Why cables can be expensive

[Alan Brown]

I just re-read my last post, and I am struck by how defensively I have come across in my third paragraph - I am justifying myself & defending from the coming accusation of expectation bias...

This is how a school of thought can come to dominate, it keeps the less technical of us away because we don't know how to defend ourselves from the resident body of amateur electronic engineers and their vociferous assertions. Why should I (or anyone else) feel like we need to defend our experiences & views from any of you?

 

[RobHolt]

I just re-read my last post, and I am struck by how defensively I have come across in my third paragraph - I am justifying myself & defending from the coming accusation of expectation bias...

This is how a school of thought can come to dominate, it keeps the less technical of us away because we don't know how to defend ourselves from the resident body of amateur electronic engineers and their vociferous assertions. Why should I (or anyone else) feel like we need to defend our experiences & views from any of you?

You don't have to defend anything, or participate in a discussion - the choice is yours. FWIW on audiophile forums the sceptic view does not dominate.
Audiophile forums by their very nature are alarmingly faith and belief based places, certainly in the main audio rooms.

But expectation bias does exist. It is rarely a controvertial issue outside of the audiophile community and we have to ask why. Why should audio be any different in this respect?

So in the experience you describe I would simply say give me the evidence that I can trust your findings. If you have such a strong preference for that cable in a sighted dem, you should still be able to clearly identify it when the visual bias is removed. Having tested such assertions many, many times I find that the ability to detect differences evaporates. I've yet to find any exception.

Now it might well be that the cable you have purchased is poor - poor enough to be having an adverse effect on the dac connected. If that's the case then I and I'm sure you would like to know. If you don't test, you'll never know.
Never know if the cable is faulty, electrically poorly matched for the job, the difference isn't real or induced by bias, or it genuinely exists for reasons we cannot detect.
If a blind test truly did reveal the latter to be true - and it could - then I would find that very exciting. I'd want to actively seek out new things to test for answers.

 

[Alan Brown]

A quest for answers is one thing, and I welcome your endeavours. But why should I jump through this hoop?: "give me the evidence that I can trust your findings".
I do not need your trust, you do not need to trust me. I have to prove nothing as it is proven - in that I have heard it. I did not expect to, particularly want to, and was previously sceptical.

Ask yourself why I putting these points to you. It is not an effort to prove my point to you it doesn't need proving. I am trying to express myself in such a way as to make you see this: I have heard something - you are inferring I have not, and if I have there is a psychological reason for it. This is because you cannot replicate the results consistently, or plot a graph to show it on paper, not because of me. I find this kind of condescending dialogue offensive, & I suspect I am not alone.

Please be assured Rob, that I am not saying you are offensive - you are always more than civil. I intend my comments as an attack upon the prevailing (and it does prevail, especially here & on WW) attitude which you have voiced on this occasion. I am just grateful I have had this exchange with you & not the offensively self inflated 'other poster' I had particularly in mind.

 

[Purite Audio]

I can't see how a 'blind test ' would do any harm, just ask a friend to change the cables around.
Keith.

 

[Alan Brown]

Keith, that seems a reasonable point. There would not be any harm...But the burden of proof is not on me. It seems there is inadequate means of quantifying such proof anyhow. Why would I need to muck about when I now know what I have heard - expectation bias would clearly be an issue now. Then, as this exchange has taken place, there is the whole element of justification, the pressure to be right, to prove my point...when did anyone listen to music & fully appreciate it under pressure to prove something?

 

[nando]

cables ARE system dependant and they can trasform the signal path in verious fqz's the issue that i will make is that what material do you all think is to your best, and cost justifaiable.
nando.

 

[gargal]

re A lot of this cable stuff: If it's all a con, it seems that a lot of manufacturers are in on it.

The bi-wiring of speakers for example - speaker manufacturers were vital in pushing this. Respectable companies - why do it if it made no difference?

Or just today, I was talking to a Leema rep who was saying they thought the 16/m Chord was the cheapest speaker wire they could recommend.

