Observations of a controlled Cable Test - Page 11

Originally Posted by Swampfox

You should read Dr. Floyd Toole's work if you want an interesting read.

Originally Posted by Bob Lee (QSC)

We're not talking about absolute volume; we're talking about audible differences between cables.

Do level matching for active gear, loudspeakers, etc., where gain is adjustable or doesn't really matter. It doesn't make sense for cabling.

Originally Posted by Michael Grant

Bob's point, I believe, is that we should care about simple level mismatches between cables, because it means that one is incompetently designed. I don't disagree about the incompetence part, but if the end result is identical sonic quality, well, that just means the incompetent fool managed to not to screw it up.

Originally Posted by germanicus

Which might be due to absolute volume differences.

Umm... why not? It's like someone once said - if two amplifiers sound different, turn one up until they sound the same.

If the audible differences are due to an overall level mismatch I don't think anyone cares about it (correct me if you disagree). So we should eliminate that possibility, which we can do by matching the levels for some test signal.

Originally Posted by jj_0001

Which of Floyd's publications did you have in mind?

I dare say I've read a few (dozen) of them...

Originally Posted by germanicus

Lavigne's system had as much subjectivist cred as is possible, pretty much. That he couldn't hear the difference (especially when he was as confident as he was) is as damning an indictment of subjectivist nonsense as you can get.

Matching levels for a cable comparison also means that switching one cable for another will also require switching something else--a variable gain stage--in the system to compensate for the levels.

Originally Posted by Bob Lee (QSC)

No, which would be due to losses in a cable.



Gain is an adjustable but non-performance-related part of an amplifier, so matching gains of amplifiers under test is crucial to a proper sonic comparison.

Not so with cables. Significant loss in a cable--enough loss to be audibly detectable--signifies a defect.

Matching levels for a cable comparison also means that switching one cable for another will also require switching something else--a variable gain stage--in the system to compensate for the levels. (Or, by including some sort of attenuation in line with one of the cables, but that would also tamper with the source/load interface that the cable is a part of.) Then you're not comparing only the cables any more. While this additional variable would be unavoidable in a loudspeaker comparison, why require it in a cable comparison? If you have to match levels with cables, something's drastically wrong with at least one of them.

Originally Posted by Swampfox

You should read Dr. Floyd Toole's work if you want an interesting read.

Originally Posted by krabapple

And what makes you think I have not, sir? I've read every paper by Toole and Sean Olive that's been in JAES, as well as various white papers and presentations on the Harman website. As 'krabapple' or 'ssully' I've made many a post referencing them on various audio fora on the interwebs.

Originally Posted by germanicus

jj, do you really think demonstrating that one can hear the difference between a coat hanger and regular speaker wire is going to convince subjectivists the test was valid?

Originally Posted by germanicus

OK, that's fair enough. But in some cases (like really long runs of speaker wire) there might be some decrease in gain due to resistive losses even for well-deigned cables. In that case you might want to know whether those differences corresponded to a true decrease in sound quality (in which case they'd be audible after level matching) or not.

Originally Posted by Michael Grant

That is a very fair point Bob. Mike L. posed an interesting solution: he offered to turn the analog volume all the way down during the cable switch. If your preamp had a digital volume control and a simple adjustment of it could compensate, that would help. Of course these solutions prevent any sort of fast switching. Anyway, it proved irrelevant because the levels did match.

Originally Posted by Dizzman

the thing a bout Auditory memory is if he knows that passage enough to apply descriptive terminology to the "nuance" then he has a frame of reference to apply. as such, much longer memory can apply.

Originally Posted by jj_0001

As to lots of work: Running a good test is a lot of work, as well as being hard and tricky to set up. It's very easy to introduce biases even when one would not expect such.

Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles

I think it is important to point out that this is not what the test proved affirmatively. While it's buried in my text, it is very important to be clear that this test proves only one thing: that with this particular testing methodology, it was not possible to distinguish any difference between these cables. It does not prove that there are no audible differences between cables or even between these two specific cables. Just that there weren't audible differences the way we tested. It is possible, though in my personal opinion rather unlikely, that a different methodology could yield different results. So for subjectivists who are certain that there are differences in cables, our test does not authoritatively disprove that opinion, however it does shed some doubt as to that position at least on the degree of difference that some subjectivists claim.

We just have to remain honest about both the clarity of the result and the limits of applicability of that result. This test alone is not close to universally definitive for these reasons.

Originally Posted by Michael Grant

Thus this test does not call into question the differences between speaker cables, so much as it calls into question the so-called confidence of experienced audiophiles.

Which is what this forum is turning into--a dealer/audiophile bashing forum.

It shocks no one that you said that.

Originally Posted by Michael Grant

I reject the notion that audiophilia ought to be defined by the attraction among some of its adherents to baseless tweaks and exotic components.

The speaker cabling used in ALL of the HPS-4000 installations is ordinary non-metallic jacketed 10 gauge, 4 conductor electrical cable, with the wires ‘doubled’ to create one massive ‘pair’. I know at this point many of you are rolling your eyes, but let me share with you another story:

In the early 1970’s, I was friends with the owner of The Stereo Shop in Hartford, CT. Being the science nerd that I am, I questioned the real need for the super-expensive turntable cables that supposedly ‘changed the sound of your records’, or the silver-plated speaker cables. It was the latter that I took the most exception with. I just could not see the benefit of spending the $20 or so a foot for the fancy cable when logic told me conductor size was more important than having a hundred small silver-plated conductors. Every time I visited the Stereo Shop the arguments grew more intense. Finally, the owner agreed to bring to my house a pair of the largest McIntosh speakers made, as well as a MC-2300 amplifier to drive them. An A/B speaker switch was provided, and he hooked up his silver cables to one side, and I hooked up ORDINARY 12 GAUGE SOLID CONDUCTOR ARMOR JACKETED (“BX”) ELECTRICAL CABLE that I had left over after an electrical installation to the other side.

Hours later, after listening to all sorts of source material from the intimately familiar to the Lincoln Mayora ‘Direct to Disk’ series, I could detect ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between the two, and frankly neither could he. Thus with this background, I found complete comfort years later with John Allen’s approach: let the end result do the talking.