The Audiophile Debate

[Todd]

I consider perception. Including what we hear. Of course, it is possible to try to measure something. But will the results of measurements, or the units adopted for measurements, be exhaustive in explaining how we perceive what we hear? Can physics explain anything at all, if every few decades so called science changes its conclusions to a set of other conclusions?

Question begging and off topic.  People who believe and claim that audiophile cables can make an audible difference can and should post objective measurements showing that they do.  Cables do not operate in the aesthetic or artistic domains, they operate in the grubby world of physical reality.

Since you are big into definitions, perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean by "so called science", the very thing that allows you to listen to recordings in the first place.

[AnotherSpin]

I can draw on my direct experience. I have used different cables in different audio sets, and have been convinced many times that there is a very noticeable difference.

When I talk about so-called science, I meant a system of knowledge whose developers agree amongst themselves on certain criteria which they will apply to describe phenomena which they do not understand. Once again convinced that the explanations are unsatisfactory, they either agree to change the set of criteria, or introduce an element which is considered inexplicable.

[Todd]

I can draw on my direct experience. I have used different cables in different audio sets, and have been convinced many times that there is a very noticeable difference.

Anecdotes can persuade some.  Some people swear they have seen Bigfoot.  Such people have exactly as much credibility as people who claim that there are "very noticeable" differences between cables.

When I talk about so-called science, I meant a system of knowledge whose developers agree amongst themselves on certain criteria which they will apply to describe phenomena which they do not understand. Once again convinced that the explanations are unsatisfactory, they either agree to change the set of criteria, or introduce an element which is considered inexplicable.

This applies to objective measurements of cables how?  Also, it applies to the fields of audiology and psychoacoustics how?

[AnotherSpin]

Anecdotes can persuade some.  Some people swear they have seen Bigfoot.  Such people have exactly as much credibility as people who claim that there are "very noticeable" differences between cables.


This applies to objective measurements of cables how?  Also, it applies to the fields of audiology and psychoacoustics how?

1. I'm quite happy with the conclusions I've drawn for myself. In my current system, cables a sounds better than cables b. However, I would not recommend cable a to anyone, because in a different system and for a different set of ears the result might be different.

2. There is no such thing as "objective" measurements. There are arbitrarily chosen units and protocols. And even if there was, in any individual perception the interpretation of the results inevitably becomes subjective.

[Todd]

1. I'm quite happy with the conclusions I've drawn for myself.

Cool beans.

2. There is no such thing as "objective" measurements.

Incorrect.

[Daverz]

Luckily the engineers who designed the circuits used in our audio equipment were not radical subjectivists but instead used physical principles that haven't changed much since the 1930s.

And perceptions can be validated.  If the difference between two speaker cables is as obvious as claimed, then you should be able to tell them apart in a double blind test.  Just have an assistant change the cables randomly while you are out of the room.  You'll need to choose the right cable in 9 out of 10 trials for statistical significance. 

To quote Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool."

[AnotherSpin]

Luckily the engineers who designed the circuits used in our audio equipment were not radical subjectivists but instead used physical principles that haven't changed much since the 1930s.

And perceptions can be validated.  If the difference between two speaker cables is as obvious as claimed, then you should be able to tell them apart in a double blind test.  Just have an assistant change the cables randomly while you are out of the room.  You'll need to choose the right cable in 9 out of 10 trials for statistical significance. 

To quote Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool."

We all know that the debate about cables has been going on for years, and there are people who think cables change the sound, just as there are people who think they don't. I have been convinced many times in many different situations that cables affect sound. For me, this is an undeniable fact. And I don't care what other fellow music lovers think about it. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. If you happy with any piece of wire between components - that's just great!

As for Feynman's phrase. Perhaps we should clarify what is meant by "fool yourself". I suppose the one and only thing we can't be wrong about is that we know our selves. Everything else in the apparent world is the result of external influences over which we have no control.

[Todd]

For me, this is an undeniable fact.

It is actually an easily deniable opinion.

[Mandryka]

I think that a lot of the issue is:  what sound do you like?  I can say that I've heard the differences in what one can hear re instruments (and, oh, there's a...whatever!  I'd never noticed it before).  When I auditioned some components, some of the combos came across to me as "too syrupy"...trying to figure out how to describe it.  Maybe too warm, not crisp, too removed and laid back?

In any event, it comes down to factors like:  1) How good is your hearing 2) How good are your listening skills and also what and how you really listen to music.  Lots more, but I'm mostly focusing on classical music here.  That said, people listen to a variety of music and in different listening settings (One could be jogging or doing chores or trying to keep the neighbors or family members happy by not playing things too loud).  In the end, it's ones preferences that matter (In my opinion anyway).  And also ones budget, of course. 

PD

p.s.  And I was referring to analogue cables here in my comments; I haven't tried any comparisons of digital cables.

Linn Audio, the Scottish company, inventor of the famous LP 12 turntable, tried to make a big thing about teaching their prospects "listening skills" as part of their sales strategy. They called it "Tune Dem" - as you can imagine, it's very contentious. Here are the details - worth a glance I think

https://www.linn.co.uk/uk/about-us/tune-dem

[Florestan]

I suppose the one and only thing we can't be wrong about is that we know our selves

Do we, really?

I doubt it, or rather I agree that we might (just might, mind you) know our selves in the here and now and for an extremely limited period of time. Do you really know what your self will be in 10 years time? Is your self today the same as it was 10 years ago?

