Results are in - Monster XP vs Sonocable

Status
Not open for further replies.
Midcow2

Midcow2

Banned
Pick your Battles

I guess everyone has his own pet peeves, but it never bothers me when anyone tells me he can hear the difference in any cables. I just say, "That's cool", and then go on.:D

Sometimes I think debating this topic of cables (and separates vs. receivers) is like debating religion and politics -- you never win.:D
I agree "Pick your Battles" some times it is just easiest to let things go. I have learned as I get older and wiser that I don't always have to be right!.

Is it just an ole wives' tale or myth, that most of the profit on HT sytems is made from the installation, cable and service agreements? :D:D

And one other thing... there was/is an astute poster here :rolleyes: ;) that showed me the way to my fairly recently to 7002s and especially the CLR3000. I almost had rockets and bigfoot. and to that I say "That's cool and thanks".

Cheers and cable ON! :D:D
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
I agree "Pick your Battles" some times it is just easiest to let things go. I have learned as I get older and wiser that I don't always have to be right!.

Is it just an ole wives' tale or myth, that most of the profit on HT sytems is made from the installation, cable and service agreements? :D:D

And one other thing... there was/is an astute poster here :rolleyes: ;) that showed me the way to my fairly recently to 7002s and especially the CLR3000. I almost had rockets and bigfoot. and to that I say "That's cool and thanks".

Cheers and cable ON! :D:D
You're right, of course. I don't do this for Speaker Builder's benefit. I don't care what he believes either. I do it for the newcomers to the hobby who might have bought a copy of Stereophile or TAS and started having that nonsense develop what I consider to be negative and expensive beliefs in them. I'm more than neutral. I think the high end audio business needs to be explained and exposed because it sells lies. Well meaning lies, to be sure, but lies just the same. If I hadn't been in high end audio myself I wouldn't care. I really wouldn't. But I've been burned and would like to help others avoid the burn.
 
zhimbo

zhimbo

Audioholic General
Sometimes I think debating this topic of cables (and separates vs. receivers) is like debating religion and politics -- you never win.:D
Whether someone can detect a difference between two sets of cables is a very straightforward empirical question. It isn't a matter of taste, or preferences, or morality, or personal philosophy. People TREAT it like a matter of religious faith, but it isn't. It's utterly testable.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
Whether someone can detect a difference between two sets of cables is a very straightforward empirical question. It isn't a matter of taste, or preferences, or morality, or personal philosophy. People TREAT it like a matter of religious faith, but it isn't. It's utterly testable.
No doubt about that. But it isn't a very popular fact in some quarters.
 
MinusTheBear

MinusTheBear

Audioholic Ninja
I changed my speaker wire a while back. I went from ultra ultra cheap 12 awg speaker wire from walmart to 10 awg speaker wire from blue jeans cable. Did I hear any difference in sound quality on my system ,nope! But I do have the cool factor now:).
 
Midcow2

Midcow2

Banned
COOL ;) ---> MinusBear

I changed my speaker wire a while back. I went from ultra ultra cheap 12 awg speaker wire from walmart to 10 awg speaker wire from blue jeans cable. Did I hear any difference in sound quality on my system ,nope! But I do have the cool factor now:).
COOL ;) ---> MinusTheBear
 
B

Bloodstriker

Full Audioholic
Remember my motto regarding cables and you will avoid arguments with cable soothsayers while appeasing the propeller heads like me:

Only poorly designed cables can be sonically distinguisable
Hmm... so would Monster XP be categorized as poorly designed cables? :p

I think some people are being a bit harsh on spkr_bldr. Everyone here has good intentions, and he's just trying to give his explaination of my experience. Even most people won't agree with his views, I do notice the tone of writing towards him has gotten a bit agressive.

On the other hand, fmw is trying to let newcomers benefit from his experience, and I agree with his scientific approach to the matter.

I definitely thought that there was a difference, but the logical side of me is saying it's placebo or my cables were faulty.

I'm in the camp that a difference in cables has to be proved scientifically. Isn't this what this thread is all about? I'll be performing more trials this weekend.

Here is how it will go:

Listener will listen to each cable to get "acquainted" with the sound of each.

Listener is blindfolded.

