Straightwire Interconnects advice

[Brett A]

I'm not sure why, faced with the fact that no person on Earth has *ever* been able to reliably dicern between two different, properly built cables; they still think they can discern between two different and properly built cables.

I simply don't believe this is true. You might not be able to find any reliable cable ID'ing from DBT results published on the internet, but if you want to talk about "individuals", that's different.

I believe that if you came to my house, took 3 different sets of interconnects that I own and am familiar with (retail range between $40 and $200) and swapped them between my CDp and amp, I could name them reliably (although not perfectly perhaps---but better than chance) by their sound.

You mentioned hubris? What does it take to believe an impression you cannot demonstrate and which every test ever performed establishes is purely in your mind is, in fact, not in your mind? That sounds like hubris.

That's a good point. So my approach was one of hubris also.

BTW, Where are the studies that show a person will guess correctly 50% of the time?

 

[njedpx3]

I simply don't believe this is true. You might not be able to find any reliable cable ID'ing from DBT results published on the internet, but if you want to talk about "individuals", that's different.

I believe that if you came to my house, took 3 different sets of interconnects that I own and am familiar with (retail range between $40 and $200) and swapped them between my CDp and amp, I could name them reliably (although not perfectly perhaps---but better than chance) by their sound.


That's a good point. So my approach was one of hubris also.

BTW, Where are the studies that show a person will guess correctly 50% of the time?

It is very hard to fool electrons ,electrical properties are defined by gauge and metal, wire is wire, hubris or not.

Peace!

Forest Man

 

[JerryLove]

I simply don't believe this is true. You might not be able to find any reliable cable ID'ing from DBT results published on the internet, but if you want to talk about "individuals", that's different.

There are a number of people. Some here, some known to those here (Roger Russell comes to mind) who have gone out of their way to perform double-blind listening tests to determine exactly that. The results on well-formed tests have been consistant: no signifigant diviation from random.

I believe that if you came to my house, took 3 different sets of interconnects that I own and am familiar with (retail range between $40 and $200) and swapped them between my CDp and amp, I could name them reliably (although not perfectly perhaps---but better than chance) by their sound.

If you live near Tampa, I'd be happy to help you conduct such a test.

There are some wires that do sound different. Some are very small gauge and have trouble getting the signal across. Some exotics add color to sound that was not originally there. These are the exceptions rather than the rule, and in both cases are different in that they are inaccurate.

That's a good point. So my approach was one of hubris also.

BTW, Where are the studies that show a person will guess correctly 50% of the time?

You are looking for DBTs showing that the incidence of correctness is in line with random chance, or you are looking for the statement that the chance of randomly guessing between two options correctly is 50%?

And let me reiterate: I don't think you are lying. I think you "hear" differences where you expect them. I believe that these differences, as with all others who have had similar experiences, will not be tied to wires when it becomes impossible to know which is actually in use. Heck; most optical illusions work in a similar way: and many of those continue to fool my eyes even when I know the trick,

 

[TLS Guy]

I simply don't believe this is true. You might not be able to find any reliable cable ID'ing from DBT results published on the internet, but if you want to talk about "individuals", that's different.

I believe that if you came to my house, took 3 different sets of interconnects that I own and am familiar with (retail range between $40 and $200) and swapped them between my CDp and amp, I could name them reliably (although not perfectly perhaps---but better than chance) by their sound.


That's a good point. So my approach was one of hubris also.

BTW, Where are the studies that show a person will guess correctly 50% of the time?

Without science and objective measurement you have nothing. All you have is dangerous superstition.

Without reason and method people will believe anything no matter how ridiculous or far fetched, and they do.

Unfortunately your line of thinking is actually hazardous to you and society at large. For without the ability to understand the question posed (hypothesis), the methodology to test the hypothesis (experiment) and correctly analyze the data produced by the experiment, then you can not really make correct decisions for yourself, you family or society at large. If you can't develop those sorts of skills, then you are compromised as a member of society. Without those skills any opinion formed by that individual is as likely to be harmful as useful. In fact when you factor in societal herd influences you are likely to be wrong more often than by chance.

Now I could site numerous instances where your point of view about science is damaging to society as a whole but I will discuss one issue that illustrates the danger of a scientifically illiterate society.

The issue I will use is the radiation of food. This could involve raw vegetables and meat, but for brevity I will take meat.

These facts are not in dispute.

Colonic bacteria of cattle can be highly dangerous to human health. Pathogenic E. coli causes loss of life, vital organ failure, and results in limb loss of many of those who ingest and get infected with that strain of bacteria. Many of those severely affected are children.

It is widely accepted that you can by no means prevent contamination of meat with colonic bacteria in 100% of cases. Therefore with hygiene and inspections alone there will continue to be an incidence of infections.

