Cable

[Get]

I heard about the "cablechallenge" and was told the challenge also was for other types of cable. Let's say I can hear the difference between a standard $4,- interlink and a more expensive one of $200,- would that count? I was told it would, but I have serious doubts.

[roger]

Yes, but they have to test the same. Some cables have components like capacitors and the like, and they can (obviously) alter the signal.

Otherwise, yes, test a $1 cable against a $20K cable, if you can find one. You pay for the cable, of course.

I assume you are talking about the JREF challenge, I have no idea about any other challenge.

Why would you doubt it? It has been proven that cables that test the same sound the same. heck, cables that don't test the same sound the same, until you get to really gross distortions.

[Get]

I'm talking about that challenge yes. They both are just cables with connectors and no other components other than solder I guess. I don't know if they test the same. How can I test that? Can anyone participate or are there terms? I ask that, because I read something about not everyone can take the challenge. I never heard 2 cables sound the same, so I'm very surprised someone would give me that amount of money for such a simple task or maybe I always heard very different testing/measuring cables. How can you take the challenge? Who must I contact and how? Thanx in advance :) .

[Denver]

Just curious: have you had anyone help you test this? For example, where they switched from one cable to the other, many times, while you listened, and insured during all the tests that you could not know which cable was being used? Or has all your testing been done by yourself alone?

[Fnord]

Check the rules. there's a link on the JREF home page.

We're just members here.

[Get]

I haven't done blind tests, but the differences are so great most of the time that I don't need that reassurance. Only thing is it must be done on my own system and cables shouldn't be linked through some sort of switchbox, but connected directly and switched by (dis)connecting the connectors, so you rule out that kind of possible interference.

[roger]

Okay, a few things.

First, the challenge has been changed such that you need media exposure to get tested. This is because JREF was spending most of their time with cranks or people that have never tested themselves, and it ended up being a waste of time. So, I'm not sure how easy it would be to get tested with cables now. You can but apply and see.*

Second, no one in the history of the world has been able to consistently distinguish cables in an audio environment in a blinded test. Ever. The why and details of that is beyond the scope of this thread, feel free to start a separate thread in science or community and dozens will be willing to discuss this with you. Most people then realize that they have been fooling themselves; a few cling to rationalizations about how the test is somehow unfair - too short a time between comparisons, too long between comparisons, not enough time for "burn in", an endless supply of excuses.

Third, cable testing. I don't know exactly what JREF would require in terms of cable testing - I imagine they might wave testing if cable one was shipped directly from Radio Shack (say), and the other cable from Nordost (say), and opened and unwrapped at the test sight. The point it obviously a cable with passive or active ingredients will sound different, and you also want to forestall trickery. But known cables shipped from a manufacture might allow you to not bother testing the cable. I don't promise that, it is possible.

Another aspect of the testing is that a super crappy cable just might have a bad enough connector that could cause a difference. Say you can't insert it all the way, or it is so loose it wiggles, etc. So these tests usually require some minimum cable - the ones from Radio Shack are usually considered perfectly fine. Something homemade from lamp cord probably not, because who knows how good your soldering and crimping skills are?


* the way to do that would be to apply to a regional challenge, win that, and then move on to Randi. We can help you find a regional challenge, if you are still interested after doing a blinded test on yourself. It's really unfair to people to expect them to spends a lot of their time, for free, setting up a test for you when you don't know that you can do it, yes? So test yourself blinded first.


edit: there are a few other obvious conditions. The cables need some minimal shielding and there can't be tons of interference around. you can easily imagine one cable is microphonic, and the other isn't, and you consistently pick out the one picking upthe neighbors cell phone. There's nothing supernatural about that. One can't be one tiny strand of wire, because that would have high resistance, which would cause an audible volume drop. The "test the same" evens the playing field in that regard - and a $20 Monster cable interconnect will test the same as a $21,000 Audioquest cable.

Google Randi and Pear cable to learn about the last time somebody tried to do this test.

[Get]

It's late here now and I'm going to sleep, so I can't go into everything now, but for one I'll do a blind test in advance, because that would be the minimum requierment for me too. You never know what happens after all. I'll be back.

[wardenclyffe]

* the way to do that would be to apply to a regional challenge, win that, and then move on to Randi. We can help you find a regional challenge, if you are still interested after doing a blinded test on yourself. It's really unfair to people to expect them to spends a lot of their time, for free, setting up a test for you when you don't know that you can do it, yes? So test yourself blinded first.


Get,

I don't know where you live, but here is a list of regional prizes that you might try for. Pick the one closest to you and keep us updated about your progress.

You might have trouble finding any takers if you have to use your own system. I know nothing about these things, but I'm guessing that someone experienced with electronics might be able to "fix" their own system so that it might have tell-tale signals that would be recognizable to that person alone.

For example, at recent meeting of my local skeptics group, we were listening to very high-pitched tones, like dog whistles. Some people could not hear them at all, and others (mostly people with younger ears) found them to be very annoying.

If you happen to have very acute hearing of high pitched tones, you might be able to rig your system to somehow recognize one cable over another and to cause a high pitched tone that you could hear, but most others couldn't.

Please note, I pretty much have no idea what I'm talking about, but these are the types of conversations that will happen behind closed doors of any skeptical organization to whom you might apply. My scenario above might have no merit at all, but skeptics will consult electronics experts to look for any way to game a system and it might end up that they will say "no" to the idea of you using your own system.

Anyway, here's that list of other (easier to enter) challenges:

There's the Australian Skeptics' AU$100,000 Prize
http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/
They also offer AU$20,000 as a "Spotter's Fee"

There's the IIG's US$50,000 Challenge in California, USA
http://www.iigwest.org/challenge.html
They also offer US$5,000 as a "Finder's Fee"

There's the North Texas Skeptic's US$12,000 Challenge in the USA
http://www.ntskeptics.org/challenge/challenge.htm

There's Prabir Ghosh's 2,000,000 Rupee Challenge in India
http://rationalistprabir.bravehost.com/

There's the Swedish 100,000SeK prize offered by Humanisterna
http://www.humanisterna.se/index.php...d=27&Itemid=49

The Tampa Bay Skeptics offers a US$1000 prize in Florida, USA
http://www.tampabayskeptics.org/challenges.html

In Canada there's the CAN$10,000 from the Quebec Skeptics
http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/activites/defi

In the UK, the ASKE organization offers £14,000
http://www.aske-skeptics.org.uk/challenge_rules.htm

Tony Youens in the UK offers £5,000
http://www.tonyyouens.com/challenge.htm

In Finland, Skepsis offers 10,000 Euros
http://www.skepsis.fi/haaste/

The Fayetteville Freethinkers in Arkansas, USA offer a US$1000 prize
http://fayfreethinkers.com/

There's a 1,000,000 Yuan prize in China offered by Sima Nan. This is his blog: http://blog.sina.com.cn/simanan

The Belgian SKEPP organization offers a 10,500 Euro prize
http://www.skepp.be/prijzen/de-sisyphus-prijs/

If you find any broken links, or know of any tests not on this list, please notify me in this thread.

Thanks,

Ward

[Get]

Thank you very much for the links. I live in the Netherlands, so Belgium would be fine. I know such a test is also a matter of trust. I would just use my own system which isn't rigged, but I know it very well. That's why. It's also possible to use the same system, but then a new one loaned by dealers maybe, but then I have to trust the system isn't rigged. I wouldn't know how to rig a system, but if I could I wouldn't do is, because I guess that would be found and besides that I'm an honest person. I'm sure you trust that ;) . I'll get back when I've done a blind test in my own home. That will take place somewhere between christmas and newyear.

[wardenclyffe]

Good luck! Keep us updated. We rarely get to hear about what it's like to work with skeptical groups other than JREF. I, for one, will be very interested to hear what it's like negotiating a test with SKEPP.

Again, good luck,

Ward

[welshdean]

Google Randi and Pear cable to learn about the last time somebody tried to do this test.


Allocate a lot of time for this, also read the Swift articles (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/search/?searchword=pear+cables&ordering=newest&searchphrase=exact&limit=20) on the Pear Cables.

Good luck!

[Get]

I will read a lot more Swift articles. Just read a piece of More denial of death and that was interesting considering some experiences I had which I can't prove btw :). Nice readingstuff. ps.: Yes, I will take a lot of time. I know the difficulties involved with such a test.

[Get]

Forgot to mention, but your last link gives an incomplete page. The last part of the link " de-sisyphus-prijs " must be " sisyphus-prijs-€10000 ".

[wardenclyffe]

Thank you.

Ward

[Ladewig]

I would very much like to hear how you will set up the blind test and what the results are.

[jj]

Second, no one in the history of the world has been able to consistently distinguish cables in an audio environment in a blinded test.

This is not exactly true. For instance, a reasonable DBT did distinguish between too-thin speaker wire (#22 of a fair length) and #14 AWG wire.

But this is hardly surprising.

For interconnect cables, the first thing you have to do is try a blinded test, just to be sure you're not focusing on the wrong thing. See http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt.htm and look for "Why do we hear what we hear? " There is also an MP3 of the talk up at: http://thewombforums.com/audio/jj_cns.mp3

Make sure this kind of thing isn't going on before you attempt more.

Then, make sure you don't have a busted cable, or an insufficient cable, etc. Nothing keeps people from making bad cables, even expensive ones. Also, make sure you don't have one of the cables with a network in it, or with a resistor in series to make a small lp filter, etc.

Those aren't "surprising" and aren't anti-Physical, and aren't paranormal.

[MRC_Hans]

Thank you very much for the links. I live in the Netherlands, so Belgium would be fine. I know such a test is also a matter of trust. I would just use my own system which isn't rigged, but I know it very well. That's why. It's also possible to use the same system, but then a new one loaned by dealers maybe, but then I have to trust the system isn't rigged. I wouldn't know how to rig a system, but if I could I wouldn't do is, because I guess that would be found and besides that I'm an honest person. I'm sure you trust that ;) . I'll get back when I've done a blind test in my own home. That will take place somewhere between christmas and newyear.

How would a system be 'rigged'? You are using the same system for both cables, so any property of the system would be immaterial.

Ask yourself this: When we measure a cable, and find no difference, then the signals getting through them are exactly the same. How can they give different sound, then?

Hans

[wardenclyffe]

I brought it up, but I'm sorry, I have no idea how a system could be rigged. I also know absolutely nothing about electronics. I don't know how vending machines can tell one coin from another, but they are rigged to do so. I would imagine that someone who was clever about electronics might be able to figure out a way to rig a tuner or a speaker to recognize the connector that was just plugged into it. Whether it's by weight or copper content or shape of it's terminal end (I've seen some that are completely rounded vs. a little pointy). I frankly have no idea how one would go about it, but I'm guessing that for a million dollars, a clever electronics expert could figure out a way.

