Audioquest GO-4 Speaker Cable Review

[fpitas]

Right... A "trained" experimental physicist that takes random anecdotal evidence over the results of a controlled experiment. Seems to me a little more "training" might be indicated here...

The physicists I know understand electronics fundamentals. I guess he missed that part of his "training".

 

[pkane]

well in science random anecdotal evidence (measurements that went all wrong, mutual exclusive spread of bacteria or fungus on petridishes) led to proper experiments to proof or falsify a certain understanding of the matter. I do not see a problem with that, on the contrary- by excluding them, and for the matter feedback from educated listeners, might be self limiting. I do not claim to be expert in audio related E/E.

Any non-personal, subject related comments you manage to come up with?

Not a personal comment, just a simple recommendation: get some training in psychology/psychoacoustic experimental design before assuming any validity in anecdotal, uncontrolled audio testing results.

 

[Deleted member 35463]

Not a personal comment, just a simple recommendation: get some training in psychology/psychoacoustic experimental design before assuming any validity in anecdotal, uncontrolled audio testing results.

The quotes are non-personal?

Is this platform here only admitting peer reviewed papers?

wish you all a pleasant Sunday

 

[Killingbeans]

why does a ptfe cable sound different to a PVC cable?

Power of suggestion?

my answer to your points would be: one could also measure such cable properties.. and yes I would have expected differences to be obvious in measurements shown here. But then again are those sensitive to the effect described?

Maybe do some blind A/B testing with basic controls first? What's the point of looking for a cause, if the effect hasn't been verified?

 

[sq225917]

why does a ptfe cable sound different to a PVC cable?
my answer to your points would be: one could also measure such cable properties.. and yes I would have expected differences to be obvious in measurements shown here. But then again are those sensitive to the effect described?

They don't sound any different if the geometry of the copper is the same in each cable.

 

[pkane]

The quotes are non-personal?

Is this platform here only admitting peer reviewed papers?

wish you all a pleasant Sunday

The platform is for sharing real evidence, not anecdotes. Come back with some real evidence and we can discuss it. Claiming there’s something we hear that can’t be measured is… let’s just say, a bit out of character coming from an experimental physicist.

 

[fpitas]

The platform is for sharing real evidence, not anecdotes. Come back with some real evidence and we can discuss it. Claiming there’s something we hear that can’t be measured is… let’s just say, a bit out of character coming from an experimental physicist.

Very tactful

 

[Killingbeans]

Is this platform here only admitting peer reviewed papers?

No. But the idea of dielectric bias doing anything audible is just really, really far-fetched.

If you want to avoid out of hand dismissal, It takes arguments that are substantially more well founded than the usual snake-oil pseudoscience drivel we get from the manufacturers.

 

[ahofer]

I've been working on a copypasta response to the new threads on hearing differences where there are likely none.

Welcome newcomers to ASR. It's possible you've made an unsupported assertion or a scientifically implausible claim that will cause most people in this science-oriented forum to react with skepticism (or scepticism if they are in the U.K.). Please don't take the reactions as overtly hostile - most of us are just frustrated with the many newcomers who have clearly come here just to "troll". Please do engage with the membership to find an objective, controlled method to support or discard your hypothesis. Our membership includes recovering subjectivists, many engineers/scientists, and several famous figures in the world of audio engineering research. Generally, they can cite scientific, controlled research to support their views. Most believe in the fallibility of human sighted judgement, and think blind testing and measurements are critical ingredients for assessing equipment contributions to sound quality. We'd love to have you, but if all you want is a) to fight or b) to have others cheerlead for your subjective views or anecdotal evidence, I'd suggest you will be happier elsewhere.

 

[fpitas]

No. But the idea of dielectric bias doing anything audible is just really, really far-fetched.

If you want to avoid out of hand dismissal, It takes arguments that are substantially more well founded than the usual snake-oil pseudoscience drivel we get from the manufacturers.

He must work in some heavenly lab where other scientists don't tear you to shreds, even when you're perfectly correct.

 

[Mnyb]

I've been working on a copypasta response to the new threads on hearing differences where there are likely none:

Welcome to ASR. You've made an unsupported assertion or a scientifically implausible claim that will cause most people in this science-oriented forum to react with skepticism (or scepticism if they are in the U.K.). Please don't take the reactions as overtly hostile - most of us are just frustrated with others who have clearly done this for "trolling" reasons. Please do engage with the membership to find an objective, controlled method to support or discard your hypothesis. We'd love to have you, but if all you want is a) to fight or b) to have others cheerlead for your subjective views, I'd suggest you get out now.

“They” sometimes do it of ignorance, not just trolling, these beliefs are so well ingrained into high end audio aficionados that they get a bit shell shocked coming here otherwise civil and good response.

I also think we can have a filter that simply stops first post if they contain keywords like p.r.a.t ,cables ,cryogenic mains filter and send them to the mods for further human review.

 

[fpitas]

I also think we can have a filter that simply stops first post if they contain keywords like p.r.a.t ,cables ,cryogenic mains filter and send them to the mods for further human review.

But what if they've discovered some startling new principle, heretofore unknown to science? And they need us to prove them wrong?

 

[BDWoody]

perhaps you conduct a double blind test with a qualified set of listeners to proof your claim.

How about a single one in the history of humanity that shows the measurements done on cables aren't enough to explain all that is needed to know about them. Where do you believe the special stuff hides in that electrical signal? All you've got to work with is Frequency, Phase and Amplitude. When the signal nulls to 1:1,000,000,000 or so, where is the difference in sound coming from?

All it would take is a single example, and you'd think the manufacturers would have an incentive to actually do it. Until then, it's just endless baseless unsupported claims that are designed to reach into your pocket and take your money.

 

[fpitas]

apologies - I was not aware this website here works by elevated standards the likes of IEEE.

Well, it does. If you come here spouting gibberish, the onus is on you to show us the truth.

 

[sq225917]

perhaps you conduct a double blind test with a qualified set of listeners to proof your claim.

One can't prove a negative, that's not how logic works.

Perhaps youd like to point to any decent double blind test showing cable dielectric makes a difference?

I've built enough of my own speaker cables over the years to arrive at the conclusion that it was a total waste of time.

 

[Killingbeans]

pls read my words more carefully - I never claimed to have an explanation that satisfies IEEE standards, I merely offered my thoughts.

I read it as an attempt at justifying the existence of this DBS system. A system that most users in here see as being completely pointless.

It shouldn't be surprising that you get a negative reaction from that.

 

[BDWoody]

apologies - I was not aware this website here works by elevated standards the likes of IEEE.

So, asking for evidence is too much...

I think that's enough for you in this thread for a few days. We try to cut through the nonsense here to get to where we know we are standing on solid ground. Until someone can actually demonstrate that ground isn't as solid as we like to believe, we will continue to challenge those who come with stories to the contrary. Evidence is what is needed. Without it, we are just believing who tells the best story. I hope you spend more time reading about how this can be a lot less mysterious, but until then don't expect unsupported claims won't be challenged.

 

[DonR]

Since capacitance and inductance of speaker cables (and most other audio interconnects, analogue or digital) is generally a non-issue, I still fail to see the relevance of any attempt to minimize them further. Are you proposing this cable is similar to the driven guard of a triax cable?

 

[voodooless]

perhaps you conduct a double blind test with a qualified set of listeners to proof your claim.

I don’t make a claim, you do.

 

[fpitas]

I don’t make a claim, you do.

It's amazing how many "scientists" show up demanding we prove crackpot theories.