Re: Wire that sounds different, guaranteed

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:48:00 -0700, wrote
(in article >):

> This week's stereophile in its online offerings has a gem of an article.
>
> 'AudioQuest Headquarters Tour'
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/content/audioquest-headquarters-tour
>
> If one would want to produce subjective results guaranteed, the "tests"
> described at the wire company could not have been setup more perfectly.
>
> See if you can spot the obvious flaws in the "tests"? Extra points for
> those who spot the attempts to vaccinate the author's remarks against
> these flaws?
>
>
> For an even more interesting question, why did they bother when the
> outcomes were predictable? Might it have something to do with trying to
> vainly evoke science in support of a marketing department?
>

Magazines have advertisers and often some of the biggest advertisers are
cable companies. After all, cable companies are selling, essentially, nothing
at, often, very high prices. Their profit margins are astronomical! They can
afford to spend a lot of money to advertise. If you ran a magazine would you
want to lose that amount of advertising revenue? Of course not. So naturally,
your not going to bite the hand that feeds you. It's simple business.

Interestingly enough, most audio writers actually BELIEVE that wire makes a
difference, So, of course, when they review a cable, they go on at length
about how much better this cable is than what's in their system now. And,
just as naturally, the cable under test is never worse than what they are
currently using, and just as naturally, they never use a carefully set-up DBT
to ascertain whether or not their "observations" are the product of their
ears or their eyes.

[Kele]

On Jun 13, 1:05=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
....> Interestingly enough, most audio writers actually BELIEVE that
wire makes a
> difference, So, of course, when they review a cable, they go on at length
> about how much better this cable is than what's in their system now. And,
> just as naturally, the cable under test is never worse than what they are
> currently using, and just as naturally, they never use a carefully set-up=
DBT
> to ascertain whether or not their "observations" are the product of =A0th=
eir
> ears or their eyes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Surprised to hear you say "most audio writers actually BELIEVE that
wire makes a difference". That sounds like you think a wire is a
wire. I was fortunate to have someone gift me an assortment of his
stereo wire rejects. Looking all phat mesh colorful and sexy, I
swapped out my old days cable and no difference really. Then another
and bam, what! That obviously sounds different; we both looked at
eachother so I knew he heard it too. This cable was mello, layed
back, and I had the perfect place for it. My center channel speaker
is not like the others; it's bright sounding with a high sensitivity
rating. That mello cable was just what was needed! But there's
more... I tried a Silver (snake brand) cable for video and wow, that
was another eureka momont. I tried a low end Kimber speaker wire swap
and that sounded like crap compared to my M-series; the sound lacked
body like AM radio. So far I'm trippin'; cables do have a sound. Now
for the clincher... My home boy also brought over three power cables
- the insane garden hose variety. I only had one component that
allowed for power cable swapping - my amp. I took off the OEM and put
one of these pythons. Too much base!!! Holy smokes, power cables can
matter just like I read about... whot!? Then another and wow the
sound stage became huge. Then the last one and it reminded me of the
OEM. I put in the OEM and yes the last phat power cable and it were
nearly identical sounding. I opted to retain the huge sound stage
cable in that position. If you mean wire is wire, that may be I don't
know, but the pairing of equipment to certain wire and all the physics
that can be going on does make a very noticeable difference
sometimes. I don't have the most resolving stereo so I presume that
those who do may hear differences even more easily.

I had a little discussion about this with a British fello who had his
own tube amp company. He quickly told me that wire is predictable
(I'm summarizing). He basically said that solid wire will have a high
"slam" factor but rolled off highs, stranded will sound more nuetral,
and silver wire will be highly detailed. I could almost visualize
what must be under the sheath of the assorted wires I tried based on
the sound they impart. Now having seen ads in mags with wire innards
shown, there must be combinations of solid, stranded, and even silver
in use. This would complicate the British bloke's simple description,
but I can see how a wire can be "tuned" in this way. I am using the
gifted wires in cetain places of my stereo where their particular
charachter will offset something I don't like. Only because I had a
bunch of different wires on hand to try one right after the next could
I clearly detect all this wire can make a difference buisiness. In
some cases, if I had purchased a wire it may not sound different than
the stock and then I wouldn't be a believer. If I had purchased the
mello wire and inserted it into a system that didn't need mellowing,
it would sound like crap. Frankly, shopping for the right "sounding"
wire in a particular application would be a hit-and-miss nighmare.
You almost need an assortment at the ready to try. I scored wire from
my man who didn't like these wires in his system, yet some of them for
me worked out great. The wires he has look sweet, I mean damn sweet.
But looks and phatness apparently don't always work out to be
necesarily the best choice. Bottom line IMO, cables do sometimes make
a for better or worse difference.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:15:42 -0700, Kele wrote
(in article >):

> On Jun 13, 1:05=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> ...> Interestingly enough, most audio writers actually BELIEVE that
> wire makes a
>> difference, So, of course, when they review a cable, they go on at length
>> about how much better this cable is than what's in their system now. And,
>> just as naturally, the cable under test is never worse than what they are
>> currently using, and just as naturally, they never use a carefully set-up=
> DBT
>> to ascertain whether or not their "observations" are the product of =A0th=
> eir
>> ears or their eyes.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Surprised to hear you say "most audio writers actually BELIEVE that
> wire makes a difference". That sounds like you think a wire is a
> wire.