Again, I'm guessing that it could be done. I'm not accusing anyone of doing it. I just think that any testing organization will raise an eyebrow if an applicant demands to use his own system that he's had for years and that the testing organization has never seen until the day of the test.

I readily admit that I might be completely wrong, but I was trying to warn Get about some of the objections he might encounter as he proceeded with his quest.

Ward

[MRC_Hans]

I brought it up, but I'm sorry, I have no idea how a system could be rigged. I also know absolutely nothing about electronics. I don't know how vending machines can tell one coin from another, but they are rigged to do so. I would imagine that someone who was clever about electronics might be able to figure out a way to rig a tuner or a speaker to recognize the connector that was just plugged into it. Whether it's by weight or copper content or shape of it's terminal end (I've seen some that are completely rounded vs. a little pointy). I frankly have no idea how one would go about it, but I'm guessing that for a million dollars, a clever electronics expert could figure out a way.

Again, I'm guessing that it could be done. I'm not accusing anyone of doing it. I just think that any testing organization will raise an eyebrow if an applicant demands to use his own system that he's had for years and that the testing organization has never seen until the day of the test.

I readily admit that I might be completely wrong, but I was trying to warn Get about some of the objections he might encounter as he proceeded with his quest.

Ward

But now Get seems to insist on his own gear for fear of rigging the other way around. Both would be avoided by using gear from an independent source.

Hans

[Ririon]

But now Get seems to insist on his own gear for fear of rigging the other way around. Both would be avoided by using gear from an independent source.

Hans
It could all be avoided by the age-old trick: The simple and informal self-test. Feared and shunned by prospective challengers for decades for some reason. :p

[wardenclyffe]

But now Get seems to insist on his own gear for fear of rigging the other way around. Both would be avoided by using gear from an independent source.

Hans

Get seemed to be somewhat agreeable to that idea earlier in the thread. There are practical issues like buying (and then returning) a new system. I also don't know that the skeptical group in Belgium would insist on such a thing. I was just trying to think like a skeptical testing group to warn Get about obstacles that might have to be overcome.

Ward

[MRC_Hans]

It could all be avoided by the age-old trick: The simple and informal self-test. Feared and shunned by prospective challengers for decades for some reason. :p

Yeah....

Hans

[Mojo]

I haven't done blind tests, but the differences are so great most of the time that I don't need that reassurance.


Seriously, get a friend to help you with a blinded and randomised test. Listen to something 20 times, with it randomly (not just swapping each time) either going via the cheap or expensive cable, and see how many you can get right.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman

You will always tend to "hear" what you expect to hear.

[MRC_Hans]

Seriously, get a friend to help you with a blinded and randomised test. Listen to something 20 times, with it randomly (not just swapping each time) either going via the cheap or expensive cable, and see how many you can get right.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman

You will always tend to "hear" what you expect to hear.

Protocol:

Set up the gear, so your helper can swap the cables. Put up a screen so you can't see your helper or what he/she is doing.

Label you cables A and B.

Make two lists, with three columns. One for you, one for your helper.
No A B
1
2
3
.
.
.
20

Take the same piece of music (or whatever).

Now, your helper rolls a dice, and if it is even connects cabel A, if uneven cable B, marks his/her list A or B as appropriate, calls out "Number one", and starts the music. When you have decided which cable you are hearing, mark your list accordingly, and say "Done".

You helper now disconnects the cable, rolls the dice, etc. till all 20 tests are done.

Now you compare your lists. Count the right and wrong.

10 right is random chance
11 right is 25% random chance
12 right is 12.5% random chance

etc...

If you get better than 15 right, do the test again. If you still get better than 15 right, apply for the MDC.

Hans

[Mojo]

Protocol:

Set up the gear, so your helper can swap the cables. Put up a screen so you can't see your helper or what he/she is doing.

Label you cables A and B.

Make two lists, with three columns. One for you, one for your helper.
No A B
1
2
3
.
.
.
20

Take the same piece of music (or whatever).

Now, your helper rolls a dice, and if it is even connects cabel A, if uneven cable B, marks his/her list A or B as appropriate, calls out "Number one", and starts the music. When you have decided which cable you are hearing, mark your list accordingly, and say "Done".

You helper now disconnects the cable, rolls the dice, etc. till all 20 tests are done.

Now you compare your lists. Count the right and wrong.

10 right is random chance
11 right is 25% random chance
12 right is 12.5% random chance

etc...

If you get better than 15 right, do the test again. If you still get better than 15 right, apply for the MDC.


Or better than 15 wrong. If he can get it wrong significantly more than half the time, he could still apply on that basis.

[Denver]

Also, turn all power off between swaps: there could be some artifact on the connector that gives some kind of telltale buzz or click upon connect.

ETA: Unless you're using an A/B switch - though that might not be a good idea, since the wires from there could be blamed for some testing failures.

[Blue Mountain]

Protocol:

Set up the gear, so your helper can swap the cables. Put up a screen so you can't see your helper or what he/she is doing.

Label you cables A and B.

(snip)


I'd recommend an unblinded test first, to determine the difference between the A and the B cables that you believe you should be listening for.

[sadhatter]

Call me cynical, but i think the op is one of those " i found a flaw in the MDC" applicants.

Once the concept of not using his system ( which would be a priority. ) was brought up he seems to have quickly went away.

I tend to distinguish these people by lack of information on the challenge, ( usually they hear about it from a friend and do not look beyond what they think they can beat. In this case " tell the difference between two cables.") , lack of interest in setting up a proper trial ( differentiated from the deluded by the fact they usually will quibble at length. While these folks tend to have their "challenge breaker" setup already in mind and if its not used , they know they won't win. ) , and general " just stumbled into here" nature.

Can't blame a person for trying. But the mdc is designed to weed out people who think they have found a flaw. I would suggest, to anyone who thinks they have, don't waste the posts. Your trick will be thwarted, and more than likely before you even apply.

[Ohforf]

...
I'll get back when I've done a blind test in my own home. That will take place somewhere between christmas and newyear.
Lets be patient and wait for him to come back. :whistling

[jj]

I'd recommend an unblinded test first, to determine the difference between the A and the B cables that you believe you should be listening for.

Which is why the right test method is an ABX test. A and B are always "cable A" and "cable B". The listener ALWAYS has the reference to knowing exactly which is A and which is B, and never has to wonder or doubt this.

All the listener has to do is to identify 'X', presented in a blind fashion, directly.

[MRC_Hans]

I'd recommend an unblinded test first, to determine the difference between the A and the B cables that you believe you should be listening for.

This is an acceptable step, but not part of the test.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Which is why the right test method is an ABX test. A and B are always "cable A" and "cable B". The listener ALWAYS has the reference to knowing exactly which is A and which is B, and never has to wonder or doubt this.

All the listener has to do is to identify 'X', presented in a blind fashion, directly.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What is cable X? There are only two cables.

Hans

[brodski]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What is cable X? There are only two cables.

Hans

The listener listens to three recordings; one with cable A, one with cable B and one with either cable A or B (selected using randomised double blind means). The third cable is cable X, the listener needs to decided if cable X was cable A or B.

[MRC_Hans]

The listener listens to three recordings; one with cable A, one with cable B and one with either cable A or B (selected using randomised double blind means). The third cable is cable X, the listener needs to decided if cable X was cable A or B.

No, that is not a good method. It gives a 50/50 chance of guessing right.

The listener should be tasked with discering which cable sounds 'best', and this should conicide with the 'right' cable a sufficient number of times, in order to rule out coincidence.

Hans

[brodski]

No, that is not a good method. It gives a 50/50 chance of guessing right.

The listener should be tasked with discering which cable sounds 'best', and this should conicide with the 'right' cable a sufficient number of times, in order to rule out coincidence.

Hans

How does your option not also give a 50/50 chance of guessing right?

ABX tests can be repeated often enough to rule out coincidence in the same way that AB tests can.

[MRC_Hans]

How does your option not also give a 50/50 chance of guessing right?

ABX tests can be repeated often enough to rule out coincidence in the same way that AB tests can.If you repeat the ABX test, how is it different from the protocol I suggested?

Do you suggest a reference listening every round, like A-B-X; A-B-X; ...etc?

I fail to see the purpose of that; it will only make the test take 3 times longer.

Hans

[brodski]

If you repeat the ABX test, how is it different from the protocol I suggested?

Do you suggest a reference listening every round, like A-B-X; A-B-X; ...etc?

I fail to see the purpose of that; it will only make the test take 3 times longer.

Hans


To be honest you would have to ask JJ, he's the expert here.

[Gr8wight]

This is an acceptable step, but not part of the test.

Hans

While not, perhaps, necessary during a self test, this is an important step in any official challenge test. It is important for the applicant to demonstrate that he or she can do what is claimed in an unblinded test first, in order to rule out a later claim that there were confounding factors preventing success during the test.

[jj]

No, that is not a good method. It gives a 50/50 chance of guessing right.

The listener should be tasked with discering which cable sounds 'best', and this should conicide with the 'right' cable a sufficient number of times, in order to rule out coincidence.

Hans


Sorry, Hans, this is a terribly insensitive test you suggest. You're testing preference, rather than difference. If you read the literature, you'll find out that difference testing is more sensitive. If you want a sensitive test, do not test preference. It's really that simple.

As far as replication, of COURSE you have to repeat this the same number of trials you'd have to repeat an AB preference test. Duh... Why would you imagine otherwise?

But an ABX test has shown better sensitivity. That's the point.

Do I expect this cable to show up? Not unless it's got some kind of network in it, implicit or explicit, no, not a chance. I've seen a lot of cable tests, and except (as I said above) for one where a deliberately too-small speaker cable was used, everyone was inside of the 25% space, which is just random.

I have had connectors show up in a blind test, but they were, to use a simple word, defective. So, again, no shock there, yes? What's more, unplugging them and plugging them in again scraped off the oxide layer, and then they sounded the same as everything else. The joys of RCA connectors, some of the lousiest, and ubiquitous, connecters around.

Tasking the listener with determining which sounds "best" is nothing more than a way to desensitize the test. Period. If you do that, and the subject agrees, well, fine. I don't expect any results there, either, unless the cable has actual, testable, measurable electrical properties. Some do, of course, and you should be on the lookout for that. Nothing paranormal in too-small conductors, series resistors, etc.

I've even made such a cable to yank somebody's chain a long time ago. Just put a 1/8 watt, 220 ohm resistor INSIDE the barrel of the RCA connector and soldered it in series. Presto. Lowpass filter (cable capacitance).

