Guardian of sanity

Davewhityetagain

Wammer
Wammer
Jul 24, 2005
11,665
4
0
, ,
jon wrote:

Mr Goldacre really has lost the plot. There is a 'difference' from swapping the power cord on a transport but 1) It's ever so subtle and 2) You need high resolution ancillaries to detect that subtle change. Whether he can detect any worthwhile differences is more conjecture than certainty.
Surely the fact that some cable vendors (Russ Andrews, for example) claim that their mains cables will audibly enhance even budget equipment means that this is a reasonable thing to test - so long as the supplier of the cable in question makes this claim about it, why not test it?

Been watching this debate, and tbh I'm surprised that no cable vendors have taken the chance to organise a blind test to verify their claims about sound quality. This isn't a dig at you Effem - I know that a small company may have limited resources - but for a larger companies one would expect that the publicity they could get in the Guardian from doing such a test would be well worth the cost of carrying it out (if they believe that their claims are verifiable). Compared to the cost of advertising space in the Guardian (bloody expensive
shock.gif.7732780fe7e208b945ce79ca96402fca.gif
), organising a trial wouldn't cost *that* much...

Jon
There are not going to be many cable companies up for it because if they fuck it up, they are going down big time I expect every company big or small to have an answer or excuse for not taking part or an answer or excuse if they failed

off the cuff remarks like "we leave it to the customer" "everyones ears are different"

you could go on and on

I hear a differance some of the time

is it real? is it the cable ? is it an effect of certain cables with certain equipment?

does it matter if I am happy????

I think it does because lets say half of all the people who buy cables know it might be any of what I have said above some even think it might be a placebo http://skepdic.com/placebo.html

what you are still left with is a lot of people buying cables because companies make claims that are unproven

so therefore are being ripped off/missled

look at any cable sites start with the ones on dealers listing here then go to Russ Andrews then Kimber and Chord

size does not matter they all make claims

 

jon

Wammer
Wammer
Jul 20, 2005
1,651
58
78
, ,
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
So Dave, are you saying that the big cable vendors don't believe their own claims that their cables make an audible difference
shock.gif.7732780fe7e208b945ce79ca96402fca.gif
If people are selling technology that they don't believe works then this may be OK for some buyers (as you say, if it makes you happy...) but it makes the manufacturers in question look rather bad...

is it real? is it the cable ? is it an effect of certain cables with certain equipment? does it matter if I am happy????
Fair enough, to an extent. But would the same apply if I told you I believed that putting 'special' clocks or piles of stones around the house made my hifi sound better, or how about jars of snake oil harvested by welsh virgins on a full moon...? If you want to be able to take the piss out of some hifi tweaks (but not cables) surely you need some way of showing that cables make an audible difference?

Jon

 
E

Effem

Guest
Davewhityetagain wrote:

There are not going to be many cable companies up for it because if they fuck it up, they are going down big time I expect every company big or small to have an answer or excuse for not taking part or an answer or excuse if they failedoff the cuff remarks like "we leave it to the customer" "everyones ears are different"

you could go on and on

I hear a differance some of the time

is it real? is it the cable ? is it an effect of certain cables with certain equipment?

does it matter if I am happy????

I think it does because lets say half of all the people who buy cables know it might be any of what I have said above some even think it might be a placebo http://skepdic.com/placebo.html

what you are still left with is a lot of people buying cables because companies make claims that are unproven

so therefore are being ripped off/missled

look at any cable sites start with the ones on dealers listing here then go to Russ Andrews then Kimber and Chord

size does not matter they all make claims
Of course claims are made and how would it sound if the marketing blurb said something like:

"You should buy Whitter's Wanky Wires because they make sod-all difference to the sound, a £1.00 Curry's one is much better"

If it was therefore true that NO wire will ever make an improvement over a bit of bell wire then the market and therefore the vendors would literallydisappear overnight. Take it from me that it's simply not financially viable to continue in businessif 25% of all cables sold are returned because that ratio of people cannot hear any differences at all (I have done the sums
wink.png
) so anything better than a 50/50 ratiomeans it is more than random chance that is fuelling the demand for the products.

It isn't "placebo" either because placebo only works once and once only, it cannot be switched on and off at will.

The bottom line is that there is real not imagined differences between wires and just because science cannot or will not find out the reasons why, the debates will roll on and on. Until then the subjective reports is all we have to go on and there is too much anecdotal evidence for it to be ignored or dismissed.

