"josko" wrote in message news:C8Zcc.92430$JO3.44977@attbi_s04...

snip

The cables are physically different. Different insulation, different
braiding and internal construction, different terminals. The
differences represent qualitative improvememnts over cheaper cables.

But do these improvements affect signal in any significant way (i.e.
above audible threshold)?

Yes. The more sophisticated, better-built cables have a sound that is
less jumbled-together. All frequencies seem more distinct.

That was a CONCLUSION, not an hypothesis.

But you also expected that you would hear a difference, any difference,
at least somewhere in the back of your mind?

I had no 'expectation' one way or the other. I have auditioned other
products (CD sound enhancers) and found absolutely no effect from one
of them (a spray cleaner) and did note some change from another (the
edge marker green pen). I approach everything without any bias. If it
works, it works. If it doesn't, I'll be the first one to admit it. The
$100 Monster interconnect clearly sounded 'better' than the $50
Monster cable. I owned several cables that were almost
indistinguishable.

(snip)

I had no reason to single these factors out BEFORE listening. I
listened with considerable attention to aeverything about the sound.

But you had to single out these factors once, and once you did that, the
rest of processing is inevitably biased for the reasons that I
described.

Huh? You mean that once I found a difference, that immediately voided
my audition? What kind of science is that? Identifying the differences
takes time, depending upon the degree of difference. Once identified,
the ear can use this particular characteristic as a clue to
identification again. Just as you recognize the 'normal' sounds of
your house, any unusual sound is immediately recognized as 'wrong'. It
could be a bird walking down the gutter, or a bearing wearing down in
the furnace fan, but you can pick it out at once.

In fact, the differences are hard to describe, and are more complex,
much more complex, than that description.

Now, you're switching in your description of improvement in sound from
being very specific ("15% improvement", "tighter frequency extremes") to
being quite unclear. How come?

I don't know what you mean. If I were forced to describe the
differnces, I would say "tighter frequency extremes", but that is
somewhat misleading, just as assigning a 'number' to tasted wines in a
magazine. What does '90 points' mean? No two wines are identical. A 90
point Barolo is a completely different creature from a 90 point
Taurasi or Notarpanaro. The $100 Monster cable sounded qualitatively
better in all respects, but it was most noticeable in the frequency
extremes. The difference was not mind-boggling by any means. That's
why I used the figure of 15%, to give you a rough idea.

Just as in wine appreciation, for which it takes quite some time to
acquire the tools of judgement, the evaluation of the subtler facets
of sonic reproduction is best left to experienced 'palates'. I am
almost sure that I would not be able 'discern' the differences between
the $50 Monster cable and the $100 cable if I had just started into
audio.


snip

Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.

Those who claim that there are differences between a $50 Monster
interconnect and a $100 Monster interconnect should try using a test
with implemented bias controls.

That guards against 'bias' of one kind, but the simple fact is that
without high-resolution transducers and high-quality sources and
amplification, no differences between cables can be heard even when
they do exist. It is also necessary to have a well-trained,
EXPERIENCED, ear. I promise you, that if you try listening through
Stax Lambdas you'll hear many more differences than you do through any
ordinray loudspeakers. EVERYTHING is heard: cables, amps, RF traps,
you name it.

In other words, it is not a matter of 'procedure' but a matter of
'equipment and experience'. A test can be perfectly unbiased and yet
be completely worthless.

However, biased test is worthless by definition, and any sighted test is
biased. I just wish that those who can detect differences between
cables and amps would really start trusting their ears alone, not their
eyes. Before that, any argument about "equipment resolution" and
"experience" is pointless.

It cannot be worthless 'by definition' or your argument begs the
question (I thought you knew that). You lose at once.

You have to PROVE that the bias is ALWAYS stronger than any ability to
hear ANY differences. In other words, even if I grant you that there
may be 'some' bias, (and I certainly do not grant this as a universal
truth) that does not rule out the possibility that the strength of the
difference overcomes the bias. 'Bias' could be considered just one of
many impediments to hearing the differences. Room temperature and
humidity, cleanliness of the contacts, the physical condition of the
auditor, etc, all could play a role. If I hear differences on several
separate occasions, at different times of the day, this would tend to
average out the factors, including the 'bias' you speak of. The
existence of 'bias' in and of itself in no way invalidates ALL
auditory sighted testing. That's why there is such a thing as
repetition of tests. I always do that.