I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

My question is why anyone would want a cable that distorted the sound? There are more deterministic ways of 'rolling off the treble'.

Charlie

Merc, I am also using all Outlaw cables for interconnects and as most know I am thrilled with the sound of the 950. I have said it before but IMO the Outlaw is not bright, it is neutral. Besides the 950 I own a Rotel 960, Klipsch 10.5's (with matching center/surround) and Swan Diva 2.1's. That pretty much covers the spectrum of warm and bright. In my opinion it would go in this order with warm being a 1 and bright being 10 and neutral being 5.
Klipsch 9 or 10
Outlaw 5 or 6
Diva's 4 or 5
Rotel 2 or 3.

I never thought to change interconnects but I may give it a try if I get enough energy to tear my system apart. Maybe I need to upgrade to give me a reason...

Charlie, that is like asking why somebody would want a warm pre/pro to distort the sound. Some people prefer a warmer sound.

I'm not really questioning that - it just seems that *cables* are an odd candidate for sonicly pleasing equalization. EQ is what we're talking about here. There are a bunch of gizmos out there that allow precise adjustments of 'treble rolloff' and so forth without resorting to what amounts to manually inserting capacitors and inductors in the signal path between components.

Charlie

Charlie, I misunderstood you, I apologize.



I disagree with that. If you look around you will see the cable business is a huge industry. I think a lot of people look to cables for an improved sound.

Without re-starting the old 'magic vs. snake oil' argument let me just say that existence and size of 'the cable industry' says more about marketing and sales than anything else.

To alter sound audibly, a cable must differ enough in electrical properties from a 'zero length' wire to alter the signal transmitted. Since it is trivial to make a wire that does not alter the signal audibly, any wire that sounds different than the trivialy constructed 'straight wire' interconnect is introducing distortion. While it may be a pleasing distortion, it is also dependent on the properties of the devices the are being inter-connected and as such is difficult to predict.

Thus my statement - if one wants EQ, use an EQ/tone/tilt controller.

The Outlaw interconnects seem very nicely made and I would be surprized if any sort of well run listening test (meaning any sort of good blind test) could show a audible change due to them over a second reasonably well made interconnect.

I have heard of interconnects that included 'magic boxes' containing LRC networks. I can see where they would introduce audible distortion in some cases.


Charlie

charlie- I have a queation for you. Have you ever gone to a high end home theater store and listened to the same eqiptment with different interconnections, (i.e. speaker wire, audio RCA's, etc..) ? I personally have been able to do this at some local hi fi stores over the past couple of years, and have noticed quite a bit of difference in the audio performance of a system using one cable over another! Everything in speakers from Martin Logan, Dynaudio, JM Labs, to Energy, Boston, and Def Tech's. Most of these tests were run through KRELL gear. I not only notices sonic differences in different manufactures cables when compaired with one another, I also noticed differences in a single companies product line, and with the difference in price that is just what I would expect.
What I am trying to say is that If you have not gone out and researched this by either going and listening to different cables, or by purchasing different cables and demoing them on your home system, then where is the foundation for your disbelief! If you HAVE done the research and still cannot tell the difference, then you are absolutely welcome to your opinion, as everyone is, and your opinion is well noted! For those of us that are able to discern the differences between interconnections sonics, those are who I believe are the intended people this thread was started for.
One more thing. The intention of creating higher quality cable for high end components is so that there is LESS introduced distortion, escentially making the cables/wires more transparent. Lower grade wires usually introduce MORE distortion, and again some people are capable of detecting this difference, and others are not. From what I have read and learned a cable/wire is never meant to audibly augment the signal passing through it, or act as any type of EQ., as you put it. It's sole job is transfering the signals from one device to another with the very least amount of sonic loss possible, or to theoreticly "get-out-of-the-way" of the components that they tie together.

Jeremy - You're right about what cables are supposed to do. Everything else, except that you thought you heard a difference, is either questionable or false.

Simply stated, the limit to what the human ear can hear is very near to the threshold of pressure caused by Brownian motion in the air. Our ears are amazing equipment. As good as ears are, instrumentation can measure differences that are orders of magnitude smaller.

