Stereophile and Audio Cables

[egellings]

In reality, this is not the case in this area either.
Understanding what you are eating when the solid component is missing, therefore the chewing feedback, becomes much more difficult, furthermore the taste is easily deceived if you associate a food with a neutral flavor with a specific smell. Normal water seems to taste like cod or strawberry if that scent is offered to us while we drink.
Our senses are never perfect, they evolved to interpret reality, not as measurement tools, and as strange as it may seem, that's why they are exceptional

That's why I said 'harder' rather than saying 'always'.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

To understand how our perception works, we need to understand how the brain works. The example of the dress that is gold and white for half the population and black and blue for the other half is a perfect example.
For a while the case of this dress broke out on the internet, it seemed that for some the dress was absolutely black and blue, for others it was white and gold, and anyone on the two factions didn't understand how something could seem so different to the opposite faction, EVERYONE would have sworn on their children that they were right and that it was impossible otherwise.

The explanation is as incredibly fascinating as it is banal.
Obviously everyone saw the same objective color, and a measurement tool and would simply identify the color, however those who saw the white and gold dress interpreted it as a dress IN THE SHADOW with sunlight behind it, while those who saw it as blue and black saw a dressed IN FULL SUN.
The brain does not read a value and stop, but ALWAYS, INEVITABLY AND UNFAILURELY interprets it in context and processes it according to a series of secondary information of which we are almost never aware but which direct our perception absolutely


View attachment 357500

How does the half and half perception work out, in relation to the current state of our own poll, do you think?

 

[teched58]

When cable makers spend money on a site, whether it's SP or the former ComputerAudiophile, we see what it does to the level of discussion on said site. (Whether or not there's intention. I'm talking about the end result, not the usually self-professed purity in the heart of the site owner.)

If I were a cable maker, I'd spread my money around everywhere. Even, or perhaps especially, on the sites that debunk cables. Cause it'd be interesting to see what would happen. (I am of course excluding present company.)

(And I'd ask my cable competitors to do this, too, though in a non-colluding manner. Because one would have to be talking about meaningful $$$, not just $1,000 here or there.)

 

[DLS79]

If I were a cable maker, I'd spread my money around everywhere. Even, or perhaps especially, on the sites that debunk cables. Cause it'd be interesting to see what would happen. (I am of course excluding present company.)

(And I'd ask my cable competitors to do this, too, though in a non-colluding manner. Because one would have to be talking about meaningful $$$, not just $1,000 here or there.)

that's one of the benefits of ASR.

How to Support Audio Science Review

ASR is relies on goodwill of the visitors and members of the site to cover its expenses and enable testing of more products. There are no sponsors and no ads on the site as you may have noticed. If you are interested in supporting us using donations, you can use one of the following four...

www.audiosciencereview.com

ASR is relies on goodwill of the visitors and members of the site to cover its expenses and enable testing of more products. There are no sponsors and no ads on the site as you may have noticed.

 

[mhardy6647]

When cable makers spend money on a site, whether it's SP or the former ComputerAudiophile, we see what it does to the level of discussion on said site. (Whether or not there's intention. I'm talking about the end result, not the usually self-professed purity in the heart of the site owner.)

If I were a cable maker, I'd spread my money around everywhere. Even, or perhaps especially, on the sites that debunk cables. Cause it'd be interesting to see what would happen. (I am of course excluding present company.)

(And I'd ask my cable competitors to do this, too, though in a non-colluding manner. Because one would have to be talking about meaningful $$$, not just $1,000 here or there.)

There are always gonna be those who want to believe -- just as in homeopathy and... well... at the risk of aggravating folks with other fringe-y but popular beliefs, let's just say other medically questionable therapeutic approaches.

The want to believers will always recognize collusion and flaws in (ahem) "so-called scientific" (or objective, or unbiased or systematic) assessment of fringe-y claims. You know -- "The System is stacked against The Truth". It then follows directly and immediately that "The System is self-protecting and self-perpetuating." And, of course, "There is so much that we still don't know about (e.g.) Physics."

 

[Doodski]

The want to believers will always recognize collusion and flaws in (ahem) "so-called scientific" (or objective, or unbiased or systematic) assessment of fringe-y claims. You know -- "The System is stacked against The Truth". It then follows directly and immediately that "The System is self-protecting and self-perpetuating." And, of course, "There is so much that we still don't know about (e.g.) Physics."

I have seen what you describe to a T. It's seeming to me that there are commonly seen special interest groups that are actually more prone to the ideas that you describe.

 

[egellings]

Maybe a cable purchaser who spent lots of money on a cable wants to believe it meets its mfr's claims because, well, he's invested heavily in it and doesn't want to see the perceived value evaporate right in front of him.

 

[MattHooper]

Humans can be strange creatures. A good friend in college had a couple model cars on his shelf in his dorm room. Spent a long time putting in just the exact right spot to look how he wanted. I knew this. I for some reason did a mean trick. He went out to the restroom. When he came back I said, "I'm sorry man, I grabbed your chemistry book and bumped your Boss Mustang. I put it back exactly where it was though." He looked peeved, said no it wasn't in the right spot. Not really close. Spent near a half hour moving it this way and that before he was okay with it. Of course I never touched his car. Emotions are sometimes why intelligent people, believe and do things they should know better.

Agreed that emotions and intuitions are often enough why we take certain positions.

On the other hand I try to keep in mind there is a tendency for us to default to such explanations. In a dispute, it's very common for us to attribute our own position to reason, and the other guy's to psychology. After all, we know we reached our conclusion through careful reasoning, you've given the reasons to the other person, you've corrected their errors, and yet they persist in being blatantly wrong. Since my position is the reasonable one, the easy explanation is that emotion or some psychological story must be driving the other guy's conclusions.

As I mentioned before, having been in plenty of debates with intelligent people, where both sides come to feel like it's trying to reason with a brick wall, it's led me to try and reflect on those dynamics. I don't believe that pure emotion explains it all, but that there is something in the process of reasoning itself that produces those dynamics.

If you try to carefully think a position through, it's like going down a rabbit hole of your own making. You consider various options and reject them, consider various critiques and reject them, accept that proposition and move down to the next one. And then the next and the next as you reason your way to a conclusion. It's somewhat like going down a rabbit hole, picking your path among the the branching tunnels of choice, and closing the door behind you (rejecting those other positions) as you go down. And all this is greased with the psychological benefit of how it feels good each time you think you've grasped a truth and have understood the world.

It's no wonder it may be hard to reason yourself out of a position, or be reasoned out of it, given the nature of reasoning. I don't think it's JUST emotion in place of reason that can explain the dynamic where someone can seem recalcitrant in the face of "a better argument," but it derives from the nature of how we reason as well.

So if someone seems to me to believe something unreasonable, and it feels like I've "corrected" that person, or that person should know better if only they thought about it, and a smart person WOULD think this through, then I try to resist the temptation of concluding it's just emotion-based...it can also simply be the result of reasoning. They've just reasoned to a different conclusion.

 

[Doodski]

Agreed that emotions and intuitions are often enough why we take certain positions.

On the other hand I try to keep in mind there is a tendency for us to default to such explanations. In a dispute, it's very common for us to attribute our own position to reason, and the other guy's to psychology. After all, we know we reached our conclusion through careful reasoning, you've given the reasons to the other person, you've corrected their errors, and yet they persist in being blatantly wrong. Since my position is the reasonable one, the easy explanation is that emotion or some psychological story must be driving the other guy's conclusions.

As I mentioned before, having been in plenty of debates with intelligent people, where both sides come to feel like it's trying to reason with a brick wall, it's led me to try and reflect on those dynamics. I don't believe that pure emotion explains it all, but that there is something in the process of reasoning itself that produces those dynamics.

If you try to carefully think a position through, it's like going down a rabbit hole of your own making. You consider various options and reject them, consider various critiques and reject them, accept that proposition and move down to the next one. And then the next and the next as you reason your way to a conclusion. It's somewhat like going down a rabbit hole, picking your path among the the branching tunnels of choice, and closing the door behind you (rejecting those other positions) as you go down. And all this is greased with the psychological benefit of how it feels good each time you think you've grasped a truth and have understood the world.

It's no wonder it may be hard to reason yourself out of a position, or be reasoned out of it, given the nature of reasoning. I don't think it's JUST emotion in place of reason that can explain the dynamic where someone can seem recalcitrant in the face of "a better argument," but it derives from the nature of how we reason as well.

So if someone seems to me to believe something unreasonable, and it feels like I've "corrected" that person, or that person should know better if only they thought about it, and a smart person WOULD think this through, then I try to resist the temptation of concluding it's just emotion-based...it can also simply be the result of reasoning. They've just reasoned to a different conclusion.

Words to live by for sure. I'll file that @ the frontal lobes...LoL.

 

[Steve H]

I found it interesting that Stereophile recently published a short review of some audio cables - written by Herb Reichert.

Gramophone Dreams #82: IKIGAI Kangai-level cables, dCS Lina headphone amplifier

Decades ago, when I was peddling million-dollar sound systems, an astute potential customer asked me: "If I buy your very expensive system, what will I get that I'm not getting with my less expensive system?" Smiling my best fatherly smile, I whispered to his ear, "Goosebumps, tears, and...

www.stereophile.com

Cable reviews at one point became very rare at Stereophile and I've long wondered why. First of all cables were never accompanied by measurements as there were for DACs, Amps, Phono Stages, Speakers. When I put that together with the general lack of cable reviews in the magazine, my suspicion was that John Atkinson generally didn't think that measuring cables was worthwhile, and that cable reviews weren't really something they wanted to concentrate on.

So it was interesting to see a cable review pop up, and also see the response in the comment section. Archimago brought his skeptical take, but also JA gave a detailed reply suggesting that there were a number of at least technically plausible ways cables could sound different.

I'm just not knowledgeable enough to vet all the claims, and I consider myself a cable skeptic (unless more evidence arises justifying some of the high end audio claims).
But I did appreciate a reply from JA that doesn't mirror the classic subjectivist/golden ear response of "if you can't hear it, you are deaf or you need a more resolving system."
Right or wrong in the claims, JA had the right approach to the challenging Archimago's post, IMO.

My point is not to simply dangling this cable review as read meat for ASR (though of course the claims will be critiqued). Part of this post is meant as some appreciation for JA, and also just musing on the magazine's relationship to reviewing cables (and why). I still enjoy Stereophile, I enjoy Herb's reviews (speakers mostly), and I have huge respect for JA (and I think he's a valuable member here too) even if I don't agree fully with him on everything.

Matt, you don’t know the audio code. When John Atkinson says, “What I hope is that an engineer who cares about sound quality might want to investigate cables further.” He is saying existing research isn’t giving us the answer we want.

The chairman of the AES high resolution committee said more research is needed. Because the existing research doesn’t support high resolution audio in the listening position is better or different.

The folks over at the WTF Forum (What’s Best) say we need more research into how hearing works. And have been quiet since I pointed out a study showing we can reconstruct Pink Floyd’s The Wall from brain waves.

I’ve met Herb, he is really old. And he was an enthusiastic supporter of the format that shall not be named here. Maybe these guys need an exit strategy?

 

[teched58]

<snip?

I’ve met Herb, he is really old. And he was an enthusiastic supporter of the format that shall not be named here. Maybe these guys need an exit strategy?

Yes, I hear he was instrumental in getting the industry to standardize on 78 rpm.

 

[Sal1950]

I’ve met Herb, he is really old. And he was an enthusiastic supporter of the format that shall not be named here. Maybe these guys need an exit strategy?

I've got an exit strategy for them, and a few here too.

 

[MattHooper]

Matt, you don’t know the audio code. When John Atkinson says, “What I hope is that an engineer who cares about sound quality might want to investigate cables further.” He is saying existing research isn’t giving us the answer we want.

The chairman of the AES high resolution committee said more research is needed. Because the existing research doesn’t support high resolution audio in the listening position is better or different.

The folks over at the WTF Forum (What’s Best) say we need more research into how hearing works. And have been quiet since I pointed out a study showing we can reconstruct Pink Floyd’s The Wall from brain waves.

I’ve met Herb, he is really old. And he was an enthusiastic supporter of the format that shall not be named here. Maybe these guys need an exit strategy?

Oh, believe me, I'm acutely aware of that code. It's the one used by virtually every dubious, woo-woo, pseudo-science defender. "We know our beliefs are true. If it can't be scientifically demonstrated that's only means The Science hasn't yet caught up yet. Maybe one day...."

 

[mhardy6647]

I’ve met Herb, he is really old.

I have also met him and spent some quality listening time with him.
... and (more to the point), I resemble that remark.