As for any reluctance to participate in half baked "tests" like Mr Goldman is trying to arrange,it has more to do with the credibility and sincerity of the person setting the challenge that determines if any manufacturers will take it up. As far as I can see there is plenty ofbias and turning into a three ring circus ratherthan any attempt at being impartial and objective.

 

cjr

Wammer
Wammer
Aug 8, 2005
8,508
43
0
UK
Frank, the bellwire argument drives these arguments round & round, It makes no sense to many people like us who have a few brain cells when it comes to electrical parameters and supplying speakers with current to function properly,we fully understand that proper CSA of copper, in relation to cable length (LRC as you know) needs to step above bellwire, this is very easy to do. So why its always brought up in these discussions is beyond me.

 

jon

Wammer
Wammer
Jul 20, 2005
1,651
58
78
, ,
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
Of course claims are made and how would it sound if the marketing blurb said something like: "You should buy Whitter's Wanky Wires because they make sod-all difference to the sound, a £1.00 Curry's one is much better" If it was therefore true that NO wire will ever make an improvement over a bit of bell wire then the market and therefore the vendors would literally disappear overnight.
Interestingly, homeopathic medication in the US does tend to be sold with an explicit denial that it will treat any condition (due to FDA regulations) and research suggests that it works no better than placebo. However, the stuff does still sell (a pretty big market) often with a description like 'traditionally thought to help with insomnia'. You wonder if cables would sell with the sales blurb 'traditionally thought be audiophiles to improve sound'
wink.png


It isn't "placebo" either because placebo only works once and once only, it cannot be switched on and off at will.
The placebo effect (as in the case of homeopathy, for example) can work over a prolonged period, and have a pretty dramatic impact.

Purely because people hear a difference over a long period of time, in sighted tests of cables, does not mean that this could not be caused by the placebo effect (nor, of course, does this mean that this is all it is)

The bottom line is that there is real not imagined differences between wires and just because science cannot or will not find out the reasons why, the debates will roll on and on.
tbh, I find it hard to see why this should be so difficult to demonstrate (given appropriate resources). If cables make an audible difference, surely the difference should be audible (e.g. in blind tests).

Jon

 
P

purplepleaser

Guest
CJR

Please can we have a verbal fisty cuffs.
tongue.png


As this thread is dead otherwise:D

Lee:dead:

 

mosfet

Wammer
Wammer
Jul 20, 2005
6,153
19
0
Surrey
AKA
Richard
The only way they "could" differ with regard to recording onto CDRs IIRC Moseft is that jitter can supposedly be transferred onto a CDR, a claim I read about a few years ago.
Looked into this a little further CJ. Apparently there are a number of reasons why two WAV files might not extract the same from the same original CD. See here.

Whether or not this information is correct I don’t know. However the software on this site claims to be able to make bit perfect copies. You would need to be confident that any differences seen in the raw music data encoded into a WAV were the result of changing a power cable and not for any other reason. Still, my money would be on the power cable having no direct influence on the raw digital data.

 

mosfet

Wammer
Wammer
Jul 20, 2005
6,153
19
0
Surrey
AKA
Richard
The placebo effect (as in the case of homeopathy, for example) can work over a prolonged period, and have a pretty dramatic impact.
Recent research suggests the release of the brain chemical dopamine Jon, as the mechanism behind placebo effect. And yes the parallels between alternative therapies, such as homeopathy, and hi-fi power cables are quite clear. Both are apparently contradictory of orthodox understanding (at least for the extra-ordinary claims) and both have only anecdotal evidence.

"this is a tremendous example of the mind controlling the body. . .This is the classic example of how your expectation of something, your attitude toward something can materially affect the physical outcome." Jon Stoessl, professor of neurology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver

I intend to begin selling hi-fi approved bottles of the stuff shortly!
wink.png


 
E

Effem

Guest
cjr wrote:

Frank, the bellwire argument drives these arguments round & round, It makes no sense to many people like us who have a few brain cells when it comes to electrical parameters and supplying speakers with current to function properly,we fully understand that proper CSA of copper, in relation to cable length (LRC as you know) needs to step above bellwire, this is very easy to do. So why its always brought up in these discussions is beyond me.
Colin the bell wire statement was used as emphasis to explain a point, not that it was factually correct in what I said. It is indeed well known that a larger CSA of wire will produce audible results based upon a reduction of series resistance. Likewise too with silver wire, but the moot point is whether human hearing (according to scientific knowledge) can detect that change in resistance being responsible for an 'improved' sound.