It is common for anyone to hear, smell, taste etc. differences where they do not exist due to expectation. This is simply part of the human condition and should not be taken as a defect of any kind. Rather it is part of what makes life worthwhile. I can walk outside and be sure this is the prettiest sunset I've ever seen without comparing a library of photos.

In contrast to some more complex items, cable properties are easily measured and quantified. Thus it is trivial to show that a reasonably constructed cable will present for all audible purposes the exact same signal at both ends, therefore being perfectly 'transparent' to the electrons involved. Any audible difference from this is going to be (1) measurable and (2) distortion.

Ever wonder why the agencies with the most to gain (cable manufacturers) are the most reluctant to participate in double blind or ABX cable tests? If their claims are true, they could prove it scientifically and reap the windfall. But they, to an man, steadfastly oppose any sort of repeatable blind tests. Why is that I wonder?

The have started their own religion and are busy reaping tithes from the faithful.


Charlie

Simple question - explain how it can 'sound warmer' and 'roll off the treble' while at the same time not changing the signal.


Charlie

I also noticed somewhat of a decrease in brightness using the Outlaw cables (OMG I'm agreeing with Merc?). I wouldn't call the effect warmth, maybe just a slightly darker sound - which I prefer.

For those ES9000 owners out there I also rolled of some additional highs (to a much larger effect) changing the audio setting from Sharp to Slow. I wasn't surprised that it caused less ear fatigue on the high end - but was VERY suprised at how well it tightened up the image and opened up the midrange.

The tradeoff is that some instruments sound a tad more artificial, but overall the music has a better presentation with a more correct dynamic emphasis.

Just for kicks I reconnected my old $150 Rotel pre/pro. I just loved the warmth and musicality in 2 channel. After trying out a DVD after being used to the 950 sound, though, I listened about 10 minutes and quickly reconnected the 950.

What's a mother to do?

Simple answer - By allowing the digital/analog source to better project itself through said cable, or as I stated above, become more transparent than higher distortion cables!

HT Crazed - Great to hear that you are happy with your 950, and hopefully I will be able to get one sometime in the near future!

Jeremy - thanks. I'm very pleased with the 950 for HT sound. As for music, I'm still trying to get it to the point where we can co-exist. The change on the 9000es has been a solid improvement, and I'll be listening carefully over the weekend to see if its something I can live with longer term. (And given my financial situation lately, the floor of what I can live with has dropped considerably).

But if I can get 2 channel to more or less work for me - what a bargain!

If you really believe that you heard obvious differences between different cables, then the set either included faulty connections, or your mind was tricking you.

If you don't believe that, try to find one, any, something where a scientific, double-blind, level-matched test verified a statistically significant difference between two interconnects. Or speaker cables (as long as they were reasonably sufficient). Or power cords.

You will find nothing but anecdotal evidence. "I'm sure I could tell a difference. Really, I did!"

Cables with active circuitry are a different story, but as posted above, that's a really silly place to try to tweak/alter system sound.

People that buy into this line also tend to make arguments like "keep your speaker wires the same length, so that the signals get to your ear at the same time". To hear the difference in time delay between a 1 foot cord and a 100 foot cord, you would have to keep your head still to sub-millimeter precision. Good luck.

Room acoustics and speaker driver design have far, far, far more influence on tonal balance than any interconnect or wire.

It's quite simply a religion, and you can't prove or disprove religion with science. Not that I'm anti-religion, but this particular one is pretty lame.

The reference to 'digital' cables really seals the deal.

EDIT: I do like the apparent quality and attention to detail in the Outlaw offerings, but that is beside the point.

[This message has been edited by charlie (edited June 28, 2002).]

Again, has either of you even tried LISTENING to the differences of different quality cables? You two are so statistically minded and absolutely rock-solid-fact oriented in thinking that you don't open your minds to even the remote possibility that there could be an audible difference. Not tricking you, not having some kind of blind faith in manufacturer just because of name recognition. (Which, by the way I haven't even once mentioned a single Cable manufacturer, have I?!!) Recognizing, without bias, noticeable improvement in sound.
Now this argument could go on and on, but I don't think that it needs to, so I repeat, we are all allowed our opinions. Mine is based on the experience that I have had in testing different audio connections on many different speakers using the same pre/pro and amplifier (KRELL). It is from these sessions that I have gathered my data, actual real-world results, and formed my opinion. Did I use any testing equipment or hire a technician to calculate everything for me? NO! I used my EARS, carefully listening for nuances and differences in compression, definition, resolution and sound staging! That my opinion differs from yours I completely understand. But what you don't seem to understand is that no matter how much mumbling you continue with, you will not sway my opinion! As I am NOT trying to sway yours!!!!!! I agree to disagree, and will leave it at that!

Charlie - "The reference to 'digital' cables really seals the deal."

- REPEAT -(and read carefully this time) Simple answer - By allowing the digital/analog source to better project itself through said cable, or as I stated above, become more transparent than higher distortion cables!-

Chuck, buddy. Is a cable a SOURCE? NO! It is a signal path by which audio information is sent from the source, to the processor, to the amplifier, to the speaker!!!! I NEVER stated that the cable was analog or digital, only that the SOURCE WAS!! You just assume, and obviously do not fully read what is written!! NUFF SAID!

I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

Merc - I apologize for muddying your initial effort in just trying to pass on newfound information! Your efforts are greatly appreciated! Thanks.

Yup, I've listened to various cables in various situations. I can recognize DAC differences in a heartbeat. I can detect a loose cable. I can tell when a certain door is open to my theater (different room acoustics). As long as a cable is well constructed (not shoddy, loose soldering, etc) -- it had no audible differences from any other cable.

You said that you heard a difference, and you were positive of it. Was this a level matched, double blind test?? If the volume differed by as much as 0.5 dB, you'll hear a difference from that. Did you see the cables being switched? That can cause a psychological effect. Was there any time delay between each audition? It is well proven that your ears cannot reliably make qualitative comparisons, even on the same recording when there is even a short listening gap (such as while cables are swapped around).
You said you did this test with the same pre/pro on many different speakers. To what length did you go to ensure NO other factors were involved?

In short, I'd bet dollars to donuts that you cannot reliably identify the differences in cables in any scientifically controlled test. I've seen test after test after test where someone had the same convictions as you -- "I know they sound different". Put the same people, the same equipment, the same cables into a real test, and they do no better than random chance. I've even seen tests like this where the cables were NEVER changed, the listener just THOUGHT it was being done, and they start identifying differences in "transparency", "air", and
"musicality".

Believe it if you want. Buy more expensive cables if you want. I'm putting my money in things that really matter.

Oh yeah -- if you still believe in this, I've got some "acoustic pyramids" that will dramatically improve the soundstage in your room. Just put these blocks of wood strategically around your room, chant appropriately, and you won't believe the improvement


[This message has been edited by bigmac (edited June 28, 2002).]

Yes I have. I'm open to the possiblity they sound different. Show me. Show me a proper blind listening test or an instrumented measurement where an audible improvement in fidelity was shown.

Explain why cable companies don't wave the results of such tests under every skeptics' nose.

I'll do it for you - they don't exist.



I'd just hate to see some poor sap believe this mumbo-jumbo. You - do as you wish.

I'm glad you like your wires. If you want to export your internal feelings and call them facts expect to be asked for proof. When you look for proof, don't expect to find any.



Indeed. Digital cables was used as shorthand for 'cables used to transmit digitally encoded data', I didn't intend to confuse you. Sorry.

So, explain how a cable used to transmit digitally encoded data can sound different than a second cable used to transmit digitally encoded data given no data errors (as I would expect from any reasonable device-wire-device combo), using say, a DVD player and an Outlaw 950 as examples.

Or is 'improved transparency' for 'cables used to transmit digitally encoded data' only detectable on the astral plane?


Charlie

I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

If the original post from merc is correct. Does that mean the 950 isn't a $899 pre/pro anymore? How much are 5 outlaw cables or is it 3? Aren't they giving some away?

Hi Legairre!
You rascally wabbit!

Charlie- And would this instrumentation tell you data that you would decipher as "transparency, fluid, warm, bright, etc.?"

Merc -

I can appreciate that. It's when someone starts promoting something they can't prove or measure as gospel, as something everyone else *should* be able to detect that my BS detector starts to go off. Sorry if some back blast came your way.