He was also keen on bi-wiring, and suggested the amp accounts for the resistance being transferred back down the wiring when I said that I didn't understand how it could help.

edit: Just reading my new Leema instructions:

"Cables: Never underestimate the importance of good quality speaker cable... Speaker cable can be very synergistic. The better the system resolution, the more easily the difference between cables can be discerned."


How much of this hi-fi biz is a con? Should we just buy the kit with the nicest remote controls, and leave it at that? We're only apes - we get too easily confused!

 

[Purite Audio]

Alan Hi, I am certaily not going to argue, you must do as you see fit, I would just say that in my experience most listeners would gain more benefit from a really good pair of speakers an amp that drives them properly and making sure their room is as acoustically 'perfect' as it can be.
Very Best,Keith.

 

[DrMartin]

..But the burden of proof is not on me.

Err ... yes it is.

You've made the claim, now prove it in a blind test.

Failure to do that renders your claim unfounded - other than in your head.



PS. last night when everyone was asleep I saw a giant spaceship hovering over Portsmouth.

 

[gargal]

Just reading my new Leema instructions:

"Cables: Never underestimate the importance of good quality speaker cable... Speaker cable can be very synergistic. The better the system resolution, the more easily the difference between cables can be discerned."

 

[Richard Dunn]

A quest for answers is one thing, and I welcome your endeavours. But why should I jump through this hoop?: "give me the evidence that I can trust your findings".
I do not need your trust, you do not need to trust me. I have to prove nothing as it is proven - in that I have heard it. I did not expect to, particularly want to, and was previously sceptical.

Ask yourself why I putting these points to you. It is not an effort to prove my point to you it doesn't need proving. I am trying to express myself in such a way as to make you see this: I have heard something - you are inferring I have not, and if I have there is a psychological reason for it. This is because you cannot replicate the results consistently, or plot a graph to show it on paper, not because of me. I find this kind of condescending dialogue offensive, & I suspect I am not alone.

Please be assured Rob, that I am not saying you are offensive - you are always more than civil. I intend my comments as an attack upon the prevailing (and it does prevail, especially here & on WW) attitude which you have voiced on this occasion. I am just grateful I have had this exchange with you & not the offensively self inflated 'other poster' I had particularly in mind.

Don't worry about it Alan this is normal behaviour from them and as you will see from later posts others will jump in with the personal insults. The reason is they want to shut you up, it is just an ego thing. They cannot hear it so they get all hot and high blood pressure when people say they can. Then they accuse other people of rudeness

As you know I have a computer audio Bake-Off at my place in July I will blind SCD v SPD v SSPD and we will see the result from the attendees. I know what will happen if people say they hear it, the idiots will say "well it has to be double blind" or some such nonsense - you can't win with them, it is like a brainwash.

 

[jazid]

Hi all,

I'm a newcomer so excuse me if I'm gauche. Might I suggest that if some of you are really in the HiFi trade that you take a good look at how this thread appears to outsiders on the internet. I would be ashamed to tie my professional reputation to this kind of spat. No science here, no art either, plenty of personal spite, and as ever with warfare the usual first casualty has taken a direct hit. From my perspective it seems like a sad waste of all the talent, experience and worthwhile knowledge evidently on offer between you.

 

[nando]

well spoken, i agree with you fully, i think we should move on to the real ZG forum,
regards and well spoken JAZID.

 

[RobHolt]

A quest for answers is one thing, and I welcome your endeavours. But why should I jump through this hoop?: "give me the evidence that I can trust your findings".
I do not need your trust, you do not need to trust me. I have to prove nothing as it is proven - in that I have heard it. I did not expect to, particularly want to, and was previously sceptical.

Ask yourself why I putting these points to you. It is not an effort to prove my point to you it doesn't need proving. I am trying to express myself in such a way as to make you see this: I have heard something - you are inferring I have not, and if I have there is a psychological reason for it. This is because you cannot replicate the results consistently, or plot a graph to show it on paper, not because of me. I find this kind of condescending dialogue offensive, & I suspect I am not alone.

Please be assured Rob, that I am not saying you are offensive - you are always more than civil. I intend my comments as an attack upon the prevailing (and it does prevail, especially here & on WW) attitude which you have voiced on this occasion. I am just grateful I have had this exchange with you & not the offensively self inflated 'other poster' I had particularly in mind.

You don't have to jump through the hoop Alan.
In discussions such as these, both sides will quite rightly take the other to task. So long as it remains civil that is a good thing. Rest assured, the 'argument' will never be settled but some minds may well change along the way. As I said to Richard yesterday, a decade ago I would have been in agreement with him and you. Experience has changed that view completely.

But with respect you have avoided the main thrust of my point - bias and taking reasonable steps to eliminate it.

Until you have taken steps to eliminate it you can never be sure that what you perceive is based solely on what you are hearing.
I mean, classic example - look at all of those who fell for the LP12 at the alter of Ivor's spin machine. Many with hindsight cannot believe that they fell for the spin.
I have the reviews, mags and texts spanning that period of history and you would be astonished at number of sudden and miraculous conversions to the cause following a visit to a certain HQ. It makes fascinating reading all these years later.

I'm afraid I find examples of this spin everywhere in the audiophile community.
I just ask that listeners give themselves a fighting chance to hear through it.

I never say anything that I cannot substantiate. Therefore you would be more than welcome to visit and I'll demonstrate the point I'm making. We can use anything from an array of equipment here or you can provide your own. That's not some attempt to prove a point on a forum as the day would be private. If I can demonstrate what I'm claiming I'll be pleased. If not well at least we both had a go.

 

[Alan Brown]

Err ... yes it is.

You've made the claim, now prove it in a blind test.

Failure to do that renders your claim unfounded - other than in your head.

No, it is not. I have no need, nor is there any obligation in any way to prove a single thing to...I'm sorry, who are you?

I will share my view, and if you need measurements to understand what I describe then the problem is communication. If you need measurements to accept a facet of musical communication as real then the problem is with your ability to process communication.

It may remain unfounded with you, but if it is real then you are losing out. Can you provide proof that the problem is not you?

 

[RobHolt]

As you know I have a computer audio Bake-Off at my place in July I will blind SCD v SPD v SSPD and we will see the result from the attendees. I know what will happen if people say they hear it, the idiots will say "well it has to be double blind" or some such nonsense - you can't win with them, it is like a brainwash.

That will be interesting to see.
However as someone who has frequently claimed that blind testing puts unnatural stress on the participants and masks differences, if you obtain a clear positive result, will you then accept that the idea is credible and works?

 

[RobHolt]

It may remain unfounded with you, but if it is real then you are losing out. Can you provide proof that the problem is not you?

All sceptics can prove that the problem is not us with unsighted testing.

Now the cry goes out that the equipment must be masking the result but that really doesn't hold water. Just change the kit as many times as needed.
Also use different sets of ears. Never use the ears of firm sceptics for obvious reasons!

If after all of that there is no difference - there really is no difference.

 

[Richard Dunn]

You don't have to jump through the hoop Alan.
In discussions such as these, both sides will quite rightly take the other to task. So long as it remains civil that is a good thing. Rest assured, the 'argument' will never be settled but some minds may well change along the way. As I said to Richard yesterday, a decade ago I would have been in agreement with him and you. Experience has changed that view completely.

But with respect you have avoided the main thrust of my point - bias and taking reasonable steps to eliminate it.

Until you have taken steps to eliminate it you can never be sure that what you perceive is based solely on what you are hearing.
I mean, classic example - look at all of those who fell for the LP12 at the alter of Ivor's spin machine. Many with hindsight cannot believe that they fell for the spin.
I have the reviews, mags and texts spanning that period of history and you would be astonished at number of sudden and miraculous conversions to the cause following a visit to a certain HQ. It makes fascinating reading all these years later.

I'm afraid I find examples of this spin everywhere in the audiophile community.
I just ask that listeners give themselves a fighting chance to hear through it.

I never say anything that I cannot substantiate. Therefore you would be more than welcome to visit and I'll demonstrate the point I'm making. We can use anything from an array of equipment here or you can provide your own. That's not some attempt to prove a point on a forum as the day would be private. If I can demonstrate what I'm claiming I'll be pleased. If not well at least we both had a go.