I guess I also have to be clear, I have heard an audible difference in one other speaker cable case. An early set of "matched impedence" speaker cables that had an undogly amount of capacitance were connected to a highly acclaimed amplifier known to be marginally stable. The result was audible (crackling of burning parts), visible (smoke rising from the amp) and olfactory (PHEEEEW). I didn't touch the burning parts or try to taste them. :)

[jj]

This is an acceptable step, but not part of the test.

Hans

This is the "listener training" part of the test.

Untrained listeners are much less sensitive.

If you can do this with the listener's own listening setup in their own space, that may be the best, then you can dodge both real issues of this kind (which exist but are not the killer here, I expect) and massive, rampant, rampaging excuses after the DBT fails.

Been there.

[MRC_Hans]

I did not suggest a test for the MDC. For self-test, I assume the listener has the training he/she wants.

I really don't care it it's called preference or difference. I only care if the listener can tell one cable from another, by listening. If they can't, I take the liberty to assume none exists (asuming there is no measurable difference).

Hans

[jj]

I did not suggest a test for the MDC. For self-test, I assume the listener has the training he/she wants.

I really don't care it it's called preference or difference. I only care if the listener can tell one cable from another, by listening. If they can't, I take the liberty to assume none exists (asuming there is no measurable difference).

Hans

Well, actually, if you're listening for preference, no, you can't be as comfortable assuming that there is no audible difference. However, if there is no measurable difference, I'm not very worried about otherwise.

Difference is more sensitive, and time-proximate difference testing is the best thing known for uncontrolled (i.e. listener-selected) stimulii.

Of course, you can do what you wish.

[Blue Mountain]

What are the chances a trained engineer could tell the difference by examining the output at the speaker using an instrument such as a scope? In my opinion probably not, but I'm not a sound engineer.

[MRC_Hans]

Well, actually, if you're listening for preference, no, you can't be as comfortable assuming that there is no audible difference. However, if there is no measurable difference, I'm not very worried about otherwise.

Difference is more sensitive, and time-proximate difference testing is the best thing known for uncontrolled (i.e. listener-selected) stimulii.

Of course, you can do what you wish.

I wish to buy and use cheap cables ;)

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

What are the chances a trained engineer could tell the difference by examining the output at the speaker using an instrument such as a scope? In my opinion probably not, but I'm not a sound engineer.

No chance with a scope. A white noise generator and a spectrum analyzer is what you need.

You can't see even audible distortion with a scope, unless you have a reference signal to overlay, and even then ..... :nope:

Hans

[Blue Mountain]

No chance with a scope. A white noise generator and a spectrum analyzer is what you need. (snip)
Hans
Thanks. Do you think it would it be possible to reliably determine the difference between to different sets of cables with that equipment, in an otherwise blinded test?

[Kid Eager]

I've been into audio for what seems like forever, and this obsession with cables at the expense of more relevant aspects seems to be a perpetual feature. It's like having a car and worrying about which colour paint gives better fuel economy, but never checking tyre pressures.

[MRC_Hans]

Thanks. Do you think it would it be possible to reliably determine the difference between to different sets of cables with that equipment, in an otherwise blinded test?

If there IS a difference, then yes. I don't believe there will be one between a good standard cable and some expensive high-end cable. ... For signal cables, that is. Speaker cables can make a lot of difference, but in my experience, what counts is copper gauge. 4-wire, too, if your speakers are really built for it.

Hans

[jj]

No chance with a scope. A white noise generator and a spectrum analyzer is what you need.

You can't see even audible distortion with a scope, unless you have a reference signal to overlay, and even then ..... :nope:

Hans

Quite.

If you're using sine input (which only excites some issues) your best resort is a distortion analyzer with the residual output run into a spectrum analyzer.

If you're using multitone (which is what I'd do), you should use a good 20 bit ADC and do the work in a computer. Figure a 2^18th length signal (in samples) at the very least.

Use an allpass sequence to measure frequency response and impulse response.

Use a shorted input to check for noise input.

Put 1V DC on it, and then tap the cable to check for microphonics issues in the cable dielectric.

[jj]

I've been into audio for what seems like forever, and this obsession with cables at the expense of more relevant aspects seems to be a perpetual feature. It's like having a car and worrying about which colour paint gives better fuel economy, but never checking tyre pressures.

Seeing somebody spending 1K USD for cables when not applying any room treatment? Yeah.

Speaker cables? Zip cord. I know one of the best listening rooms in the world is wired with zip cord.

[Blue Mountain]

Quite.

If you're using sine input (which only excites some issues) your best resort is a distortion analyzer with the residual output run into a spectrum analyzer.

If you're using multitone (which is what I'd do), you should use a good 20 bit ADC and do the work in a computer. Figure a 2^18th length signal (in samples) at the very least.

Use an allpass sequence to measure frequency response and impulse response.

Use a shorted input to check for noise input.

Put 1V DC on it, and then tap the cable to check for microphonics issues in the cable dielectric.
That whooshing noise you hear is the sound of all that going over my head :D

Which is probably something you'll never hear an audiophile say.

[MRC_Hans]

Seeing somebody spending 1K USD for cables when not applying any room treatment? Yeah.

Speaker cables? Zip cord. I know one of the best listening rooms in the world is wired with zip cord.Agreed in the zip cord. As heavy gauge as you want to bother with, and if you are into really heavy gauge, a medium-prized speaker cable may be nice for the flexibility, but otherwise ....

I once calculated that if you take a 56-lead flat cable and connect the leads alternately, you can actually approach a charateristic impedance of 8 ohms, but I doubt it gives you much advantage over heavy gauge copper. Impedance match only really makes a difference for leads of 1/4 wavelenght or more, and the wavelength of 100KHz being a couple of miles, I sincerely doubt it is worth the trouble. Flat cables are nice for routing under a carpet, however, if you need that.:p

Hans

[Kid Eager]

Agreed in the zip cord. As heavy gauge as you want to bother with, and if you are into really heavy gauge, a medium-prized speaker cable may be nice for the flexibility, but otherwise ....

I once calculated that if you take a 56-lead flat cable and connect the leads alternately, you can actually approach a charateristic impedance of 8 ohms, but I doubt it gives you much advantage over heavy gauge copper. Impedance match only really makes a difference for leads of 1/4 wavelenght or more, and the wavelength of 100KHz being a couple of miles, I sincerely doubt it is worth the trouble. Flat cables are nice for routing under a carpet, however, if you need that.:p

Hans

That looks very convincing, but if you don't want to fall foul of people who want to baffle you with math (you know the sort I mean...), you could put in some cables that your gut tells you are right, then fine-tune them with Brilliant Pebbles:
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm

As I said previously, I've been into audio for ages, and the products from these guys have help enormously in achieving high-cost audio outcomes.

I've also come up with a couple of innovations myself.

[MRC_Hans]

That looks very convincing, but if you don't want to fall foul of people who want to baffle you with math (you know the sort I mean...), you could put in some cables that your gut tells you are right, then fine-tune them with Brilliant Pebbles:
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm



I'm never quite sure if these guys are joking or not. I suspect some of those things started out as jokes.

Hans

[Aitch]

That looks very convincing, but if you don't want to fall foul of people who want to baffle you with math (you know the sort I mean...), you could put in some cables that your gut tells you are right, then fine-tune them with Brilliant Pebbles:


You use these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles#Brilliant_Pebbles) on your hi-fi? Wow. :jaw-dropp

[Aitch]

That whooshing noise you hear is the sound of all that going over my head :D

Which is probably something you'll never hear an audiophile say.

Well, I found the whooshing noise well defined in the bass and treble, but the middle was a bit muddled which affected the stereo separation rather badly. :cool:

[Kid Eager]

I'm never quite sure if these guys are joking or not. I suspect some of those things started out as jokes.

Hans

It started off as a Poe that was nevertheless not quite ridiculous enough. They've upped the ante with the absurdity of the products to make it even more obvious that the whole thing is a parody, but people will still no doubt try to buy stuff.

Audio seem to be extraordinarily rich in woo.

[Get]

I didn't do the test yet. I'm in the process of changing amp and I will do it when the amp is there. I've got 3 options and choosing will take some time. I could've done it with one of my amps, but I'm in no rush so I postponed it. It will be an ab-test. I will be out of the room when someone will switch cables (or not). The points where you can see the cables will be made invisible to me. Don't think I will not do it, because I have no reason not to. If I can't hear it in such conditions, so be it.

[MRC_Hans]

I didn't do the test yet. I'm in the process of changing amp and I will do it when the amp is there. I've got 3 options and choosing will take some time. I could've done it with one of my amps, but I'm in no rush so I postponed it. It will be an ab-test. I will be out of the room when someone will switch cables (or not). The points where you can see the cables will be made invisible to me. Don't think I will not do it, because I have no reason not to. If I can't hear it in such conditions, so be it.

If you have no reason not to test, why postpone it?

Hans

[Get]

If you have no reason not to test, why postpone it?

Hans


The answer is in my post : "I'm in no rush so I postponed it."

[Dumb All Over]

The answer is in my post : "I'm in no rush so I postponed it."
If I thought I had a legitimate chance of relieving Mr. Randi of his million dollars, I'd do it as quickly as possible. Time is money, friend. You are losing out on compounded interest.

[MRC_Hans]

The answer is in my post : "I'm in no rush so I postponed it."

Quite. I was wondering why you are in no rush.:rolleyes:

Hans

[Get]

We have a saying in Holland that getting into a rush most of the time isn't a smart thing to do. I'm in no desperate need of $1.000.000,-, so I'm not in a rush. Simple as that.

[MRC_Hans]

We have a saying in Holland that getting into a rush most of the time isn't a smart thing to do. I'm in no desperate need of $1.000.000,-, so I'm not in a rush. Simple as that.

Suit yourself. :rolleyes:

On a side note: Seems that saying doesn't apply to Dutch traffic. :boggled:

Hans

[Shrike]

Get, if you want to I am willing to assist. For a percentage of course.
Do you live nearby?

[jj]

I once calculated that if you take a 56-lead flat cable and connect the leads alternately, you can actually approach a charateristic impedance of 8 ohms, but I doubt it gives you much advantage over heavy gauge copper.

Whenever you do that, you really have to pay attention to the shunt capacitance and how it's going to interact with your amp.

"things" have happened due to too much shunt capacitance in a cable.

And, of course, until you get to 1/10 wavelength there is NO, repeat ZERO, issue here to speak of. You have that right. :)

AT 1 foot/nanosecond, for a period of 50 milliseconds, that's 5000 feet at least. 2500 in a very slow propagation cable at 1/2 C.

