|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.211.134
In Reply to: RE: So how does this show cables sound different? (nt) posted by Pat D on October 15, 2010 at 15:20:44
Since you miss the obvious point, I guess I need to spell it out. There have been ZERO valid tests using high performance cables that anyone has ever been able to provide. Fools like Mtry twist the null result into assuming that provides a conclusion. It does not. If all you did was compare a Ford Taurus against a Buick Regal, dialtones like Mtry would conclude that ALL cars had limited acceleration and cornering capability.
Tests speak for only that which is tested. Nothing more. Extrapolation of results to that which has not been tested or (my favorite) what didn't exist at the time of the test is wholly unwarranted.
rw
Follow Ups:
E-stat
"There have been ZERO valid tests using high performance cables that anyone has ever been able to provide."
And so by your own admission, you have no good evidence that those alleged "high performance cables" sound different from large heavy gauge speaker wire such as my old 12 gauge Angstrom cables or heavy speaker wire from the hardware store--which isn't cheap as it used be, either. And that was mtrycrafts' point then and still is, I think. Whoops! Game goes to mtrycrafts!
A second point is what on earth your assertion actually means. If only we could give some definite meaning to "high performance cables" for audio purposes. How does one know whether a cable is "high performance" or not? How could one test a hypothesis which has no definite meaning?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
By listening to it?
In the absence of blind tests, we have sighted ones. They aren't of coruse completely reliable, but -i-t- -s-e-e-m-s- -t-o- -m-e- -t-h-a-t- they're significantly better than no evidence at all.
Sighted tests are quite reliable for a lot of things. A couple of examples. They can show the equipment works and is not obviously malfunctioning. They can show that an amplifier can drive the speakers to one's satisfaction--or not.
As well, sighted tests can work quite well for forming preferences. I have often advised people to get the equipment they prefer, and to form their preferences by the methods they prefer.
For determining small audible differences--sighted auditions are not reliable.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
The problem is, neither is practical forced choice testing. Just look at the DBT reports on Hydrogen Audio, the results are all over the place. So what do you do, wait for the blind tests to improve (or to be done in the first place, since most equipment one might be interested in buying hasn't been subjected to DBT), or accept the evidence of one's ears?
I suppose I should add that this isn't just a rhetorical question. The purported superiority of certain esoteric cables, the audibility of certain differences in contemporary power amplifiers and converters -- in many cases, I just don't know. All I can do is use my ears and a bit of common sense, and hope I'm right.
Ah, well that illustrates a different concern: what to buy. I don't tell people what to buy, or how they *should* go about choosing equipment, though I can tell them what has worked for me and others. I don't have to change speakers every couple of years because I get tired of them.
This bothers many people. They expect me to tell them what to buy--after all, that's why many of them come here, to get advice on what equipment to buy. I'm not answering the questions they have in their minds--but seldom ask.
I often suggest speakers I think most people would like, or amplifiers that should drive their speakers, if I know. But I don't tell them not to buy expensive equipment, and I don't suggest they buy the cheapest. What I suggest is that they buy the equipment they prefer.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
I think the best you can do is outline some of the options. Needs and tastes differ too much. However, within a given category, there are almost always components that are a better value than others. And some, arguably, that have no value at all, or are ridiculously overpriced for what they are (not that I'm thinking of certain estoteric cables . . .).
And so by your own admission, you have no good evidence that those alleged "high performance cables" sound different from large heavy gauge speaker wire...
How can you find evidence when they have never been tested? How many times do you need to be told the same thing before you understand the concept? Three? Four? Never?
And that was mtrycrafts' point then and still is, I think.
His point? He claimed that there were tests that included what he dismisses as "expensive cables". He lied.
How does one know whether a cable is "high performance" or not?
Smart people know several ways. Do they achieve a low dielectric constant? Zip cord clearly does not. Do you test what countless critical listeners say sounds good? Why would you possibly want to do that?
How could one test a hypothesis which has no definite meaning?
The answer involves a very complex procedure that is likely far beyond your level of comprehension: you include them in your tests. Did you get that?
I'm done with kindergarten for today.
rw
E-stat
"His point? He claimed that there were tests that included what he dismisses as "expensive cables". He lied."
No, mtyrcrafts did not lie. Indeed, if you look in the same 2004 thread at AR, you will find Richard Greene said participated in such a DBT, so you should know what mtry said was true.
Richard Greene
"Ten feet of Radio Shack 14AWG zip cords versus ten-foot $995 Tara Labs speaker cables at DLC Design, an audio consultancy in Michigan. The test was conducted by DLC owner Dave Clark (inventor of the DUMAX dynamic driver measurement system) and Tom Nousaine. Both work full-time in the audio field and both are internationally known."
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Mtry didn't provide that *test*. He remained unable to provide any such information. He admitted that he was unable to provide any such detail. He lied. Let's examine your example of a scientifically valid test. Here's the entirety of the scholarly test procedure, gear used and results:
"Ten feet of Radio Shack 14AWG zip cords versus ten-foot $995 Tara Labs speaker cables at DLC Design, an audio consultancy in Michigan"
That's it? Now, go back and tell us the contents of the very next post in that thread. BassNut's was 11. Read 12. Then, tell us if the question raised in that post was ever answered.
rw
No, mtry did not lie. First, what mtrycrafts said was that tests with expensive cables have been done. I'll link some results below, and I hope you aren't going to pretend you haven't seen the ABX site before.
You maintain DBTs have never been done with expensive cables, yet the refutation of your assertion was in that very thread, in Richard Greene's post.
Second, mtry never said he could not supply any references. He pointed out that he didn't need to do so, since it is up to those who claim there are audible differences to establish it. After all, those null results don't prove a negative(as if we hadn't told you this many times). It doesn't do much good to supply references around as hardly anyone either reads them or bothers to remember they have been given--do you recognize yourself?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
You're supposed to ASSUME that the test was done with something other than Bose Accoustimass and Yorx electronics, somewhere other than a cave, that the people failed to discern differences, and that there was a test at all! Where's your faith???
The question at issue is whether tests of expensive cables have been done. They have.
Now you want to ask some other questions. Fine. Why don't you ask DLC what was done? But why you are interested in more negative results is a question, since so many think negative results mean nothing.
I'm looking for positive results. There are some, as E-stat keeps telling us, but he doesn't like them.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Richard claims to have been present at the test he cited. You happen to believe it was a proper test and, however much I may disagree with his audio beliefs, I've always found him to be honest. But see Tony's post above (titled: Evidence?). Your beliefs and my beliefs have no place in the discussion. E-Stat doesn't share the same faith, and there's no reason he should. Richard's claim is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. I would guess that you don't see this because you share the same audio beliefs.
> I'm looking for positive results. <
Not very diligently. The best way to find positive results is to participate in some blind tests, either as a participant or as an observer. It shouldn't take many... as long as you don't insist on comparing two brands of zip cord or two brands of plastic receiver.
rw
And if it is, why? After all this time?
Can accuse you of succumbing to expectation bias, can we? :)
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: