Kimber cable "how much"

[oli collett]

Dr_Em> I'm starting to feel ignored.
You've suggested that you'd be interested in actually "listening" to a comparison of cables (unlike Oli, who seems to be happy to sit in his bunker throwing shells at anything that moves), and I've made an offer to both yourself a small number of additional people, such that we can actually try to setup a home dem to get a feel for ourselves as to whether cables make a difference.

So when do you wish to do it?

I gave you some suggestions towards doing a listening test, the problem is, you still don't get the whole point about how it is not up to me to provide the evidence to support the claims that you are making!

 

[arad85]

Some nice graphs and some explanation of what the issues are they are claiming to have "solved"

Let's have a look at the first graph on the page which is computer generated.

The input is a 40V p-p 500kHz square wave (a full cycle would last ~2microseconds). For those who can't remember the maths, a square wave is a Fourier series of odd-integer harmonic sine waves (1x, 3x, 5x etc..) all summed. That means that the 500kHz square wave comprises of a fundamental 500kHz sine wave plus a 1.5MHz sine wave, plus a 2.5Mhz sine wave plus etc....

What that graph is showing is that some cables used as speaker cables aren't suitable for use in the MHz bandwidths due to their RC properties. It's a very pretty graph, and would be really useful if I were trying to understand why speaker cable wasn't good for TV systems distribution or as ethernet cabling, but doesn't appear relevant to audio frequencies. Or am I missing something?

 

[Dr.EM]

Missing nothing arad85, spot on

Mr_Sukebe, I'm off on holiday literally tomorrow, so I apologise for not responding to your offer and it's something I'll consider more realistically when I get back (end of the month). Would be good to get a few people together for it

 

[lucid]

Well, the question is can anyone tell the difference between them? I believe silver and copper are both fine for producing cables up to the job, so as long as they are both of sufficient design (16AWG seems acceptable for copper, not sure about silver), I can't see why anyone would be able to tell the difference. But If someone wants to prove me wrong they are welcome. Again, it's not about being sounding the same by scientific theory, it's about whether they sound the same based upon scientific evidence.



I don't get why anyone uses any kind of fancy speaker plugs, if you're that concerned why not just go bare?


Anyway, on the subject of tests, a few ideas (this is a bit of a brain dump):

Pick 2 cables A & B that you want to check the difference of (I'd propose one that should theoretically do the job, and another a lot more expensive that should theoretically be neutral - i.e. doesn't have anything sneaky in there to intentionally alter the signal). You'll need a fair few trials, so you don't want to be trying too many cables as it will take forever.

Pick another cable, C which shouldn't be up to the job, some awful bellwire or similar.

Start with an initial trial, comparing cable C to one of cable A or B.

Analyse results. If you have enough trials you might at this point split out anyone who was unable to spot cable C (although this can get v dodgy when you go down this road). Of course it nobody was able, stop at this point as there's not much point carrying on!

Next, move to trial 2, comparing cable A to B.

Now, the big problems are, even after disguising the cables, you'll still have expectation bias. One way around this of course would be for someone else to swap around the cables independent of the listeners, but then you have the problem of them interfering with the experiment. One other way around could be to use duplicates of A and B and asking for the listeners to match up A to C or D etc. and let the listeners switch back and forth at will. I expect this could lead to problems with trial size though and it could end up taking hours.

You would have course have to pre-define number of trials and publish all the data as well. If you're only doing enough trials to analyse across the whole group don't start doing subgroup analysis - it's just cherry picking!

Fine. I can set that up. Looks like Mr Sukebe is doing something for the southerners and I can do something for the northerners. We could compare data and methodology too.

So, any takers?

 

[Vonhelmet]

It doesn't matter if a single person perceives a difference in an unscientific test. It would matter if multiple people could perceive a difference in a scientifically controlled test.

Besides, I've never argued that the cables don't sound different, only that there is no way in hell they cost £17.5k different.