And since when is a wire NOT a wire?


> I was fortunate to have someone gift me an assortment of his
> stereo wire rejects. Looking all phat mesh colorful and sexy, I
> swapped out my old days cable and no difference really. Then another
> and bam, what! That obviously sounds different; we both looked at
> eachother so I knew he heard it too.

No disrespect meant, but anecdotal "evidence" of this type is,
scientifically, speaking, essentially, useless.

This cable was mello, layed
> back, and I had the perfect place for it. My center channel speaker
> is not like the others; it's bright sounding with a high sensitivity
> rating. That mello cable was just what was needed! But there's
> more... I tried a Silver (snake brand) cable for video and wow, that
> was another eureka momont. I tried a low end Kimber speaker wire swap
> and that sounded like crap compared to my M-series; the sound lacked
> body like AM radio. So far I'm trippin'; cables do have a sound. Now
> for the clincher... My home boy also brought over three power cables
> - the insane garden hose variety. I only had one component that
> allowed for power cable swapping - my amp. I took off the OEM and put
> one of these pythons. Too much base!!! Holy smokes, power cables can
> matter just like I read about... whot!? Then another and wow the
> sound stage became huge. Then the last one and it reminded me of the
> OEM. I put in the OEM and yes the last phat power cable and it were
> nearly identical sounding. I opted to retain the huge sound stage
> cable in that position. If you mean wire is wire, that may be I don't
> know, but the pairing of equipment to certain wire and all the physics
> that can be going on does make a very noticeable difference
> sometimes. I don't have the most resolving stereo so I presume that
> those who do may hear differences even more easily.

Like most humans, Those with a more "resolving stereo" hear what the expect
to hear. Those who want to hear differences will hear them. Those who do NOT
wish to hear differences won't hear them. In a correctly set-up Double-Blind
Test (DBT) NEITHER group will hear any differences because there are none.

> I had a little discussion about this with a British fello who had his
> own tube amp company. He quickly told me that wire is predictable
> (I'm summarizing). He basically said that solid wire will have a high
> "slam" factor but rolled off highs, stranded will sound more nuetral,
> and silver wire will be highly detailed.

Next time you speak to your British "fello", tell him "Poppycock and
balderdash!" He should understand that!

> I could almost visualize
> what must be under the sheath of the assorted wires I tried based on
> the sound they impart. Now having seen ads in mags with wire innards
> shown, there must be combinations of solid, stranded, and even silver
> in use. This would complicate the British bloke's simple description,
> but I can see how a wire can be "tuned" in this way.

Except that there no way that wire, in the lengths used in home stereo and at
audio frequencies can do ANY of those things. That's just fact, my friend. At
the low frequencies that ecompass the audio bandwidth, true conductors don't
have any characteristics that could in any way change the sound. Now a
"cable" manufacturer can build "cables" with little boxes built into them
with external components (like resistors, inductors, and capacitors) of
sufficient values to actually act as fixed audio filters, but those are
merely fixed "tone controls" that you can't alter. They merely attenuate some
portion of the audio band. But these aren't really conductors, any more. They
will likely sound different from one another. But the amount of resistance,
capacitance, and inductance inherent in any wire, in and of ITSELF, cannot
have enough of these characteristics to affect an audio signal in any audible
way.

> I am using the
> gifted wires in cetain places of my stereo where their particular
> charachter will offset something I don't like.

You are deluding yourself. It's just not possible and a DBT would prove it to
you.

Only because I had a
> bunch of different wires on hand to try one right after the next could
> I clearly detect all this wire can make a difference buisiness. In
> some cases, if I had purchased a wire it may not sound different than
> the stock and then I wouldn't be a believer. If I had purchased the
> mello wire and inserted it into a system that didn't need mellowing,
> it would sound like crap. Frankly, shopping for the right "sounding"
> wire in a particular application would be a hit-and-miss nighmare.
> You almost need an assortment at the ready to try. I scored wire from
> my man who didn't like these wires in his system, yet some of them for
> me worked out great. The wires he has look sweet, I mean damn sweet.
> But looks and phatness apparently don't always work out to be
> necesarily the best choice. Bottom line IMO, cables do sometimes make
> a for better or worse difference.

Religions come in all shapes and sizes. This is a technological religion, and
like all religions, it's a myth.