To stay on-topic: do you really know what your hearing range is, ie what frequencies you can or you cannot hear? And please, don't tell me this is all subjective, for it is not, just as it is not subjective that you cannot see infrared or ultraviolet light with your naked eye. If you visit an audiologist, you will be able to know precisely what frequencies you can hear and what frequencies you cannot hear, just like a visit to an ophtalmologist will tell you exactly what you can and what you cannot see with your naked eye --- everyone wearing glasses, yours truly included, knows as much.

[Spotted Horses]

An electrical potential different ("voltage") appears on the output pins of your amplifier. The job of the speaker cable is to apply an identical potential difference to the input pins of your speaker. The wire is a conductor, which in the ideal case means that the electrical potential is identical all along the wire. The deviation of the wire from a perfect conductor is characterized by the resistance, inductance, and capacitance of the wire. All three of these can be measured by a simple scientific instrument. The inductance and capacitance are determined by the geometry, no amount of money will change them. The resistance (which means that there will be some loss of potential difference across the conductor when current flows) can be driven down by using higher grade copper, or making the conductor thicker. Making the wire thicker does not cost thousands of dollars.

If the cable is an issue it should be measurable. I.e., make a high resolution measurement of the potential difference at the amplifier and at the speakers and compare them. If there is a benefit to better cable it must be measurable (although which sorts of differences can be perceived is a separate question).

[Florestan]

The inductance and capacitance are determined by the geometry, no amount of money will change them. The resistance (which means that there will be some loss of potential difference across the conductor when current flows) can be driven down by using higher grade copper, or making the conductor thicker. Making the wire thicker does not cost thousands of dollars.

These are hard facts that any high-school student conversant with physics knows.

But then again, for some people physics is just a so-called science.

If the cable is an issue it should be measurable. I.e., make a high resolution measurement of the potential difference at the amplifier and at the speakers and compare them. If there is a benefit to better cable it must be measurable (although which sorts of differences can be perceived is a separate question).

A very measurable one, too. An appointment with an audiologist will sort it out in less than 15 minutes.

[AnotherSpin]

It is actually an easily deniable opinion.

It is undeniable for me, for you - whatever. Your idea not important for me, as my idea for you.

[AnotherSpin]

Do we, really?

I doubt it, or rather I agree that we might (just might, mind you) know our selves in the here and now and for an extremely limited period of time. Do you really know what your self will be in 10 years time? Is your self today the same as it was 10 years ago?

The only thing we can know for sure is our selves. As an educated person, you no doubt know what was written at the entrance to the temple of Apollo at Delphi. People came there to know their destiny, but they were told, always the same thing. Know thyself. Fate, and all things (objects) in the manifested world are changeable. Things change, perish, disappear. You, the perceiving subject, are unchanging. You are no thing. Know thyself. Know who you are.

Your body will change in 10 years, it will change in the next second. Your thoughts will change, all the things around you will change. But the perceiving subject is always the same. The no/thing does not change. You are, limitless beyond time and space. Yes, we are here and now only. Know thyself and be free as you are ever.

[Fëanor]

Wow  , this thread has become 'way too philisophical.

But one thing that I'm glad has come is the difference between hearing and listening.  (And I'm not talking about appreciating this or that genre of music.)

Listeners be trained or train themselves to hear differences in the sound of audio components -- certainly that is true for speakers, but little doubt is the case other components. So for example, Drs. Floyd Toole and Sean Olive are famous for the application of trained listening in case of loudspeaker testing.  For example this article published by Dr. Olive some years ago ... A Method For Training Listeners and Selecting Program For Listening Tests

On the one hand very many audiophile are and should be recognized as "trained listeners" when it comes to audio components in general.  Broadly this means that they care about and listen for very subtle sound differences ... However this appreciation in no way diminished that many of the "differences" they purport to hear are purely wishful thinking on account of their self-motivation to hear differences.

I hope we can accept, on the other hand, the other truth that many audiophiles don't want objective audio perfection.  This explains in particular the nearly-prevalent audiophile preference for tube amplification.  Ultimately there's no mystery to that:  tubes produce relatively high levels of 2nd and/or 3rd order distortion.  These sound pleasant and, additionally, tend to mask other, less agreeable distortions. The only remaining question is how high they need to be to have an audible effect.

[Todd]

It is undeniable for me, for you - whatever. Your idea not important for me, as my idea for you.

Your opinion is very easily deniable.  If you opined that the moon is made of cheese, you would be exactly as wrong as you are about cables.  You might also say the moon being made of cheese is undeniable, but that does not make it undeniable. 

[Brian]

Wow  , this thread has become 'way too philisophical.

We have had an outbreak of philosophy recently.  Always interesting around here!

[Pohjolas Daughter]

We have had an outbreak of philosophy recently.  Always interesting around here!

lol

PD

[AnotherSpin]

Your opinion is very easily deniable.  If you opined that the moon is made of cheese, you would be exactly as wrong as you are about cables.  You might also say the moon being made of cheese is undeniable, but that does not make it undeniable. 

You can argue that red is always the same, and has a code of ff0000. And deny those who see differences in red in different objects. After all, the code is always the same, right? Аnd, I have no idea what the moon is made of.

[AnotherSpin]

We have had an outbreak of philosophy recently.  Always interesting around here!

It was not philosophy.