On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:00:28 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:11:11 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:31:39 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:



OK. Do you accept:

1. Some people can differentiate between cables;


No

The evidence, I'm afraid, is against you:

http://www.reviewcentre.com/products45.html
http://www.audionote.co.uk/reviews/anspaanspe.htm
http://www.audience-av.com/cable%20reviews.htm

(etc - try Google)


OK - in these terms, everybody can distinguish between cables, by
looking at them. Nobody has yet (to my knowledge) distinguished
between cables on the basis of sound.

Many of those reviews *claim* distinction by sound. I'm not making it up!

Many people *claim* that Elvis is alive. The odds seem similar for
both cases..........

DBT reveals that there is no audible difference between cables that
meet a minimum condition of basic competence for an application.
Therefore DBT is NOT a flawed method.


In this context I argue that it *might* be. Under normal (for now,
non-DBT) conditions some people claim difference.

So what? Once they can *prove* that they hear a difference when they
don't actually *know* what's connected, we'll continue the debate.

Unless you consider it a flaw to fail to reveal a difference that
doesn't exist.

I simply don't know. I'd like to be able to explain point (1), that's
all.

Easy - bull**** and sighted bias.

If you throw out actual difference, what are you left with?
Explanations could be: physiological; psychological; sociological;
environmental; political; anthropological. Or pathological :-)

Take your pick. And garnish with evidence, if you would.

Easy, really easy. I can sit you down and have you hear clearly
audible differences between two cables, after telling you all about
them. Of course, I won't actually have changed the cables, but you'll
'hear' the differences anyway. Hi-fi salesmen do this kind of thing
every working day.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:21:57 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


big snip - not hard to do...


I simply don't know. I'd like to be able to explain point (1), that's
all. If you throw out actual difference, what are you left with?
Explanations could be: physiological; psychological; sociological;
environmental; political; anthropological. Or pathological :-)

Take your pick. And garnish with evidence, if you would.

Rob

The evidence is right there in Stewart's as-yet unclaimed thousand
pound prize to anybody who can show that they can hear a difference
between cables.

I would happily pay a thousand pounds to be be *able* to hear the
difference....!! :-)

The total pool is over $5,000 if you include the US contributors.

The evidence is there with rabid high-enders like Greg
Singh (who no longer posts) who was strident in his claims of night
and day differences which mysteriously vanished when he could not see
which cable was plugged in.


Ha ha! Trotsky! - I wonder where/how he is???

(I miss him - he had a great wit and and lovely line in ****-take!! :-)

He had wit like **** and didn't recognise a ****-take for days, which
is why he slunk off back under his rock.

It is there in a test which I myself proctored, in which similarly
vocal types were asked to comment on the sounds of various cables in a
sighted test.
They all agreed that the cables sounded very different,
and they all agreed on a description of the types of sound they heard.
What they did not know until after the test was that the cables I was
changing were not the ones carrying the signal - which remained
unchanged throughout.


Where, when, what, who? - Details would be interesting.


I'm afraid that this and a thousand other physical and psychological
studies say that the human brain is very, very easily fooled, and
evidence from a sighted test is totally valueless.

If you want to see this in spades, look up the McGurk effect.


Yes, indeed:

http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html

IMPORTANT - do *not* read the text before playing the video (hide it with
your hand) for best effect!

Actually, that turns out to be not at all important! I watch the
video, hear what was predicted. I close my eyes, I hear what is really
being said. I open my eyes again, and I *still* 'hear' the wrong
thing! Powerful thing, the human mind..........

Works the same with amplifiers - I *still* hear my Krell as having
sweeter treble than my Audiolab, even though I know it doesn't.

I don't *do* cable threads - same old **** chasing round and round (bringing
out the worst in one or two posters here) and I most definitely CAN'T tell
the difference between speaker cables - sighted or not (I'm happily using
mains cable on one of my amps). But I will just say this - I've got a pair
of Monster XP speaker cables that my brother (no 'audiophile' whatsoever)
gave me because he said that 'they didn't sound too good' on his (mainly
Denon) 'hifi' system....???




--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:15:22 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 18:10:33 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

I did it at Decca Studios Marble Arch in the early seventies.

Really?

I was at Decca 1965 to 1978. There were never any
facilities at Marble Arch.


Iain


Very sorry - it was Pye. My memories of those days are hazy.