But, if it makes you happy to believe this myth (or any other), be my guest.
It's a free country, as they say.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_7_]]

In article >,
Audio Empire > wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:48:00 -0700, wrote
>(in article >):
>
>> This week's stereophile in its online offerings has a gem of an article.
>>
>> 'AudioQuest Headquarters Tour'
>>
>> http://www.stereophile.com/content/audioquest-headquarters-tour
>>
>> If one would want to produce subjective results guaranteed, the "tests"
>> described at the wire company could not have been setup more perfectly.
>>
>> See if you can spot the obvious flaws in the "tests"? Extra points for
>> those who spot the attempts to vaccinate the author's remarks against
>> these flaws?
>>
>>
>> For an even more interesting question, why did they bother when the
>> outcomes were predictable? Might it have something to do with trying to
>> vainly evoke science in support of a marketing department?
>>
>
>Magazines have advertisers and often some of the biggest advertisers are
>cable companies. After all, cable companies are selling, essentially, nothing
>at, often, very high prices. Their profit margins are astronomical! They can
>afford to spend a lot of money to advertise. If you ran a magazine would you
>want to lose that amount of advertising revenue? Of course not. So naturally,
>your not going to bite the hand that feeds you. It's simple business.

Of course. Sometimes the only thing to be said is the obvious. :)

>
>Interestingly enough, most audio writers actually BELIEVE that wire makes a
>difference, So, of course, when they review a cable, they go on at length
>about how much better this cable is than what's in their system now. And,
>just as naturally, the cable under test is never worse than what they are
>currently using, and just as naturally, they never use a carefully set-up DBT
>to ascertain whether or not their "observations" are the product of their
>ears or their eyes.


*R* *H*
--
Gaudium mundi, nova stella cæli, Fedora12 (2.6.32 kernel)
procreans solem, pariens parentem, Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76
da manum lapsis, fer opem caducis,
virgo Maria.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_7_]]

In article >, Kele > wrote:
>On Jun 13, 1:05=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>...> Interestingly enough, most audio writers actually BELIEVE that
>wire makes a
>> difference, So, of course, when they review a cable, they go on at length
>> about how much better this cable is than what's in their system now. And,
>> just as naturally, the cable under test is never worse than what they are
>> currently using, and just as naturally, they never use a carefully set-up=
> DBT
>> to ascertain whether or not their "observations" are the product of =A0th=
>eir
>> ears or their eyes.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Surprised to hear you say "most audio writers actually BELIEVE that
>wire makes a difference". That sounds like you think a wire is a
>wire. I was fortunate to have someone gift me an assortment of his
>stereo wire rejects. Looking all phat mesh colorful and sexy, I
>swapped out my old days cable and no difference really. Then another
>and bam, what! That obviously sounds different; we both looked at
>eachother so I knew he heard it too. This cable was mello, layed
>back, and I had the perfect place for it. My center channel speaker
>is not like the others; it's bright sounding with a high sensitivity
>rating. That mello cable was just what was needed! But there's
>more... I tried a Silver (snake brand) cable for video and wow, that
>was another eureka momont. I tried a low end Kimber speaker wire swap
>and that sounded like crap compared to my M-series; the sound lacked
>body like AM radio. So far I'm trippin'; cables do have a sound. Now
>for the clincher... My home boy also brought over three power cables
>- the insane garden hose variety. I only had one component that
>allowed for power cable swapping - my amp. I took off the OEM and put
>one of these pythons. Too much base!!! Holy smokes, power cables can
>matter just like I read about... whot!? Then another and wow the
>sound stage became huge. Then the last one and it reminded me of the
>OEM. I put in the OEM and yes the last phat power cable and it were
>nearly identical sounding. I opted to retain the huge sound stage
>cable in that position. If you mean wire is wire, that may be I don't
>know, but the pairing of equipment to certain wire and all the physics
>that can be going on does make a very noticeable difference
>sometimes. I don't have the most resolving stereo so I presume that
>those who do may hear differences even more easily.
>
>I had a little discussion about this with a British fello who had his
>own tube amp company. He quickly told me that wire is predictable
>(I'm summarizing). He basically said that solid wire will have a high
>"slam" factor but rolled off highs, stranded will sound more nuetral,
>and silver wire will be highly detailed. I could almost visualize
>what must be under the sheath of the assorted wires I tried based on
>the sound they impart. Now having seen ads in mags with wire innards
>shown, there must be combinations of solid, stranded, and even silver
>in use. This would complicate the British bloke's simple description,
>but I can see how a wire can be "tuned" in this way. I am using the
>gifted wires in cetain places of my stereo where their particular
>charachter will offset something I don't like. Only because I had a
>bunch of different wires on hand to try one right after the next could
>I clearly detect all this wire can make a difference buisiness. In
>some cases, if I had purchased a wire it may not sound different than
>the stock and then I wouldn't be a believer. If I had purchased the
>mello wire and inserted it into a system that didn't need mellowing,
>it would sound like crap. Frankly, shopping for the right "sounding"
>wire in a particular application would be a hit-and-miss nighmare.
>You almost need an assortment at the ready to try. I scored wire from
>my man who didn't like these wires in his system, yet some of them for
>me worked out great. The wires he has look sweet, I mean damn sweet.
>But looks and phatness apparently don't always work out to be
>necesarily the best choice. Bottom line IMO, cables do sometimes make
>a for better or worse difference.
>

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more dramatic
effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and
floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. Why?
For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carpet and
drapes. Doh!

