Have You Heard Exotic Audio Cables Improve Sound Quality? - Page 13

A fair amount of misinformation.

Many of the claims made would fail any reasonable relevance test if appropriate math models were applied.

They aren't articles. They're conference proceedings. Meaning, likely a poster session or a talk, and almost certainly not peer-reviewed science at that point.


If you want to delve into Philip Newell's world, feel free to buy this

http://www.amazon.com/Loudspeakers-recording-reproduction-Philip-Newell/dp/0240520149

which looks like a combination of serious work plus a perplexing amount of anecdotal evidence and 'if X says he hears it there must be something to it!' type-arguing . .. including his section on speaker cables, which is available in amazon view.

Well, no, certainly much of the audio industry has little inherent interest in promoting blind tests (Harman Kardon is probably the biggest exception) , especially when they are likely to show 'no difference' between expensive and cheap gear (Harman published DBT results about preference for loudspeakers, which ARE likely to sound different). And academic scientists aren't going to test specific gear or classes of gear -- they typically are testing concepts and hypotheses about human hearing generally (like, 'can humans hear >22kHz content?') And good DBTs can be expensive and complicated to set up. Scientists need funding to do them, in whatever setting (corporate or academic).

But any reputable academic study of human hearing/psychoacoustics published in scientific journals, is going to use a double blind protocol if two or more things are being compared. That should tell you something right there.

Blind tests have been legitimately showing improved differences in sound quality for decades in areas where additional development actually produces improved differences in sound quality.

Their use is knowable and widely known by insiders, but like the development procedures used with just about any technological product, they are not highly publicized.

Products that are based on extensive DBTs are totally endemic in our society today. You probably listen to them every day and don't know or think about it. For example, they are part of virtually every prerecorded video and every HD TV program whether broadcast or cable. Also true for most FM and all satellite radio.

Agreed. The section on speaker cables (pp 166-198) can be reviewed well enough from the Amazon excerpt to raise a lot of concerns. It starts out pretty well and covers quite a bit of relevant technology, but descends as it goes on such that the two sources quoted at the end of the article are people who are known to me, one that I have personally discussed audio with on a number of occasions. They are IMO from the "Woo-Woo" School of Audio Metaphysics. There are no listening test results so the arguments, such as they are are all based on numbers not actual sound quality as reliably perceived by humans.

So how many who like there so called "Exotic" cables and what they've done for this hobby , plan to get rid of them to follow the advice hearing impaired I'll be taking in all "Exotic" cables that need a home!

First off I have more brains than money and only ever "heard" these exotic cables at the high end audio stuff at CES. I think what most of us should be looking for to improve our audio is better hearing aides. I would be willing to bet that putting the additional money into hearing aids would do more for improving what we hear than any exotic conductor.

I actually like to keep my MIT and Audioquest around as it sends 'Golden Ears' screaming into the desert when I actually bet them $$/Airfare/Car/Hotel that they can't pick them out reliably out of 10 coin flips vs Belden/Mogami.

That offer never gets old and just keeps putting ammo in the belt so to speak

You guys will love this: Polk thread on the improvement of P.Q. with Audio Quest HDMI cables. Seriously?

Paul Frindle isn't from the woo woo school....from what I've read of his on certain audio forums, he is seriously knowledgeable, and advocates blind testing. He also claims (not arrogantly) to have quite exceptional hearing, citing anecdotal blind tests he's done. I take his claims more seriously than most, but would like to see publishable test results.

As for Colloms, he seems to be a split personality , as noted long ago by Peter Aczel: there's the techie Martin Colloms, made of matter, and the tweako cultist Martin Colloms, made of antimatter

(credit where it's due: see page pdf5
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_21_r.pdf)
Edited by krabapple - 3/21/13 at 11:44am

Wow, this is like religion, politics you are wrong I am right!

Remember the great inquisition science Is evil , I guess all scientists EE and ME are all heretics http://www.asee.org/

meh. You don't have to leave AVS to find that kind of blind rabid belief in 'Magic Cables': http://www.avsforum.com/t/1339688/poll-your-favorite-hdmi-cable/0_40 http://www.avsforum.com/t/1266464/my-personal-hdmi-shoot-out/0_40 ...etc...

Why would you say that ? I for one love science, but with more understanding of Quantum mechanics on the horizon maybe there will be a way to measure the changes that occur beyond what the current limited understanding of Physics allows and would be Hubris for you are any scientist, EE to sum up the matter and say that's it, better to say the data is still out and more testing to be done

The Titanic sank

The war on infectious diseases continues

we only have 8 planets now

etc etc...

Get it

Quantum physics--the last refuge of pseudo-science.

