[MoJo-chan]

Perhaps I'm in a minority but I prefer to know if I can tell the difference between reasonably priced and expensive cables, because I don't like to waste money on things.

It's not like I'm cheap or anything. My current main set-up (PC/CD->C.E.C. DA53->HA5000->W5000) is hardly budget.

I could just ignore reason and try to convince myself to feel good about spending lots of money on power conditioners or interconnects made from gold pressed latinum sheathed in the hair of virgins, but I'd rather spend the money on more music or other things in life.

[-Ad-]

Originally Posted by ryart

Too true ; just been enjoying a CD of Purcell and George Crumb songs.

Now; these dark matter laden cables... are they singularly expensive .

I prefer the red matter cables personally, newer tech and all that jazz.

Originally Posted by Tone-uk

You are so right Ad!

Can we move onto string theory please?

Or just put on Status Quo and try and enjoy the music.
Don't care if your cables costs 20000 p/meter the Quo will still make your system sound cack FACT.

Oh, nearly forgot - IMO.

haha nice, you should try the corrs talk on corners. On a good system even a cable can't make this cd sound anything other than horrible (and I'm not taking the mick out of them), generally the worst recorded cd I have heard.

I'm still wanting to build my own enamelled copper cable with a teflon dielectric and cotton sheething, but after building my own silver DIY interconnects and comparing them to a mark grant cable, I just don't see the point as I certainly couldn't hear any differences (especialy the extra brightness of the silver )

[IWC Dopplel]

Originally Posted by dovercat

Does anyone know if different designs of speaker stands effect sound quality. Assuming the speaker position is the same. Should they just be bought for height, stability and apperance.
　
　
"Clearly human senses are not reliable instruments."

If I perceive something to be true then measurements can validate my opinion. If measurements say I am wrong the first thing I would suspect is a faulty sensor/meter or incorrect use of the meter or measuring the wrong things. Double blindtesting enables science to prove my subjective perceptions were wrong, measurement do not. Double blind testing enables me to prove to myself I was mistaken - a fool. Measurements just enable you to call me a fool for trusting my senses.

But for double blind testing to work it needs stringent controls or real differences could be perceived anyway. Level matched, time-sync or identical test tone, rapid switching between components being compared, listeners sitting down not changing their position or state of mind, In a typical living room moving your head could change the sound, changing your blood pressure from kneeling on the floor changing cables could change what you hear, concentrating on hearing subtle differences could make you more aware of subtles in the music and unless you can rapidly switch components memory is not accurate enough for subtle differences to be compared.

If you have a different pair of speaker stands worth a try. Yep they do sound different, no big surprise take your speakers off their stands and pop them on the floor or bookshelf, you'll get the idea.

As a general rule the sand filled stands and very heavy stands do seem to 'tighten' up the bass. But often also seem to add a little hardness to the top end. again not night and day but we all surely agree a rigid stand is important dont we

[MoJo-chan]

Originally Posted by IWC Dopplel

If you have a different pair of speaker stands worth a try. Yep they do sound different, no big surprise take your speakers off their stands and pop them on the floor or bookshelf, you'll get the idea.

That's why I like headphones so much: no need to re-arrange my room for the best sound

[Avi]

I thought the following might make an interesting read and add to the debate.

Secrets Feature Article

AVI

[MoJo-chan]

Thanks Avi. It's a bit long (tl;dr) but I checked the methodology it looks sound.

In the end, they proved that power cords make no audible difference.

I always get a chuckle from reviewers who spew hyperbole about how wonderful some new cable is, when I know full well it's all in their head.

I expect they would make all kinds of arguments as to why the test was flawed, but the reality is expensive power cords have been shown up (once again) for the snake oil that they are.

[ben.bayliss]

Originally Posted by MoJo-chan

In the end, they proved that power cords make no audible difference.

Having written a few really good posts earlier on, and correctly observed that nothing can ever be absolutely proven, you're falling foul of your own trap and keep using that word in your arguments!

[MoJo-chan]

Originally Posted by ben.bayliss

Having written a few really good posts earlier on, and correctly observed that nothing can ever be absolutely proven, you're falling foul of your own trap and keep using that word in your arguments!

