Last night, I and my little "ad hoc" group of audiophile buds (there are
about 10 of us on-and-off) held a shoot-out of three different (semi)
high-end speaker cables because there were still those among us who believed
that cables make a difference.

One of us brought a 15 ft pair of Kimber 12TC (over $1000). Another brought a
12 ft pair of Audioquest "Rocket 44" speaker cables (circa $1000) and
another brought a 15 ft pair of Monster M2.2s ( around $700). We also went
out and bought a 50 ft shop-style "drop cord" which was comprised of 12
gauge copper wire. We cut the plug and socket off of the cable (buying a
prepared shop extension cord from Harbor Freight, was actually cheaper than
buying 30 ft of regular 12 ga bulk wire at the hardware store), and cut the
cable into two 15 ft lengths. We then terminated the ends with some
gold-plated solder-on banana plugs ordered for the occasion on the internet.
All the cables were terminated with bananas (one pair came so terminated, the
other were terminated in spade lugs which we connected to a set of Monster
dual-banana adapters). All terminations were treated with Stabilant 22
(Tweek).

A home-made comparator employing high-current silver contact, vacuum-sealed
mil-spec relays (this comparator was last used by this same group to switch a
pair of speakers between two different amplifiers) was used to switch between
the two different sets of speaker cables.

The object here was not to pit these three commercial pairs of speaker cables
against each other, but rather to pit each pair, in turn, against the cheap
12 ga Harbor-Freight purchased, orange colored, shop AC extension cable.

After two hours of listening to all types of music from both LP and CD as
well as some of my own recordings on 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-As, The overwhelming
result was that nobody could hear or in any other way, detect, any difference
whatsoever between the sound of any of the three cables and the cable made
from the extension cord. The doubting Thomases doubt no more.

On 8/29/2010 7:25 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
> Last night, I and my little "ad hoc" group of audiophile buds (there are
> about 10 of us on-and-off) held a shoot-out of three different (semi)
> high-end speaker cables because there were still those among us who believed
> that cables make a difference.
>
[ snip ]
>
> After two hours of listening to all types of music from both LP and CD as
> well as some of my own recordings on 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-As, The overwhelming
> result was that nobody could hear or in any other way, detect, any difference
> whatsoever between the sound of any of the three cables and the cable made
> from the extension cord. The doubting Thomases doubt no more.
>

You have one again proved the obvious, there is no aural difference
using different cables. But, is that the entire experience? Did the
purchasers of the expensive cables get some inner satisfaction from the
experience that blends over to their listening experience. Does knowing
that you have spent >$1K for a short piece of wire add to the listening
experience in ways that you didn't measure? Clearly there is more work
to do.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:29:24 -0700, dave a wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> On 8/29/2010 7:25 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
>> Last night, I and my little "ad hoc" group of audiophile buds (there are
>> about 10 of us on-and-off) held a shoot-out of three different (semi)
>> high-end speaker cables because there were still those among us who believed
>> that cables make a difference.
>>
> [ snip ]
>>
>> After two hours of listening to all types of music from both LP and CD as
>> well as some of my own recordings on 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-As, The overwhelming
>> result was that nobody could hear or in any other way, detect, any
>> difference
>> whatsoever between the sound of any of the three cables and the cable made
>> from the extension cord. The doubting Thomases doubt no more.
>>
>
> You have one again proved the obvious, there is no aural difference
> using different cables. But, is that the entire experience? Did the
> purchasers of the expensive cables get some inner satisfaction from the
> experience that blends over to their listening experience. Does knowing
> that you have spent >$1K for a short piece of wire add to the listening
> experience in ways that you didn't measure? Clearly there is more work
> to do.

Some folks don't believe in reading for content, I guess. That "there were
still those among us who believed that cables make a difference" was the
reason for the test. And I know that there are people here on this NG with
the same uninformed opinion.

Whether the purchasers derived some "inner satisfaction" or not from knowing
that they have uselessly spent a grand or more on something that does nothing
is beside the point. Their contention was that they could clearly hear the
"improvement" in their system's resolution after fitting these expensive
cables. The contention of the rest of us was that they could not hear what
isn't there. This led to Thursday night's test.

