"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:R76dc.219224$po.1109853@attbi_s52...
"josko" wrote in message
news:C8Zcc.92430$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.

You really do not know that because you did not measure electrial
properties of these cables (R, L, C) and check the differences against
the audible thresholds.


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.

Wishful thinking. You're human being. I think that you had weaker or
no expectations when you auditioned the spray cleaner and the green pen.

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.

That is a part of the problem. Your confirm what you think you've heard
before.

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.

Bad analogy (in the context of "cable sound").

snip


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.

I'm not sure I understand you here.


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.

OK and...?

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.

Not at all beacuse of something called confirmatory bias, which is an
extremely strong tendency of human decison makers.

The
existence of 'bias' in and of itself in no way invalidates ALL
auditory sighted testing.

Not all, but it invalidates all sighted testing of amps, cables, CD
players for example.

That's why there is such a thing as
repetition of tests. I always do that.

Repetition would be meaningful only if you change listening methodology
from one ocassion to another; say you switch from sighted,
level-unmatched listening to blind, level-matched listening and
correlate the results. By doing this, you'd be able to "weed out" the
bias and see its effects on judgment. If you stick to sighted testing,
your results are worthless if you're interested in real, as opposed to
imaginary, differences in sound. However, its understandable that a lot
of audiophiles care about imaginary differences for a variety of
reasons.