I don't think this thread is actually about a cable debate as such, more the merits or otherwise of Mr Goldman's intentions in the matter.

 
E

Effem

Guest
jon wrote:

tbh, I find it hard to see why this should be so difficult to demonstrate (given appropriate resources). If cables make an audible difference, surely the difference should be audible (e.g. in blind tests).Jon
It isn't difficult at all to demonstrate.The problemsarisehow theblind testis organised. So far all attempts have been based on a group of individuals turning up knowing they are going to be attending a listening test, listening onlyin brief snapshots, with pauses of variable lengthwhile cables are being changed, in an unfamiliar environment, with an unfamiliar system, listenig to unfamiliar music, with a cable under trial that is arguably not capable of making that much 'difference' to start with. This to me is a recipe for a total disaster and little wonder the results have been inconclusive.

At the last bakeoffin Tring there was a "blind test" of sorts when I craftily swapped a set ofsilver speaker cables to a set of copper speaker cables without anyone realising what I did until I got complaints of "what have do done to the sound?" from the listeners.There you are, blind test passed.

We also have the truly blind trial going on at the moment with the disguised power cords doing the rounds, so the results of that should be interesting

 

cjr

Wammer
Wammer
Aug 8, 2005
8,508
43
0
UK
Still, my money would be on the power cable having no direct influence on the raw digital data
That’s my view too Mossie, but it’s a valid question to ask (IMHO) when power cords are in effect claimed to be tone control devices, ie that they effect the anlg output tonally, you would assume that they effect the digital output (which is measurable if not detectable by human hearing).

FWIW I tried a little test with my DVD player, which has a replacable mains lead, I started off watching with the mains lead in place, then added 4 Audio Note Ferrite ring clamps to the kettle lead, made not one iota of difference to the picture (PAL PS component into a 36†CRT). Now DVD players should have improved picture quality as they have D-A conv, anlg output stages,. RCA outputs etc etc. But has a power cable ever been proven to improve a DVD players visual performance ?

I can see the guy (Gold dude) is a little inflammatory with his language but this ideas are perfectly valid in showing differences.

 

mosfet

Wammer
Wammer
Jul 20, 2005
6,153
19
0
Surrey
AKA
Richard
So far all attempts have been based on a group of individuals turning up knowing they are going to be attending a listening test
Do a group of individuals, knowing they are going to take part in a listening test, lose their faculty of hearing because of this?

listening only in brief snapshots
Complete tracks of several minutes. More than sufficient when listening sighted (if you read the reviews etc), why not when listening blind?

with pauses of variable length while cables are being changed
The same is true when listening sighted and differences are apparently readily audible despite this. So why an issue when listening blind?

in an unfamiliar environment
If differences are audible in an unfamiliar environment when listening is sighted, why does this become an issue when listening blind?

with an unfamiliar system, listening to unfamiliar music
Again, these provisos are not quoted as an issue when listening sighted, so why do they become an issue when listening blind?

Sorry Frank but that reads like a long list of excuses. Either all of the above apply equally to sighted and blind tests or they don’t.

Although I do agree Goldacre’s general attitude towards “hi-fi freaks†is very poor and reluctance to entertain such an individual quite understandable.

 

jon

Wammer
Wammer
Jul 20, 2005
1,651
58
78
, ,
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
Frank, you say that

The problems arise how the blind test is organised.
but then go on to say that

At the last bakeoff in Tring there was a "blind test" of sorts when I craftily swapped a set of silver speaker cables to a set of copper speaker cables without anyone realising what I did until I got complaints of "what have do done to the sound?" from the listeners. There you are, blind test passed.
If the differences are that noticable, this won't be hard to demonstrate in a more verifiable blind test (at least for a company with more resources, assuming their cables work as well
wink.png
).

I must admit I'm with Mosfet in that, when such strong claims for the effects of cables are made, the reasons given for not blind testing them do come across rather as excuses - I mean, if a vendor (not you) claims that a cable makes a difference even in a v cheap system (e.g. as an IC between laptop soundcard and amp) this certainly won't need any expensive gear to test...

has a power cable ever been proven to improve a DVD players visual performance ?
Russ Andrews claims it will...but proven?! I guess if you have obvious RFI interference a lead might conceivable help...

