Is there even a tiny bit of truth in all the marketing voodoo that audio cable manufacturers say? Or is it all BS?

[Anton S]

Ya just can't make them all open to learning the facts, they NEED some magic to believe in.
Just a shame it has to be about the reproduction of music,

Sadly, it isn't only with music reproduction. Magical thinking appears to be enjoying a general resurgence in all areas.

 

[fatoldgit]

Hah!! anyone who thinks vibration does not matter has clearly never heard my system before using the EAT tube dampers and HRS materials! i literally used to be able to snap my fingers in the living room...and hear the snap come back thru my speakers! the microphony was ridiculous...but it stopped when i used an EAT tube damper. when i played loud orchestral, the metal casing used to ring slightly...that also stopped when i put the HRS dampers in place.

I find this claim utterly crazy... tube dampers per se make sense but snapping your fingers and getting it feedback via their audio system?...

If I shake my head any more it will fall off (which on 2nd thoughts might improve my IQ!!)

Peter

 

[GXAlan]

i simply take a decent volt meter and i test the cables from end to end. i generally lead my decisions on that the the lowest values possible. i just want a cable from quality material that doesn't have as much resistance as the "other cable"

This is very reasonable.

There is a big difference between I want the best even if it’s not particularly audible* versus the only criticism of expensive cables are by those who cannot afford them.

Simple example is to max out your preamp at 0 dBFS and you get 2.00V. If better cables gets you 2.01V due to lower resistance, and you don’t have clipping, the better cables got you louder and there was no way to level match the bad cable “up” to the volume of the new one.

But my argument is that even if the $200 is as good as the $3000 cable and measures better than the $20 cable, you should just spend $20 or less, put the $180 into an index fund and put that into the bucket that is going into upgrading speakers or acquiring new content, etc.

 

[fatoldgit]

Ya just can't make them all open to learning the facts, they NEED some magic to believe in.

I have probably stated it before... but the last few years (in all spheres of life) have shown/proven that humans are pre-wired (pun intended) to believe in stuff (and/or Influencers that peddle it) and that stuff, as time has gone one, isn't grounded in facts. This is amplified by many people needing to belong to cults as it gives them a sense of acceptance, a place to call home ***

I have seen ASR called a cult but a cult cant be a cult if it's grounded in facts and science.

For example, this latest trend of unpasteurized milk consumption. If there are any benefits to it they are outweighed by the risks.

And the sad thing is mothers are feeding their babies/toddlers unpasteurized milk whose bodies are least able to fight any side affects.

I think we have to conceded that anti-science has won the day.

In the audio world, we inhabit an island of sanity surrounded by a sea of anti-science sharks (albeit the toothless kind).

Peter

*** could it be that as "social" media has actually made people isolated in their lives that it then increases peoples need to belong which they unfortunately find on social media and its Influencers.

 

[Sal1950]

In the audio world, we inhabit an island of sanity surrounded by a sea of anti-science sharks.

At ASR and a few other isolated websites, yes.
But in the general audio world the magic oil cults and Jones Temples rule the day.

 

[Palladium]

I have probably stated it before... but the last few years (in all spheres of life) have shown/proven that humans are pre-wired (pun intended) to believe in stuff (and/or Influencers that peddle it) and that stuff, as time has gone one, isn't grounded in facts. This is amplified by many people needing to belong to cults as it gives them a sense of acceptance, a place to call home ***

I have seen ASR called a cult but a cult cant be a cult if it's grounded in facts and science.

For example, this latest trend of unpasteurized milk consumption. If there are any benefits to it they are outweighed by the risks.

And the sad thing is mothers are feeding their babies/toddlers unpasteurized milk whose bodies are least able to fight any side affects.

I think we have to conceded that anti-science has won the day.

In the audio world, we inhabit an island of sanity surrounded by a sea of anti-science sharks (albeit the toothless kind).

Peter

*** could it be that as "social" media has actually made people isolated in their lives that it then increases peoples need to belong which they unfortunately find on social media and its Influencers.

We are also in a world of obvious done-to-death phone scams for more than a decade and yet marks still fall for them over and over.

The most ridiculous one I have seen recently was buying religious blessings (wtf???) of a livestream. Then the "victims" found out it does absolutely nothing while blaming the scammers instead of checking their own sheer lack of intelligence.

 

[Killingbeans]

i simply take a decent volt meter and i test the cables from end to end. i generally lead my decisions on that the the lowest values possible. i just want a cable from quality material that doesn't have as much resistance as the "other cable"

No matter how decent that volt (do you mean "multi"?) meter is, it won't be decent enough.

A typical AWG 12 cable will have a resistance of roughly 5 Ohm/km. Any variance of the resistance in a normal lenght of speaker wire will be absolutely swamped by the tolerance of the meter. You'll need to use a Kelvin bridge if you want to have any hope of measuring these things.