Now, If someone KNOWS that cables have no effect on the sound and wants to
spend the big bucks anyway for the "bling" factor, I have no problem with
that attitude. What I do have a problem with is the snake-oil aspect of the
whole cable question. These cable manufacturers are selling these cables at
high and sometimes exorbitant prices to people who believe that they make a
difference. Think about how many CDs or LPs could be purchased with the money
these people waste on expensive cables! For the price of some cables, the
purchaser could have bought better speakers, perhaps. The bottom line here is
that it's your money, spend it how you will, even waste it. But one should do
so knowing that what they are spending their money on gives them value either
real, or not. Jewelry, for instance, serves no useful purpose, but at least
buyers of jewelry KNOW that it's mere decoration, and don't expect it to
improve their health, make them beautiful or handsome. It makes them feel
better to wear it and that's fine. But most purchasers of expensive speaker
cables buy them with the expectation that these cables will improve the sound
of their systems, and it won't. Buyers, not all of whom have any technical
savvy, should be made aware of that. The magazines certainly don't do it, and
in fact they are part of the problem. They actually foster the myth of cable
sound and the wary fall prey to their pandering to their cable advertisers.

I have two 15 ft pairs of Monster M1 cables myself and I use them to connect
my speakers. I didn't buy them, they were supplied to me by Monster many
years ago when I wrote for a particular major Hi-Fi magazine. They are well
made and properly terminated and do the job. Would I have spent my OWN money
on them. Absolutely NOT! But I have them, they work fine, and I use them. I
still write for an audio magazine, but I will not "review" cables, and in
fact, have turned down cable reviewing assignments and my editor doesn't even
ask me any more. He sends them to someone else - along with a big swig of
snake oil.

2010-08-29 16:25, Audio Empire skrev:
> After two hours of listening to all types of music from both LP and CD as
> well as some of my own recordings on 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-As, The overwhelming
> result was that nobody could hear or in any other way, detect, any difference
> whatsoever between the sound of any of the three cables and the cable made
> from the extension cord. The doubting Thomases doubt no more.

What was your setup (source, amplification, speakers etc.)?


August

2010-08-29 16:25, Audio Empire skrev:
> After two hours of listening to all types of music from both LP and CD as
> well as some of my own recordings on 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-As, The overwhelming
> result was that nobody could hear or in any other way, detect, any difference
> whatsoever between the sound of any of the three cables and the cable made
> from the extension cord. The doubting Thomases doubt no more.

What was your setup (source, amplification, speakers etc.)?

August

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:49:08 -0700, August Karlstrom wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> 2010-08-29 16:25, Audio Empire skrev:
>> After two hours of listening to all types of music from both LP and CD as
>> well as some of my own recordings on 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-As, The overwhelming
>> result was that nobody could hear or in any other way, detect, any
>> difference
>> whatsoever between the sound of any of the three cables and the cable made
>> from the extension cord. The doubting Thomases doubt no more.
>
> What was your setup (source, amplification, speakers etc.)?
>
> August

Sources were: some high-end Marantz SACD/CD player (not mine, didn't catch
the model -just the price >$6000), A Denon DVD-758 (for the DVD-As - I
contributed that), and a Michele Orb 'table, an SME arm (don't know the
model, not my equipment, etc.) and a Grado Reference 1 cartridge.

Amp and Pre-amp were the latest John Curl preamp (JC2) and amps (2 X JC1)
from Parasound with a Lehmann 'Black Cube' phono preamp.

Speakers were a pair of Magnepan MG 3.6s.

Interconnects? Don't know, didn't ask, don't care, wire-is-wire at audio
frequencies, etc.

On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 14:25:22 -0700, August Karlstrom wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> On 2010-09-04 18:38, Audio Empire wrote:
>> Sources were: some high-end Marantz SACD/CD player (not mine, didn't catch
>> the model -just the price>$6000), A Denon DVD-758 (for the DVD-As - I
>> contributed that), and a Michele Orb 'table, an SME arm (don't know the
>> model, not my equipment, etc.) and a Grado Reference 1 cartridge.
>>
>> Amp and Pre-amp were the latest John Curl preamp (JC2) and amps (2 X JC1)
>> from Parasound with a Lehmann 'Black Cube' phono preamp.
>>
>> Speakers were a pair of Magnepan MG 3.6s.
>>
>> Interconnects? Don't know, didn't ask, don't care, wire-is-wire at audio
>> frequencies, etc.
>
> I have a different experience when it comes to loudspeaker cable. When I
> moved to a new apartment I needed some speaker cable. Being a
> "non-believer" I bought some metres of inexpensive Supra Ply 3.4s for my
> two-channel system. With this cable, though, the treble was overly soft.
> This made me try a couple of other cables and I finally settled for a
> pair of Kimber 8PR (pre-terminated with Kimber's own banana plugs) which
> sounded more balanced. Maybe it's more difficult to hear a difference
> between the really expensive cables, I don't know. Anyway, the
> difference between Supra Ply 3.4s and Kimber 8PR is instantly audible in
> my system.
>
> My setup:
>
> Source: Mac Mini
> DAC: Benchmark DAC1 USB
> Interconnect: van den Hul D-102 MK III
> Integrated Amplifier: Creek Destiny
> Speaker Cable: Kimber 8PR
> Speakers: Amphion Helium II
>
> Regards,
>
> August