Those who cite quantum effects for macro phenomena, are usually wrong.

Models are always provisional. More data can always be gathered. New data might overturn the old model. Until then it doesn't mean we completely discount the data that HAVE been gathered.

No science ever claimed it could not possibly sink under any circumstance.

pray tell, when was it ever declared completely won?


what we have are new official categories; the celestial body formerly called planet Pluto still exists.


Yes. Do you?

Btw you left out 'bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly' in your cavalcade of pseudo-skeptical gotchas.

Your answers work against you as well , and to so easily dismiss Quantum effects shows a lack belief in your science which is the very leg you and the rest base your assumptions that there is no difference!

Ok smart guys prove it!

Oh wait you cant

And so you get my point on the Titanic they said it wouldn't sink which is Hubris!

Its to bad you can't trust your own brain and ears and think every one that actually hears a difference has got to be suffering from some Pseudo effect , but are you sure its not just you?

I think you may be confusing understanding the scale of quantum effects and applying that to audio, with dismissing quantum effects. It is most likely that quantum effects will first affect audio when we start using them to perform enhanced signal processing.

Quantification seems to be one of the first places where bad audio science derails. I'm not saying that applying what we know about quantification is always easy. However, we do know that any audio signal that is 100 dB or more down is rarely if ever part of the listening pleasure equation for home audio.

You don't seem to understand who said that the Titanic couldn't sink. Hint: it wasn't the best naval architects of the day. The design, materials, and construction techniques were guaranteed to fail given the best science of the day. The high proportion of passenger deaths was entirely predictable if you knew enough science to count lifeboat seats and passengers. Quantification rules!

It is not a matter of not ever trusting the brains and ears. It is a matter of knowing when to trust them, when not to trust them, and knowing how to make them more trustworthy. You seem to be advocating placing unbounded trust in your ears and brain. Nothing in the physical world deserves unbounded faith. I'm surprised that you criticize people for not having unbounded faith.

I'm also not sure what a scanning electron microscope has to do with the audibility of cables other than to search for synapse firing gray matter in the head of a golden eared audiophile.

Just believe or else! The great inquisition!

Still no definitive answers, just as I thought . believe me, I'm not trying to convince anyone here that "Exotic cables make a difference, I just don't care much for the fact that those that don't aren't satisfied with just not buying them and wait to pounce those that do. I'm glad the cable aftermarket exists and buy because I do hear a benefit. It does make me feel sad for you guys as it really seems you don't get much enjoyment from this hobby! Sad indeed as I was once like you guys, but sorry I heard and saw a difference and there is no going back.

So until the next skirmish!

I bid you "Good day Gentlemen"

All the best and safe journey where ever the power may take you

I'd be really curious to know what might qualify as a definitive answer that would satisfy you.

Since there's no evidence that people only find profound musical enjoyment when listening through "high end" equipment, it makes me feel a bit sad for you too as evidently you didn't enjoy music quite as much until you invested in boutique brand cables and such. As long as you're enjoying it more now, for whatever reason, I suppose that's all that should matter in your case. So, continued happy listening!

Looking back at your post again, I think you inadvertently hit upon the crux of the issue. Some people love music just for the sake of the music while other people must combine their enjoyment of music with the "hobby" aspects of audio in order to bring forth the most enjoyment they can from their music, i.e., the reading about & shopping for new equipment, auditioning equipment, buying new equipment and sharing camaraderie with like-minded audiophiles, etc. For them, without the "hobby", it just wouldn't be quite the same.

You "heard and saw a difference"? Are you talking about HDMI cables?

My gear is what I consider "High Fidelity" as I'm not one to equate price with sound, this wasn't always the case and the more I learned about where I wanted my pursut of Higher Fidelty I tried various components but didn't get around to cables until back in 97 prior to I did what I could with good Ole Radio Shack wire and what I had around patched together with electrical tape and I enjoyed those setups as much as the current one I have today. So no it didn't take the "boutique brand cables" to get enjoyment but some good hardworking honest people ( not all) decided that there was a void that existed between the good components and made a decision to fill it by paying more attention to the details that tie them all together and for me not just any cable will do anymore

Yes! hdmi (RedMere Slims on video) and Pangea 4%silver poccc for audio,

Yes! powercables full loom of Ps Audio Perfectwave cables AC3,
AC5, AC10 and AC12. Also Pangea AC9 and AC9se

Yes! speakercables Morrow Audio SP3 biwire

Yes ! RCA and XLR AudioQuest King Cobra, Columbia
Morrow Audio MA3 and MA4 XLR

Yes to all !

The force is strong in this one....

As long as you can hear it then buy it :)

Some nice 12 gauge from monoprice is all I need