Jon

 
E

Effem

Guest
With no disrespect Mossy, I think the test is bolloxed once the listening panel is aware that they are under some sort oftest. Notice I said they and not the cable for a difference in sounds heard that areattributable to a cable change.

The average Joe that buys a cable MAY have some sort of expectations when he connects his new purchase up to his system which COULD cloud his judgement, but I've had countless emails telling me that they thencall in another party (wife, girlfiend, etc) to listen under true blind conditions with no prior knowledgeand that second unbiased opinion reinforces not contradicts what was initially heard. That to me is countless impromptublind tests being executed almost on a daily basis and the reason they succeed so effortlessly is because there is no bias or preconception and more importantly, no stress involved from knowing that a "test" is being carried out.

The prime example of that is when I assembled my collection of lovelies; they had no idea whatsoever the purpose why they were assembled in my lounge until I asked them to listen to some music. It could have been anything other than cables had I changed, be itCD players, or pre-amps, or whatever, but the results were still very conclusive.

 

Davewhityetagain

Wammer
Wammer
Jul 24, 2005
11,665
4
0
, ,
At the last bakeoff in Tring there was a "blind test" of sorts when I craftily swapped a set of silver speaker cables to a set of copper speaker cables without anyone realising what I did until I got complaints of "what have do done to the sound?" from the listeners. There you are, blind test passed.
Good try frank but other things could have changed, rule number one in testing change only one thing

Biggest change could be voltage supply to place as more kit used supply might not have been up to the job

did anyone switch on kettles or hot plates

the kit would have warmed up

the people there would have warmed up

the wire would warm up after being in cold cars

the room would warm up

Sounds waves travel about 340 meters (about 1,020 feet) each second and sound travel slightly faster in hot air and slightly slower in cold air

now none of the above will do much but all can do something

so your statment

There you are, blind test passed.
is as full of holes as any of the statments made in the thread

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/3682.html

 

Leonard Smalls

Wammer
Wammer
Aug 14, 2005
8,163
90
0
Shropshire Borders,
jon wrote:

The placebo effect (as in the case of homeopathy, for example) can work over a prolonged period, and have a pretty dramatic impact.
It's possibly rather a different argument when it comes to homeopathy...

Treatment with Homeopathy is person specific as opposed to disease specific. Therefore your standard scientific test involving 100 people with, say, arthritis,could not have 50% taking a single remedy, as a homeopath would no doubt prescibe 50 different combinations depending on each persons individualneeds..

AndFWIW, I've seen homeopathic remedies have some quite stunning results - in particluar arnica in relation to trauma - and also to have no effect whatsoever..

 
E

Effem

Guest
Davewhityetagain wrote:

At the last bakeoff in Tring there was a "blind test" of sorts when I craftily swapped a set of silver speaker cables to a set of copper speaker cables without anyone realising what I did until I got complaints of "what have do done to the sound?" from the listeners. There you are, blind test passed.
Good try frank but other things could have changed, rule number one in testing change only one thing

Biggest change could be voltage supply to place as more kit used supply might not have been up to the job

did anyone switch on kettles or hot plates

the kit would have warmed up

the people there would have warmed up

the wire would warm up after being in cold cars

the room would warm up

Sounds waves travel about 340 meters (about 1,020 feet) each second and sound travel slightly faster in hot air and slightly slower in cold air

now none of the above will do much but all can do something

so your statment

There you are, blind test passed.
is as full of holes as any of the statments made in the thread

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/3682.html
It was none of those above things Dave, it was actuallyGamma ray reflections from the planet Pluto
wink.png


There you are, blind test passed.
That was a tongue in cheek remark too
biggrin.png


 

jon

Wammer
Wammer
Jul 20, 2005
1,651
58
78
, ,
HiFi Trade?
  1. No
The average Joe that buys a cable MAY have some sort of expectations when he connects his new purchase up to his system which COULD cloud his judgement, but I've had countless emails telling me that they then call in another party (wife, girlfiend, etc) to listen under true blind conditions with no prior knowledge and that second unbiased opinion reinforces not contradicts what was initially heard. That to me is countless impromptu blind tests being executed almost on a daily basis and the reason they succeed so effortlessly is because there is no bias or preconception and more importantly, no stress involved from knowing that a "test" is being carried out. The prime example of that is when I assembled my collection of lovelies; they had no idea whatsoever the purpose why they were assembled in my lounge until I asked them to listen to some music. It could have been anything other than cables had I changed, be it CD players, or pre-amps, or whatever, but the results were still very conclusive.
With respect Frank, you get similar claims made for all kinds of weird 'alternative' therapies. For example, many people will claim the homeopathic remedies successfully treated family members (or even animals) who did not know what they were taking - such anecdotes don't substitute for a more controlled studies (which, in the case of homeopathy, indicate that it works only as a placebo).