*sigh*

Okay, well, let me be a bit more specific then. They proved that on that day those people could not tell the difference in a carefully managed ABX test between the basic power cords and the expensive ones they tested.

So, sure, it doesn't prove all power cords in all situations with all people will sound the same, but it does give you 99.9% certainty. Put it another way, if someone claims a particular power lead gives "tighter bass and more fluid, sparkling highs" the onus is very much on them to show that it really does, and it isn't all in their head.

Look at it another way: Would you spend £500 on something which at best has a 0.1% chance of working? Wait, don't answer that...

You know it's right.

[ryart]

Originally Posted by Avi

I thought the following might make an interesting read and add to the debate.

Secrets Feature Article

AVI

Thanks AVI.

Mind you I've lost count of the number of times this particular article has been linked to. Are there no other documented tests? Reason I ask is, whilst it is an interesting article, one test does not a proof make. It does, however, warn one to be very wary if considering upgrading mains cables - not that I was going to anyway .

As for this particular test. I would have been surprised if anyone reliably detected any difference in anything with so many people in the room and most not sitting in anything like an ideal listening position; perhaps they should have given all the participants a pair of electrostatic headphones .

An interesting addition to the debate but I can't see how it can prove anything one way or the other. Shame really I would like proof that my kettle leads are as good as it gets!

[Avi]

Originally Posted by ryart

Thanks AVI.

Mind you I've lost count of the number of times this particular article has been linked to. Are there no other documented tests? Reason I ask is, whilst it is an interesting article, one test does not a proof make. It does, however, warn one to be very wary if considering upgrading mains cables - not that I was going to anyway .

As for this particular test. I would have been surprised if anyone reliably detected any difference in anything with so many people in the room and most not sitting in anything like an ideal listening position; perhaps they should have given all the participants a pair of electrostatic headphones .

An interesting addition to the debate but I can't see how it can prove anything one way or the other. Shame really I would like proof that my kettle leads are as good as it gets!

I'm not aware of any other documented test are you ?

I don't think the test is claiming to be definitive proof but given the reasonable level of equipment and audiophile nature of the listeners one would assume the difference would be relatively easily and consistently identifiable.

As for proof I don't think there will ever be a consensus on what that is. At the very heart of this the power of peoples belief system so there is always likely to be a but......

AVI

[ryart]

Originally Posted by Avi

I'm not aware of any other documented test are you ?

I don't think the test is claiming to be definitive proof but given the reasonable level of equipment and audiophile nature of the listeners one would assume the difference would be relatively easily and consistently identifiable.

As for proof I don't think there will ever be a consensus on what that is. At the very heart of this the power of peoples belief system so there is always likely to be a but......

AVI

I haven't come across any other tests either, and we would need many tests to include even some of the innumerable permutations of cable and interconnecting equipment, and I suppose if the mains is involved multiple locations. I agree that the brain's belief system is involved and only very careful listening would counter it.

As far as mains cables are concerned I am waiting to be convinced. FWIW my own limited experience of swapping mains cables at my local (high end) dealer revealed to my own ears that there was no noticeable difference, in marked contrast to interconnects and speaker cables.

In some ways it is just as well that a consensus isn't possible ; otherwise what would we find to discuss ?

Cheers

[Tone-uk]

Here's another test- a long term one at home with no stress!

Hydrogenaudio Forums > Power cable long term blind test

[KingKrell]

Mains accessories that make a clear difference to me are mains blocks with filtering inside (or plug in mains conditioners/filters). Many audiophile mains blocks do this and I can hear a rise in authority to the sound, particularly in the bass.

[Tone-uk]

KingKrell - Maybe there is something wrong with you amplifier? Most well designed amps do not require mains conditioners to "reject RF, line spikes and other power line problems" (taken from article below)
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_i...ritic_26_r.pdf

[MarkTaylor]

Originally Posted by Tone-uk

KingKrell - Maybe there is something wrong with you amplifier?

Veering a bit close to the edge there.

Might be more accurate based on the article you linked to suggest that KingKrells amp may benefit more than some others from having the external filtering. Doesn't actually mean there is anything 'wrong' with his amp.