[MRC_Hans]

Whenever you do that, you really have to pay attention to the shunt capacitance and how it's going to interact with your amp.

"things" have happened due to too much shunt capacitance in a cable.

Actually not. If you really achieve an impedance match, the cable will act non-reactive. .... Whether any amplifier outputs exist that are non-reactive at the specified output impedance over even a fraction of their frequency range is quite another question. ;)

- I'm not saying impedance match is going to make the sound better, but at least it is something audiophiles could pursue that would have some kind of roots in the real world. :rolleyes:

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Get, if you want to I am willing to assist. For a percentage of course.
Do you live nearby?

I'm sure he lives nearby.

... The question is nearby what.

Hans

[jj]

Actually not. If you really achieve an impedance match, the cable will act non-reactive. .... Whether any amplifier outputs exist that are non-reactive at the specified output impedance over even a fraction of their frequency range is quite another question. ;)

- I'm not saying impedance match is going to make the sound better, but at least it is something audiophiles could pursue that would have some kind of roots in the real world. :rolleyes:

Hans

Except that into any normal amplifier there isn o such thing as an "impedence match". Any modern amplifier has an output impedence in the milliohms. The best loudspeaker in the world (that isn't an active one) has at least a 2:1 variation in impedence around the woofer/enclosure resonance, and the "mean midband" is going to be in the neighborhood of 4 to 8. How you match milliohms to 4 to 8 via a cable is not for this world of physics. Don't forget that the load impedence rating for an audio amplifier is NOT the output impedence.

And given that one can take an impedence meter, and measure the impedence of such a cable (I've done it) and measure close to 1 nanofarad, well, the real world doesn't give you anything close to non-reactive. I'm talking real numbers in the real world here.

Lest you think that 1 nanofarad is unrealistic, well, let's say I was surprised as well. The amplifer it was connected to was much more than merely surprised, it let out the magic smoke, and blew its fuses. I don't think they used these fuses, though:

http://www.aaudioimports.com/ShowProduct.asp?hProduct=37

. . .

[Femke]

I'm sure he lives nearby.

... The question is nearby what.

Hans

I think Shrike meant to ask if Get lives near Waddinxveen. Which is in Holland, and Get suggests that he is Dutch. Are you, Get?

[MRC_Hans]

Except that into any normal amplifier there isn o such thing as an "impedence match". Any modern amplifier has an output impedence in the milliohms.

You can feed a transmission line from a low impedance transmitter. No problem in itself, and often done in high speed logic.

The best loudspeaker in the world (that isn't an active one) has at least a 2:1 variation in impedence around the woofer/enclosure resonance, and the "mean midband" is going to be in the neighborhood of 4 to 8.

And that is the impedance you would try to match.

How you match milliohms to 4 to 8 via a cable is not for this world of physics.

You don't. You match the transmission line (cable) to the load.

Don't forget that the load impedence rating for an audio amplifier is NOT the output impedence.

Of course not.

And given that one can take an impedence meter, and measure the impedence of such a cable (I've done it) and measure close to 1 nanofarad, well, the real world doesn't give you anything close to non-reactive.

A nF won't surprise me at all, but that is also a negligible capacity for a low-impedance AF circuit. However, in a transmission line, you can't just measure the capacity (or inductance, for that matter). It is the combination, and it does provide a non-reactive connection, when it works.

I'm talking real numbers in the real world here.

Oh, I completely agree that characteristic impedance match is entirely academic, for audio connections in general and speaker cables in particular. I just pointed out that at least it was, unlike most HiFi tweaks, not complete fiction.

Lest you think that 1 nanofarad is unrealistic, well, let's say I was surprised as well. The amplifer it was connected to was much more than merely surprised, it let out the magic smoke, and blew its fuses.

Mmmm, I don't think it was the nanofarad that did that, in itself. Probably some resonance, or something like that. OR, as I have sometimes seen, the AMP can't really stand being faced with the specified load, and depends on a lossy cable for survival. :p

I don't think they used these fuses, though:

http://www.aaudioimports.com/ShowProduct.asp?hProduct=37

. . .

Oh I have seen audiophiles staunchly claim benefit from polishing the end-caps on their main power line fuses. :rolleyes:

There seems no end to the hilarity in that branch.

Hans

[jj]

A nF won't surprise me at all, but that is also a negligible capacity for a low-impedance AF circuit.


Actually, it's not. If you take a look at any modern amplifier, there is an inductor in the output circuit after the feedback point (not very big inductor of course) in order to prevent issues with capacitive loads. For some amps, 1 nF has been, previously, easily enough to simply push them over the edge.

One of the very visible issues in some early transistor amplifiers that had substantial negative feedback was a lack of such inductor, and as a result, "smoke gets in your eyes". You may argue it's a bad design. I agree. But the one in question was an acclaimed audiophile design. What more do I need to say?


Oh I have seen audiophiles staunchly claim benefit from polishing the end-caps on their main power line fuses. :rolleyes:

There seems no end to the hilarity in that branch.

Hans

They are special, on that we can agree.

Back to this test, we'll see if any kind of blind test happens, I think. I've heard so many excuses for why blind tests don't work that I'm very tired of the lot, but they all come down to "but I heard something in a sighted test".

There's a good story or 3 about sighted testing of various audio systems...

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, it's not. If you take a look at any modern amplifier, there is an inductor in the output circuit after the feedback point (not very big inductor of course) in order to prevent issues with capacitive loads. For some amps, 1 nF has been, previously, easily enough to simply push them over the edge.

Well, since 2 nF is not more thna you can expect from a cable of some lenght, I would rate that as poor design.

One of the very visible issues in some early transistor amplifiers that had substantial negative feedback was a lack of such inductor, and as a result, "smoke gets in your eyes". You may argue it's a bad design. I agree. But the one in question was an acclaimed audiophile design. What more do I need to say?

Bad design.:p

They are special, on that we can agree.

The irritating thing is that the 5% sensible stuff is totally drowned in all the bovine excrement.


Back to this test, we'll see if any kind of blind test happens, I think. I've heard so many excuses for why blind tests don't work that I'm very tired of the lot, but they all come down to "but I heard something in a sighted test".


In this case, "I'm in no rush" at least seems to be honest. Who is in a rush to get their delusions shattered? ;)

Hans

[jj]

The irritating thing is that the 5% sensible stuff is totally drowned in all the bovine excrement.

And room treatment is cheaper than many of these fertilizer products, and unquestionably worth more in terms of the results.

[MRC_Hans]

Room treatment? Is that improving the acoustics of the room?


Hans

[jj]

Room treatment? Is that improving the acoustics of the room?


Hans

Yep, you know, things like absorbing first reflections, diffusing specular reflections ...

All good, boring science. And cheap, compared to some of the cables you can buy...

For instance:

www.silentsource.com

But not:

http://www.shunmook.com/text1.htm

[jsfisher]

But not:

http://www.shunmook.com/text1.htm

I can't believe you are saying that. Just look at the this product, the LP Record Clamp. It's from the swamps of Africa! How can you even question something like this that produces "expanded sound staging, enhanced separation, sharpened focus and enriched tonal balance of the music"?

You are just being all negative and scientific.
;)


F. LP Record Clamp
A legendary Shun Mook product now being made in a very, very limited number. This record clamp is made from extremely rare pieces of dried ebony briar. This extra heavy century old ebony root which were immersed in the swamps of Africa has a unique power that no other wood possesses. The vibration generated by the diamond stylus in the vinyl groove besides inducing an electroflux through the phono-cartridge also excites the ebony molecules, causing it to resonate. This in turn is feed back through the stylus and is reproduced as expanded sound staging, enhanced separation, sharpened focus and enriched tonal balance of the music. Due to the rareness of this timber, there is no doubt that it will become a collector item in the future.

[Get]

I think Shrike meant to ask if Get lives near Waddinxveen. Which is in Holland, and Get suggests that he is Dutch. Are you, Get?


Yes.

In this case, "I'm in no rush" at least seems to be honest. Who is in a rush to get their delusions shattered? ;)


Indeed, now I can keep dreaming I hear a difference.

btw. Still in the amplifierbuyingcycle.

[MRC_Hans]

Indeed, now I can keep dreaming I hear a difference.

btw. Still in the amplifierbuyingcycle.

Yes, so after youbuyanamplifier, you can defer testing further as you will now be in the gettoknowmynewamplifierphase.

(Strange accent, these Dutch)

Hans :p

[Gr8wight]

Still in the amplifierbuyingcycle.

I remember when I was new in the audio business, and I asked a co-worker what equipment a true audiophile would buy. His reply? Don't be silly, true audiophiles never actually buy anything. They just talk about it forever.

[Get]

@MRC Hans: In the meantime maybe you can get in thepuberalphase, because you seem to be stuck in the prepubertyzone (strange accent, no?).

@Gr8wight: so, your co-worker didn't know what he was talking about. What exactly is your point?

[MRC_Hans]

Well, IMHO, chainingwordstogetherwithoutspaces is a strange accent, Dutch or not.

In my age, being accused of adolescent behavior is a compliment. :roll:

Hans

[Gr8wight]

@Gr8wight: so, your co-worker didn't know what he was talking about. What exactly is your point?

My co-worker was making a joke, but it seems to have stung you a bit...

[jj]

My co-worker was making a joke, but it seems to have stung you a bit...

The best irony has a substantial helping of truth, eh? :)

I think at this point we're in the "dontholdyourbreathwaitingforthis" cycle, myself.

[Ladewig]

deleted by user

[Francois2807]

Boy! you guys are smart! This whole discussion is just beyond me.lol

[Shrike]

Get, if you want to I am willing to assist. For a percentage of course.
Do you live nearby?

Hi Get.

It's been over a month, but my offer still stands. Any news?

[Gr8wight]

Hi Get.

It's been over a month, but my offer still stands. Any news?

Get is still shopping for an amp. He'll Get back to us in a year or two with a progress report. By that time he'll have it narrowed down to two or three possibilities...until the new lines come out.

[Ladewig]

I didn't post this before because I didn't want to look antagonistic.

Now, I don't care so much.

http://xkcd.com/841/

[Christian Klippel]

But the one in question was an acclaimed audiophile design. What more do I need to say?

Back in the "good old times" when some of my friends were into that audiophile stuff, i had the chance to look in quite a few such "high end" amplifiers. It seems that they are mostly built by a simple set of rules:

1) Either take a ridiculously simple circuit design, or take an excessively complex one.

2) In case of the simple one, reduce it even more, because more parts = more bad bad-sound-sources. In case of the complex one, add more parts because few parts = too simple a thing.

3) Create the actual layout so that it looks very good. Do not care about engineering aspects. It just has to look damn good.