Oh, believe me, I'm acutely aware of that code. It's the one used by virtually every dubious, woo-woo, pseudo-science defender. "We know our beliefs are true. If it can't be scientifically demonstrated that's only means The Science hasn't yet caught up yet. Maybe one day...."

In my line of work, that code means "Y'all (typically the NIH) need to renew my grant so we can keep doin' this stuff!" Grants are written like old movie serials, with some sort of attention grabbing action -- and a cliffhanger ending. "More work is needed..." means More money is needed.

 

[Sal1950]

Oh, believe me, I'm acutely aware of that code. It's the one used by virtually every dubious, woo-woo, pseudo-science defender. "We know our beliefs are true. If it can't be scientifically demonstrated that's only means The Science hasn't yet caught up yet. Maybe one day...."

That's the oldest BS line/story in the subjective community's vocabulary.

 

[Axo1989]

Obviously everyone saw the same objective color, and a measurement tool and would simply identify the color, however those who saw the white and gold dress interpreted it as a dress IN THE SHADOW with sunlight behind it, while those who saw it as blue and black saw a dressed IN FULL SUN.
The brain does not read a value and stop, but ALWAYS, INEVITABLY AND UNFAILURELY interprets it in context and processes it according to a series of secondary information of which we are almost never aware but which direct our perception absolutely

Thinking about this again this morning—but in audio terms—in that hyper-memed photo example we basically have a bad recording of (say) a violin, with the effect that the sound waves match a cello. So one group hears a cello, but the other group still hears the violin. I wonder how the group that (maintaining the transposition to audio instead of vision) hears the reproduced sound waves more accurately (to the recording, not to the event) correlates to people who demand/prefer more accurate reproduction gear to really enjoy music. And how it relates to perceiving technically distorted sonics realistically.

 

[Axo1989]

Ahh -- the treachery of images.
I've seen this sort of thing before. It's not pretty*.

View attachment 357548

_____________
* Gary Larson, too.

View attachment 357554

Wanted to "like" ... enjoy Magritte, but nonplussed by Larson*. Too creepy. So have a semi-appreciative reply instead.

Also, the bird illustration example is on point. I thought @MattHooper would take that up and go on to reflect on sonic realism. We basically have cartoons (ok, illustrations) conveying certain aspects of the truth of a thing better than the more technically capable medium.

*edit: I did appreciate the use of his text, however

 

[Mikig]

I'll ask you a question: do you think that all people experience hifi as you understand it?

I understand the ASR point of view very well, the last 3 purchases I have made come from Amirm product recommendations.

But the world is varied:

-many are only interested in music, and use any means to reproduce it,
-others are interested in gaming, do not listen to music and just want to "have fun" by changing devices after devices,
-others dogmatically believe that the turntable is the only way to listen
-Others are only looking for B&O type systems costing several thousand euros, because they are furnishing and attract the eye.
-Others even hide the speakers, because they don't want to see them...
-and others, who find themselves here, believe in science, engineering and clarity, without giving in to "worldly" or mythical compromises to achieve the result.
So why have to worry about the choice of path of other people, magazines, producers?
There is something for all tastes, and for all palates.
We have products of all kinds, magazines of all kinds and obviously users of all kinds...
the world is varied and it's nice that it is like that!!!! differences are stimuli, comparison and open-mindedness!

 

[Steve H]

Oh, believe me, I'm acutely aware of that code. It's the one used by virtually every dubious, woo-woo, pseudo-science defender. "We know our beliefs are true. If it can't be scientifically demonstrated that's only means The Science hasn't yet caught up yet. Maybe one day...."

Then why didn’t you call John Atkinson out on his statement on Stereophile’s site?

 

[Steve H]

I have also met him and spent some quality listening time with him.
... and (more to the point), I resemble that remark.


In my line of work, that code means "Y'all (typically the NIH) need to renew my grant so we can keep doin' this stuff!" Grants are written like old movie serials, with some sort of attention grabbing action -- and a cliffhanger ending. "More work is needed..." means More money is needed.

With Herb I would only listen to music that breaks high end audio systems. And tease him for failing a thought examination in audio.

I’ve started to work on repealing the “150 Hour Requirement” so my profession (accounting) can survive. I will have to interact with academics and I’m not looking forward to that.