 

[oli collett]

Besides, I've never argued that the cables don't sound different, only that there is no way in hell they cost £17.5k different.

I have though

 

[lucid]

It would matter if multiple people could perceive a difference in a scientifically controlled test.

Well come on then, give us your methodology and lets see if it's achievable.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Well come on then, give us your methodology and lets see if it's achievable.

Double blind ABX, AXY or XXY testing. And if you're going to complain about a switching mechanism affecting the signal chain, then just do away with it and swap cables manually each time.

 

[lucid]

Yep, disguised cable swaps are fine. How do you suggest we achieve double blind though?

 

[Vonhelmet]

Yep, disguised cable swaps are fine. How do you suggest we achieve double blind though?

How does any study ever achieve double blind? The person in direct contact with the person being tested can't know which cable is in use at any given time. It must be being selected by another party.

 

[lucid]

How does any study ever achieve double blind? The person in direct contact with the person being tested can't know which cable is in use at any given time. It must be being selected by another party.

That'll satisfy everyone involved and stand up to scrutiny after the event?

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Missing nothing arad85, spot on

Mr_Sukebe, I'm off on holiday literally tomorrow, so I apologise for not responding to your offer and it's something I'll consider more realistically when I get back (end of the month). Would be good to get a few people together for it

My thanks.
Have to admit that I'm unsure about the optimum method to conduct the testing, so I'm open to ideas from yourself. As mentioned would be great to get say 5-6 people from this forum to attend.
Note to anyone thinking of attending. The primary objective would be to ensure that we conduct the side by side test of cables. Whilst there, would also be great to have a blather and listen to some good music. I'd much rather the day was a pleasant afternoon that some eastern block interrogation session.


Oli> We really should stop talking to each other in this thread. I've never understood why you're so negative about actually coming to EXPERIENCE whether there's any difference. You're clearly totally intransigent on the issue, which is why our last exchange resulted in you ending up on my ignore list for over a year. So lets just keep it that we have a difference of opinion.

 

[oli collett]

How does any study ever achieve double blind? The person in direct contact with the person being tested can't know which cable is in use at any given time. It must be being selected by another party.

That's why I suggested disguising the cables by a third party who is not present, you just need to get around the expectation bias factor then.

Oli> We really should stop talking to each other in this thread. I've never understood why you're so negative about actually coming to EXPERIENCE whether there's any difference. You're clearly totally intransigent on the issue, which is why our last exchange resulted in you ending up on my ignore list for over a year. So lets just keep it that we have a difference of opinion.

I did find that a bit odd because whilst we might disagree I feel I've always been quite civil to you and I never did understand why you blocked me other than having a difference of opinion - which I find rather an odd reason to block but that's your choice I guess. I admit my sarcasm a few posts above to 9designs was unhelpful but I still have a feeling that he was on a wind up.

I have tried to make my position quite clear in many posts here, but based upon your replies I still don't think I've succeeded - if someone proves to me that anyone can hear the difference then I will change my position, what is wrong or even intransigient on that? It's the same position I might take to whether something with mass can travel faster than the speed of light (yes I was v skeptical of the neutrino paper that came out) or whether homeopathy works.

I've repeated the homeopathy example a few times because it's one that I've come across many times before. If someone is claiming homeopathy works better than placebo, I would ask them to prove it under controlled conditions and publish the data (and then I'd wait for someone to repeat their results given the number of negative meta-analysis out there). Now, people who support homeopathy claim that I could experience it's powerful effects by just trying it, but what would it achieve? Even if I did feel completely different after taking some homeopathy pills it would not prove anything to me and it would seem daft to change my mind on the basis of my own anecdote. This is exactly the same as the speaker cable issue.

So no, I'm not intransigent, other than that I'm not one to throw science out of the window, and I'm very much open minded, given that I'm not going to take people's personal anecdotes without considering psychological biases that they would be experiencing.

Now a question to any people who are convinced you can hear a difference - if you failed to detect them in controlled conditions, would you change your position?

 

[arad85]

Now a question to any people who are convinced you can hear a difference - if you failed to detect them in controlled conditions, would you change your position?

I really don't know...

A question for you though. If people were able to detect differences, would you accept differences can be heard or would you try and find out what was wrong with the test?

 

[oli collett]

I really don't know...

A question for you though. If people were able to detect differences, would you accept differences can be heard or would you try and find out what was wrong with the test?

Well, if you say by "detect differences" you mean there was a good sample size, sound controls and a significant p-value. Given that the hypothesis is scientifically improbable, ideally I'd be after something approach p < 0.01 or at least repeated tests to completely change my position to "speaker cables can certainly make a difference". If p < 0.05 in one test on it's own I think I'd probably say "speakers could make a difference, but further testing is required" etc.

 

[arad85]

Well, if you say by "detect differences" you mean there was a good sample size, sound controls and a significant p-value. Given that the hypothesis is scientifically improbable, ideally I'd be after something approach p < 0.01 or at least repeated tests to completely change my position to "speaker cables can certainly make a difference". If p < 0.05 in one test on it's own I think I'd probably say "speakers could make a difference, but further testing is required" etc.

And there is the problem.
If a test doesn't show a difference, believers will want further tests and claim it is the equipment/listener/pressure/environment that is making it so the differences aren't noticed.

It is a never ending argument - until you can correlate listening experiences with physical properties, which you will never do because there'll always be an argument why speaker cables can't contribute as there are far higher values of L,R & C elsewhere in the system.

 

[oli collett]

And there is the problem.
If a test doesn't show a difference, believers will want further tests and claim it is the equipment/listener/pressure/environment that is making it so the differences aren't noticed.

I'm sorry but I've read this through a few times and I don't understand what you are saying

By "believers" do you mean, skeptics like me? It's the only way I can understand what you're saying, either way, what exactly is wrong with my position? You seem to assume - from your post - that the experiment will be divised in a way in which I will not be satisfied.

It's not a never-ending argument by any means. If the differences are as obvious as they claim between the cables, it'll be a breeze. This is the same scientific process I'd apply to anything else

It is a never ending argument - until you can correlate listening experiences with physical properties, which you will never do because there'll always be an argument why speaker cables can't contribute as there are far higher values of L,R & C elsewhere in the system.

I'm lost by this as well, what's L, R and C?

 

[Somnambulist]

I'm sorry but I've read this through a few times and I don't understand what you are saying

By "believers" do you mean, skeptics like me? It's the only way I can understand what you're saying, either way, what exactly is wrong with my position? You seem to assume - from your post - that the experiment will be divised in a way in which I will not be satisfied.

It's not a never-ending argument by any means. If the differences are as obvious as they claim between the cables, it'll be a breeze. This is the same scientific process I'd apply to anything else



I'm lost by this as well, what's L, R and C?

He means that the classic die-hard believers position, is that every DB test is fatally flawed in some way, and thus DB testing is a waste of time. The golden ears position where subjective > objective, the land of 'putting my DAC on wood vs glass made a STAGGERING DIFFERENCE', 'I can easily hear the difference between USB cables', or my current fav 'I only listen to WAV, FLAC sounds compromised'.

LRC is inductance, resistance, capacitance.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

...I did find that a bit odd because whilst we might disagree I feel I've always been quite civil to you and I never did understand why you blocked me other than having a difference of opinion - which I find rather an odd reason to block but that's your choice I guess. ..
I have tried to make my position quite clear in many posts here, but based upon your replies I still don't think I've succeeded - if someone proves to me that anyone can hear the difference then I will change my position, what is wrong or even intransigient on that? It's the same position I might take to whether something with mass can travel faster than the speed of light (yes I was v skeptical of the neutrino paper that came out) or whether homeopathy works.
...So no, I'm not intransigent, other than that I'm not one to throw science out of the window, and I'm very much open minded, given that I'm not going to take people's personal anecdotes without considering psychological biases that they would be experiencing.

Now a question to any people who are convinced you can hear a difference - if you failed to detect them in controlled conditions, would you change your position?

You've made your position extremely clear. You believe that cables (assumed to be not completely junk) make no perceptable difference and have used a variety of "scientific" justifications to substantiate that.

However, you have also repeatedly ignored any offer to actually put it to the test, with offers made by myself amongst others.

As for changing my mind, just what do you think most of us did when buying different cables? I wouldn't trust ANY review (scientific or not). Almost everything out there has bias, whether it's because it's a side effect of marketing (WHF), that an individual has just bought one and doesn't wish to be wrong, or has an axe to grind. I trust my own ears. You seem to believe that all of us wish to blow money away for absolutely no good reason. Maybe some people do, e.g. the ego factor of "I've got a £1k cable". Personally I'd rather spend that on the mortgage, going on holiday etc. Everything I own in my system was bought because I believe it made a difference. Whether it meets your suggested "controlled test" I really don't give a stuff.

Let me put it another way, do you buy a car, fridge, kettle, pen because it's been tested in a "controlled manner"? I should hope not. You buy them because they have met YOUR requirements of the test. So don't go preaching to us because our test methodology is not as detailed as ours.
For that matter, please tell us WHICH of YOUR existing stereo equipment you did conduct a full test on prior to purchase?

So how about it, are you on for July? Come on, stop sitting behind your garden wall, come and hear what the rest of us listen to.

 

[oli collett]

LRC is inductance, resistance, capacitance.

Yeah, that's what confused me, I don't know why other people keep talking about measurements when I'm just talking about listening tests

You've made your position extremely clear. You believe that cables (assumed to be not completely junk) make no perceptable difference and have used a variety of "scientific" justifications to substantiate that.

Why do you put the quotes around scientific? Are you denying that the position I am taking is evidence based?

However, you have also repeatedly ignored any offer to actually put it to the test, with offers made by myself amongst others.

But as I've pointed out, you're quite welcome to prove your claims, I'm not stopping you! Just don't blame me for your lack of evidence!

As for changing my mind, just what do you think most of us did when buying different cables? I wouldn't trust ANY review (scientific or not). Almost everything out there has bias, whether it's because it's a side effect of marketing (WHF), that an individual has just bought one and doesn't wish to be wrong, or has an axe to grind. I trust my own ears.

And this is a position I find very odd - Do you reject all evidence then unless you've experienced something yourself given it might have bias? Do you review the methodology they have undertaken for the test to eliminate bias?

With all this talk of bias, but you've still not come up with a reason as to why someone in the hi-fi world would be biased against the cable industry, it seems a bit odd to me given how much money there is to be made in it

You seem to believe that all of us wish to blow money away for absolutely no good reason.

I've never said I don't believe you didn't experience a difference, only whether you could put that difference down to anything beyond placebo/expectation bias/whatever

Let me put it another way, do you buy a car, fridge, kettle, pen because it's been tested in a "controlled manner"?

When I'm buying a car then yes I do take objective facts into the case, I believe everyone does, but even so it's a daft analogy. There's nothing implausible about one car being different or another.

A better analogy would be - you have a kettle and someone is selling a power cable for it that should make your water taste better. Do you:
A) Ignore it unless they've got some proof
B) Try it (with no controls), see if it tastes better, declare it a success

To me, camp A is the logical, evidence based one, no?

For that matter, please tell us WHICH of YOUR existing stereo equipment you did conduct a full test on prior to purchase?

Just remind me again, what does my buying habits have to do with you making claims about hi-fi equipment without evidence? Nothing. I repeat - I'm not making any claims, I'm just stating the scientific position.

So how about it, are you on for July? Come on, stop sitting behind your garden wall, come and hear what the rest of us listen to.

Again, it's the homeopath logic.