as bad as I remembered.

So I couldn't take it any more and I hurried to put everything back in place with my stupid ass ridiculous priced boutique (to some) cabling. Ah, back to the sound that I have been tricked into believing (kidding) is like real music. So than it came to me again! Put on the two pressing and see how they sound track for track. Well, with the kit back in place the two pressings could not be more different. The original Brit killed the Cheapo and proved once again why pressings matter, it was not even close, honestly.

My final thoughts after staying up half the night screwing around with my kit... I like what I like and if something, anything, brings the music more apparent and real (to Me) that is where I'm staying. If cables in My kit didn't matter, I would have more cash to buy more first pressing vintage vinyl (Yummy), sadly, reluctantly, with get pain and anguish, zip cord just will not do it at My house.

*Your results may vary.

Happy Listening!

And this is what I'm talking about. Would a DBX test that a bunch of people unrelated to you and your situation have an effect on the decision you made, with your own two ears?

Your example gets to another assumption often thrown at the fancy cable crowd...that they WANT to spend this money. Why would anybody want to spend more than they need to? I certainly don't know of any social cache you get from running expensive cables. If anything it just opens you up to snotty ridicule.

 

[usedto]

Maybe if you had left your older "stuff" in longer, the pieces may have acclimated themselves to each other and produced a better result. If that's possible.

EDIT: As in break-in time, etc. Unless the changes you heard with your current parts were immediate when originally purchased.

 

[Brett a]

Your example gets to another assumption often thrown at the fancy cable crowd...that they WANT to spend this money. Why would anybody want to spend more than they need to? I certainly don't know of any social cache you get from running expensive cables. If anything it just opens you up to snotty ridicule.

Bingo!

I can relate to this view. I have a lot of competing financial priorities with finite resources.

I have a pretty standardized view of difference-for-dollar; meaning I want $200 worth of difference whether it's cables or a cartridge. And good performing cables, IMO run in three figures. I would LOVE to find an exception and save some money. But strangely, I can't afford to do that. Mucking around with inexpensive cables can quickly become penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[Art K.]

Your example gets to another assumption often thrown at the fancy cable crowd...that they WANT to spend this money. Why would anybody want to spend more than they need to? I certainly don't know of any social cache you get from running expensive cables. If anything it just opens you up to snotty ridicule.

qft.

 

[WntrMute2]

Nicely put cwall99.

People talk, people talk about many things, people talk about things on which they have little or no life experience with at all. This is kind of like young boys talking about being (intimate) with women, but actually, never having been with just one girl. How does one speak about something that one does not know? I take issue only with the aspect that, for me, arguing about theory and science with no intimate understanding about what we hear, seems like a wasted effort.

Happy Listening?!

I had just this experience the other day over at two other forums where folks were discussing the merits of the Vinyl Flat. I of course chimed in with my first hand information that was mostly positive. The discussion that followed ranged from how it couldn't work to how it wasn't any better than the "glass plates in the sun" trick. No one, not one of those opinions were posted by someone who actually had used the Vinyl Flat! Someone knew a guy who had the $2,000 flattener but that was it. I even mentioned that all these opinions were being offered by those with NO experience with the unit but the vitriol continued. Amazing. What I learned is that asking for as well as advice on these forums is not without hazard.

 

[whoaru99]

I don't find ABX tests to be very good in determining what I like long term. That leaves long term listening tests.

Probably because preference isn't the point of doing ABX.

The main point of ABX is to simply answer the question, "Does X = A or does X = B?". If there is a detectable difference one should be able to answer the question with a high degree of confidence.

 

[TerryO]

Probably because preference isn't the point of doing ABX.

The main point of ABX is to simply answer the question, "Does X = A or does X = B?". If there is a detectable difference one should be able to answer the question with a high degree of confidence.

+1:thmbsp:
What you have stated is certainly true and needs to be kept firmly in mind. It should also be understood that preference is actually a somewhat different situation.

If you can't reliably identify the sound of one device from another given X number of trials (you pick the number), then it would become primarily a choice of cost, appearence, features and other matters of taste or style. There is nothing wrong with choosing one device over another for purely aesthetic reasons, but let's not kid ourselves.

OTOH, if you "can" identify one device from the other with a high degree of statistical certainty, then (and only then) is it actually possible to evaluate sonic preferences or merit.