Operator will switch cables or pretend to switch cables as per a premade list that is randomly generated.

Listener and operator will not talk for the duration of all trials.

20 trials to produce this sample.

After each trial, the listener will write down which cables he beleives that he is hearing.

Each trial will consist of the same 30 second passage of the same track.

Possible results:

15 or more correct out of 20: It has been determined, with a 95% confidence level, that there is a distinguishable difference between the two speaker wires.

Less than 15 correct out of 20: It has been determined that there a distinguishable difference between the two speaker wires does not exist.


Now, given all the knowledge on this board - what else can I implement or change to make this test as bias free as possible?
 
Midcow2

Midcow2

Banned
Use Scientific Method completely - no deviations part 1.

Hmm... so would Monster XP be categorized as poorly designed cables? :p

I think some people are being a bit harsh on spkr_bldr. Everyone here has good intentions, and he's just trying to give his explaination of my experience. Even most people won't agree with his views, I do notice the tone of writing towards him has gotten a bit agressive.

On the other hand, fmw is trying to let newcomers benefit from his experience, and I agree with his scientific approach to the matter.

I definitely thought that there was a difference, but the logical side of me is saying it's placebo or my cables were faulty.

I'm in the camp that a difference in cables has to be proved scientifically. Isn't this what this thread is all about? I'll be performing more trials this weekend.

Here is how it will go:

Listener will listen to each cable to get "acquainted" with the sound of each.

Listener is blindfolded.

Operator will switch cables or pretend to switch cables as per a premade list that is randomly generated.

Listener and operator will not talk for the duration of all trials.

20 trials to produce this sample.

After each trial, the listener will write down which cables he beleives that he is hearing.

Each trial will consist of the same 30 second passage of the same track.

Possible results:

15 or more correct out of 20: It has been determined, with a 95% confidence level, that there is a distinguishable difference between the two speaker wires.

Less than 15 correct out of 20: It has been determined that there a distinguishable difference between the two speaker wires does not exist.


Now, given all the knowledge on this board - what else can I implement or change to make this test as bias free as possible?
Use Scientific Method completely - no deviations Alos, if yuse use statisitics, then so be it use standard deviations, linr regression and confidence levels as mathematically defined.

Scientific Method:

Introduction to the Scientific Method


The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

II. Testing hypotheses
As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c << 1). Since this is the domain of a large portion of human experience, the laws of classical mechanics are widely, usefully and correctly applied in a large range of technological and scientific problems. Yet in nature we observe a domain in which v/c is not small. The motions of objects in this domain, as well as motion in the "classical" domain, are accurately described through the equations of Einstein's theory of relativity. We believe, due to experimental tests, that relativistic theory provides a more general, and therefore more accurate, description of the principles governing our universe, than the earlier "classical" theory. Further, we find that the relativistic equations reduce to the classical equations in the limit v/c << 1. Similarly, classical physics is valid only at distances much larger than atomic scales (x >> 10-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics.

We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws.

Error in experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsic to instruments of measurement. The human ear can't be the measurement device in an audio test; you will need intricate sound meters.Because this type of error has equal probability of producing a measurement higher or lower numerically than the "true" value, it is called random error. Second, there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which bias the result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore no experiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science we have standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors. Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote the measurement error. A measurement without a quoted error is meaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is made within the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how many standard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction? Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properly estimated?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
Like I've been saying, if the signal going into the cable leaves the cable unaltered, then there will be NO difference in sound :D
 
Midcow2

Midcow2

Banned
Use Scientific Method completely - no deviations part 2.

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?
While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do you do when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set, the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workings of the phone company? The process you might go through to solve this problem could involve scientific thinking, and the results might contradict your initial expectations.

Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

VI. Conclusion
The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation. We have also tried to point out some of the criteria and practices developed by scientists to reduce the influence of individual or social bias on scientific findings. [/COLOR][/SIZE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
How about you show me credible evidence that a grass fed porterhouse tastes better than grain fed? .
What a silly post:eek:
Did he make claims for that beef? What??? He Didn't??? I am shocked!!!