I think the test is bolloxed once the listening panel is aware that they are under some sort of test. Notice I said they and not the cable for a difference in sounds heard that are attributable to a cable change.
Put bluntly, why? People can hear differences between speakers in a blind test, or can hear the difference between guitar a or guitar b playing, so why not cables?

Jon

 
E

Effem

Guest
jon wrote:

The average Joe that buys a cable MAY have some sort of expectations when he connects his new purchase up to his system which COULD cloud his judgement, but I've had countless emails telling me that they then call in another party (wife, girlfiend, etc) to listen under true blind conditions with no prior knowledge and that second unbiased opinion reinforces not contradicts what was initially heard. That to me is countless impromptu blind tests being executed almost on a daily basis and the reason they succeed so effortlessly is because there is no bias or preconception and more importantly, no stress involved from knowing that a "test" is being carried out. The prime example of that is when I assembled my collection of lovelies; they had no idea whatsoever the purpose why they were assembled in my lounge until I asked them to listen to some music. It could have been anything other than cables had I changed, be it CD players, or pre-amps, or whatever, but the results were still very conclusive.
With respect Frank, you get similar claims made for all kinds of weird 'alternative' therapies. For example, many people will claim the homeopathic remedies successfully treated family members (or even animals) who did not know what they were taking - such anecdotes don't substitute for a more controlled studies (which, in the case of homeopathy, indicate that it works only as a placebo).

I think the test is bolloxed once the listening panel is aware that they are under some sort of test. Notice I said they and not the cable for a difference in sounds heard that are attributable to a cable change.
Put bluntly, why? People can hear differences between speakers in a blind test, or can hear the difference between guitar a or guitar b playing, so why not cables?

Jon
The same can also be said for 'conventional' medicines too I'm afraid.

The cold hard fact is that the differences between cables do exist and they are not the figment of imagination or placebo. Some say that "fact" isn't the correct term to use because it's unproven objectively, but that day will come when science pulls it's head out of the sand.

Again, at that very same bakeoff at Tring we put two interconnects head to head, both via headphones and through the main system in the hall. It doesn't for the moment matter which two cables it was for the purpose of this argument, but all of the listeners agreed about EXACTLY what those differences were. Next there will be accusations of mass hysteria, collective auto suggestionand conditioned preconceptionsamong the listeners, but the description of the two sounds being perceived were identical in every way.

 

Davewhityetagain

Wammer
Wammer
Jul 24, 2005
11,665
4
0
, ,
Effem wrote:

Davewhityetagain wrote:
At the last bakeoff in Tring there was a "blind test" of sorts when I craftily swapped a set of silver speaker cables to a set of copper speaker cables without anyone realising what I did until I got complaints of "what have do done to the sound?" from the listeners. There you are, blind test passed.
Good try frank but other things could have changed, rule number one in testing change only one thing

Biggest change could be voltage supply to place as more kit used supply might not have been up to the job

did anyone switch on kettles or hot plates

the kit would have warmed up

the people there would have warmed up

the wire would warm up after being in cold cars

the room would warm up

Sounds waves travel about 340 meters (about 1,020 feet) each second and sound travel slightly faster in hot air and slightly slower in cold air

now none of the above will do much but all can do something

so your statment

There you are, blind test passed.
is as full of holes as any of the statments made in the thread

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/3682.html
It was none of those above things Dave, it was actuallyGamma ray reflections from the planet Pluto
wink.png
Well given Gamma-ray photons affect DNA molecules, long term they have as much chance of altering your hearing as many things some people sell these days :)also that was a tongue in cheek but posible

 

Forum statistics

Threads
113,444
Messages
2,451,263
Members
70,783
Latest member
reg66

Latest Articles