*R* *H*
--
Gaudium mundi, nova stella cæli, Fedora12 (2.6.32 kernel)
procreans solem, pariens parentem, Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76
da manum lapsis, fer opem caducis,
virgo Maria.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:35:01 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article >):

> Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more dramatic
> effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and
> floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. Why?
> For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carpet and
> drapes. Doh!
>
> *R* *H*

Almost assuredly. Every now and again, you MIGHT see an article about these
things, but, because these are a process rather than a product, they simply
get short shrift.

But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how cables
can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show definitively,
that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or phase
response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all audiophile
mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake oil,
pure and simple.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 19, 2:14=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:35:01 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more dramati=
c
> > effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and
> > floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. =
=A0Why?
> > For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carpet=
and
> > drapes. =A0Doh!
>
> > *R* *H*
>
> Almost assuredly. Every now and again, you MIGHT see an article about the=
se
> things, but, because these are a process rather than a product, they simp=
ly
> get short shrift.
>
> But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how cabl=
es
> can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show definitivel=
y,
> that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or phase
> response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all audiophile
> mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake oi=
l,
> pure and simple.

You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hinge
on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists
were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly
can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support
the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to
come up with a theory.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:36:51 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Jun 19, 2:14=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:35:01 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more dramati=
> c
>>> effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and
>>> floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. =
> =A0Why?
>>> For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carpet=
> and
>>> drapes. =A0Doh!
>>
>>> *R* *H*
>>
>> Almost assuredly. Every now and again, you MIGHT see an article about the=
> se
>> things, but, because these are a process rather than a product, they simp=
> ly
>> get short shrift.
>>
>> But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how cabl=
> es
>> can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show definitivel=
> y,
>> that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or phase
>> response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all audiophile
>> mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake oi=
> l,
>> pure and simple.
>
> You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hinge
> on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists
> were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly
> can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support
> the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to
> come up with a theory.

Not at all. This is not a case like gravity. Everyone "sticks" to the planet.
There is no one arguing that some people or some things don't stick to the
planet, Gravity is just a fact, and you're right, the law of gravity doesn't
depend upon human understanding in order for it to function. But cable sound
is NOT a "fact". It is a belief system. And just like religion, some people
believe in the existence of a god (or gods) and some people don't. And like
the existence of gods, logic and science say that the likelihood that cables
have a sound is so small as to be practically nil. Just as non-believers in
religion require some sort of proof that deities exists in order to change
their mind, those who say that cable sound does not and cannot exist, will
require some reasonable scientific theory that explains what cable
characteristics could possibly exist that affect ONLY a paltry, low-frequency
audio signal while not affecting higher frequency video, RF or digital
communications in any way that has ever been detected by ANYBODY.

IOW, what I think that you are trying to say, here is that if cables do have
an audible effect on the signals they pass, and science can't find an
explanation for the phenomenon, will that lack of knowledge make that fact
not true? And conversely, if you believe in cable sound, and it really
doesn't exist, will your belief in it make it a fact? The answer to both of
those questions is NO.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 23, 4:11=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:36:51 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 2:14=3DA0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:35:01 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
> >> (in article >):
>
> >>> Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more drama=
ti=3D
> > c
> >>> effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and
> >>> floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. =
=3D
> > =3DA0Why?
> >>> For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carp=
et=3D
> > =A0and
> >>> drapes. =3DA0Doh!
>
> >>> *R* *H*
>
> >> Almost assuredly. Every now and again, you MIGHT see an article about =
the=3D
> > se
> >> things, but, because these are a process rather than a product, they s=
imp=3D
> > ly
> >> get short shrift.
>
> >> But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how c=
abl=3D
> > es
> >> can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show definiti=
vel=3D
> > y,
> >> that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or pha=
se
> >> response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all audiophile
> >> mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake=
oi=3D
> > l,
> >> pure and simple.
>
> > You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hinge
> > on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists
> > were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly
> > can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support
> > the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to
> > come up with a theory.
>
> Not at all. This is not a case like gravity. Everyone "sticks" to the pla=
net.