4) Have the boards hand-soldered by 12 year olds. If you can't employ 12 year olds, any old bloke who can't solder properly will do as well. Improvise as much as possible and claim it comes with "built-in tweaks" already.

5) Have someone make an enclosure and knobs that together weighs half a ton. The more weight the better it will sound, they think.

6) Profit!

As a bonus you can sell an audiophile power cable as an extra. Make sure it looks shiny and the price tag is at least half of that of the amplifier. However, if you do that you never ever can tell the customer about the many hundred meters of really, really thin copper wire in the transformers primary.

Greetings,

Chris

[Gr8wight]

K8E_zMLCRNg

[Get]

The atmosphere here is like to be expected, but no less uncomfortable. Just to please you...I couldn't hear a difference between two cables blindfolded, so there's no difference. I haven't got a new amp yet, but did it with an old not so great amp, but that must do for now. If the story continues I won't share it here, unless it's worthwhile to share ( "I won some money!" or something along those lines). Maybe the only real conclusion I can draw now is that the "somewhat hostile" atmosphere among non-believers (which I haven't encountered only here) makes the knowers less interested to prove anything to the people causing that atmosphere. Score for the time being : non-believers-knowers: 1-0. halftime.

[Cuddles]

The atmosphere here is like to be expected, but no less uncomfortable. Just to please you...I couldn't hear a difference between two cables blindfolded, so there's no difference. I haven't got a new amp yet, but did it with an old not so great amp, but that must do for now. If the story continues I won't share it here, unless it's worthwhile to share ( "I won some money!" or something along those lines). Maybe the only real conclusion I can draw now is that the "somewhat hostile" atmosphere among non-believers (which I haven't encountered only here) makes the knowers less interested to prove anything to the people causing that atmosphere. Score for the time being : non-believers-knowers: 1-0. halftime.

Knowers? Since it appears you were wrong about your claim, what exactly is it that you think you know?

[Shrike]

Yes Get, you will get some reactions which are not so nice. I could say that you could grow a somewhat thicker skin.
Or better still, prove 'them' wrong. And how much more wrong can they be with a cool million dollars in your pocket (€ 722.856,73 as per today*)? And see some of the other entries in this sub-forum for the other cash prices you can win as well.

* Not sure how much our taxes take from this of course.

[Shrike]

DP

[MRC_Hans]

The atmosphere here is like to be expected, but no less uncomfortable. Just to please you...I couldn't hear a difference between two cables blindfolded, so there's no difference.

Thanks for your honesty. However, the only conclusion you can safely draw is that ... you couldn't hear a difference.

Now this is just to introduce you to a little scientific thinking, I do, of course, agree with you: There is no difference.

I haven't got a new amp yet, but did it with an old not so great amp, but that must do for now.

Obviously, the amp shouldn't be critical as long as its a good one. After all, its the cable you are testing, not the amp.

If the story continues I won't share it here, unless it's worthwhile to share

In fact that is generally a good idea when communicating with others: Only share what is worthwhile to share.

Maybe the only real conclusion I can draw now is that the "somewhat hostile" atmosphere among non-believers (which I haven't encountered only here) makes the knowers less interested to prove anything to the people causing that atmosphere.

I actually doubt that; both you and other "knowers" would love to stick a positive result in the face of skeptics. ... If you had one.

Score for the time being : non-believers-knowers: 1-0. halftime.

Except that I'm a knower. ..... You know, I happen to know that all decent cables sound alike. I have this knowledge from a comprehensive understanding of the science behind cables and analog sound systems, and unlike you, I can in fact explain why I know.

Hans

[Get]

I could say that you could grow a somewhat thicker skin.
Or better still, prove 'them' wrong.


My skin is very thick. Dont you worry about that. I just don't want to post here everything that happens and that has also, but not only, to do with the sort of reactions I'm getting. Uninviting.
This cablething isn't the only thing in my life of course, so I'm in no hurry and "proving them wrong" isn't why I'm doing this. Btw even when someone can hear a difference the people that don't hear it still wil not be hearing it I pressume. I will do a better test someday and then when I can do it I will do the test in Belgium and when that's done or when I can't do it to begin with in perfect conditions I will post again. Even when I can't do it blindfolded under "strain" that doesn't mean to me that there's no difference. The conditions then are of course not the same as when you're not blindfolded and you're listening relaxed. That's not a fact to be counted with here I think, but for me it is. Other entries? I can't do anything special that I'm aware of.

[Christian Klippel]

Obviously, the amp shouldn't be critical as long as its a good one. After all, its the cable you are testing, not the amp.

I think that this is something that should be stated very carefully. I have seen quite some of these so-called audiophile amplifiers that did very strange things depending on the used cable. Most of them oscillated at frequencies way above the audible spectrum, like 80kHz or more. I even encountered one that happily oscillated at over 1MHz. This is of course a fault of the amplifier design in general.

However, these oscillations were directly influenced by the type & length of cable used. It's no surprise that this can (and certainly will) cause IM distortions in the audible spectrum that can be heard by experienced listeners.

But i stress it again: this is due to the bad (read: either oversimplified or overcomplicated) design of some of these "high end" amplifiers.

For that reason i would highly recommend that the actual signal is checked with every cable combination on an oscilloscope for unwanted oscillations/ringing prior to the test itself.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: In fact, if i were to do such testing, i would demand that _no_ audiophile or "high-end" amplifier is used at all. Instead i would insist of using a (recording-)studio amplifier of good quality. For one, it's the type of amplifier that is used in the production of the listening material and as such is probably the closest to what the audio engineers heard during production. And second, these amps are known for good quality and good circuit design, usually.

[not daSkeptic]

... if i were to do such testing, i would demand that _no_ audiophile or "high-end" amplifier is used at all. Instead i would insist of using a (recording-)studio amplifier of good quality.

Agreed. One of the things I frequently have to explain to audiophiles is that studio equipment isn't supposed to sound good. It's supposed to sound accurate.

[Christian Klippel]

Agreed. One of the things I frequently have to explain to audiophiles is that studio equipment isn't supposed to sound good. It's supposed to sound accurate.

Indeed. I cringe every time i read sales-pitches for audiophile amplifiers. How they sound this and that. All these flowery descriptions about how they sound. In my book, any amplifier that "sounds" is pretty much broken.

There's also a fun-fact about a certain type of studio monitor. I guess that everyone has seen these Yamaha monitors with the white membranes. They exist for many decades by now. Most studios at least used to have a set of these. They are far away from "HiFi". Their frequency response is not that good at all. But there is a very good reason why they are so commonly used in addition to good monitors. Because what you mix down has to sound as good as possible on _any_ playback device. That includes simple car stereo's, ghetto-blaster style devices, heck, even mobile phones nowdays. So they already produce a compromise between best possible quality and most widely usable quality.

Of course that usually applies mostly to pop style music, afaik. But tell that some audiophile. They simply will not believe you.

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: I'm talking about the NS-10M from Yamaha.

[wardenclyffe]

Get,

I know you have gotten a lot of negative feedback (or "constructive criticism") here. But I, for one, would like to applaud you for doing a blindfolded test and reporting the honest results here. If you wish to continue testing, please do so, but I don't think the results will change. Again, I want to congratulate you for doing this test. Most people would never take that step. They would just walk through life happily pretending that their cables are better than everyone else's.

Now you've learned how to test cables, and you want to keep testing, I say that as long as you continue to have an honest test, you will get honest answers.

Good Luck,
Ward

[MRC_Hans]

I think that this is something that should be stated very carefully. I have seen quite some of these so-called audiophile amplifiers that did very strange things depending on the used cable. Most of them oscillated at frequencies way above the audible spectrum, like 80kHz or more. I even encountered one that happily oscillated at over 1MHz. This is of course a fault of the amplifier design in general.

Actually, if audiopholly was to make sense, cables, amplifiers, and speakers should be designed as a unit, never to be rearranged. In such a case, small improvements might be gained over the conventional set-up, because no corners needed to be cut to, e.g. make an amplifier stable over a wide range of loads.

The only workable solution to this is called active speakers....

Hans

[Ladewig]

Get,

I know you have gotten a lot of negative feedback (or "constructive criticism") here. But I, for one, would like to applaud you for doing a blindfolded test and reporting the honest results here. If you wish to continue testing, please do so, but I don't think the results will change. Again, I want to congratulate you for doing this test. Most people would never take that step. They would just walk through life happily pretending that their cables are better than everyone else's.

Now you've learned how to test cables, and you want to keep testing, I say that as long as you continue to have an honest test, you will get honest answers.

Good Luck,
Ward

Seconded. Even if you have gone from "I know there is a difference" to "proving a difference is more difficult than I thought" you are still way ahead of most of the other people who arrive at JREF with varied claims.


Thank you for sharing your initial testing results.

............................................

If you are ever interesting in seeing hard-core hostility, step over to the JREF general skepticism subforum and make a post saying that unicorns have granted you the power to bend steel bars with your mind, but it doesn't work when there are atheists present.

[Gr8wight]

The atmosphere here is like to be expected, but no less uncomfortable. Just to please you...I couldn't hear a difference between two cables blindfolded, so there's no difference. I haven't got a new amp yet, but did it with an old not so great amp, but that must do for now. If the story continues I won't share it here, unless it's worthwhile to share ( "I won some money!" or something along those lines). Maybe the only real conclusion I can draw now is that the "somewhat hostile" atmosphere among non-believers (which I haven't encountered only here) makes the knowers less interested to prove anything to the people causing that atmosphere. Score for the time being : non-believers-knowers: 1-0. halftime.

This is an interesting post. You report the results of a test in which you could tell no difference between cables, then you produce excuses for why that may be (the "not so great" amp). You have taken one step down a path that ultimately leads to a better understanding of the world, and oneself. I encourage you to continue. Test yourself again, under different circumstances. After each test, examine the results with an eye to asking the question, "why were these results different - or the same - as previous tests." Step back from your self-identifying as either "knower" or "believer." Seek only to discern the way things are.

I congratulate you for having the honesty and strength to post your negative result here, and hope you continue down the path of self-honesty. In the case of audio gear, it leads to better sound, and a fatter wallet at the same time. You may discover other benefits as you go.

[Coolhat]

I haven't got a new amp yet, but did it with an old not so great amp, but that must do for now.

You have received some good advice already, but I´d like to add my .02.

You say you can not hear the differences with your old amp and you suspect the outcome could be different with a better amp. This is, of course, how the high end scam business works:"Can not hear the difference? Spend more money!" It is a clever scheme:

Salesperson:"Buy these magnificent cables, they´ll make your system SO much better"
Customer:"OK"

A week passes, customer comes back

C:"I can not hear any difference"
SP:"That´s odd. What amp do you have"
C:"Brand X"
SP:"Well that explains it, that piece of junk can not possibly do justice to these magnificent cables. You must buy this magnificent amp"
C:"OK"

Another week passes.

