Speaker cables, you DO get what you pay for!

In all seriousness Ad, if you are certain they sound massively different, checkout the Richard Clark amplifier challenge.. because from the double blind tests i've seen of amplifiers you do need one to tell you one sounds better than the other ;) Although I might guess the lyngdorf is more powerful?

Indeed it is, but the sound was massively different too, it isn't all about the power.

I have spent a few hundred modding my marantz cd63, and there were some profound difference, mainly with replacing the clock, and a number of power supply upgrades including voltage regulators. I also compared my modded one to and older stock player and the differences were there, no need for wasting time with DBT.

Going off topic here though :p
 
CA kit is good entry-level stuff and their 740 cd player is pretty good too. But it is not in the same realms as high end manufactueres. I for example ran my ATC speakers with my old arcam amp and thought it sounded OK, but a bit lifeless and gutless. After using a newer and significanlty better lyngdorf with them I could never hook the arcam up to the ATCs again. Am I delusional and imagining things because I cannot produce some sort of graph or technical report on the differences ? NO, but the fact remains that it sounds infinately better, and you don't need a blind test to show you that.

It may sound better better but you can't be certain without properly blind testing it.

The lyngdorf kit is substantially more expensive so it'd be logical to assume it'd be better. If you'd just spent a few thousand on an amp you'd obviously think it sounds better. The reason most dealers will let you demo kit is that most people won't take it back saying they can't tell the difference as they're told it should sound better they don't want to appear unable to tell the difference even if there isn't any.
 
Here's my 2p worth but I can only come from the band equipment side.

You would be an absolute fool to believe that source (cd player) and end (speakers) equipment don't make a difference.
A £500 cd player will sound different to a £10 one but I'm not so sure if a £5000 one will sound much better (if any) than a £500 one (I have no experience of this).
Speakers absolutely make a difference and different speakers produce a completely different sound and that's why guitarists spend large amounts of money for perfection.
At source varying microphones make a MASSIVE difference to the sound.
Power Amps on the other hand don't make that much difference and the difference between electronic and tube amps is neglible HOWEVER companies like Marshall do make modifications to the amp circuitry which makes it harder for the average guitarist to copy their heroes sound perfectly.

Now here is my observation from 39 years experience of working with band equipment and which relates to this particular thread.
I have NEVER heard a musician claim that their new £30 guitar lead has made a difference to their sound.
I have NEVER heard a guitarist claim that the £50 lead going from their amp to the speaker has made a difference.
Musicians will buy expensive leads because hopefully they will last longer but the difference between a £2 and a £30 one is nothing.
I also know for a fact that the sound coming out of my 3000 watt PA won't be different if I use 10p/metre or £5/metre but I know the expensive one should be more reliable.
 
It may sound better better but you can't be certain without properly blind testing it.

The lyngdorf kit is substantially more expensive so it'd be logical to assume it'd be better. If you'd just spent a few thousand on an amp you'd obviously think it sounds better. The reason most dealers will let you demo kit is that most people won't take it back saying they can't tell the difference as they're told it should sound better they don't want to appear unable to tell the difference even if there isn't any.

Ok then, so prove to me that a separates system like mine doesn't sound better than a £10 alba micro hi-fi, when it most certainly does :p

This is exactly the same mindset as you have ;)
 
Guys guys guys. This argument is null and void!

Sound is a sense, just like taste and sight. Which means that it is totally relevant to the person feeling it. Therefore any tests that have been done are not relevant as the perception is changing with each test subject.

So therefore we shouldn't even bother doing listening tests in a controlled environment? If this were the case, why do controlled listening tests match up with expectations from scientific measurements? If the perception changes between different subject then it is surely just a basis for having a larger trial?

There is so SO many variables in this argument that is it near impossible to quantify.
You got the hardware, interconnects, surrounding environment, speakers, time of day, ambient noise, person listening etc etc etc......

