Thus spake Don Pearce:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:54:11 -0000, "Paul B" wrote:

Thus spake Don Pearce:
OK, I've had a bit of a think - and I've written a protocol, which I
believe would be a basis of fair testing of audio components to
resolve such issues as cable sound etc.

I invite all here to read what I suggest, and let me know if I have
either missed something, or am being unfair on one direction or
another.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I think this could be a way of defusing the vituperation that
currently surrounds the subject.

So what do you think?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


This subject, for good or bad, really fascinates me but I'm
sceptical that anyone would score that much over 50%. The reason I
suggest that has little to do with what I happen to believe (well, I
hope that but anyone proclaiming their own impartiality often isn't)
but due to the nature of our hearing skills (for want of a better
phrase) would mask anything but huge differences that could be
easily measured. The glaring problem is memory - a somewhat arbitory
concept & very subjective. Sorry, but I can envisage, in theory,
that differences between cables is provable as opposed to being
non-existent. An alternative view might be that differences between
cables are indeed real but are swamped by differences due to alcohol
consumption, level of wakefulness, medical conditions, mood etc to
the point of diminishing returns. I'm suggesting that there are huge
differences to our auditory perception without throwing cables into
the mix!

That should have read "...I can envisage, in theory,
that differences between cables is unprovable as opposed to being
non-existent."

Snipped

Interesting stuff, but sort of wide of the point. The purpose of the
protocol I have published is not to establish whether it is possible
to hear differences between cables. It is to confirm whether
differences that have been identified as readily audible are genuine
or imagined; that is a very different thing.

Don, it's late & I'm failing to draw the distinction.

The measurements are designed to establish basic levels of competence
for the cables to make sure that they do not exhibit gross frequency
response differences that would be audible, masking the subtle "magic"
effects claimed by the boutique cable houses.

I suspect that's all that's needed with cables.

As for auditioning new equipment - would you really bother apart from
speakers? Anything else you buy on looks and features.

LOL! I did just that fairly recently - I compared a Rotel RCD1072 CD player
against a Rega Planet & bought the Rotel to replace a 17yr Pioneer that had
gone faulty. I sat there thinking "can I really tell the difference?" I
thought that if I could - it was very marginal. As it happened, I was not
too keen on the B&W speakers anyhow. As for buying replacements for my
Celestion SL6s, I'd only audition anything with the proviso that I could try
them at home for at least a weekend.

Speakers obviously vary according to placement & the room they are used in &
IMO, have the most effect on sound for well understood technical reasons.

What I'm suggesting is that anyone is going to get fairly confused listening
to the same piece of music to be able to distinguish between any 2 cables.
If the same person cannot distinguish runs with the same cable but with a
fair degree of inductance/resistance/capacitance added, I would speculate
(rightly or wrongly) that a low score with just different cables *as well*,
points to the test method being unsatisfactory on its own.