It can be shown that with the use of ionizing radiation (gamma rays) applied to the meat, that the meat can be sterilized and the infections prevented.

Further that using the ionizing radiation in this manner, will leave zero radiation in the meat and is 100% safe.

The fact that there is no radiation left in the meat can be predicted from the known behavior of electromagnetic radiation. The spectrum of electromagnetic radiation includes radio waves, microwaves, heat, light and ionizing radiation, and all behave the same in one important characteristic. When you switch it off it stops. In other words if you have meat in a closed room and switch off the light, you can not see the meat, it does not glow. And it won't emit ionizing waves either after they are switched off.

Now this hypothesis can be confirmed by experiment. Radiate the meat and then test it for radiation with a Geiger counter. The Geiger counter is silent in that circumstance.

Now the objectivist looks at the hypothesis, method and data and reasonably concludes that radiating meat in this fashion poses no threat to the public health. And will come to the further conclusion that serious infection, death and permanent disabilities can be prevented by the use of the ionizing radiation to sterilize meat.

People of your persuasion who feel one person's point of view is as good as another's and is worthy of equal respect will say: - "Radiation is dangerous and therefore radiating meat will make food radioactive and should not be done."

Now the fact is there are far too many in the unreasonable second camp. The result is meat is not irradiated and people die and become severely maimed unnecessarily.

So actually your type of reasoning is highly damaging to society and far too pervasive. Therefore right minded people have a civic duty to challenge it at every opportunity.

Now you might say this serious issue and cables are a far cry from one another and they are. However, the reasoning against the radiation of meat and believing cables can produce the changes you claim contrary to sound scientific evidence are the same side of the coin. That is why your views about cables are not worthy of any respect whatever, only scorn.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Without science and objective measurement you have nothing. All you have is dangerous superstition. ...sniped for brevity

....

So eloquently stated

 

[Brett A]

Without science and objective measurement you have nothing. All you have is dangerous superstition.

Nothing?? Really??
Is that to say you believe science has answered every question and that every aspect of life can be reliably, unquestionably measured and objectified? And that everything that exists outside of what has already been measured and quantified is "dangerous superstition"?

Really all I'm doing is questioning the process by which a certain conclusion has been reached. The proof offered in support of all cables sounding alike looks kind of shaky to me---and it's so contrary to my (and many others') experience, it begs to be challenged.

Your fears about the fallout from the disregard of science as a whole is dramatic and has nothing to do with me, what i believe, or this hobby. You've made a large, assumptive leap there which surprises me. Because if i were to also assume, I'd assume you're a guy who values evidence and proof before coming to conclusion. And you're surprisingly wrong about who I am and my view of science.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. A person can question science without disregarding it. Because i question the process by which the conclusion about cables was reached, you've taken a huge and radical leap to assume I don't respect or regard science. What's up with that?

I think I get it. You feel threatened by objectivists. You pretty much say they are a threat to peoples' very health and safety; You think they might hurt you or the people you care about.

Let me be clear. I only want to challenge the shaky (as I see it) "science" of testing cables. I'm all for food safety, medical advances, electrical safety, aeronautical science and use of the wheel. I'm also very much in favor of continued use of fire and gravity. (I don't think we need to test gravity any further---although wait a minute. We don't know what gravity is yet do we?)

It's just that there are gray areas within science. When you're talking about measuring something (cables) with tools (oscilloscopes, multi-meters) that were not intended for the application (hearing) then backing up those findings with experiments (DBTs) that really don't adequately (in my mind) remove the human element, or even necessarily provide conditions conducive to positive outcomes (e.g. long-term listening samples--like a week between cable switchouts), then I feel it appropriate to challenge---or at least try to understand---how the conclusion was reached.

This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with your personal safety. It really is about cables.

 

[TLS Guy]

Nothing?? Really??
Is that to say you believe science has answered every question and that every aspect of life can be reliably, unquestionably measured and objectified? And that everything that exists outside of what has already been measured and quantified is "dangerous superstition"?

Really all I'm doing is questioning the process by which a certain conclusion has been reached. The proof offered in support of all cables sounding alike looks kind of shaky to me---and it's so contrary to my (and many others') experience, it begs to be challenged.

Your fears about the fallout from the disregard of science as a whole is dramatic and has nothing to do with me, what i believe, or this hobby. You've made a large, assumptive leap there which surprises me. Because if i were to also assume, I'd assume you're a guy who values evidence and proof before coming to conclusion. And you're surprisingly wrong about who I am and my view of science.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. A person can question science without disregarding it. Because i question the process by which the conclusion about cables was reached, you've taken a huge and radical leap to assume I don't respect or regard science. What's up with that?

I think I get it. You feel threatened by objectivists. You pretty much say they are a threat to peoples' very health and safety; You think they might hurt you or the people you care about.

Let me be clear. I only want to challenge the shaky (as I see it) "science" of testing cables. I'm all for food safety, medical advances, electrical safety, aeronautical science and use of the wheel. I'm also very much in favor of continued use of fire and gravity. (I don't think we need to test gravity any further---although wait a minute. We don't know what gravity is yet do we?)

It's just that there are gray areas within science. When you're talking about measuring something (cables) with tools (oscilloscopes, multi-meters) that were not intended for the application (hearing) then backing up those findings with experiments (DBTs) that really don't adequately (in my mind) remove the human element, or even necessarily provide conditions conducive to positive outcomes (e.g. long-term listening samples--like a week between cable switchouts), then I feel it appropriate to challenge---or at least try to understand---how the conclusion was reached.

This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with your personal safety. It really is about cables.

Actually it is not about cables, but logic, analysis and thought process.

Now cables are easily examined from a technical point of view. You need a signal generator, volt/ohm meter, distortion analyzer and some capacitor and inductor bridges. You won't find any abnormality that could possible be audible.

That hypothesis is provable and has been. And yes, the acoustic limits of hearing have also been examined and documented. I can therefore be certain that anyone who claims to hear difference in cables costing a few dollars to thousands is just pain gullible and easily parted from their money. And yes, I can be absolutely certain and so could you be if you possessed analytical skills.

And there are indeed a large number of individuals who lack basik analytical skills which is why there is such an uproar every time it is proposed to improve food safety with irradiation.

 

[Brett A]

Actually it is not about cables, but logic, analysis and thought process.

Now cables are easily examined from a technical point of view. You need a signal generator, volt/ohm meter, distortion analyzer and some capacitor and inductor bridges. You won't find any abnormality that could possible be audible.

That hypothesis is provable and has been. And yes, the acoustic limits of hearing have also been examined and documented. I can therefore be certain that anyone who claims to hear difference in cables costing a few dollars to thousands is just pain gullible and easily parted from their money. And yes, I can be absolutely certain and so could you be if you possessed analytical skills.

And there are indeed a large number of individuals who lack basik analytical skills which is why there is such an uproar every time it is proposed to improve food safety with irradiation.

OK. Thank you. I really am trying to have an honest conversation about these matters. i appreciate you and others for taking the time.

Still, (and I know you and others may run out of patience-I wouldn't blame you) I'm not quite there. (But getting closer)

There's one issue hanging out there for me that could possibly explain me actually hearing a difference in cables; build quality and conductor materiel.

I've heard it said here and elsewhere that cables of good build quality will all sound the same. Implicit in that statement is that some cables will sound different due to poor manufacture. (I think many here buy Blue Jean Cables instead of using the little black plastic freebies for this reason.)

Also, I have cables that use numerous tiny strands of wire to make up the conductor, most of these strands are copper, but some are silver and some are gold. Is it possible that mixing conductive materials could cause audible coloration? (I've heard here many times "copper is copper", but what about gold and silver, are they "copper" too?)

 

[TLS Guy]

OK. Thank you. I really am trying to have an honest conversation about these matters. i appreciate you and others for taking the time.

Still, (and I know you and others may run out of patience-I wouldn't blame you) I'm not quite there. (But getting closer)

There's one issue hanging out there for me that could possibly explain me actually hearing a difference in cables; build quality and conductor materiel.

I've heard it said here and elsewhere that cables of good build quality will all sound the same. Implicit in that statement is that some cables will sound different due to poor manufacture. (I think many here buy Blue Jean Cables instead of using the little black plastic freebies for this reason.)

Also, I have cables that use numerous tiny strands of wire to make up the conductor, most of these strands are copper, but some are silver and some are gold. Is it possible that mixing conductive materials could cause audible coloration? (I've heard here many times "copper is copper", but what about gold and silver, are they "copper" too?)

The trouble with those cheap wires in the box, is that often they have sub standard shielding and can pick up noise.

A lot of wires have different color wire in the two conductors, so you can identify which is which. Copper can be anodized to change the outside appearance. If you cut it you will see the strands are copper colored in the core.

 

[JerryLove]

There's one issue hanging out there for me that could possibly explain me actually hearing a difference in cables; build quality and conductor materiel.

Too small a gauge will result in signal loss and therefore coloration of the sound. On interconnects, a lack of shielding can cause induced signals to appear on the wire: in short the cable becomes an antanne. Poor connections due to poor contct points, bad solder, oxidation, etc can cause signal degredation.

I've heard it said here and elsewhere that cables of good build quality will all sound the same. Implicit in that statement is that some cables will sound different due to poor manufacture. (I think many here buy Blue Jean Cables instead of using the little black plastic freebies for this reason.)

The little black freebies are too low a gauge.

Also, I have cables that use numerous tiny strands of wire to make up the conductor, most of these strands are copper, but some are silver and some are gold. Is it possible that mixing conductive materials could cause audible coloration? (I've heard here many times "copper is copper", but what about gold and silver, are they "copper" too?)

Silver is a better conductor than copper, which means you can use a slightly smaller wire. Gold is an inferior conductor. Some metals (brass, gold) don't oxidize or continue to conduct well when oxidized. They are used as connectors for that reason.

You can also use aluminum or tin, but they are generally less flexable, and require a larger gauge than copper.

The reason we say that they sound the same is not merely because of the insturments that tell us so (though they are far more accurate than our ears), it is because: once we remove any ability for knowledge of which cable is running from a persons brain, they cannot identify between two different cables. If they really sounded identifiably different, then they should be identifiable by sound.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Nothing?? Really??
Is that to say you believe science has answered every question and that every aspect of life can be reliably, unquestionably measured and objectified?

Well, the quest is ongoing. After all, we have been around a very short time. But, every day there is more.

Really all I'm doing is questioning the process by which a certain conclusion has been reached.

But, you question without having a better answer.

The proof offered in support of all cables sounding alike looks kind of shaky to me---and it's so contrary to my (and many others') experience, it begs to be challenged.

Well, it is expected that you would think the evidence is not to your liking; unfortunate.
And, as it being contrary to your experience, have you thought of questioning the reliability of your experiences? You really should. My experience with a 5 gal bucket of water and a steel pipe is that the water will bend it when I place it in the water and the air will straighten it out when I place it back into the air. Should I trust my experience? Really?

How about all those experiences who have consulted psychics? Homeopathic medicines? The list is very long.

And you're surprisingly wrong about who I am and my view of science.

Well, if you are really into it, why did you discard your 'baloney detection bag?' A favorite phrase of the late Carl Sagan

Let me be clear. I only want to challenge the shaky (as I see it) "science" of testing cables.

You question it because of your flawed protocols giving you unreliable results and not question your outcomes knowing that there are others who have a 180 result based on a 'gold standard' of testing. Oh, yes, DBT is it.

I'm all for food safety, medical advances, electrical safety, aeronautical science and use of the wheel.

Except when it comes to your hobby.

It's just that there are gray areas within science.

And the gray area in listening protocols is what, exactly? Based in what published paper that questions current 'gold standard?'

When you're talking about measuring something (cables) with tools (oscilloscopes, multi-meters) that were not intended for the application (hearing) then backing up those findings with experiments (DBTs) that really don't adequately (in my mind) remove the human element, or even necessarily provide conditions conducive to positive outcomes (e.g. long-term listening samples--like a week between cable switchouts), then I feel it appropriate to challenge---or at least try to understand---how the conclusion was reached.

What a bunch of nonsense, especially about your total misconceptions and lack of knowledge of DBTs. Please, don't make stuff up; better to say nothing. No one precludes you listening DBT for months or years if you really think that will help, yet another urban legend, period; really an excuse, nothing more.

As to measuring cable and hearing, you again seem to missed to points and lack understanding. Or, at least, you have not shown any understanding, period. Cables are measured against other cables, not what you can hear or not. That comes with other tools in psychoacoustics that has been at it for over 100 years.

As to DBt and removing the 'human' element, again, you have no concept of science after, it seems. How is it fine in drug trials and a whole bunch of other fields of science, yet somehow lacking in acoustic testing? Because you don't like the outcomes and you rather not challenge the validity of your experiences? And you claim not to be against science? Or, only when it comes to your belief systems?

 

[highfigh]

Hearing a drastic difference between cables is sometimes caused by one being damaged, repaired or just badly made. It's like changing from a paper air filter to a K&N- the ones who are so surprised by the results are usually comparing the new filter to the old one that had been installed far too long ago. The other ones seem to sound different because the listener had been pre-conditioned, which is a very common technique used by salespeople.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

There's one issue hanging out there for me that could possibly explain me actually hearing a difference in cables; build quality and conductor materiel.

I've heard it said here and elsewhere that cables of good build quality will all sound the same. Implicit in that statement is that some cables will sound different due to poor manufacture. (I think many here buy Blue Jean Cables instead of using the little black plastic freebies for this reason.)

Also, I have cables that use numerous tiny strands of wire to make up the conductor, most of these strands are copper, but some are silver and some are gold. Is it possible that mixing conductive materials could cause audible coloration? (I've heard here many times "copper is copper", but what about gold and silver, are they "copper" too?)

I seriously doubt that the cheap cables would have silver of gold strands in them, especially when gold is reaching $1100 per ounce and, its rather low conductance compared to copper. If it is not a shielding issue, the cable needs a lot of capacitance in an interconnect or inductance in a speaker cable with high resistance to matter. Cheap cables may come apart easily too. Who wants that? Monoprice has good cables at a very reasonable price.