Yeah That is *evidence* of gravity. people stuck to the earth with no
human explanation or theory as to why. They kept on sticking even when
people believed gravity worked for reasons that were clearly not true.
So my point stands. Reality does not hinge on human understanding of
it.


> There is no one arguing that some people or some things don't stick to th=
e
> planet, Gravity is just a fact, and you're right, the law of gravity does=
n't
> depend upon human understanding in order for it to function.


Bingo.

> But cable sound
> is NOT a "fact". It is a belief system.


Cable sound is something that clearly does not have any where near the
evidencial support as does gravity and for *that* reason one can
legitimately challenge it's existance. But you can't legitimately
challenge it's existance based on the lack of a theory as to how it
works. We know this is not a legitimate means of challenging things
because we know reality does not hinge on humans having a theory as to
how it works. Thas is what you did and this what I called out on the
carpet. Nothing more nothing less. Your specific argument that
believers in cable sound need to have a theory for it to be true was a
faulty argument regardless of what the reality is on cable sound.


> And just like religion, some people
> believe in the existence of a god (or gods) and some people don't. =A0And=
like
> the existence of gods, logic and science say that the likelihood that cab=
les
> have a sound is so small as to be practically nil. Just as non-believers =
in
> religion require some sort of proof that deities exists in order to chang=
e
> their mind, those who say that cable sound does not and cannot exist, wil=
l
> require some reasonable scientific theory that =A0explains what cable
> characteristics could possibly exist that affect ONLY a paltry, low-frequ=
ency
> audio signal while not affecting higher frequency =A0video, RF or digital
> communications in any way that has ever been detected by ANYBODY.
>
> IOW, what I think that you are trying to say, here is that if cables do h=
ave
> an audible effect on the signals they pass, and science can't find an
> explanation for the phenomenon, will that lack of knowledge make that fac=
t
> not true? And conversely, if you believe in cable sound, and it really
> doesn't exist, will your =A0belief in it make it a fact? The answer to bo=
th of
> those questions is NO.

No, what I am saying is the argument that believers in cable sound
have to have a theory for why there is cable sound is a faulty
argument against cable sound. The argument should hinge on evidence
not on theories. That is all I am saying.

[Jim Gibson[_2_]]

In article >, Scott >
wrote:

> No, what I am saying is the argument that believers in cable sound
> have to have a theory for why there is cable sound is a faulty
> argument against cable sound. The argument should hinge on evidence
> not on theories. That is all I am saying.

The problem with evidence-only arguments is that evidence can be faulty
or misinterpreted. This is why people of a scientific persuasion insist
on double-blind, controlled testing.

In order for human knowledge to advance, both theory and evidence are
necessary. Scientific theories often start with simple observations.
These lead to theories, which can be tested by experimentation and more
observation. The theories, in order to contribute to human
understanding, should make predictions that can be tested and are
falsifiable. Experimental results must be reproducible by independent,
objective observers.

Without a theory of why cables can sound differently, then even the
best experiment can only be said to show differences between the cables
being tested. No generalization to other cables not under test can be
made.

--
Jim Gibson

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message
...




> The argument should hinge on evidence not on theories. That is all I am
> saying.

The fact is that there are no known extant occasions where there were
audible differences due to cables except those where there was a grevious
fault, whether by happenstance or intention. The only caveat is that the
determination of audible differences had to be made using a well-designed
bias controlled test.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:16:39 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article >):

> On Jun 23, 4:11=A0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:36:51 -0700, Scott wrote
>> (in article >):

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

>>> You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hinge
>>> on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists
>>> were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly
>>> can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support
>>> the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to
>>> come up with a theory.
>>
>> Not at all. This is not a case like gravity. Everyone "sticks" to the planet.
>
> Yeah That is *evidence* of gravity. people stuck to the earth with no
> human explanation or theory as to why. They kept on sticking even when
> people believed gravity worked for reasons that were clearly not true.
> So my point stands. Reality does not hinge on human understanding of
> it.
>
>> There is no one arguing that some people or some things don't stick to the
>> planet, Gravity is just a fact, and you're right, the law of gravity doesn't
>> depend upon human understanding in order for it to function.
>
> Bingo.
>
>> But cable sound
>> is NOT a "fact". It is a belief system.
>
> Cable sound is something that clearly does not have any where near the
> evidencial support as does gravity and for *that* reason one can
> legitimately challenge it's existance. But you can't legitimately
> challenge it's existance based on the lack of a theory as to how it
> works. We know this is not a legitimate means of challenging things
> because we know reality does not hinge on humans having a theory as to
> how it works. Thas is what you did and this what I called out on the
> carpet. Nothing more nothing less. Your specific argument that
> believers in cable sound need to have a theory for it to be true was a
> faulty argument regardless of what the reality is on cable sound.
>
>> And just like religion, some people
>> believe in the existence of a god (or gods) and some people don't. And like
>> the existence of gods, logic and science say that the likelihood that cables
>> have a sound is so small as to be practically nil. Just as non-believers in
>> religion require some sort of proof that deities exists in order to change
>> their mind, those who say that cable sound does not and cannot exist, will
>> require some reasonable scientific theory that explains what cable
>> characteristics could possibly exist that affect ONLY a paltry, low-frequency
>> audio signal while not affecting higher frequency video, RF or digital
>> communications in any way that has ever been detected by ANYBODY.
>>
>> IOW, what I think that you are trying to say, here is that if cables do have
>> an audible effect on the signals they pass, and science can't find an
>> explanation for the phenomenon, will that lack of knowledge make that fact
>> not true? And conversely, if you believe in cable sound, and it really
>> doesn't exist, will your belief in it make it a fact? The answer to both of
>> those questions is NO.
>
> No, what I am saying is the argument that believers in cable sound
> have to have a theory for why there is cable sound is a faulty
> argument against cable sound. The argument should hinge on evidence
> not on theories. That is all I am saying.