The idea is first to determine "if" you can actually tell them apart (they sound different from each other). Then, when it's firmly established that they do indeed sound distinct from one another, you listen again to decide which you like better. It's like pulling teeth, but this process must be taken in two separate steps to be worthwhile.

At least that's my take on it. However, YMMV.

Best Regards,
TerryO

 

[Brett a]

If you can't reliably identify the sound of one device from another given X number of trials (you pick the number), (...)
if you "can" identify one device from the other with a high degree of statistical certainty, then (and only then) is it actually possible to evaluate sonic preferences or merit.

The idea is first to determine "if" you can actually tell them apart (they sound different from each other). Then, when it's firmly established that they do indeed sound distinct from one another, you listen again to decide which you like better. It's like pulling teeth, but this process must be taken in two separate steps to be worthwhile.

At least that's my take on it. However, YMMV.

Best Regards,
TerryO

My mileage does vary; That just sounds like a lot of machination for no good reason that I can see.

 

[Mister Pig]

+1:thmbsp:
What you have stated is certainly true and needs to be kept firmly in mind. It should also be understood that preference is actually a somewhat different situation.

If you can't reliably identify the sound of one device from another given X number of trials (you pick the number), then it would become primarily a choice of cost, appearence, features and other matters of taste or style. There is nothing wrong with choosing one device over another for purely aesthetic reasons, but let's not kid ourselves.

OTOH, if you "can" identify one device from the other with a high degree of statistical certainty, then (and only then) is it actually possible to evaluate sonic preferences or merit.

The idea is first to determine "if" you can actually tell them apart (they sound different from each other). Then, when it's firmly established that they do indeed sound distinct from one another, you listen again to decide which you like better. It's like pulling teeth, but this process must be taken in two separate steps to be worthwhile.

At least that's my take on it. However, YMMV.

Best Regards,
TerryO

In theory I love the idea of ABX testing. It certainly makes logical sense, at least to me. Now being able to execute it, well thats an entirely different issue. Especially for the solitary hobbyist.

The expense of switching systems that are "transparent" is cost prohibitive. There are those who would argue that they do not exist.

If you believe that high performance cabling makes a difference and is required to show the differences in components, then the cost of your wiring budget just doubled....which in some cases can be quite substantial. The issue of getting two speakers side by side to do an ABX comparison is not fair either. The ear may be able to localize position if both are in the room at the same time, Speaker drivers will interact with each other in that setting. If you swap speakers in and out, then another person is needed to do this, and my family members are certainly not going to play along with that.

When it comes to turntables, it gets even worse. You have to duplicate table, arm,and cartridge to conduct the test, swapping out one variable at a time. Once again cost prohibitive if you are using higher grade components. Who is going to invest in a pair of Transrotor Fatbob tables and Graham arms to do ABX tests on Koetsu and Shelter cartridges?

I have been able to do a few simple comparison tests myself over the last couple of years. One of them being a double blind of Apple Lossless versus uncompressed WAV files on a digital server I was working with. .After a bit of listening and identifying differences I hit 90% on the final run through. The computer did the randomized selection of tracks. I know that computer people will say that lossless compression means the data is identical, but there were differences and I identified them. Good enough for me.

On the flip side, I had a Rowland pre-amp that had level matching functions between inputs. So I could match gain levels between components. I made a comparison between my hot rodded digital music server and my DAC and transport combo. The computer system was not markedly better. Matter of fact it was in some ways worse. I then used the modified Squeezebox as a transport, and compared it against the EAD T1000 CD transport, my DAC has two digital inputs. I also had two matching digital cables. Guess what, no appreciable difference at all. The supposed superiority of hard drive playback did not materialize in this setting.

So I have tried to make unbiased comparisons with the limited skills and abilities to me. But I also believe that ABX testing is valid, its just extremely hard to execute. What I find is that people who call for its widespread use and justification of component selection do not use it themselves. Sure the argument is put forth that others, such as manufacturers should do it to justify the viability of their products. But for that group its always about someone else doing it. Why don't they lead by example? After all the genuine leaders and saviors of the lost and mislead will always say "I will never ask you to do something that I will not do myself." I have yet to meet many proponents of ABX testing that will set up a test themselves. If they do its one that can be simply run, like allowing a computer to select music files.

Regards
Mister Pig