This sounds like an argument for objective testing? Or is that what you are saying? :confused:
 
Ok then, so prove to me that a separates system like mine doesn't sound better than a £10 alba micro hi-fi, when it most certainly does :p

This is exactly the same mindset as you have ;)

This one we can easily prove though with some scientific measurements. We know people can detect changes up to a certain point and unless alba micro hi-fi's are performing considerably better when I last heard them I somehow doubt they come even close to your setup.

The amplifier comparison on the other hand would be interesting - I haven't seen the output of the two amps but I doubt you could conclusively prove there is a large enough difference unless a double blind trial was utilised...
 
Blimey there is too much here to quote and answer...... but I am more and more amazed at how singled minded some comments/people are becoming.
To read suggesting that only speakers make a difference, because you can measure it, I guess this would be referring to some 3D water fall graph of frequency response ?

So amps and CD players over the last 20 years haven't moved on, and in a blind test would all sound the same.... or have I misread this ??? ....... Anyone suggesting this clearly hasn't listened, sighted or blind is not important, as the same result would be heard..... That is, much has changed.

It's about credibility, and sorry if someone wishes to make their judgment on equipment, by deciding if there is any scientific reason, from reading web pages has lost the plot.
Listen blind or sighted, but for FS listen !!!
To then feeling they are in a position to give advise is laughable !
Credibility comes from experience and knowledge not Trolling some belief (that's 3 times now)...... Example "blind tested these 3 items..... they all sounded the same" or "I listened to X Y and Z and bought Y".... but we get none of this "evidence" to support a point of view...... less, we are not to know what some people have heard, as it's some irrelevant secret !!!!......

Yes sure the cable industry is possible where most snake oil is found.... but there are some difference to be had, big or small.... Example, I have listened to some mains cables, for me in my system, they gave little or nothing. This was sighted testing. I have now problem to say I couldn't hear a difference (was some RA leads). For others they may work.... good no problem to me.

To ask another or raise another thought, some systems better convey the emotion or the rhythm or timing of the music, so how would you measure that ?..... Or how do you "listen" for that effect..... OR maybe some people don't. Question HOW do people listen, judging just quantity of bass and treble ?????......OR do we have to say it does not exist, because we can't prove it or measure it ?

I have no problem with the idea to use a blind listening test, if people need that as a controlled way of proving what they hear.... just a shame that those preaching don't practice it, and explain some results......

You know to have it suggested that you can only hear what your told, and that all you hear is nothing more than a placebo effect just exposes such posting as having no experience........Going to listen to my system with the lights off, surely will make it sound better....;)
 
So amps and CD players over the last 20 years haven't moved on, and in a blind test would all sound the same.... or have I misread this ???

Correct, they haven't moved on there has been insufficient data recorded from DBT tests to prove this :D:D:D

The only difference is volume and we have all lost our minds ;)
 
lol





thats it really, just lol.


oh except this: i wish people were more open to ABXing, or at least open to finding out what its really about. it never stops suprising me, the people who are so in to audio yet dont know hoe the (simple) concept works. but then the exact same can be said of auddysey - something that can cause such a profound improvement in any kit it goes near yet some people who spends tens of thousands dont even know what it's meant to do.

I know about these testing method, these technologies, not because im any kind of audioplhile, but im a true audio enthusiast and like to have a decent knowledge of everything right across the board. unfortunately, i have neither the free cash or the inclination to buy the most expensive or the very best so i will not, in the face of 'audiophiles', ever be taken seriously.

Now, thats a bad way to be to be quite honest.
 
Correct, they haven't moved on there has been insufficient data recorded from DBT tests to prove this :D:D:D

The only difference is volume and we have all lost our minds ;)

You mean I replaced my NAD 3020A all those years ago for nothing.... anyone got one to swap with my Linn active amps :D ;) ;)
 
Blimey there is too much here to quote and answer...... but I am more and more amazed at how singled minded some comments/people are becoming.

Maybe you should actually read such peoples posts for a change and you might realise they are not saying what they think?