C:"I still can not hear any difference"
SP:"Huh? What speakers do you have?"
C:"Brand Y"
SP:"Brand Y??? What were you thinking? You need at least these magnificent speakers, otherwise your system is worthless!"
C:"OK"

A month passes.

C:"OK, my system sounds pretty good now. But I wonder how I can make it even better."
SP:"Hmm... what cables do you have?"
C:"The magnificent ones you sold me"
SP:"OK, they are good beginner cables, but they do not do justice to your current system. After all, you are not a beginner, are you? Here, get these ultra-magnificent cables, they´ll make your system SO much better.
C:"OK"

And so on and so on. Now I am not saying every hi-fi expert is a crook, but you should always be aware of their motivation. If their solution for every problem is to throw more money at it... well, you do the math.

[MRC_Hans]

And so on and so on. Now I am not saying every hi-fi expert is a crook,

No, some are deluded themselves. :rolleyes:

Really, I suppose that for many users, high-end hifi is much about impressing your friends and feel-good, but if you sell anything above decent equipment to home users, claiming or implying that they will get "deeper sound-stage" or similar nonsensical stuff, you are at least an accomplice in fraud. ...IMHO.

Hans

[Aitch]

ETA: I'm talking about the NS-10M from Yamaha.

Ah yes, the ol' taming the treble with loo paper (http://www.bobhodas.com/tissue.html) trick. :cool:

[Cuddles]

You say you can not hear the differences with your old amp and you suspect the outcome could be different with a better amp.

Actually, this raises a rather interesting question. Get originally said that the differences were so big that he wouldn't even need to test it to know they were there, and that he would have to use his own system. Yet now he says that the problem might be with his amp and maybe he needs a new one. But if his old amp stops these differences being heard, how did he ever hear them in the first place?

This is actually something I've noticed quite a bit among believers in woo. They are convinced to believe by experiencing a single event or phenomenon, but for some reason even when they admit that that has been conclusively debunked they continue to believe anyway. This seems very strange to me. Being fooled into believing something is perfectly understandable and happens to people of all sorts all the time. But I just don't understand how someone can admit they were fooled into believing, yet continue to believe anyway.

[Get]

Some explaining is in order. The conclusion that there was no difference, because I couldn't hear it THEN was to get rid of discussion. It would be the conclusion drawn by people here, so I allready gave it. There were circumstances "not quite good" to perform the test, but I didn't tell them all, because I allready knew the reactions. I don't have 1 amp, but 2 and one is in repair. That's the much better one. When it can't be repaired or is too expensive I will buy another one.
@Coolhat: if I thought everything could be measured pricewise it would be very easy to buy hifi and also when everything sounded the same it would be very simple: just buy the cheapest there is. I'm very well aware of some ******** in the audioworld and of course am not falling for it.
When I will do another test I will tell the conclusions, but that can take some time (again: no rush whatsoever).

[Gr8wight]

Some explaining is in order. The conclusion that there was no difference, because I couldn't hear it THEN was to get rid of discussion. It would be the conclusion drawn by people here, so I allready gave it. There were circumstances "not quite good" to perform the test, but I didn't tell them all, because I allready knew the reactions. I don't have 1 amp, but 2 and one is in repair. That's the much better one. When it can't be repaired or is too expensive I will buy another one.
@Coolhat: if I thought everything could be measured pricewise it would be very easy to buy hifi and also when everything sounded the same it would be very simple: just buy the cheapest there is. I'm very well aware of some ******** in the audioworld and of course am not falling for it.
When I will do another test I will tell the conclusions, but that can take some time (again: no rush whatsoever).

So, did you actually do a test, or did you just tell us you did, hoping to shut us up?

[Get]

So, did you actually do a test, or did you just tell us you did, hoping to shut us up?

Of course I did a test. Why would I give a result if there wasn't one? To shut you up? I don't have to read it. No, the test was too short (something went wrong) and too hasty and with the wrong amp (yes, there is a considerable difference between amps), so it wasn't a good time to do one, but still I did it and failed. It seemed like the right thing to do to post the result here, but I didn't say all the bad circumstances, because I know what to expect in response. It was only to show I wasn't bailing out and also to tell you that there are circumstances where it isn't that easy. If I fail under good conditions I will of course also post it in all honesty.

[Gr8wight]

Of course I did a test. Why would I give a result if there wasn't one? To shut you up? I don't have to read it. No, the test was too short (something went wrong) and too hasty and with the wrong amp (yes, there is a considerable difference between amps), so it wasn't a good time to do one, but still I did it and failed. It seemed like the right thing to do to post the result here, but I didn't say all the bad circumstances, because I know what to expect in response. It was only to show I wasn't bailing out and also to tell you that there are circumstances where it isn't that easy. If I fail under good conditions I will of course also post it in all honesty.

Awesome! I stand by my previous post. Best of luck to you. I hope you do keep us updated.

[ojdude]

Actually, this raises a rather interesting question. Get originally said that the differences were so big that he wouldn't even need to test it to know they were there, and that he would have to use his own system. Yet now he says that the problem might be with his amp and maybe he needs a new one. But if his old amp stops these differences being heard, how did he ever hear them in the first place?

This is actually something I've noticed quite a bit among believers in woo. They are convinced to believe by experiencing a single event or phenomenon, but for some reason even when they admit that that has been conclusively debunked they continue to believe anyway. This seems very strange to me. Being fooled into believing something is perfectly understandable and happens to people of all sorts all the time. But I just don't understand how someone can admit they were fooled into believing, yet continue to believe anyway.

Everything sounds "slightly" different all the time. It's just a matter of degrees and most times we are never aware. As for cables? AWG is what you're "hearing". IE: AWG9 sounds good. AWG26 sounds awful. You're hearing current limiting with the thinner wire. Nothing more. $100.00 a pair of 8 foot AWG9 speaker cables is all anyone will ever need.

[ktesibios]

Ah yes, the ol' taming the treble with loo paper (http://www.bobhodas.com/tissue.html) trick. :cool:

Back in the mid-80s there was a product (called, IIRC, the "NS-tenuator") which was a plastic frame that snapped over the protruding heads of the tweeter mounting screws on the NS-10 and held your favorite brand of biffy paper.

I never saw one IRL, and since I started working full-time in commercial recording studios in 1989 I have never seen an NS-10 with tissue paper over the tweeters. I suspect that once you've burned the top end out of your hearing tricks like that lose their appeal.

BTW, the phase anomaly Bob (who does the monitor tuning where I work) measured in the NS-10 is almost certainly due to the fact that the NS-10 uses a 2nd-order crossover with the old "flip the polarity of the tweeter to avoid a null in the summed pressure response at the crossover point" trick. While this works, it produces some violent phase shift at the crossover frequency- and you should see what it does to the time-domain response on a square wave.

If anyone cares, I'll post the math involved. Back in my live sound days, having discovered that the voltage (or pressure)-summed response of such a crossover was an all-pass filter, I spent quite a bit of time trying to design a compensating filter- only to find out that the required transfer function had a right-half-plane zero and was consequently unrealizable with analog methods.

[jj]

Everything sounds "slightly" different all the time.

May I please refer you to this slide deck http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/highlevelnobg.ppt and in particular the slides starting with the title "What does this imply?". It would be worthwhile to follow the whole deck, of course.

http://thewombforums.com/audio/jj_cns.mp3 is a lecture corresponding to that deck.

This may help you understand why everything sounds slightly different all the time, and what "sounds different" vs. "is actually different" might mean.

[Christian Klippel]

Let me also add a few very informative links about:

Cables (http://sound.westhost.com/cables.htm)
More Cables (http://sound.westhost.com/cablewhitepaper.htm)
Still more cable stuff (http://sound.westhost.com/cable-z.htm)

Greetings,

Chris

[Seymour Yoni]

If detecting the difference between two cables can be consistently and reliably achieved using human hearing then there is a physical difference between the two cables. The individual claiming to be able to detect the difference may well have extraordinary hearing but nothing supernatural is involved. If he can tell which cable is connected WITHOUT listening to the device then that's a different story and he may well be on his way to being awarded the MDC.

[Oualawouzou]

The whole point of this challenge is to tell apart cables that have no way of producing a different sound.

Look at it this way. Let's say I have a jug full of water. I have two funnels: one made of glass and one made of diamond. If I pour water in a glass using one of the funnels and have you drink it, it shouldn't matter weither I used the glass funnel or the diamond funnel: neither one changes or adds something to the water. If you can tell which one I used in a proper double-blind test, you don't have a very acute sense of taste: you can actually tell apart two glasses of water that are identical in every physical and chemical way. That is supernatural.

The cable challenge is the same thing. Audio cables transmit zeroes and ones. Either the transmission goes through, or it doesn't. There is no "quality" to it. With the above analogy in mind, consider the music/sound is the water, the cables are the funnels and the speakers are the glasses. It doesn't matter which funnel the water went through, once it's in the glass, it's the exact same matter. It doesn't matter which cables the zeroes and ones went through, once the music comes out of the speaker, it's the same music.

[Blue Mountain]

(snip)
The cable challenge is the same thing. Audio cables transmit zeroes and ones. Either the transmission goes through, or it doesn't. There is no "quality" to it. With the above analogy in mind, consider the music/sound is the water, the cables are the funnels and the speakers are the glasses. It doesn't matter which funnel the water went through, once it's in the glass, it's the exact same matter. It doesn't matter which cables the zeroes and ones went through, once the music comes out of the speaker, it's the same music.
Errr ... no. The only way your audio cable would be transmitting zeroes and ones is if you have a digital amp connected to digital speakers.

The information comes off your digital storage medium (CD, DVD, Blu-ray, SD card, USB flash drive, etc) as a stream of zeroes and ones. They are carried by a pair of wires from the CD /DVD / Blu-ray player to the system board of the amplifier where a chip known as a DAC (Digitial/Analog converter) changes that stream into an analog signal. After that it's analog through the amplifier and equalizer, and then to the speakers.

A really lousy audio cable could cause attenuation in the signal itself and possibly (audio engineers can correct me on this) at certain frequencies, and this could be heard by a person with good ears. But once you're using something better than wire coat hangars for your audio cable, the attenuation levels are probably noticeable only with special equipment.

[Gr8wight]

...once you're using something better than wire coat hangars for your audio cable, the attenuation levels are probably noticeable only with special equipment.

Actually...

