Re: Speaker cables

[Nousaine]

wrote:

>Nousaine > wrote:
>
>> In my opinion I'll remain skepical UNTIL some one delivers that ONE
>example.
>> Indeed I've conducted at least 6 controlled listening tests, some of which
>were
>> in the personal reference systems of the claimants and even one 'designer',
>of
>> expensive, fancy wiring and so far no one has ever shown an ability of
>> differentiating such wires against zip cord speaker cabling and junk-box
>rca
>> interconnects.
>
>You may have conducted 6 negative tests but as we've been saying that
>proves nothing.

But it does show that the 'effects' are fleeting at best. But it also
highlights that no proponent has delivered any positive evidence.

I conducted ONE test. IN my case is was some speakers
>that were wired temporarily with some thin wire that came off an old
>home stereo with outboard speakers. Looked like two maybe 24 ga hookup
>wires melted into a pair. The speakers didn't sound bad. But one
>day I switched to some of my "heavy braid inside Tygon tubing"
>speaker wires.

So you have some of "my" wires then.

One did NOT need a double blind test to be aware
>of the sudden GREAT difference in sound.

Why not? We've all heard this before. 'A tin-ear would hear these differences
easily' but in the same circumstance with nothing moe than the wire connected
shielded from view the proponent suddenly cannot reliably identify the wire in
the system.

>Now that was ONE positive test. Does it prove that these results
>are applicable to all systems?

We've never had that ONE replicable test. Yours is an anecdote.

No. What if one had an amp, for
>example that for some reason always produced the same current through
>the speaker regardless of the load. AND at the same time always
>produced the same impedance as seen by the speaker. Obviously,
>if the current through the speaker doesn't change and the damping
>load is always the same, then as far as the speaker is concerned
>nothing has changed. (barring any mysterious "rays" etc traveling
>the wires that nobody can see or measure) My little wire test on
>such a system would be negatory. So the system matters. I haven't
>proved that decent speaker wires always sound better than crappy wires,
>but I have started to prove that with SOME amps it could be true.

No you haven't. You've supplied an unverifed anecdote.


>Note also that mine was an extreme case. But that does not
>mean that there is no difference if the difference between the
>wires is smaller (eg. zip cord and braid). I say the same difference
>is there only reduced in magnitude. Is that small differecne worth
>the expense and effort? Maybe, maybe not. That is a decision of the
>buyer. But if you get a clear difference in an extreme case (The
>"elephant on the diving board" case as a friend of mine used to like
>to say) Then that implies there MUST be a difference though of lesser
>magnitude in the less extreme cases.
>
>Benj

This analysis is the 'high-end wishful thinking' approach. It has not verified
wire sound under bias controlled conditions and even IF it did the idea that an
'extreme case' is evidence that we would converge on the mean is just plain
silly.


>
>> So I'll just not buy any "BigFoot" or "Alien Cruise" stock until someone
>> produces the body.
>
>But this is just the point. You don't need a WHOLE body, you
>only need just enough to prove that it's not fake.
>
>Benj
>--
>SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!

Well OK; but your anecdote doesn't move us toward the mean. It is simply
conjecture.

[Buster Mudd]

wrote in message >...

> your wild claim that a test MUST be "double blind" to be valid
> is total nonsense! The need for a "double blind" test depends upon
> many things including the psychology of the people involved. But
> what you totally misrepresent is the fact that when results are CLEAR
> enough, a double blind serves no function. If the litmus paper turns
> blue we sure as hell don't need a "double blind" test to make sure
> that tester isn't lying about the color!

Much as I like my decisions informed by verifiable, repeatable,
scientifically objective data, I've learned to recognize that Double
Blind ABX tests are not always as universally valuable as their
proponents would have you believe.

Case in point: Lots of current research into Tinitus relief involves
"holistic" methodologies -- massage therapy, acupuncture,
accupressure, etc -- and the traditional medical community tends to
ignore these case studies because the results don't stand up to a
Double Blind ABX test. Now...imagine you are one of the tinitus
sufferers who has found relief from constant pain, irritation, &
annoyance through massage therapy. Do you honestly give a **** whether
your results can be duplicated in a lab (to say nothing of being
duplicated 19 out of 37 times)? Do you really want to NOT recommend
massage therapy to the other tinitus sufferers just because your
results may not stand up to double blind ABX testing? Hey, guess what?
It's impossible to conduct therapy where the therapist is not concious
of whether they are performing A, B, or X! Does this mean therapists
shouldn't be allowed to practice, period?

More on topic, if I detect a difference between 18 gauge zip cord and
Humongo Brand OFC Litz Constructed Super Cable, should I pretend I
didn't detect that difference until I subject the products (and
myself) to stringent ABX testing? A difference was perceived; as the
author of my own heterophenomenolgical fiction (i.e., as the only guy
who can tell the story of what it feels like going on in my head), I'd
be an idiot to deny that a difference was noted.