Sigh. That's not my assertion at all, and where you "get" that it is
from my words, I simply don't understand. I have said nothing about
true believers needing scientific proof supporting their beliefs. I'm
saying that skeptics about cable sound would need a scientifically
plausible theory in order to look at the phenomenon as anything more
than a religious belief system, not "true believers". Why would I care
whether or not believers need a scientific hypothesis in order to
support their beliefs? They don't accept the existing body of
scientific evidence against the proposition now, how would a new body
of evidence affect them in any way? I would have thought this would be
apparent to even the most casual observer of this thread. It's just
like other religious beliefs. If science could prove beyond a shadow
of a doubt that god doesn't exist, do you think that the religiously
inclined would accept one word of it? Do you think that it would
change their beliefs in any way? Of course not! Their minds are made
up and in both of those belief systems there is no room for fact. But
people like me NEED facts, because science tells us that cable sound
doesn't exist, And it needs to be proved to me that it does exist
before I even think about changing my mind. The difference between
people like me and a "True Believer" is that if I'm proved wrong, I'll
gladly recant all my assertions about this subject.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 23, 4:17=A0pm, Audio Empire > wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:16:39 -0700, Scott wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > On Jun 23, 4:11=3DA0am, Audio Empire > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:36:51 -0700, Scott wrote
> >> (in article >):
>
> [quoted text deleted -- deb]
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hing=
e
> >>> on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists
> >>> were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly
> >>> can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support
> >>> the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to
> >>> come up with a theory.
>
> >> Not at all. This is not a case like gravity. Everyone "sticks" to the =
planet.
>
> > Yeah That is *evidence* of gravity. people stuck to the earth with no
> > human explanation or theory as to why. They kept on sticking even when
> > people believed gravity worked for reasons that were clearly not true.
> > So my point stands. Reality does not hinge on human understanding of
> > it.
>
> >> There is no one arguing that some people or some things don't stick to=
the
> >> planet, Gravity is just a fact, and you're right, the law of gravity d=
oesn't
> >> depend upon human understanding in order for it to function.
>
> > Bingo.
>
> >> But cable sound
> >> is NOT a "fact". It is a belief system.
>
> > Cable sound is something that clearly does not have any where near the
> > evidencial support as does gravity and for *that* reason one can
> > legitimately challenge it's existance. But you can't legitimately
> > challenge it's existance based on the lack of a theory as to how it
> > works. We know this is not a legitimate means of challenging things
> > because we know reality does not hinge on humans having a theory as to
> > how it works. Thas is what you did and this what I called out on the
> > carpet. Nothing more nothing less. Your specific argument that
> > believers in cable sound need to have a theory for it to be true was a
> > faulty argument regardless of what the reality is on cable sound.
>
> >> And just like religion, some people
> >> believe in the existence of a god (or gods) and some people don't. And=
like
> >> the existence of gods, logic and science say that the likelihood that =
cables
> >> have a sound is so small as to be practically nil. Just as non-believe=
rs in
> >> religion require some sort of proof that deities exists in order to ch=
ange
> >> their mind, those who say that cable sound does not and cannot exist, =
will
> >> require some reasonable scientific theory that explains what cable
> >> characteristics could possibly exist that affect ONLY a paltry, low-fr=
equency
> >> audio signal while not affecting higher frequency video, RF or digital
> >> communications in any way that has ever been detected by ANYBODY.
>
> >> IOW, what I think that you are trying to say, here is that if cables d=
o have
> >> an audible effect on the signals they pass, and science can't find an
> >> explanation for the phenomenon, will that lack of knowledge make that =
fact
> >> not true? And conversely, if you believe in cable sound, and it really
> >> doesn't exist, will your belief in it make it a fact? The answer to bo=
th of
> >> those questions is NO.
>
> > No, what I am saying is the argument that believers in cable sound
> > have to have a theory for why there is cable sound is a faulty
> > argument against cable sound. The argument should hinge on evidence
> > not on theories. That is all I am saying.
>
> Sigh. That's not my assertion at all, and where you "get" that it is
> from my words, I simply don't understand.