To read suggesting that only speakers make a difference, because you can measure it, I guess this would be referring to some 3D water fall graph of frequency response ?

Well we have double blinded trials that show that speakers sound different to one another if you really want to see them. I posted one the other day which showed the differences listeners experienced compared to when the trial was sighted - and the differences were massive, even for speakers.

So amps and CD players over the last 20 years haven't moved on, and in a blind test would all sound the same.... or have I misread this ??? ....... Anyone suggesting this clearly hasn't listened, sighted or blind is not important, as the same result would be heard..... That is, much has changed.

Where did I say they haven't moved on? Better amps have got cheaper and CD players, especially DACs have become much cheaper. I haven't yet seen a double blind test that suggests well designed amplifiers do sound different under controlled conditions, but there's been tests where people have failed to differentiate them (i posted the infamous stereo one a long while back). Either way, we shouldn't have sidetracked down this road because it's a whole new can of worms.

It's about credibility, and sorry if someone wishes to make their judgment on equipment, by deciding if there is any scientific reason, from reading web pages has lost the plot.

Ah, so because I've read on the internet that I've not found any evidence that these things make a difference I have no credibility and lost the plot. That sentence makes no sense, just like your argument here. That said, using your logic, i'm surprised you can't even find a dodgy listening trial that supports your argument.

To then feeling they are in a position to give advise is laughable !

I'm not the one giving advice here though am I? I'm just pointing out what we know and pointing out facts like that there are no known listening tests proving that speaker cables make a difference under controlled listening conditions. I don't think either you or Mr Sukebe has ever pointed that out (well you might have done but i don't think you have in a serious manner)

Credibility comes from experience and knowledge not Trolling some belief (that's 3 times now)...... Example "blind tested these 3 items..... they all sounded the same" or "I listened to X Y and Z and bought Y".... but we get none of this "evidence" to support a point of view...... less, we are not to know what some people have heard, as it's some irrelevant secret !!!!......

Now you're trolling. You're now saying that you have no evidence to support my point of view which is that we have no evidence to support the idea that speaker cables make a difference. Your argument is completely illogical. I'm not the one in need of any evidence, you are. And what's this quoting about blind testing and listening? Is that another fantasy about something I posted?

To ask another or raise another thought, some systems better convey the emotion or the rhythm or timing of the music, so how would you measure that ?..... Or how do you "listen" for that effect..... OR maybe some people don't. Question HOW do people listen, judging just quantity of bass and treble ?????......OR do we have to say it does not exist, because we can't prove it or measure it ?

If you actually read my posts, rather than just saying "troll" every time, you might notice that i've pointed out a protocol that would prove this to you.

Do I really need to explain the A/B/X protocol AGAIN and how it will easily prove you can tell the difference between A and B? It doesn't matter how people listen or what they listen for. If they can tell ANY difference, it will show in the test results. If you have a problem with that protocol, then please critique it, or at least read up on it.

I have no problem with the idea to use a blind listening test, if people need that as a controlled way of proving what they hear.... just a shame that those preaching don't practice it, and explain some results......

Practising what they preach - yet again it comes back down to me doesn't it.

You know to have it suggested that you can only hear what your told, and that all you hear is nothing more than a placebo effect just exposes such posting as having no experience........Going to listen to my system with the lights off, surely will make it sound better....;)

Ah, another one about me having no experience. Of which I need lots to tell people about your lack of evidence and flaws in your conclusions?

So, yet again, a long rant, a miss-understanding of testing procedures coupled with another accusation of trolling because I'm telling people that there isn't any evidence to support your claims. Before you post next time, come back with some evidence please.
 
lol





thats it really, just lol.


oh except this: i wish people were more open to ABXing, or at least open to finding out what its really about. it never stops suprising me, the people who are so in to audio yet dont know hoe the (simple) concept works. but then the exact same can be said of auddysey - something that can cause such a profound improvement in any kit it goes near yet some people who spends tens of thousands dont even know what it's meant to do.