That was the seventies for you! If you remember it, then you weren't
there................... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:52:51 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:00:28 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

snip


I simply don't know. I'd like to be able to explain point (1), that's
all. If you throw out actual difference, what are you left with?
Explanations could be: physiological; psychological; sociological;
environmental; political; anthropological. Or pathological :-)

Take your pick. And garnish with evidence, if you would.

Rob


The evidence is right there in Stewart's as-yet unclaimed thousand
pound prize to anybody who can show that they can hear a difference
between cables. The evidence is there with rabid high-enders like Greg
Singh (who no longer posts) who was strident in his claims of night
and day differences which mysteriously vanished when he could not see
which cable was plugged in.

So - you agree that cables can make a difference to sound quality for
some people? On a more down to earth note i am surprised that none of
the more strident cableophiles haven't taken Stewart up on his offer. Is
it one-way, or a bet? Or does Stewart have a horde of cable people
locked away, never to return, much less appreciate fine cables?


Please read that again. Your conclusion is the exact opposite of what
the test revealed. The cable made no difference to him, the belief
that a cable could make a difference did make a difference.

It is there in a test which I myself proctored, in which similarly
vocal types were asked to comment on the sounds of various cables in a
sighted test. They all agreed that the cables sounded very different,
and they all agreed on a description of the types of sound they heard.
What they did not know until after the test was that the cables I was
changing were not the ones carrying the signal - which remained
unchanged throughout.

I'm afraid that this and a thousand other physical and psychological
studies say that the human brain is very, very easily fooled, and
evidence from a sighted test is totally valueless.

I agree. Let me go back to the beginning.

1. Some people can differentiate between cables;
Agreed - they sound different if they (we) can see them.

No, they DON'T sound different. When are you going to grasp this
fundamental point.

2. DBT doesn't reliably support that finding;
Agreed - they all sound the same.

3. DBT, for this purpose, is a flawed method?
I think we agree - DBT doesn't tell us anything about *why* this effect
arises.

People react mostly to the visual cue. Couple that with expectation,
and you can forget the sound - it simply doesn't figure in the
picture. If you want to examine the psychology of that, then fine, but
it is exactly why DBT is vital to establish whether there is a
difference.

As should be clear, I don't know that all cables have the same effect on
audio. I have four main points of focus:

1. Physical science: frankly, I don't have the capacity to prove
anything from that toolbox;

But plenty of people have, and it should not be too much of a leap of
faith for you to accept their findings. You must, of course, disregard
anything said by people with something to sell.

2. Controlled tests: magazines and DBTs. I don't really know what to
make of these. Overall i'm not convinced either way;

Beware of magazines. Advertising revenues are far too dependent on
good reviews.

3. Anecdote: interesting as it goes, but too many variables;

Just forget it. What the bloke down the pub said isn't evidence.

4. Personal experience. The only speaker cable I've bought was QED 79
biwire - it's in the loft right now (I don't like the look of it!). The
other cables I have found or was given. I can't tell any difference
between them, and all I do is make sure they make a good physical
contact and are out of harm's way. The only exception was I thought at
one point biwiring made a difference, then I wasn't sure, then I gave up.

But that's just me, and I'm half-deaf and amuse myself at how daft *I*
can be during critical listening. Some people are very serious about
this, and spend significant proportions of their disposable income on
wire. I think there's more to this than DBT is telling me.


On a personal level, you have this sorted.


If you want to see this in spades, look up the McGurk effect.


I think that's interesting, although I'd like to understand the point at
which auditory cues 'overstep' visual stimuli. Some of the 'best' cables
look very unpromising - I think DNM little skinny cables?

Rob

Forget this "best" stuff. The best speaker cable is one that is thick
enough not to lose you too much signal, and long enough to reach the
speaker.

d

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

On Tue, 31 May 2005 16:09:11 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

Rob, are you seriously this naive? Please avoid watching TV adverts,
for your own sake.


What I am (or am not) is irrelevant. The fact remains that quite a few
people spend a lot of money on wire.

Rob

Bingo!

d

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

On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:52:51 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:00:28 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

snip


I simply don't know. I'd like to be able to explain point (1), that's
all. If you throw out actual difference, what are you left with?
Explanations could be: physiological; psychological; sociological;
environmental; political; anthropological. Or pathological :-)

Take your pick. And garnish with evidence, if you would.

Rob


The evidence is right there in Stewart's as-yet unclaimed thousand
pound prize to anybody who can show that they can hear a difference
between cables. The evidence is there with rabid high-enders like Greg
Singh (who no longer posts) who was strident in his claims of night
and day differences which mysteriously vanished when he could not see
which cable was plugged in.

So - you agree that cables can make a difference to sound quality for
some people?

No, absolutely not. As Greg proved..........

On a more down to earth note i am surprised that none of
the more strident cableophiles haven't taken Stewart up on his offer.

I'm not. I suspect that they've tried it on the quiet, discovered the
awful truth, and kept quiet about it.

Is
it one-way, or a bet? Or does Stewart have a horde of cable people
locked away, never to return, much less appreciate fine cables?

It's a prize, although I also offer £10,000 as a bet. There's also a
rec.audio.high-end pool of about $5,000 (to which I'm one of the
contributors) which has remained unclaimed for six years or so, and
that one includes amplifiers.

There is no such thing as 'fine cables', wire is wire.

It is there in a test which I myself proctored, in which similarly
vocal types were asked to comment on the sounds of various cables in a
sighted test. They all agreed that the cables sounded very different,
and they all agreed on a description of the types of sound they heard.
What they did not know until after the test was that the cables I was
changing were not the ones carrying the signal - which remained
unchanged throughout.

I'm afraid that this and a thousand other physical and psychological
studies say that the human brain is very, very easily fooled, and
evidence from a sighted test is totally valueless.

I agree. Let me go back to the beginning.

1. Some people can differentiate between cables;
Agreed - they sound different if they (we) can see them.

OK, we're all agreed on that one - but what has this to do with the
physical soundfield?

2. DBT doesn't reliably support that finding;
Agreed - they all sound the same.

Indeed they do.

3. DBT, for this purpose, is a flawed method?
I think we agree - DBT doesn't tell us anything about *why* this effect
arises.

It does however point directly to the answer - sighted bias.

As should be clear, I don't know that all cables have the same effect on
audio. I have four main points of focus:

1. Physical science: frankly, I don't have the capacity to prove
anything from that toolbox;

I do - any normal speaker cable exhibits no nonlinearity whatsoever
down to about -150dB reference 10V rms, which is about the limit of
any test gear to which I've had access. When you work on submarine
acoustic systems, you need to know these things. A submarine can
another ship by its sonic signature at a range of more than a thousand
miles - and they all use perfectly ordinary wire in the sensor arrays,
because that's all you need.

2. Controlled tests: magazines and DBTs. I don't really know what to
make of these. Overall i'm not convinced either way;

No properly controlled test has *ever* shown audible difference.

3. Anecdote: interesting as it goes, but too many variables;

Anecdotes are worthless - unless you really do believe that Elvis is
alive......

4. Personal experience. The only speaker cable I've bought was QED 79
biwire - it's in the loft right now (I don't like the look of it!). The
other cables I have found or was given. I can't tell any difference
between them, and all I do is make sure they make a good physical
contact and are out of harm's way. The only exception was I thought at
one point biwiring made a difference, then I wasn't sure, then I gave up.

But that's just me, and I'm half-deaf and amuse myself at how daft *I*
can be during critical listening. Some people are very serious about
this, and spend significant proportions of their disposable income on
wire. I think there's more to this than DBT is telling me.

Yup - it's called salemanship.

If you want to see this in spades, look up the McGurk effect.

I think that's interesting, although I'd like to understand the point at
which auditory cues 'overstep' visual stimuli. Some of the 'best' cables
look very unpromising - I think DNM little skinny cables?

They do indeed, but they've never shown any theory to back up their
claims. I use skinny unscreened twisted pair for my interconnects, and
there *is* a good reason why that construction works.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 31 May 2005 18:13:56 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

I'd be happy to see if those who hold the relevant belief were to take
Stewart's test. Then see if the results supported their claim. i.e. decide
on the basis of the evidence. If there is a suitable alternative test I'd
also be interested to hear the details and consider if it could
distinguish
between a belief that is well-founded and one that is not.

After all, its not my money if they succeed. 8-]

Slainte,

Jim

I wonder why SP has not issued the challenge to the cable
manufacturers?

Already been done by Tom Nousaine, and they welched. I've tried it
with Ecosse cables in this country, and they ran away and hid. I've
tried it with Randy at BEAR Labs, and he ducked out as well.
Basically, they're just conmen, and they'll always duck a real test.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:06:46 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:36:42 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:


andy wrote:

The evidence, I'm afraid, is against you:


http://www.reviewcentre.com/products45.html
http://www.audionote.co.uk/reviews/anspaanspe.htm
http://www.audience-av.com/cable%20reviews.htm


There are a lot of assertions but no evidence that I can find. Can you
please indicate a verifiable experiment in the links given that I may
have missed?