You are just creating your own expectation bias. I agree with you when there was NLP and other dubious tactics involved as with Linn products and IT, and I have gone on about it even more on forums than I have about subjective design. BUT just because we had a top saleman and bullshitter who managed to dominate the industry for so many years doesn't mean you have to go completely in the other direction as you just throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Subjective assessment is still the only way to understand how hi-fi plays music, because music *is* subjective by its very nature. All you are doing with this objective revival is creating another different bullshit that also dominated the industry back in the early 70's. Bloody hell some reviewers back then didn't even listen to the product, they just measured it. So what happened, we had the spec wars with manufacturing companies trying to out spec each other with more and more dubious methods - is that really what you want again.

The answer is forget *all* the bullshit and just listen to and enjoy music. It is so simple, use your ears and keep an open mind. If you hear it then *for you* it exists, if you don't hear it then don't evangelise that it doesn't exist as you just close your mind and you are then just as bad as the Linnites.

 

[Richard Dunn]

All sceptics can prove that the problem is not us with unsighted testing.

Now the cry goes out that the equipment must be masking the result but that really doesn't hold water. Just change the kit as many times as needed.
Also use different sets of ears. Never use the ears of firm sceptics for obvious reasons!

If after all of that there is no difference - there really is no difference.

Every single thing has difference, there is nothing with no difference, it doesn't exist. All that exists is the ability of your equipment to reproduce that difference for you and you ears and perception to acknowledge it, nothing more. Then you have an open mind, once you start to close your mind to possibilities then you lose the very thing you are trying to pursue, the music.

 

[RobHolt]

You are just creating your own expectation bias. I agree with you when there was NLP and other dubious tactics involved as with Linn products and IT, and I have gone on about it even more on forums than I have about subjective design. BUT just because we had a top saleman and bullshitter who managed to dominate the industry for so many years doesn't mean you have to go completely in the other direction as you just throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Subjective assessment is still the only way to understand how hi-fi plays music, because music *is* subjective by its very nature. All you are doing with this objective revival is creating another different bullshit that also dominated the industry back in the early 70's. Bloody hell some reviewers back then didn't even listen to the product, they just measured it. So what happened, we had the spec wars with manufacturing companies trying to out spec each other with more and more dubious methods - is that really what you want again.

The answer is forget *all* the bullshit and just listen to and enjoy music. It is so simple, use your ears and keep an open mind. If you hear it then *for you* it exists, if you don't hear it then don't evangelise that it doesn't exist as you just close your mind and you are then just as bad as the Linnites.

I agree with some of that but you need to separate appreciation and enjoyment of music - which is very clearly subjective - from the reliable identification of differences, which should be objectively assessed.

The same tactics that sold the LP12 can and are used by many to sell cables.
If you've never attended a demonstration of Nordost cables you should take the opportunity at the next event. The sound characteristics are described to the listeners before the cables are played, the order in which they are played is always in ascending cost, and the salesman will refuse point blank to plat the cheapest cable agein at the end of the session. Then there are those demonstrating support racks by by again giving either positive or negative 'instruction' to those listening, plus quite clear changes to body language.

Let me give you another example.
At one of my cable bakes a participant brought along some Deltec Black Slink interconnect. Thick serious looking stuff, I asked what the listener thought this will bring to the system. A list of expected changes was then given and I then proceed to connect the cable up and we listened. The listener heard the expected effects.
Trouble is the cable wasn't actually connected but was simply resting behind the system appearing to be in circuit.
Now, where did the expectation for this 'sound' originate?
Manufacturer blurb, Magazine reviews and forums.
People read and digest this stuff and it alters their perception.

If that cable really did produce a difference and say we discovered that it was due to a capacitance issue, then of course the listener is able to express a preference for the result either in pure sound character terms or what you might call musicality. That is a subjective reaction and it shouldn't be criticised.

Going further, it might surprise you to learn that I subjectively prefer speakers with a small presence dip followed by some HF lift. Technically wrong but I prefer my music played through such a speaker. It appeals to me.
But there should be understanding as to what causes this preference.

At the end of the day we are all subjectivists, but objectivity is imperative for testing claims made which challenge common sense.