Also, there's no need to hunt for ever lower resistance if there's no practical reason. Do the math instead. Or next thing you know, you'll have huge monthly expenses for liquid helium, just to keep those superconducting speaker cables working

 

[genesisaudiorack]

But... why? What on earth would change over time? It makes zero sense.



Terrible idea, no offence.

Those ten systems would need to be placed identically in ten identical rooms with identical acoustics. And that wouldn't work either since no two speakers are identical. They are all manufactured to perform within a tolerance, but 100% audibly identical performance is pratically impossible.

A ten way switch box in a single system makes infinitely more sense. Unless you'd claim that a switch box would "pollute" the experience. In that case, there's no hope for a reasonable discussion.

Even better, just measure the RCL parameters the cables and calculate how it it interacts with the in- and output impedances of your gear. That's all you really need.

you just proved my point

 

[Killingbeans]

Alright. Then I guess I didn't get your point. And I still don't.

EDIT: If your point is that we should do some proper blind tests to put a nail in the coffin of the "silver has a sound" myth, then eat your heart out. Do all the tests you want, but I'm not going to waste time on it. It's nearly 100% certain that the results will show zero evidence of a "sound", and it's also nearly 100% certain that the people who believe the myth will fiercely refuse to accept the evidence. They'll grasp any straws they can to keep the fairy tale intact. And around and around we go.

BTW, my boss also believes in the "sound of silver". He often insists on me using silver plated copper wire when I need to make a jumper on a high-end PCB, because of how it "sounds better". I just smile, nod and do as he says, even though I wholeheartedly think it's complete BS. Some myths in this hobby are just so old and ingrained that any hope of making then go away is futile.

 

[genesisaudiorack]

Alright. Then I guess I didn't get your point. And I still don't.

if concluding the idea i had wasnt sufficient enough, and suggesting that multiple rooms setup the same way, with only a cable change was the progressive idea for a test then that eliminates the previous claims of blind testing that cables dont matter

the idea is setup a room with two systems only, one on each side. then mute each one for one second and continue on the other. eliminating time factor that is a test fail for the human ear. only side by side effect can be decided upon honestly. i truly think testing a cable, swapping a wire set, and trying again leads to a hard reality of not being able to tell. due to time. nobody has done a true side by side and posted it. and if you want to use a switch box it just adds a connection between. but the fact is the time issue. hearing one thing and hearing another a second later and switching back andf forth is the only logical appropriate in house human ear test.

 

[Galliardist]

if concluding the idea i had wasnt sufficient enough, and suggesting that multiple rooms setup the same way, with only a cable change was the progressive idea for a test then that eliminates the previous claims of blind testing that cables dont matter

the idea is setup a room with two systems only, one on each side. then mute each one for one second and continue on the other. eliminating time factor that is a test fail for the human ear. only side by side effect can be decided upon honestly. i truly think testing a cable, swapping a wire set, and trying again leads to a hard reality of not being able to tell. due to time. nobody has done a true side by side and posted it. and if you want to use a switch box it just adds a connection between. but the fact is the time issue. hearing one thing and hearing another a second later and switching back andf forth is the only logical appropriate in house human ear test.

This has been looked into , and it appears our memory for the before sound of such a change actually lasts for about ten seconds, meaning that a quick change is possible. Also, a switch box can be used for this kind of test as long as it doesn't either degrade the signal more for one setting than the other or introduce a "tell" such as a sound that tells the subject what has been chosen, and of course those things can be measured.

 

[genesisaudiorack]

This has been looked into , and it appears our memory for the before sound of such a change actually lasts for about ten seconds, meaning that a quick change is possible. Also, a switch box can be used for this kind of test as long as it doesn't either degrade the signal more for one setting than the other or introduce a "tell" such as a sound that tells the subject what has been chosen, and of course those things can be measured.

sure, but it hasnt been done properly. ergo the blind testing people make claims to aren't even anecdotal. they are performed with obvious and clear contention of a testing process.

 

[Killingbeans]

i truly think testing a cable, swapping a wire set, and trying again leads to a hard reality of not being able to tell. due to time.

Yes, echoic memory is definitely a thing. If you want to detect the most minute differences, you'll need to listen to very short samples with instantaneous switching.

But two "identical" setups in either end of the room won't work. As I pointed out earlier, you can't get hold of two sets of speakers that are audibly identical.

and if you want to use a switch box it just adds a connection between.

And the problem with that is what?

If a couple of connectors, a few PCB traces + solder joints and a few relays are enough to swamp the sound of the cables, then what is there to worry about in the first place?

Are all people who have a preamp with input selection in their setups robbed from the sounds of their cables?