Andy - you seem to have snipped important parts of my post. The above
links are *evidence* that people can differentiate between cables. Now,
*I* wouldn't stretch the point to suggest that it's verifiable or
replicable; I haven't correlated it. But if you dismiss these findings
out of hand then you don't get past (1) - see my OP.

Rob


You have a very poor idea of what constitutes evidence. If I advanced
an opinion that you were a rapist, would you say "fair dos" and hand
yourself in at the nearest police station?


Er, no! On what basis would you make that claim?

The same basis that cable sellers claim audible difference.

Understand this - what people crow in the throes of pride of ownership
of something pretty and expensive is NOT evidence.


Good. Got there. The reason for the claims of superior cable sound is
'pride of ownership'. Phew. Now, evidence please.

If you oaid £3,000 for a pair of speaker cables, would you happily
admit that they sound the same as mains cable?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:24:23 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

andy wrote:
Dons answer to your questions 1, 2 and 3 perhaps needs qualifying but
is essentially correct in my view. I repeat that I can find no evidence
in your 3 links. If the assertions are not verifiable then they are not
evidence. I suspect most technically literate people will not dismiss
these "findings" out of hand but because:


You mean will, presumeably.

No, to dismiss a claim becuase it is unsuppoorted and flies in the
face of current physical knowledge is *not* dismissing 'out of hand'.

Depends what their technical aptitude is,
their degree of literacy, and their 'language'. I think I've indicated
elswhere that this is not substantial evidence in the sense of
'reasonable proof'. It is some evidence of a possible correlation
between sound quality and cable design.

No, it is not evidence of any sort, it is mere assertion.

If I assert that you are a serial rapist, do you suppose that you'll
be arrested on the basis of my assertion?

1. They have learned a set of rules which govern how electroacoustic
devices work. This set of rules holds for all devices they have so far
considered. If the rules are not to hold for cables then, quite
reasonably, they are going to require evidence and, hopefully, a
modification to those rules that provides a consistent and better model
of what is going on. (A famous example would be the replacement of
Newtonian mechanics with relativity.)

That is precisely my point. DBT depends on certain assumptions
concerning sound and perception.

No, it doesn't.

To link electroacoustics (I think you
mean audio electronics) to human percpetion in this way is possibly
misplaced.

Electroacoustic devices are transducers, such as loudspeakers.

2. There is no evidence presented in the 3 links only
assertions/statements.

They are opinions. In the social world (which is where you live, that
is) I'm afraid they count - however misguided you may think they are.

They don't count as evidence of reality.

3. The interests of the authors are clearly not independent of the
presented "findings".

Everything is connected.

Some things are more connected than others...........

Why have we come to different conclusions when considering the same
text? What is in the text that makes you believe the assertions are
true and that the usual rules involving resistance, inductance and
capacitance are not going to hold for cables?

I do not believe the opinions are true, much less social fact. They are
observed phenomena.

No, they are merely claims, and claims made by people with a
commercial interest.

You have finally taken them - in part - seriously.
The reason you give (IIUC) for the observations of claimed cable
superiority and sound quality is vested interest - people pay a lot of
money for a cable and fool themselves that it sounds better. Correct?

That's pretty standard human psychology, yes.

Any other reasons, or any evidence, to back up your claim?

Lots, but absolutely *zero* to suggest that cables make a real audible
difference - unless seriously broken!


--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:54:17 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

Going back to my
original assertion:

1. Some people can differentiate between cables;

then evidence exists that they can. Whether you or I believe that to be
entirely misplaced or flimsy 'evidence' is irrelevant for the moment.
You would need to ask certain questions relating to *why* people think
that, and generate a meaningful hypothesis - not simply state
'cables-can't-sound-different-'cos-science-says-so'.

One could certainly provide good scientific evidence that this is the
case, but what I at least am saying is that cables don't sound
different because no one has yet demonstrated an ability to hear any
difference when they don't *know* what's connected.

Now, *I* wouldn't stretch the point to suggest that it's verifiable or
replicable; I haven't correlated it. But if you dismiss these findings
out of hand then you don't get past (1) - see my OP.


Please see my own response to (1). :-)


I seem to remember this from somewhere :-). My basic answer is:
'opinions matter'.

They don't affect the physical soundfield, so in a very real sense, no
they *don't* matter, not a bit.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering