In Reply to: Is there a reason why we should care? posted by Don Till on June 3, 2010 at 08:48:43:
Unless they learned about hifi electronics from an audio magazine, I don’t think you could find an actual “engineering type” who would deny there wire has measurable effects depending on length, construction and especially frequency.
The higher you go in frequency, the larger most of the detrimental effects and complications become and at GHz frequencies these concerns govern the design.
What is missing is the apparent point of departure between exotic audio cables and the electronic engineering theory that has permitted the design of loudspeaker drivers and crossovers or even radio, TV computers and cell phones.
What is missing is a connection between changes of the magnitudes measured at audio frequencies and what some often say they hear from the same changes, changes which would appear (relative to changes in the speaker) to be tiny or insignificant.
At least in the testing I have been involved in, the huge changes people said they heard from the various cables they brought, then disappeared into insignificance when they didn’t know which cable they were hearing in the same system.
When the only thing that changed is prior knowledge, then what they heard had nothing to do with the cables and everything to do with what they know.
The problem is the lack of connection between subjective impressions and what the measurements suggest. Since the electronic measurements can be taken accurately and repeated but no one is measuring hearing or looking at that end scientifically, that would appear to be where the gap exists.
Unlike a hearing test(or test of your senses or knowledge), you have no clues when the test will run, when the tone will be present or how loud it is, while proven effective in every other field in interest, the same scientific method, testing without prior knowledge has gotten the broad black brush in hifi.
The idea of testing without prior knowledge is shunned in hifi instead with the marketing agents (magazines) generally clinging to the “sweet mysteries of life” approach instead of a serious look at what you can hear.
I wonder which approach is more appealing to the unscientific, which sells more cables and which approach lets you build a radio or even crossover or build loudspeaker drivers?.. I wonder which approach poses a threat to the aftermarket hifi business?
Interestingly one of the articles did touch on something else I have run across, that some hifi gear is marginally stable and having an “antenna” attached to the amp output, or having parallel capacitance, may make provoke that instability. While this isn’t the same as wires altering the sound, it can explain how cables could push marginal design over the edge into instability (something no amp designer wants to see or allow).
The bottom line might be if you’re going to use technical measurements to explain or prove something, a real proof would also involve testing to see if people are actually hearing a difference when they don’t know which is which. A person could also claim and believe they hear a 50KHz, 500KHz or 500MHz super tweeter or anything else, but a simple blind test would reveal that if actually true or just a belief.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- No reason to care unless you buy things - tomservo 07:12:10 06/04/10 (81)
- RE: No reason to care unless you buy things - Jon Risch 10:58:37 06/06/10 (12)
- RE: No reason to care unless you buy things - tomservo 14:40:08 06/13/10 (0)
- You're right such test don't mean anything - Don Till 21:16:54 06/08/10 (0)
- RE: No reason to care unless you buy things - mls-stl 12:49:19 06/06/10 (9)
- I asked this before, but let me try again - how is that "cumulative evidence",... - carcass93 08:47:18 06/09/10 (2)
- You're misreading my comment - mls-stl 14:48:00 06/09/10 (1)
- RE: You're misreading my comment - kerr 07:20:40 06/10/10 (0)
- Evidence? - Jon Risch 19:12:07 06/08/10 (5)
- RE: Evidence? - mls-stl 05:46:35 06/09/10 (4)
- What is well established in all other areas of science is the wildly variable influence of of subjective facto - Norm 14:05:09 06/09/10 (3)
- RE: What is well established in all other areas of science is the wildly variable influence of of subjective facto - mls-stl 16:53:12 06/09/10 (1)
- I might suggest some problems I have with what you say but totally agree with your last statement. - Norm 14:26:01 06/11/10 (0)
- RE: What is well established in all other areas of science is the wildly variable influence of of subjective facto - Tony Lauck 14:31:48 06/09/10 (0)
- RE: No reason to care unless you buy things - Presto 10:35:35 06/05/10 (1)
- RE: No reason to care unless you buy things - Pat D 16:16:37 06/05/10 (0)
- nice response - Don Till 09:55:03 06/05/10 (65)
- RE: nice response - Tony Lauck 11:49:47 06/05/10 (64)
- RE: nice response - Pat D 15:54:39 06/05/10 (36)
- RE: nice response - Tony Lauck 18:45:35 06/05/10 (35)
- How rich can it get? - Don Till 07:49:11 06/06/10 (34)
- "As if one might not find a woman beautiful because of her intelligence." - robert young 10:11:20 06/06/10 (33)
- It's exactly on topic and to the point of contention - Don Till 10:43:34 06/06/10 (32)
- It may be "on topic" but it demonstrates.... - robert young 14:14:13 06/06/10 (31)
- Maybe you can just move on.... - Don Till 12:39:45 06/08/10 (30)
- Are you really this clueless, or do you just play so on propheads? - robert young 13:03:48 06/08/10 (29)
- Read this - I haven't decided if you really this dense or trying to get some payback for being made of fool on - Don Till 13:14:05 06/08/10 (28)
- Your subject line isn't even coherent english... - robert young 06:54:38 06/09/10 (4)
- This is my last effort to help you - if you still don't "get it" just move on. - Don Till 08:35:50 06/09/10 (3)
- Another Don T epic fail.... - robert young 10:21:29 06/09/10 (2)
- I get it. You made up a topic and have been fooling me into thinking you were trying to join in on this one! - Don Till 12:40:59 06/09/10 (1)
- No need for me to continue to point out your ignorance. - robert young 13:23:49 06/09/10 (0)
- Funny... - Tony Lauck 13:59:02 06/08/10 (22)
- Unfortunately.... - Don Till 21:01:44 06/08/10 (20)
- clueless - Tony Lauck 07:11:23 06/09/10 (19)
- So? - Don Till 08:12:27 06/09/10 (18)
- RE: So? - Tony Lauck 08:42:47 06/09/10 (17)
- Not really Tony... - Don Till 08:49:29 06/09/10 (16)
- Hysterical!! - robert young 10:25:58 06/09/10 (0)
- I already agreed with you.... - Tony Lauck 09:03:52 06/09/10 (14)
- I know you said that you agree with me but I don't agree with you. - Don Till 12:57:23 06/09/10 (13)
- Clearly we disagree about agreement. - Tony Lauck 13:56:52 06/09/10 (12)
- Like that TT that picks up voices spoken in the listening room your amp is broken.... - Don Till 08:49:24 06/17/10 (7)
- It seems you simply can't comprehend what you read. - robert young 12:02:00 06/17/10 (6)
- Logical Boostrap Problem - Tony Lauck 12:52:10 06/17/10 (5)
- No it's a programming error - Don Till 19:23:11 06/17/10 (3)
- That analogy is so tortured.... - robert young 13:26:26 06/18/10 (2)
- THE MOMMY RETURNS! - Don Till 10:10:33 06/20/10 (1)
- Weak, but not unexpected. - robert young 19:49:59 06/20/10 (0)
- Do you remember the great Python skit... - robert young 13:31:26 06/17/10 (0)
- Sure..... - Don Till 21:12:55 06/11/10 (3)
- RE: Sure..... - Tony Lauck 06:05:40 06/12/10 (2)
- No Tony - Don Till 16:51:53 06/16/10 (1)
- Must be some big conspiracy of stoopud that keeps everyone from falling into line with your "reasoning." - robert young 18:20:28 06/16/10 (0)
- Good point - E-Stat 14:24:00 06/08/10 (0)
- Well said! - E-Stat 12:09:48 06/05/10 (26)
- Maybe you can clarify what's so well about it? - Don Till 13:44:43 06/05/10 (25)
- My suggestion to you - E-Stat 14:54:52 06/05/10 (24)
- Come now E-Stat - Don Till 17:04:19 06/05/10 (21)
- At the expense of confusing the issue with facts - E-Stat 19:39:40 06/05/10 (20)
- RE: At the expense of confusing the issue with facts - Don Till 07:29:42 06/06/10 (19)
- The *someone* - E-Stat 08:55:55 06/06/10 (18)
- Technical dimension? - Don Till 13:22:09 06/08/10 (10)
- Do you need assistance understanding the term "recording engineer"? -nt - E-Stat 13:40:20 06/08/10 (9)
- He's still pimping his stuff - duh! - Don Till 21:08:52 06/08/10 (8)
- Regardless of your insults - E-Stat 05:57:56 06/09/10 (7)
- Well then what's their take? - Don Till 08:10:34 06/09/10 (6)
- What is their take? - E-Stat 08:24:50 06/09/10 (5)
- Ok then why the applaud for the original comment? - Don Till 08:47:10 06/09/10 (4)
- Evidently - E-Stat 09:03:57 06/09/10 (3)
- You need to tie these spectra to resolution* independent of noise in order for your comment to be relative - Don Till 12:34:24 06/09/10 (2)
- Yes, kids it's another episode of... - E-Stat 13:37:08 06/09/10 (1)
- You didn't bother making an excuse, I apologize I thought you might try to avoid this kind of name calling... - Don Till 21:19:09 06/11/10 (0)
- That's laughable! - Don Till 10:07:05 06/06/10 (6)
- Reading retention=zero - E-Stat 10:46:38 06/06/10 (5)
- Giving you the benefit of the doubt you must have forgotten what we were talking about! - Don Till 11:32:01 06/06/10 (4)
- Not at all - E-Stat 12:59:29 06/06/10 (3)
- You've answered nothing - Don Till 12:44:53 06/08/10 (2)
- When all else fails, deny everything! :) -nt - E-Stat 12:45:53 06/08/10 (1)
- I'm not denying anything - you're the one posting smoke! - Don Till 13:02:29 06/08/10 (0)
- RE: My suggestion to you - Pat D 16:01:10 06/05/10 (1)
- May you enjoy you lack of awareness -nt - E-Stat 19:38:10 06/05/10 (0)