[MoJo-chan]

Originally Posted by Tone-uk

Here's another test- a long term one at home with no stress!

Thanks, I mirrored it to Google Docs here so you don't need Excel to view the results:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...1foARs6MnFg9-g

tl;dr - results were random, more evidence that power cables make no difference.

Originally Posted by ryart

Mind you I've lost count of the number of times this particular article has been linked to. Are there no other documented tests?

There are plenty more. Here is one: ABX Double Blind Test Results: Power Amps

I find those results more interesting as they show that for power amplifiers a transparent design capable of driving popular speakers is more or less a solved problem. It would appear that the only amps which stood out are those which coloured the music, which is something most audiophiles don't want from a power amp.

Here is another one you can try: mp3 or not - Don't you hear it?

Reason I ask is, whilst it is an interesting article, one test does not a proof make.

Sure, but it is statistically valid and strongly suggests that the hypothesis is true. In the face of that and other supporting evidence, you need some pretty strong results to refute it. It's that 99.9% probability again.

As for this particular test. I would have been surprised if anyone reliably detected any difference in anything with so many people in the room and most not sitting in anything like an ideal listening position; perhaps they should have given all the participants a pair of electrostatic headphones .

Perhaps the other test Tone-uk linked to and I mirrored will convince you then. Long term tests in the listeners own home with their own equipment. Same statistically valid results that people can't tell the difference.

If you prefer blind tests with people giving their opinions instead of just ABX, take a look at these interesting results:

DIY Cable Faceoff - Results and Conclusion — Reviews and News from Audioholics

CAT5 is king for speaker cable.

Originally Posted by Tone-uk

KingKrell - Maybe there is something wrong with you amplifier? Most well designed amps do not require mains conditioners to "reject RF, line spikes and other power line problems" (taken from article below)
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_i...ritic_26_r.pdf

Very true. As an EE myself I agree that PSUs are a largely solved problem for audio equipment. Once you get past the really low end rubbish you would need a very, very poor mains feed for it to matter.

I think the problem with these arguments is that many of the companies involved are selling snake oil. Virtual Dynamics 10p mains flex inside a bit of garden hose, or Denon selling 50p ethernet cables for $500.

I think these are by far the best/worst though: Brilliant Pebbles crystals audio resonance room tuning vibration

To anyone tempted to try these, I have an even better way to use your money: flush it down the toilet! Seriously. The metal content of bank notes and resistance to water (normal paper disintegrates) makes them ideal for cleaning out the pipes, and if you are lucky they will stick to the inner walls. That reduces the electromagnetic distortion field from the pipes by reducing their air-core ferrite like properties, and should improve the quality of the mains outlets in your house as well as reducing RF interference.

[Tone-uk]

Oh that does look a bit rough!!
Sorry KingKrell if you too took it the way the mod read it!
Point was - if amplifiers are well built ( are there any rotters out there?) then theres no need for a mains conditioner? Most amplifiers, I would suggest, are built to do the job they are designed to do without having to buy add-ons?
Otherwise, the manufacturers of the amp would themselves be selling said add-on as a recommended upgrade!

[ben.bayliss]

Originally Posted by Tone-uk

Here's another test- a long term one at home with no stress!

Hydrogenaudio Forums > Power cable long term blind test

Another good test, although whilst its results support the argument that the mains cables made no audible difference, the results are not overly significant. So not worth getting *that* excited about!

Just in case you missed my earlier posts, I am a sceptic. But I'm trying to be a fair one and will quite happily point out the 'doubt' in any published test, unless it really is statistically excellent!

[ben.bayliss]

Originally Posted by MoJo-chan

...It's that 99.9% probability again....

Both tests were good, but neither came close to 99.9% confidence.

[ryart]

Originally Posted by ben.bayliss

Just in case you missed my earlier posts, I am a sceptic. But I'm trying to be a fair one and will quite happily point out the 'doubt' in any published test, unless it really is statistically excellent!

Hi Ben

A fair sceptic is a very reasonable position to hold. Given that the cables you make are extremely well constructed from reliable components (going by the ones you supplied me with) you are in a better position to judge than pure theorists.

Hi King Krell

Interested in your useful comments about mains conditioners, the mains cables I had the chance to play with (Audience and Hovland? IIRC) did not, AFAIK, have conditioners or the like in them. It would be interesting to know what equipment you are using the components that you mention with.

Hi Tone-UK

One of my problems, also, with mains accessories is, as you suggest, why should they be necessary with very expensive amps which already have very over engineered power supplies.

I have looked at the Audio Critic but find the quality of the writing to be very poor. The writers often seem to start out with a very polarised opinion and select and twist everything to suit their point of view, rather than explore an issue, consider all points of view, study the findings and then proffer an opinion. As bad, if not worse than the more excessive claims of What Hifi? Personally, I prefer a balanced argument from which I can make up my own mind rather than writers trying to ram their views down my throat.

Whilst I might not necessarily agree with some of the well reasoned arguments in this thread I can at least respect the views offered. The dogmatic styles of the Audio Critic, What Hifi and the like I find quite easy to ignore without feeling I might be missing out on something .

[MoJo-chan]

Originally Posted by ben.bayliss

Both tests were good, but neither came close to 99.9% confidence.

They do. I studied statistics... Anyway, both tests used a reasonably large number of people and the results were highly random. There was only a tiny amount of skew towards picking the wrong cable in the overall results, and it was small enough to be well within the margin of error.

tl;dr - The number of participants and the closeness to .5 probability of getting the right cable for X gives at >99.9% confidence in the results.

[ben.bayliss]

Another hillarious picture response to a serious comment.

Please can you show me these calculations as I don't agree with you and am not sure how you've calculated it? For the second test certainly (X=23), they were testing a slightly different hypothesis, so we need to do our own maths.

tl;dr is not a helpful or valid response, and 'I studied statistics' isn't too helpful either. I imagine a great number of us have at one point or another.

I say again, we're on the same side of the argument! I agree 100% with the test's conclusion, and that the results fell well short of a level which would have suggested audible changes. I'm just wary of over-exaggerating how strong the results are in each case.

Thanks,
Ben

[Tone-uk]

Finding this a bit odd!! Those of us who are not entirely convinced are having to defend science fact. I've been silly enough to search for test results to defend what is already known to be true. Physics tells us already what makes a good speaker cable, power cable etc.

Should it not be the other way round where, those saying these differences are obvious can prove it?

The OP original post could be answered with a straight forward "NO" - the what hifi guys are not right since they do not provide evidence for their findings. How can the recommend a product without facts? Rating a product without facts is even worse. Better they recommend accessories for auditioning only.

"No" is the correct answer because the evidence proves it. Those doubting it have to prove otherwise and there has been no proof over the length of this thread or any other forum thread I have read - only individual opinions.
No science, no test results, no proof - nothing other than "there is a difference - don't know how, why or what the difference is but, it's there. Oh, except under double blind test conditions and other scenerios when I don't notice the difference because of stress etc."

Is that what it really boils down to?

[MarkTaylor]

You are both in agreement on the essential point that no proof was found to support the assertion in this case.

The danger comes when you extend that and claim that therefore the assertion is false.

It is just like trying to prove that fairies don't exist or that all mediums are fake (that one kept Houdini busy for a long time).

Using scientific means to try to prove a negative will always end up tying you in knots.

You can point to the total absence of any tests to the contrary, but you will never 'prove' a negative.

As long as individuals believe they hear a difference there is no point in trying to use tests to convince them otherwise, your 'fact' does not match their 'experience' so giving them more similar 'facts' makes no difference if they continue to hear what they believe they hear.

This is why the debate ends up circular and at some point it has to stop and let all parties carry on with their lives

I'm getting the feeling that this thread is pretty much at that point now.

Everyone who has contributed deserves credit for keeping the debate mostly positive. A rare thing when this topic arises.

I let this stay open for the rest of today, consider it a chance for any closing arguments. After this I will lock it and make it a sticky that we can refer to in the future at need to avoid repeating this all again.

[ryart]

Good and fair summary Mark. Thanks for keeping what has been for the most part an intelligent and thought provoking debate on the rails.

My own conclusions from reading both sides and my own experience is that a lot of components regardless of cost same so similar to be non-distinguishable, but that doesn't mean that there aren't worthwhile differences between others.

Trying things out with visitors to my home (without telling them what I was doing of course) revealed that some cannot tell one CD player from another but others can pick them out every time and describe the difference in sound and express a clear preference for them. From this I conclude that some people are much more sensitive than others to quite small differences in sound quality.

There are far too many combinations of equipment and listener to be able to draw any overall conclusions from blind testing.

There doesn't have to be sides or a need to win. This is a discussion, and as in any discussion peoples' opinions and experiences are interesting. This isn't a court of law and people IMHO don't have to prove there case to take part. Even in a court of law anecdotal witness statements are considered alongside the testimony of expert and scientific witnesses. In any case, as Mark puts it, you can't prove a negative.

In the end hifi is surely about enjoying music in the home. If someone experiences an improvement (for them) in their experience of the music it doesn't really matter if they are getting it from knowledge of what equipment they own or from actual, quantifiable, or clearly audible differences.

If nothing else this thread has demonstrated the need to make your own judgements and not necessarily rely on hifi mags to make your choice for you.
Buyer beware!

Enjoy your music everyone .

[Tone-uk]

This has been a brilliant thread. I've really enjoyed it and found it to be most informative. This thread has certainly strengthened what is already known to be true. ryart is right – it's not about winning it's the taking part that counts

Science truths do change as time goes by so, there may be hope out there for the likes of the What Hifi experts!. I suppose I should back down and say their opinion may possibly be correct - it just doesn't correspond to todays known science. I may even experience differences and be shocked! However, these differences are most likely to be easily explained by already known facts such as copper cross section. Or placebo effect.

I certainly wont be recommending any speaker cable to people other than the basic facts and to get auditioning. Seems the sensible thing to do when opinions vary so much and there is not enough evidence to suggest why one cable is better than another. I may recommend those pebbles MoJo-Chan found though IMO they make the sound so much - no can't say it


Oh nearly forgot (bit of fun before anyone goes off on one!),

"You cannot prove a negative" - The statement is totally wrong. FACT.



(If you can prove otherwise then the statement would not be true!)



Yay!

[MoJo-chan]

Originally Posted by ben.bayliss

tl;dr is not a helpful or valid response, and 'I studied statistics' isn't too helpful either. I imagine a great number of us have at one point or another.

I think you misunderstand. I wrote tl;dr for people who don't want to wade through the pages of info I linked to, basically I summarised it.

Also, I was not being entirely serious. I figured posting a picture of cat wearing glasses and reading a book would convey that, but I guess not.

Originally Posted by MarkTaylor

Using scientific means to try to prove a negative will always end up tying you in knots.

It depends on the negative. Trying to devise an experiment to prove that fairies do not exist is rather futile, but in this case there are well established standard tests which can show beyond reasonable doubt that the assertion is false.

ABX/blind testing is an accepted method and is used extensively in many fields, including medical trials (with control groups being given dummy pills) and of course the development of audio codecs. In the case of the latter, the developers usually use their own judgement to find areas where the codec is lacking, and then use blind testing when evaluating their improvements.

To sum up, psychological factors in any test involving human beings are well understood and there are reliable and certifiable techniques, of which blind testing is the most common, for ruling them out.

[MarkTaylor]

Originally Posted by MoJo-chan

To sum up, psychological factors in any test involving human beings are well understood and there are reliable and certifiable techniques, of which blind testing is the most common, for ruling them out.

I'm sure that you can run experiments to prove, that on the day, in the particular circumstances nobody could reliably distinguish between the speaker cables/power cords/whatever, it is just the reach from there to claiming that in all circumstances nobody ever could distinguish between them that will keep people arguing, especially when it is at odds with reported individual, unscientific, experience.

The brain is a wonderful tool but it does make a mess of our ability to be objective at times

It has been a good thread with all views aired and plenty to think about on all sides but always remember the golden rule, what you see and hear should drive what you are willing to spend money on and never let anyone tell you what you should see or hear, if you have to be told what the difference is then you have to question if there really is a difference or if the difference actually matters to you.

In the end we each have to decide for ourselves if the Emperor invested wisely in his new clothes or if he is walking down the street naked ...