I would respectfully suggest you consider a blind test just out of curiosity. I was a magic cable, marble in the corner, spike etc believer until I took the time to do some real testing. It was an eyeopener.
I had to admit - if I can't hear it when I don't know what to expect, I can't really hear it. Took the wind out of my sails for a bit.

- Charlie

Nope. It would tell if the difference was smaller than the threshold of audibility, though. Also, in cases where one is not sure what to measure one may wish to use a proper blind study, but only if one is interested in facts.




[This message has been edited by charlie (edited June 28, 2002).]

So Charlie, do you happen to have any of those magic cables for sale? Sorry, just poking fun. It would be interesting in seeing results of such a test. I feel that even if there was such a test there would probably always be people on both sides of the fence on this topic.

[This message has been edited by werner52 (edited June 28, 2002).]

Sorry, sold 'em.

There are documented cases where very reactive loads (old electrostatic speakers I think) did show a measureable and audible distortion from resistance in the speaker wires, but the loads and signals associated with interconnects are much better behaved. I can buy into shielding, maybe if EMR is a problem where the cables are or something like that, but I try to be (1) skeptical and (2) reasonable about these things.

I think Outlaw is marketing a very well made product for a fair price and I for one laud them for it, especially considering the market they compete in.


Charlie

If you could easily identify and tell teh difference between the different cables in only 20 seconds of a certain CD, then you would have absolutlely no problem identifying them in a double-blind test.

... and you would also be the first documented case _ever_ of someone able to do so reliably. Do you really think your ears are THAT good??

No one has _ever_ documented this kind of hearing. Period.

But, if you feel you can, fine.

BTW -- I am not knocking the Outlaw cables in any way. They seem to be reasonably priced, HQ cables. But they don't make the sound any different.

Hello All,
I'm not going to get into the 'audio jewelry debate' again. If you can hear a difference, then more power to you. And placebos have been known to miraculously cure cancer. (Damn! I let my opinion show.) Just a note: I'm now using all Outlaw interconnects in my system. About ten pairs of differing lengths. I find them to be of high build quality and I like the way they look. The appearance factor is just for my own satisfaction as I find that I don't get a lot of requests for tours of the back of my rack.
How do they sound? Well, when I first took them out of the package I didn't hear a thing. No audible 'hiss'. Nothing. Even when I held them right up to my ear. I figured that they might need some 'burn-in' or a good 'break-in' period so I just let them sit for a while. That did the trick. I hooked them up to my system and it was a life changing experience! Such 'musicality'!
Such incredible 'depth' without being to 'dark'. Just in case they were too 'bright', I wore sunglasses.
Gosh, ever since I started reading the Outlaw Forum I've learned so many things about audio that I just don't know how I ever made it as an Audio Engineer on my own!

I'll apologize for the sarcasm ahead of time.
Mix

I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

Ok Guys! The cable may have some effect due to the different capacitance and inductance of the material and mybe if you have a very revealing system and great ears and good materila YOU can hear the difference. But how can a digital cable carrying ones and zeros have any effect. If this were the case you printers would not print correctly, you programs would not run and nothing in your computer would work. Besides the quality of the connectors we use for our computers are in the most part less exacting than the one's for the "audiophile". The digital signal also carries error correcting bits that can correct any errors in the signal. I think the only thing that can effect the signal is the DA converter. No matter what you do to the signal the one is going to be a 1 and a Zero will be a 0.

I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

Merc: of course there is an audible difference in gear. Never said that there wasn't. Comparably constructed, quality cables? Nope, sorry. I'd even go so far as to say that I would challenge anybody to tell the difference between OFC copper and silver (analogue) interconnects. I participated in blind tests covering a vast amount of pro gear,including interconnects, while auditioning equipment for new stages at Disney World. These tests were done using the finest testing instruments avalilable at the time (i.e. O-scopes, IVIE Anylizers, TEF for accoustics, etc.) Also subjective listening by a group of AE's that do this for a living. Results?: Tons of difference in gear. No discernable audible difference in quality interconnects.
But like I said before, if it sounds better to you if you throw more money at it, more power to you.
Damn, I guess I'm participating in this debate again after all. It is good fun, you know.
Mix

Well, if you want something that WILL make an audible difference I suggest a product called Audio Oil. You just rub it on your cables and you'll instantly hear better sonics, a more liquid midrange, deep tight bass, wider and taller soundstage and even Bo*e speakers will image like crazy.