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/

[dropzone]

And room treatment is cheaper than many of these fertilizer products, and unquestionably worth more in terms of the results.This. Spent more than ten years in the biz and the fancier cables weren't worth a tinker's dam. Good equipment, decent (as in "14ga stranded electrical cables from Ace Hardware") cables, and a well-designed room (by ME!)? Audio Nirvana, if I do say so myself. ;)

ETA: You cannot achieve stereo separation using coat hangers; they are too short. Unless you have created a surround-sound environment in your bed, where no speaker is more than a foot from your ears.

Audiophiles don't normally need to keep their ears within 1/4" of their optimal placement, but it can be worth the trouble. Or, at least, noticable.

[Gr8wight]

ETA: You cannot achieve stereo separation using coat hangers; they are too short. Unless you have created a surround-sound environment in your bed, where no speaker is more than a foot from your ears.

Audiophiles don't normally need to keep their ears within 1/4" of their optimal placement, but it can be worth the trouble. Or, at least, noticable.

If I recall the original article, the tester connected two coat hangers together for each side. Hang on while I try Googling again. Here's a better link:
http://consumerist.com/2008/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables.html

[jj]

If I recall the original article, the tester connected two coat hangers together for each side. Hang on while I try Googling again. Here's a better link:
http://consumerist.com/2008/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables.html

With two coathangers (1 for each polarity) on teach side, you can get 6' speaker separation, which suffices for a listening distance of 6 to8 feet just fine.

:)

[William Smith]

Get, what you might perceive as rude comments in this thread, are mostly helping hands of well-meaning folks.
Some of those hands tend to get gnarly and callous over time as a self-protecting measure.

"A believer needs his belief to be true."

A former teacher of mine had a similar claim as yours. His sound system was the only expensive thing he ever bought in his whole life. He used cables as thick as a child's arm.
I use cables as thick as a child's finger.

Long story short: I set up a simple blinded test, using both cables.

Results:

1. He could not hear a difference between the two on his system, with his CDs, in his living-room in a comfortable setting.

2. He still uses the same cables.

3. We do not talk anymore.

[Gr8wight]

2. He still uses the same cables.

3. We do not talk anymore.

This is unfortunately all too common.

[jj]

This is unfortunately all too common.

It was a good outcome, this guy didn't write letters to the board of directors of your employer, stalk you all over the internet, call your neighbors to ask if you were "seeing someone" during the day, and then all you at 3am to threaten you...

Some of the audiophiles out there are NUTS.

[jj]

Just wondering if there is going to be any test here...

[Gr8wight]

Just wondering if there is going to be any test here...

Really? I was never in any doubt from the first post. There is never a test when it comes to these audiophile guys. Remember the GSIC fiasco?

[William Smith]

Audiophiles exhibit many characteristics of a believer. Their belief system is working for them. It fits into and enhances their perceived reality and they do not experience a significant - if any - downside.

Simpler put: They are happy with it.

Logic suggests there is no upside for them - nothing to gain, according to their belief system - in a controlled test.

[William Smith]

...I was never in any doubt from the first post. There is never a test when it comes to these audiophile guys. Remember the GSIC fiasco?

Just picking the nits here, playfully: Being never in any doubt is a sign of a believer.

[Gr8wight]

Just picking the nits here, playfully: Being never in any doubt is a sign of a believer.

The difference being, of course, that it is possible to inject doubt into my belief. Show me an audiophile who has gone through with an official test of their "ability" at any of the skeptical groups who offer a challenge, and I will change my tune.

[Jamie Tate]

Hey everyone,

I'm a professional recording engineer in Nashville (not that it means anything). Last year a friend of mine bought a pair of stupidly expensive RCA cables for his stereo and I jokingly remarked he couldn't distinguish them from a pair of coat hangers. He challenged me so I soldered some RCA connectors to a couple hangers and did some listening tests.

In a video I posted on YouTube I recorded the same song through three different cables and attached a link to the clips so people could hear them blindly and vote on what they heard. Before YouTube deleted the video (and temporarily banned me) I collected several hundred votes (and 2,600 views).

The results surprised me. Of the three wires I used (Coat Hanger, Mogami Studio Wire and an expensive Silver Cable) the majority (somewhere around 60%) preferred the $1/foot Mogami studio wire. The other 40% were split among the coat hanger and the expensive silver wire. The comments on the expensive silver cable all mentioned how much brighter it sounded.

I can't post a link to YouTube yet as I'm still under 15 posts. Just search for "Audiophile Death Match" to see my video. I had to remove the audio clips but the rest of the video is hopefully somewhat entertaining.

[Jamie Tate]

As a follow up to that story, a good friend of mine who is also an engineer in town listened to three clips and was spot on with his assessment. He guessed all three correctly and gave reasonable explanations why he decided which was which.

I'm still a skeptic but I'd also love to see my friend try for the million dollars. Over the years he's proven to have pretty amazing listening skills. Wouldn't it be a nice break from all these audiophile blowhards if someone at least stepped up to at least take the test no matter what the result? He's done it once already. What would it take, eight out of ten, perhaps? Nine out of ten? What would be a reasonable expectation?

[wardenclyffe]

Please note that I do not speak for the JREF, I'm just surmising based on what I know of the history of such tests.

There would probably have to be a larger sample size than just 10 tests. The preliminary test for the MDC usually requires odds of at least one out of a thousand by pure chance.

I'm no math wiz, but I'm sure that those who are will chime in soon enough with workable test protocols (if such protocols have not already been established given the long history of such claims).

In any case, such testing is available and could be set up.

Good Luck,

Ward

P.S. Some paranormal challenges also offer a finder's fee, so if you apply to those and win them before winning the MDC, you will be in for a little cash yourself. The two that offer the finders fee are in California (www.iigwest.org) and Australia(www.skeptics.com.au). The Australian test offers a bigger finder's fee, but the California one is closer and because they have franchises around the country (one's in Atlanta, I think), that might be easier.

[rjh01]

Hey everyone,

I'm a professional recording engineer in Nashville<snip>

I can't post a link to YouTube yet as I'm still under 15 posts. Just search for "Audiophile Death Match" to see my video. I had to remove the audio clips but the rest of the video is hopefully somewhat entertaining.

Here is the link
J6sHvaN5T4I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6sHvaN5T4I

Take your pick, both links go to the same place, which is where Jamie said.

And welcome.

[Get]

Because of other much more important things in my life (yes, there are some!) I hardly ever think about the cablething again. I'm not really interested for now and maybe for a long time to do a test. I will of course post the result. My first test gives me the idea that hearing the difference blindfolded is a hard thing to do, but if that was because of the not optimal conditions or because of the difference being small (not existant?) or both I don't/can't know. I like to add that I'm the opposite of a believer. (no, not bailing out, just nog interested for the time being). Later.

[Dumb All Over]

(no, not bailing out, just nog interested for the time being). Later.

Not interested in one million dollars? Ok. Whatever. Later.

[Gr8wight]

Because of other much more important things in my life (yes, there are some!) I hardly ever think about the cablething again. I'm not really interested for now and maybe for a long time to do a test. I will of course post the result. My first test gives me the idea that hearing the difference blindfolded is a hard thing to do, but if that was because of the not optimal conditions or because of the difference being small (not existant?) or both I don't/can't know. I like to add that I'm the opposite of a believer. (no, not bailing out, just nog interested for the time being). Later.

Get, your comments here echo those (almost word for word) of many other audiophiles who have posted here. You must be very rich for the lure of a one million dollar payout for a couple hours of only moderately difficult work to be uninteresting to you. Just like all the others, coincidentally...

[Get]

And when the comments are the same the reasons for the comments must be the same? Not really evidence-based :). There are things much more important than money and apart from that I'm really not all that interested in money. Not because I'm rich, but because I have enough and am in no hurry whatsoever to expand it.

[wardenclyffe]

I'm glad you see no need to donate it to any charities or help out your friends. You could use the money to buy even more expensive stereo cables.

Ward

[tojohndillonesq]

It is my understanding (from reading the Swift Boat thread) that Mr Randi does not argue that different cables will not be differentiable. The issue is that if the cables have no measurable difference using test equipment (i.e. oscilloscope or other), then they will sound the same. If they have different resistance, capacitance, rf sensitivity, etc than can be measured on a scope, then that is science, not Woo. So rule one of the test is to demonstrate that the cables measure identically. I will note that any cable that has a components other than wire and connectors (like the MIT) will be ruled out on that basis; they actively and measurably alter the signal. I have to believe that the resistance in a coat hanger is measurably different from even cheap speaker wire.

[Bilbo]

The results surprised me. Of the three wires I used (Coat Hanger, Mogami Studio Wire and an expensive Silver Cable) the majority (somewhere around 60%) preferred the $1/foot Mogami studio wire.

The results surprised me too. I can honestly say that all three takes of the DBQ sounded like ******************* thru my laptop speakers.

And I love that song.

[TheClaw]

There are things much more important than money and apart from that I'm really not all that interested in money. Not because I'm rich, but because I have enough and am in no hurry whatsoever to expand it.

I know there are a few people in the world for whom a million dollars is not worth their time (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett). Then there are spiritual or hippie types who eschew money (I know a few people personally who claim this attitude, however I'm not sure what they would really do if the opportunity presented itself to gain millions). But it seems like of the few people out there who just don't need a million dollars for a few days' work, a large proportion of them visit the JREF forums.

I, for one, have sufficient money but would gladly welcome a million dollars even for a year's work.

ETA: Also, I understand that there are some things more important than money -- family, learning, whatever. But it's hard to imagine for Get or anyone else that taking this test would interfere with those pursuits.

[Bilbo]

Also, I understand that there are some things more important than money -- family, learning, whatever.

Have you never considered the value of beaver? They can be most entertaining on a stream, and even more valuable when on a warm tropical beach. I have always held the beaver high on my list of important things...I mean like, what would I do without the beaver?

I can see where a dude might decide not to make a million dollars, in a day, if it would salvage his relationship with some beavers.

Growing up, I always looked forward to Mutual of Omaha's, "Wild Kingdom". Especially the episodes when Jim Fowler would float down a stream and get all tangled up with some feral beavers that he had no intention of diving into.

Then Marlin Perkins would make some sly comment about Jim's wife (Mary) being at home alone, whilest Jim was out playing with the beaver...I used to love Sunday nights on NBC.

[Get]

I'm glad you see no need to donate it to any charities or help out your friends. You could use the money to buy even more expensive stereo cables.

Ward

:boggled:

[Get]

But it's hard to imagine for Get or anyone else that taking this test would interfere with those pursuits.


Hard, but not impossible I would say. Health is one pursuit that you didn't mention.