I know about these testing method, these technologies, not because im any kind of audioplhile, but im a true audio enthusiast and like to have a decent knowledge of everything right across the board. unfortunately, i have neither the free cash or the inclination to buy the most expensive or the very best so i will not, in the face of 'audiophiles', ever be taken seriously.

Now, thats a bad way to be to be quite honest.

No issue with ABX, is part of the Linn Tune Dem method ;)....
Your input/comments are taken serious from my side, nothing to do with your kit mate.
 
No issue with ABX, is part of the Linn Tune Dem method ;)....

Why didn't you mention this earlier? Can you tell me more about it? I can't really find out much info online apart from on the Linn website.

Edit - I've read through and there doesn't seem to be anything to do with A/B/X. According to their site it suggests that the idea is to judge a system properly and tune-dem seems to be a method of learning how to compare two pieces of equipment in your head by following the tune, not with an A/B/X comparator, or am I wrong? If their goal is to just compare equipment and give listeners a method to differentiate two different peices of equipment, surely an A/B/X comparator would do the job perfectly? Their method seems somewhat bonkers, prone to flaws and unless i'm missing something far, far removed from A/B/X testing

http://www.linn-deutschland.de/how_to_judge_a_system
 
Last edited:
Ok then, so prove to me that a separates system like mine doesn't sound better than a £10 alba micro hi-fi, when it most certainly does :p

This is exactly the same mindset as you have ;)

I'd guess your kit would sound better and I've no doubt if I did a sighted test yours would sound better. It probably would on a blind test as well but that's the only way to make a unbiased comparison. You could try it and find you prefered the sound form the alba system :)

From personal experience I think my cd seperate sounds better than the sound from my pc though the cd player was much cheaper as I bought it second hand. I haven't blind tested it though I will get round to it to just to see if I really can tell if there's any difference.
 
Last edited:
I'm waiting for most people in this thread to figure out that the skeptics aren't actually asserting anything, or "ramming their opinions down people's throats". They're merely pointing out how there's no DBT-based evidence that average speaker cable sounds worse than expensive speaker cable. Given that this evidence exists for other components, it's absence in the field of speaker cable is intriguing.

If I made a product that was demonstrably better than the competition, I'd be falling over myself getting evidence recorded, published and verified as fast as possible.

Regarding the "evidence" you talk of. What more evidence do you need than "I can hear a difference" (or not as the case may be)?

This isn't evidence, this is an opinion.

There's different things here. Evidence exists that different cables make a different sound. Fine.

Currently, no evidence exists that different cables (I'm comparing average with expensive here) make a different sound that is detectable to humans. You may think it sounds different, which is fine, but that effect could be purely psycological. I don't know. This is the point. There is no evidence that the differences perceived are entirely down to the cable itself.
 
Last edited:
Well we have double blinded trials that show that speakers sound different to one another if you really want to see them. I posted one the other day which showed the differences listeners experienced compared to when the trial was sighted - and the differences were massive, even for speakers.

We who play in bands know this without any nice looking pictures to tell us.
If a guitarist wants to massively alter their sound they change which speakers they use.

I'll tell you what though - if I spent £2000 on cables you can bet I would hear a difference.
 
I was quite enjoying the debate on this thread until it got to page 8. It seems to have gone from peoples subjective opinions to childish name calling and people stating their opinion as fact.

If ever there was a time to lock a thread before it gets dafter this is it.

Everyone take a deep breath, turn off the computer and go play some good music.

Dave
 
Surely testing cable shouldn't be about using your ears/eyes anyways. It should be testing if the signal going into the cable is exactly the same as the signal coming out at the other end. After all that's all the cable is doing. It's not transfering some magic pixie dust from one component to another.
 
Surely testing cable shouldn't be about using your ears/eyes anyways. It should be testing if the signal going into the cable is exactly the same as the signal coming out at the other end. After all that's all the cable is doing. It's not transfering some magic pixie dust from one component to another.

We have discussed this earlier in the thread - see posts from me and Dr. EM
 
Back
Top Bottom