Evidence matters, not accepting sill claims to be nice.
I bet you may find AA better suited?;)
 
wire

wire

Senior Audioholic
I'm STILL thinking it's placebo. There's absolutely nothing you described that would indicate otherwise. Everyone in the room had reason to expect, to some degree or other, differences, and there was never any testing that people would reliably make the same judgment if blind to the status of the wires.

There's only one way to know: Blind testing!

Still, this is a useful experience. If blind testing shows your initial impressions are mistaken, then you'll know the true power and subtlety of the placebo effect.
I dont know
Years ago i had Plain monster wire on one speaker and XP on the other ( same gauge ) in my bedroom . My girlfreind picked up on the difference right away . Im not sure i understand why XP is much clearer the regular monsterwire . Ive always thought Speaker wire was about the same , but i found XP is different .
 
wire

wire

Senior Audioholic
Just be careful when you trust your ears and how much:D
Also, how far open that door is to the mind;)
Critical think is great indeed.:D
The thing is
when i installed my bedroom system , i didnt even know about Monster XP , I thought it was the same wire as i had bought many years previous ( same gauge ) . It was accuaually a mistake by me not knowing there was a difference between XP and regular Monster wire ( thinking like most here all wire sounds the same ) . Im sure glad i had my girlfreind point it out the difference , I thought i couldn't get my bedroom setup right , it was driving me mad ( in 2 channel its critcal for the sweet spot to have a equal setup on both L&R channels ) .
Also i use Carver Sonic Hologram in my room , that makes it very much more noticable and a very narrow Sweet spot .
 
Last edited:
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Listener is blindfolded.
?
This will be interesting:D
Try to do it well and use it in the warm up as well so they don't complain that it is harming/pinching their hearing in some way. Should be interesting as this may be the first time actually using blindfolds.:D

Also, may want to test your procedure of changing cables, if that makes some form of noise that differs when the other cable or no cable is swapped. May have to create a noise to mask or unplug and replug the same cable as that should be ok.
Have at it:D
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
...I won't change anybodys mind, nor will you convince me my own experiences were erronious. .
That is the problem, you see. You will not accept being wrong, your experiences misleading you. That is telling.
On the other hand, don't be so sure you cannot change people's minds here. It only takes some credible EVIDENCE that stands up to scrutiny and replication. Simple. We can change but you cannot. That is obvious now, thanks for that bit of clue.
 
MinusTheBear

MinusTheBear

Audioholic Ninja
I dont know
Years ago i had Plain monster wire on one speaker and XP on the other ( same gauge ) in my bedroom . My girlfreind picked up on the difference right away . Im not sure i understand why XP is much clearer the regular monsterwire . Ive always thought Speaker wire was about the same , but i found XP is different .
Did you tell your girlfriend you had different wire going to each speaker?

#1: if you did not tell your girlfriend she would never point out how one speaker sounds better than the other...impossible!

#2: you told your girlfriend that there is different wire going to each speaker. The mind is a powerful thing, your girlfriend is looking for a difference and her mind will convince her that there is.
 
wire

wire

Senior Audioholic
Did you tell your girlfriend you had different wire going to each speaker?
Nope i didnt , I didnt even know i had 2 type of different wires . All i knew i had Monsterwire on each side . It was truely driving me mad that i couldn't get my setup to sound right in the middle , the sweetspot was off center . I run my speakers , 3 feet from back wall and 2 1/2 from the side wall all equal , for optimal sweetspot and for the C9 .
Im not sure what they do to that XP wire .
Look @ my bedroom setup , it was driving me nuts , my equipment is not the best , but its better than the norm and now its sounds great , i love that SP3 Tube ( again TY Audioholics , you guys made my a very happy man ) amp are so much smoother on the treble and midbass , you guys @ Audioholics know how good these SP3 sound :) ) .
 
Last edited:
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Sometimes I think debating this topic of cables (and separates vs. receivers) is like debating religion and politics -- you never win.:D
Well, some do come to their senses and will let you know how much they appreciated their eyes being opened; but that usually happens in private.:D
Besides, fmw changed his mind.:D
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
I changed my speaker wire a while back. I went from ultra ultra cheap 12 awg speaker wire from walmart to 10 awg speaker wire from blue jeans cable. Did I hear any difference in sound quality on my system ,nope! But I do have the cool factor now:).
As it should be:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top