You see the problem with cables is that all these electrons have to squeeze thorough this tiny wire and it's real easy for them to become congested (kind of like a microscopic traffic jam). Audio Oil penatrates to the electrons and makes them more slippery which results in the afore mentioned benefits. These benefits have all been verified via extensive quadruple blind testing in my personal anechoic chamber.

Audio Oil can be purchased internet direct for only $129.95 for a 1/2 oz bottle good for treating up to 2 miles of wire. Is equally effective on analogue and digital cables as well as corns, boils and sore a** holes.

Act now and I'll double the amount to one full oz. of Audio Oil for no additional cost and include free shipping.

Cash or Money Orders only.

I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

On a personal level, perception is an interesting thing. No one can tell merc or jeremy what things sound like *to them* because no one else knows. I like cheese and I like noodles, but because of a childhood incident I cannot *stand* mac & cheese.

The point is that the part of perception that happens inside our head is just as real as any other part, to us. But in order to export that to others a higher level of scrutiny must be employed.

At the point where one wants to convince others that they shouldn't taste mac and cheese as just cheese with noodles or that something outside all laws of physics is going on in an electrical conductor the part that is going on inside ones head should be eliminated, because although it is real, it is internal to the person(s) making the claim.

As merc said 'perception IS reality', but part of a persons perception is real for everyone, the rest is not.

PS - The guy with the clotheshanger had a receiver (Pioneer Elite?) that actually tallied data errors. There were none.

Just a thought. Do any of the High End cable manufacturers actualy attend the CES shows ?
Seems to me if my $$$$$$ interconnects and speaker cables sounded so much better than another mfrs $ cable I might want to publicly demonstrate this phenomenon.
Since I'm a beer budget shopper with chapmange tastes I'll just have to stick with with Outlaw or AR cables for now .

They are generally happy to demo in sighted conditions. It's when someone wants to do instrumented or blind tests they get camera shy.

Hey - I don't believe a BMW 750 is 500% better transportation than a Hyundai Sonata either, from a pragmatic standpoint, but I know which one I'd rather have. And my preference has nothing to do with primary function, transportation.

And there's nothing wrong with that, unless I try to convince my neighbor to let his kid go without braces so they can get the Beemer too because it will make the kids smarter or happier or whatever. If I start making claims that I try to apply to others, facts should be on my side.

I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

Merc, just kidding about Audio Oil. However if anyone wants to buy some for the price offered I would be happy sell it to you. I need a new cd player.

Here is a whitepaper on interconnect and cable design. http://sound.westhost.com/cablewhitepaper.htm

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."


The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams

The above could just as easily be re-phrased - for example ...

"I refuse to prove that my cables will make your system sound better", says the snake oil vendor, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, you will hear nothing."

To read more go here: http://sound.westhost.com/cables.htm

Basically, I think all well designed interconnects will sound the same. At a local high end shop they actually sell a pair of 8 foot speaker cables that cost $22,000.00. Yes you read that right. That's more then I spend on my car (VW Passat).



[This message has been edited by mojoman (edited June 29, 2002).]

I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

Don't some people prefer the 950 sound to the 1066? What interconnects should these people use?

[This message has been edited by Will (edited June 29, 2002).]

Regarding video: Last night I hooked up a new prog. DVD player, I was short on componentent (Component: that was a good one I made the word 2 metters long!) cables. I had the guy throw in 2 sets of Comp. with Our new Sony RPTV purchase.
He sent me the low end Straight Wire set. One set was bad, and I have not have time to get back and trade it, so last night bought one set, low end Monster to be able to connect the DVD player.
Huge difference between the straight wire and Monster. The Monster adversely affected red tones, its going back.

[This message has been edited by Smart Little Lena (edited June 29, 2002).]

That's a good point Will. Since I have only used the Outlaw interconnects I guess that's how I think a 950 should sound. This can get confusing.

I'm not sure about vs. competitors, but Harmon Intl. uses ABX extensively in R&D.

There are lots of things that go into a buying decision and I would be the last to say performance is the only criterion. Pride of ownership, appearance, build quality, personal preference, branding, and a ton of other factors are important.