[dropzone]

What is supernatural about being able to tell between speaker cables? Why would the JREF care?

[Gr8wight]

What is supernatural about being able to tell between speaker cables? Why would the JREF care?

The JREF cares because they object to people being taken advantage of by those who would cash in on the general public's lack of critical thinking skills. It's not about the supernatural, in this case, but about exposing the high-end, esoteric audio tweak market for the nest of fraudulent vipers they are.

Because, you see, no one, to date, has ever demonstrated an actual ability to tell between speaker cables.

[dropzone]

But...but...but, EVERYBODY in the business KNOWS it's a scam. And we aren't Gypsies operating on the edges of society. These comparison tests have been done, and published, for more than ten years. The JREF has no business looking into it, except as a laugh. And it'd be joining a lot of us in the biz.

Speaking as an A/V pro:

1. Cables that are too skinny are crap. Don't try to send speaker level more than six feet over 22ga cable.

2. ETA: For line audio, 18ga works for a surprising distance. It won't be cranked and just needs to carry analog data.

3. For interconnects, just about any **** works fine. Better-quality interconnects work better. Not because of the cable, but because of the connections and the connectors.

4. From amp to speaker, the more copper, the better. The details fall back on, "the better the connection the better the cable."

So this is paranormal...how?

[Sherman Bay]

I think we have to make an important distinction between things like: cables made of different kinds and thicknesses of wire, and audio improvement devices like the passive, coin-sized gadget that claimed to affect digital sound by placement on top of your CD player.

The first one has a very slight chance of a double-blind difference; not enough to justify the outrageous prices charged for some cables, but enough that some purists with unlimited funds might feel important. This claim may not be 100% woo, so not appropriate for the MDC.

The second falls squarely in the 100% woo category, as there is no known way a coin sized device (I forget the name and/or manufacturer) can alter the digital characteristics of a CD as claimed. This one is appropriate for the MDC.

[dropzone]

This one is appropriate for the MDC.It's still subjective.

[dropzone]

And its mechanism is quickly determined. Mechanisms are not paranormal, which is what the Prize is all about. The unexplainable is what gets you the million bucks.

[Sean84]

And its mechanism is quickly determined. Mechanisms are not paranormal, which is what the Prize is all about. The unexplainable is what gets you the million bucks.

The mechanism is easily explainable and has been explained.

The unexplainable is what the manufacturers claim.

They cannot prove that claim.

[Dumb All Over]

I can see where a dude might decide not to make a million dollars, in a day, if it would salvage his relationship with some beavers.

I can't. If he won the million, he could buy all the beavers he wants, and maybe even a chinchilla or two to keep the beavers warm and cozy.

[Gr8wight]

But...but...but, EVERYBODY in the business KNOWS it's a scam. And we aren't Gypsies operating on the edges of society. These comparison tests have been done, and published, for more than ten years. The JREF has no business looking into it, except as a laugh. And it'd be joining a lot of us in the biz.

Speaking as an A/V pro:

1. Cables that are too skinny are crap. Don't try to send speaker level more than six feet over 22ga cable.

2. ETA: For line audio, 18ga works for a surprising distance. It won't be cranked and just needs to carry analog data.

3. For interconnects, just about any **** works fine. Better-quality interconnects work better. Not because of the cable, but because of the connections and the connectors.

4. From amp to speaker, the more copper, the better. The details fall back on, "the better the connection the better the cable."

So this is paranormal...how?

Dropzone,

Do you believe that you could hear the difference between twelve foot lengths of 18ga lampcord bought at Home Depot, and 10ga, finely stranded, oxygen-free copper speaker wire bought at a high end stereo shop?

[dropzone]

Dropzone,

Do you believe that you could hear the difference between twelve foot lengths of 18ga lampcord bought at Home Depot, and 10ga, finely stranded, oxygen-free copper speaker wire bought at a high end stereo shop?Nope. Especially since I'm half deaf. ;)

Actually, I've found that having some hearing loss and tinnitus means that I'm very picky about the quality of audio, more than I was back when I was destroying my hearing.

ETA: A better comparison would be with 18ga, finely stranded, oxygen-free copper speaker wire bought at a high end stereo shop. Adding all the extra copper in a 10ga cable might have an effect.

[dropzone]

The unexplainable is what the manufacturers claim.But where does the paranormal come in? Being unexplainable simply because it's BS while lacking a paranormal component hardly qualifies for the Challenge.

[Czarcasm]

Nope. Especially since I'm half deaf. ;)Fine.
Do you know anybody that you believe could hear the difference between twelve foot lengths of 18ga lampcord bought at Home Depot, and 10ga, finely stranded, oxygen-free copper speaker wire bought at a high end stereo shop?

[dropzone]

You're back with that heavy gauge stuff. And with top-end equipment, if there's a difference to be heard, I probably could hear a difference if there were one. Being a bit deaf means I need to be discriminating, to listen deeper, and to design the room as much as the system. And, therefore, I've designed some awesome theaters that made billionaires very happy.

ETA: However, I have received no reports that the 10'x20' Chihuly glass chandelier exploded the first time that computer mogul's kids cranked the system. My life is incomplete. :(

FTR: We sold them mid-tier cables. Good copper and well-attached connectors, with the latter being more important. Anything more expensive was a waste and you don't become a billionaire by throwing away money.

And I still don't see the woo, if it exists, as anything that couldn't be learned, making it not-woo.

[Czarcasm]

You're back with that heavy gauge stuff. And with top-end equipment, if there's a difference to be heard, I probably could hear a difference if there were one. Being a bit deaf means I need to be discriminating, to listen deeper, and to design the room as much as the system. And, therefore, I've designed some awesome theaters that made billionaires very happy.Again with the claim that being partially deaf somehow makes you a better listener, which I've just got to call b.s. on. Being able to hear better would make you a better listener.FTR: We sold them mid-tier cables. Good copper and well-attached connectors, with the latter being more important. Anything more expensive was a waste and you don't become a billionaire by throwing away money.Could you, or someone you think can do it, tell the difference between the previously mentioned lampcord and the stuff you sold in a listening test?And I still don't see the woo, if it exists, as anything that couldn't be learned, making it not-woo.The woo is in the claim that people can tell the difference in quality when, logically, any such difference shouldn't be able to be heard by the human ear.

[jj]

Again with the claim that being partially deaf somehow makes you a better listener, which I've just got to call b.s. on.


It makes one a different listener for sure, and is likely to have the effect that sensation that others would never notice may be obvious. So, while "better" might not be correct, it is entirely possible that someone with impaired hearing might hear an effect inside of their sensation range than a person with no impairment would not be able to distinquish.

In particular, a shift in level from below sensation level (threshold) to above is very noticible.

A small change in loudness due to a small change in intensity (for the normal hearing person) may be completely indistinguishable.

So, that is a place where the person with injured hearing would notice something that somebody with Stevens-Standard loudness perception would not.

Lest you wonder, this has tripped up codec designers a few times, myself included.


Being able to hear better would make you a better listener.Could you, or someone you think can do it, tell the difference between the previously mentioned lampcord and the stuff you sold in a listening test?The woo is in the claim that people can tell the difference in quality when, logically, any such difference shouldn't be able to be heard by the human ear.

Well, you want to level match a time-proximate DBT to under .1dB. That is a level change (in amplitude) of about 1.0115 or so.

This could arise due to cable resistance vs. even a "resistive" load of 8 ohms, without too much silliness of cable length. In other words, about .1 ohm difference in cable resistance could, barely, create an issue.

Bear in mind that such teensy intensity differences are not ever heard to be loudness, rather they are percieved as "quality" or "depth" or any number of non-loudness-related sensation.

[Reno]

Because of other much more important things in my life (yes, there are some!) I hardly ever think about the cablething again. I'm not really interested for now and maybe for a long time to do a test. I will of course post the result. My first test gives me the idea that hearing the difference blindfolded is a hard thing to do, but if that was because of the not optimal conditions or because of the difference being small (not existant?) or both I don't/can't know. I like to add that I'm the opposite of a believer. (no, not bailing out, just nog interested for the time being). Later.

First of all, a blind or double blind test does not mean you need to wear a blindfold.

Second of all, unless I am misunderstanding human physiology, you hear with your ears, not with your eyes.

Third of all, you're not procrastinating because you don't need a million dollars - you're procrastinating because you can't do what you think you can. You will never apply for any test of these abilities you claim to have. Never.

[dropzone]

Could you, or someone you think can do it, tell the difference between the previously mentioned lampcord and the stuff you sold in a listening test?Probably not. If a customer is spending a million on a theater you sometimes just have to bite the bullet and sell him what he thinks he needs. So we sold them the mid-tier stuff with a fancy name that didn't really cost a lot. No point in ripping people off, even if they ask you to.The woo is in the claim that people can tell the difference in quality when, logically, any such difference shouldn't be able to be heard by the human ear.That's not woo, the way dowsing and ESP are. It's just a grift, like three-card monte. It's already been tested multiple times and came up wanting. There is no reason the JREF should dirty its hands with it.

[Gr8wight]

Probably not. If a customer is spending a million on a theater you sometimes just have to bite the bullet and sell him what he thinks he needs. So we sold them the mid-tier stuff with a fancy name that didn't really cost a lot. No point in ripping people off, even if they ask you to.That's not woo, the way dowsing and ESP are. It's just a grift, like three-card monte. It's already been tested multiple times and came up wanting. There is no reason the JREF should dirty its hands with it.

But the JREF "dirties its hands" with it, as I said before, because it involves the promotion of critical thinking skills to the general public. For example, the product to which the OP linked should loudly sound several critical thinking alarm bells. Its description is patently ridiculous, yet the product sells because many people out there do not know how to exercise the intellectual tools of skepticism necessary to protect themselves from these fraudsters. Yes, the JREF publicly touts the anti-paranormal aspect of their activities, but promotion of basic critical thinking skills to the general public is also a large part of their mission, and the high-end audio world is particularly rife with these kinds of scams.

How does this differ from, say, Homeopathy? Do you think the JREF should also ignore alternative "medicine" scams as well, because they are not 'paranormal'?

[dropzone]

Okay, you convinced me. The JREF has my permission to test cable beliefs. ;)

[Gr8wight]

Okay, you convinced me. The JREF has my permission to test cable beliefs. ;)

I'm glad you finally saw the light. Now all we have to do is cure you of those pesky audio industry biases you still subscribe to.

;)

[dropzone]

I'm glad you finally saw the light. Now all we have to do is cure you of those pesky audio industry biases you still subscribe to.

;)Biases? I have no biases. It's just that what I believe is correct and what everybody else believes, unless they agree with me, is wrong.

Quite simple, actually. ;)