I may be an idiot to try and quantify what that difference is
attributable to, but the identification of a perception does not
require double blind testing to confirm.


> I'm saying the difference was so clear that a deaf pig could
> have heard it. NOT subtle! Diference in bass volume. Difference
> in mid clarity. LARGE difference in sound. And this is not
> hocus pocus. Speakers can be VERY sensitive to drive impedance
> and other electrical parameters and one doesn't need a double
> blind speaker test to prove it.


Another thing that always bugs me about the "level matching" criteria
for audio double blind testing: What if the differences you're trying
to identify ARE level differences? It's all well & good to say "there
are no perceptible differences between Signal A and Signal B (once the
two signals have been level matched)" but if prior to that level
matching Signal A was 10 dB louder than Signal B, isn't it just a tad
foolish to ignore that item?

First time I ever compared Monster Cable to zip cord, the Monster was
noticeably louder, all other things being equal. For all I know, had
the comparison been level matched there would have been no difference.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that in a level matched, sample
accurate double blind ABX test I couldn't tell the difference between
Monster Cable & zip cord. But in a "all other things being equal" the
Monster Cable produced higher perceived SPL than the zip cord.

That information is not of no value. Its value may be dubious, its
value may eventually wind up incriminating Monster Cable, its value
may prove to be only as a curiosity...but to pretend that information
didn't exist is folly.

Or so it would seem.

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Buster Mudd > wrote:

> I may be an idiot to try and quantify what that difference is
> attributable to, but the identification of a perception does not
> require double blind testing to confirm.

But you'd be an even bigger idiot to spend large sums of money based on
a perception you once had, without taking steps to determine whether
that perception was influenced by non-relevant factors. Unless the
money spent IS a relevant factor for you.

> Another thing that always bugs me about the "level matching" criteria
> for audio double blind testing: What if the differences you're trying
> to identify ARE level differences? It's all well & good to say "there
> are no perceptible differences between Signal A and Signal B (once the
> two signals have been level matched)" but if prior to that level
> matching Signal A was 10 dB louder than Signal B, isn't it just a tad
> foolish to ignore that item?

It's just a tad foolish to spend an extra $1000 on wire when that level
difference could have been accomplished with the volume knob you
already own, for free.

> That information is not of no value. Its value may be dubious, its
> value may eventually wind up incriminating Monster Cable, its value
> may prove to be only as a curiosity...but to pretend that information
> didn't exist is folly.
>
> Or so it would seem.

Exactly. It seems like that information exists. You might be wise to
double-check and be sure. Measure twice, cut once, as they say.

ulysses

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Another thing that always bugs me about the "level matching" criteria
> for audio double blind testing: What if the differences you're trying
> to identify ARE level differences?

Because in a perfect world, there are no level differences. The idea
behind matching levels is that it's a tendency to prefer the louder of
two otherwise identical examples.

If the only difference between two speaker cables under test is
voltage drop (and hence listening volume), you can fix that by turning
up the volume control and say that there's no difference in how they
sound. However, in practice if there's a difference in the cables that
will cause a difference in listening volume, it almost certainly will
cause another difference as well. By adjusting for the same volume,
the other differences won't be swamped out by the obvious one.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Dale Farmer > wrote:

> Audible differences between speaker wires can be double blind tested
> with out much hassle.


Yeah, right!

I think the main reason there's so much bull**** floating around the
audio world is just because it's so much hassle to conduct a relevant
listening test. Level matching and blind switching can be rather
difficult to implement without introducing additional variables.
Speaker cables aren't the most difficult test subject I can think of,
but "without much hassle" is not how I'd describe the process.

ulysses

[Nousaine]

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:



>
>Dale Farmer > wrote:
>
>> Audible differences between speaker wires can be double blind tested
>> with out much hassle.
>
>
>Yeah, right!
>
>I think the main reason there's so much bull**** floating around the
>audio world is just because it's so much hassle to conduct a relevant
>listening test. Level matching and blind switching can be rather
>difficult to implement without introducing additional variables.
>Speaker cables aren't the most difficult test subject I can think of,
>but "without much hassle" is not how I'd describe the process.
>
>ulysses

But it like any other 'lab' type of event. You don't have to do them yourself.
There are published tests already done. And one has only to learn that no
proponent has ever produced a replicable bias-controlled expeiment that shows
nominally competent cables used in audio systems have any sound of their own to
rustle up enough skepical attitude to benefit greatly without any additional
effort on anybody's part.

[EganMedia]

>More on topic, if I detect a difference between 18 gauge zip cord and
>Humongo Brand OFC Litz Constructed Super Cable, should I pretend I
>didn't detect that difference until I subject the products (and
>myself) to stringent ABX testing?

Only if you want to attribute the difference to something other than placebo.
If you want to pay for the placebo effect, be my guest.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com