 

[Galliardist]

sure, but it hasnt been done properly. ergo the blind testing people make claims to aren't even anecdotal. they are performed with obvious and clear contention of a testing process.

Are you claiming that every single double blind test ever mounted, including those by generations of actual scientists over decades, is invalid? That is quite a claim. Prove it.

 

[genesisaudiorack]

Are you claiming that every single double blind test ever mounted, including those by generations of actual scientists over decades, is invalid? That is quite a claim. Prove it.

nope. i said doing a actual blind test of any nature has to be completed with appropriate settings and hardware equally and the comment if you scroll up is time, time is a enemy in this type of testing.

also people trying to do a audio test on 20 and 250 dollar cables is comedic at best. literally avoiding the slew of upper end cables to do tests on.

 

[Galliardist]

sure, but it hasnt been done properly. ergo the blind testing people make claims to aren't even anecdotal. they are performed with obvious and clear contention of a testing process.

For brevity, let's use the different models mentioned in Wikipedia (I know)...

There are a few times there, but I think the one we want is this:

A short-term memory model proposed by Nelson Cowan attempts to address this problem by describing a verbal sensory memory input and storage in more detail. It suggests a pre-attentive sensory storage system that can hold a large amount of accurate information over a short period of time and consists of an initial phase input of 200-400ms and a secondary phase that transfers the information into a more long term memory store to be integrated into working memory that starts to decay after 10-20s.

If you really think that every single blind/double blind test ever conducted was faulty, you're going to have to spend a lot of time showing that.

Echoic memory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[genesisaudiorack]

For brevity, let's use the different models mentioned in Wikipedia (I know)...

There are a few times there, but I think the one we want is this:

If you really think that every single blind/double blind test ever conducted was faulty, you're going to have to spend a lot of time showing that.

Echoic memory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

i do not think that and you are imposing and suggesting i am saying something i am not. i said when it comes to a test of speaker wire to determine what minuscule changes they may have if any.....the test should be done eliminating all issues of contention and thus also provide the best scenario possible for a decent outcome. the fact that myself or other have contended to the cables audio blind tests performed that were flawed is certainly factual demonstration that a blind test on cables could be done better and with a suitable system or systems with various low and high end cables.

ill wait.

the claims of blind testing cables right now from every video and written piece ive seen is flawed.

 

[JSmith]

ill wait.

JSmith

 

[mhardy6647]

 

[Galliardist]

i do not think that and you are imposing and suggesting i am saying something i am not. i said when it comes to a test of speaker wire to determine what minuscule changes they may have if any.....the test should be done eliminating all issues of contention and thus also provide the best scenario possible for a decent outcome. the fact that myself or other have contended to the cables audio blind tests performed that were flawed is certainly factual demonstration that a blind test on cables could be done better and with a suitable system or systems with various low and high end cables.

ill wait.

the claims of blind testing cables right now from every video and written piece ive seen is flawed.

So when all the contentions you can imagine are removed, probably unnecessarily as you can't seem to accept the science anyway, and exactly the same results are achieved, as they will be, what then? If not you, someone else is going to turn up with more "contentions", and we get another go around the merry-go-round.

And all because people won't accept the actual science, the proper tests and the measurements.

Now, I'm actually quite happy to accept that most and maybe all of the listening tests you may have found in YouTube and on forums are in fact flawed. Most listening tests that get brought up in this very forum are actually flawed. Even peer reviewed tests in the scientific literature are known to be flawed.

So I have no problem with that part of your argument, and congratulate you on your scepticism.

However, you seem to want to go on from there to reject the actual science that tells us how we can conduct tests, and you at least imply that you want to reject all blind tests.

I've given you a simple introduction to the science around the memory time. @Killingbeans has explained that switches don't necessarily invalidate testing. You now have improved tools for judging tests rather than imposing a new standard of your own that is actually unlikely to work.

Remember also that the "blind testing" people here are also the "science" people and the "measurement" people. The thing is that everything from the standard model of electricity, through metallurgy and testing of metals, through measurements of difference (or lack of) in actual cables, through the models of human hearing and testing of what we can hear, through correctly conducted testing, tells the same truth.

No high end cable manufacturer has ever properly shown a real audible difference either. They make remarkable claims (anyone for custom quantum tunneling?) but even in their patents, it seems that the evidence for audibility comes down to claims that "the office junior plugged in the cables and heard something different". It is not for you or I to prove their claims or otherwise... it is for them to give proof of such remarkable claims.

While we can reject a lot of flawed blind testing, we should at the same time accept that these people tried. I see no evidence anywhere that the likes of Crystal Cable, Synergistic Research or any of the companies you listed in your first post have ever published research to show that their cables actually sound different - no definitive measurement, not even flawed blind testing. You want to be sceptical? Start there, hold those companies to the same standards as the YouTubers and the forumites. They fall short by an even greater margin.