What you have just related is simply NOT possible. Speaker cables are merely
conductors. They have a small amount of resistance per foot, and a tiny,
insignificant amount of capacitance and inductance per foot (at audio
frequencies). If one cable were 50 ft long, and the other brand was 8 ft
long, PERHAPS, you would be able to measure a small drop in amplitude at 20
KHz with the 50 ft pair vis-a-vis the 8 ft pair, but you likely wouldn't be
able to hear it.

What you experienced was expectational bias. You EXPECTED the Kimber to give
you an improvement, so it did.


Don't believe me? Answer this. How did you know before buying the Kimber that
it would mitigate your "soft treble" problem? If cable works as you suggest,
it could have just as easily made the problem worse. Notice there are no
"specs" for cable that would indicate to anyone what the results of using
that cable would be. The Kimber didn't come with a guarantee that it would
"make your treble sound better", now did it? Truth is that the cable will do
whatever you NEED for it to do because you EXPECT it to do so.

Kimber makes no guarantees, but I will. If you did a double-blind test
between the Supra Ply 3.4 and the Kimber cable, you will be totally unable to
discern which is which even on your OWN system.

On 2010-09-07 02:24, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> If the tests were not blinded you have no basis for saying this. The
> most you can rationally claim is that they "seemed to you" to have
> overly soft treble.

In a typical review the author doesn't start every sentence with "it
seemed to me that" or "I might be wrong but"; it's understood that it is
his or her own subjective impressions.

> You provide no evidence to suggest that this is actually so. A non
> blinded and uncontrolled test does such as you describe simply not
> provide any evidence. The test that started this thread appears to
> provide good evidence that there was no audible difference, and what
> we know about cables and the limits of human hearing make any claims
> of an obvious difference extremely unlikely, extraordinary claims
> require extraordinary evidence, and you have provided no actual
> evidence at all.

I don't claim to have proven anything.

> You will not do your credibility any good by making such anecdote
> based claims based on no controls and no blinding. If you believe
> that your experience as describe proves anything then I am sorry, but
> it does not.

It is unfortunate that no hifi magazines/reviewers I know rely on double
blind tests. As you say, this is the *only* credible way to review the
sound of a component.


/August

On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 09:55:33 -0700, August Karlstrom wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> On 2010-09-07 02:00, Audio Empire wrote:
>> What you have just related is simply NOT possible. Speaker cables are merely
>> conductors. They have a small amount of resistance per foot, and a tiny,
>> insignificant amount of capacitance and inductance per foot (at audio
>> frequencies). If one cable were 50 ft long, and the other brand was 8 ft
>> long, PERHAPS, you would be able to measure a small drop in amplitude at 20
>> KHz with the 50 ft pair vis-a-vis the 8 ft pair, but you likely wouldn't be
>> able to hear it.
>
> Even if two cables measure the same as conductors I suspect that the the
> way it is connected (bare wire/banana etc.) may have an influence on the
> signal and possibly on the sound.

Not unless the connection was REALLY poor or corroded.

Audio Empire wrote:

>
> Speakers were a pair of Magnepan MG 3.6s.

**Maggies exhibit a relatively flat impedance curve (close to resistive)
and, therefore, can be expected to be far less demanding on speaker cable
geometry than almost any other speaker. Note the impedance charateristic
(particularly at HF):

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspea...03/index6.html

Here is the impedance curve of a couple of speakers which can be expected to
elicit quite marked differences between different cable geometries:

http://www.rageaudio.com.au/index.php?p=1_12

IOW: Maggies are almost the worst possible choice for a speaker cable test
(unless, of course, everyone on the planet happens to use them).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au