I got it from this.

Audio Empire View profile
More options Jun 19, 2:14 pm

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: Audio Empire >
Date: 19 Jun 2011 21:14:43 GMT
Local: Sun, Jun 19 2011 2:14 pm
Subject: Re: Wire that sounds different, guaranteed


"But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how
cables
can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show
definitively,
that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or
phase
response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all
audiophile
mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake
oil,
pure and simple."




> I have said nothing about
> true believers needing scientific proof supporting their beliefs.

I have not said that you did. My response was (I will quote myself
here) "You certainly
can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support
the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to
come up with a theory." I'm saying that should have been your
argument.


> I'm
> saying that skeptics about cable sound would need a scientifically
> plausible theory in order to look at the phenomenon as anything more
> than a religious belief system, not "true believers".

Really? What if they got a mountain of verifiable evidence instead?
*That* IMO is what would be needed. Not a theory. The reality of cable
sound hinges on evidence and only on evidence. Otherwise the cart is
being put before the horse.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jun 23, 12:36=A0pm, Jim Gibson > wrote:
> In article >, Scott >
> wrote:
>
> > No, what I am saying is the argument that believers in cable sound
> > have to have a theory for why there is cable sound is a faulty
> > argument against cable sound. The argument should hinge on evidence
> > not on theories. That is all I =A0am saying.
>
> The problem with evidence-only arguments is that evidence can be faulty
> or misinterpreted. This is why people of a scientific persuasion insist
> on double-blind, controlled testing.

It is why they insist on verifiability. That comes in many forms. I
agree with science on this. Didn't think I needed to mention it.


>
> In order for human knowledge to advance, both theory and evidence are
> necessary.


That would be fine if we were talking about human knowledge. But I
wan't talking about advancing human knowledge. I wasn't arguing that
theories should not be put forth in the light of evidence and then put
to the test. I am all for it. It's science. My argument has nothing to
do with that though. It was purely an argument that one can not attack
an observation becuae the observer does not offer a theory behind the
observation. It has no bearing on whether or not the observation was
accurate or not. The acid test of cable sound simply has nothing to do
with whether or not people who believe it is real have a theory as to
how it works. I know how sicnece works and I can say with some
certitude that the observations are judged by their varifiability and
nothing else. There is no requisit that one has to have a theory for
an observation to be real or imagined.




> Scientific theories often start with simple observations.
> These lead to theories, which can be tested by experimentation and more
> observation. The theories, in order to contribute to human
> understanding, should make predictions that can be tested and are
> falsifiable. Experimental results must be reproducible by independent,
> objective observers.
>
> Without a theory of why cables can sound differently, then even the
> best experiment can only be said to show differences between the cables
> being tested. No generalization to other cables not under test can be
> made.

That is true. But it remains true even if those who believe in cable
sound offer up any kind of theories. Claims of cable sound are
testable. No need to demand a theory from people making such
observations.
Just put the observation to the test.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 23, 4:17 pm, Audio Empire > wrote:

> Really? What if they got a mountain of verifiable evidence instead?

Rule number one: Advocates of the existence of an audible difference are the
best people to gather compelling, reliable evidence to support their
position.

IME, this gets quickly derailed because advocates of audible difrerences
that have already been effectively criticized by science behave like people
who have dependency issues. They won't do anything effective to create
behavioral or intellectual space between them and the object of their
dependency. They deny evidence that already exists that shows that they are
dependent on a fabrication of their minds that has no physical evidence to
support it.

> *That* IMO is what would be needed. Not a theory. The reality of cable
> sound hinges on evidence and only on evidence. Otherwise the cart is
> being put before the horse.

I'm involved with adminstering a 12 step program at my church. I see a lot
of similarities between people whose lives have been heavily damaged or
destroyed by the well-known substance and behaviorally-related hang-ups and
audiophiles who hang onto the usual audiophile myths. It is all about denial
and pride.

[KH]

On 6/22/2011 8:36 PM, Scott wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2:14 pm, Audio > wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:35:01 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
>> (in >):
>>
>>> Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more dramatic
>>> effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and
>>> floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. Why?
>>> For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carpet and
>>> drapes. Doh!
>>
>>> *R* *H*
>>
>> Almost assuredly. Every now and again, you MIGHT see an article about these
>> things, but, because these are a process rather than a product, they simply
>> get short shrift.
>>
>> But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how cables
>> can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show definitively,
>> that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or phase
>> response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all audiophile
>> mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake oil,
>> pure and simple.
>
> You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hinge
> on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists
> were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly
> can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support
> the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to
> come up with a theory.

Not at all. There is a qualitative difference between any *natural*
artifact or phenomenon, and evaluation of a human engineered device.
Gravity, for example exists, as you said, irrespective of anyone's
observations or theories. It also, and this is crucial, can be reliably
and repeatably measured, i.e. it is trivial to prove that the *effect*
is real, irrespective of cause.

OTOH, an audio cable is the *product* of a theoretical / mathematical
construct, engineered by a human mind. Thus, there is a theory of how a
cable should operate, based on mathematics and engineering design, and
there is reliable, repeatable objective data to support that cable X
performs according to theory and design. It is thus incumbent on
someone claiming that this supporting theoretical construct is wrong,
because it does not account for their anecdotal experience, to overcome
two rationale hurdles; one, they have to demonstrate that there *is*
indeed an effect that lies outside of expected operational parameters
(based on design and use), and two, they need an alternate theory to
explain the differences observed. Lacking the alternate theoretical
underpinning, one cannot accept countervailing evidence as unambiguous,
since test methods will always be suspect until some basis (besides
flawed test design / data acquisition) in theory can be established.

Since hurdle #1 appears sufficiently unobtainable at this point, hurdle
#2 will likely remain moot.

Keith

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:23:57 -0700, KH wrote
(in article >):

> On 6/22/2011 8:36 PM, Scott wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 2:14 pm, Audio > wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:35:01 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
>>> (in >):
>>>
>>>> Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more dramatic
>>>> effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and
>>>> floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. Why?
>>>> For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carpet
>>>> and
>>>> drapes. Doh!
>>>
>>>> *R* *H*
>>>
>>> Almost assuredly. Every now and again, you MIGHT see an article about these
>>> things, but, because these are a process rather than a product, they simply
>>> get short shrift.
>>>
>>> But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how cables
>>> can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show definitively,
>>> that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or phase
>>> response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all audiophile
>>> mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake oil,
>>> pure and simple.
>>
>> You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hinge
>> on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists
>> were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly
>> can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support
>> the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to
>> come up with a theory.
>
> Not at all. There is a qualitative difference between any *natural*
> artifact or phenomenon, and evaluation of a human engineered device.
> Gravity, for example exists, as you said, irrespective of anyone's
> observations or theories. It also, and this is crucial, can be reliably
> and repeatably measured, i.e. it is trivial to prove that the *effect*
> is real, irrespective of cause.
>
> OTOH, an audio cable is the *product* of a theoretical / mathematical
> construct, engineered by a human mind. Thus, there is a theory of how a
> cable should operate, based on mathematics and engineering design, and
> there is reliable, repeatable objective data to support that cable X
> performs according to theory and design. It is thus incumbent on
> someone claiming that this supporting theoretical construct is wrong,
> because it does not account for their anecdotal experience, to overcome
> two rationale hurdles; one, they have to demonstrate that there *is*
> indeed an effect that lies outside of expected operational parameters
> (based on design and use), and two, they need an alternate theory to
> explain the differences observed. Lacking the alternate theoretical
> underpinning, one cannot accept countervailing evidence as unambiguous,
> since test methods will always be suspect until some basis (besides
> flawed test design / data acquisition) in theory can be established.
>
> Since hurdle #1 appears sufficiently unobtainable at this point, hurdle
> #2 will likely remain moot.
>
> Keith
>

Congratulations, this is correct and very logically asserted. Since cable
sound is a matter of faith and cannot be supported, either by controlled,
repeatable observation, or by any known scientific or mathematical theory,
Hurdle # 1 is indeed unsurmountable. The key here is the maxim that one
cannot prove a negative. For instance, there are many people in this world
who believe that the Continent of Atlantis lies at the bottom of the Atlantic
Ocean. The evidence (plate tectonics, etc.) says that there is no room in the
middle of the Atlantic for such a continent, but that kind of evidence
doesn't sway the true believer. Other than the physical evidence (and some
inconsistencies in Plato's Dialogs) there is no way that I (or anyone else)
can prove that Atlantis never existed in the Atlantic Ocean, but "True
Believers CAN prove that it DID exist merely by finding its remains. OTOH,
not finding it proves nothing except that it hasn't (yet) been found.

This cable question is similar. There is all kinds of evidence that says
that cable can have no sound, but that's a negative, and cannot be proved.
True believers in cable sound CAN, again, prove their case by coming up with
a valid, testable, theory that shows that previous science was either wrong
or incomplete. Therefore logically, the onus is on that camp to explain
"cable sound" with a theory, and then test that theory using accepted
scientific methodology.

[Rob Tweed]

>Next time you speak to your British "fello", tell him "Poppycock and
>balderdash!" He should understand that!

Indeed so, we talk like that all the time here, old chap :-)

Rob, don't you know


---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com
Twitter: @rtweed