As an example the Outlaw interconnects may not sound different in a blind test than any other interconnect, but they are Outlaw branded and look very well made. There is nothing wrong or foolish about buying them based on that, and if one thinks their system sounds better afterwards, great. But for Outlaw or anyone to claim huge or immediately noticable and identifiable changes to the sound of a third parties' system would IMO require more rigorous proof.

Also, most other classes of components are chock full of easily measurable characteristics that often either border or cross into the realm of theoretical audibity. Thus with instrumented measurements in hand they can, IMO, lay a valid claim. Whether their claim is exagerated or not is up to each one to determine based on the measurements presented.

I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

Charlie: Rigorous proof for whom? You? Okay then do the ABX DBT yourself if you want to... none of us are gonna stop you. Still, even if you did, those results would only be valid for you and your room and gear... not necessarily for anyone else at all. Seems to me that the only way for each one of us to know, is for each one of us to try it and see. Doh! That certainly is not a unique or original concept in HTF upgrades.
Otherwise, this is like someone critiquing the 950's sound without ever hearing what a 950 sounds like in their system?

I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

Who is the cable supplier for NASA?

Is the space shuttle wired with Home Depot or Radio Shack materials?

I'm sure they know who makes the best cable, any NASA engineers here who could fill us in as to the owner of the contract for that baby.

LQQK

I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

The burden of proof falls on the one making the assertion.

For instance, if I state that I dislike mac & cheese and prefer not to eat it that is a statement of personal preference and not in need of proof. If, however, I state that mac & cheese is nasty and if anyone eats it they're likely to get sick I've exported my own personal response to the general case and I will almost certainly be challanged on it.

Similarly, when merc says he likes the sound of his 950 with Outlaw cables over other cables he is stating personal, internal preference. When someone says 'high end' cables are 'more transparent' to 'digital/analog signals' and contribute less distortion, they are making a statement asserting a personal belief as fact. The onus of proof is on the person making the statement.

Have a good one.

To avoid confusion, I have modified this post to reflect that the following comments were posted earlier by Merc. He has since chosen to delete his comments. This is not intended to be disrespectful to Merc...just to clarify what I was responding to.

Merc wrote:
"Of course, if you fully subscribe to a well constructed scientific trial, and of reaching a significant p value, then I'm sure that these folks did each test hundreds or thousands of times, right? And, that they tested every possible combination of every available source, preamp, amp, and speaker combination... oh damn, and then again, what they heard or didn't hear may have been affected by their speaker cables and power cables... oh dang, and how about the specific media they used? Did they also test each possible CD, vinyl, tape, etc??? So, if they didn't then their results are ONLY valid for those specific pieces of gear they did use, as long as they did enough repetitions in order to reach significance. Oh yeah, finally, their testing WAS Double Blind as well, correct?
Why can't each person listen to their own gear and each person make their own personal decision?
Remember... perception IS reality.”

Hi Merc,

I had this same perspective through most of the 1980’s lingering into the 90’s until I participated in several dozen controlled test using multiple systems and in varying locations… only to find I really never score higher than what could be considered a random outcome. I did not try every possible combination in the world but felt that it was a good representation.

At first, after repeated failings on my part, I believed that the test were not conducive to showing the difference…differences I KNEW existed, and I set out to prove the “engineers” wrong.

Always the tests were simple double blind setups. I was allowed all the time I wanted before I registered my final input. The test were conducted by and with several audio designers and manufacturers who then, and now, believe that a properly designed cable, with stable electronics, will not have a sound of their own. This is not to say that you can’t have poor designs (LCR issues) and/or electrical (impedance) mis-matches that will cause measurable and audible differences. But I assume we all are discussing properly setup systems.

After a few years of being one of the “Audiophiles”, side by side with the audio engineers who conducted these test, I finally started to accept that what I had perceived was not repeatable when my sighted knowledge of the cables was removed. It humbled me and made me ponder what were the reasons why I was so sure I had heard all those differences through the years. My conclusion…speaking for myself only…simply is poor or no control over the evaluation procedures and environment. Also once you believe and buy into these perceived differences it’s very hard to control the emotions and ego that can develop with those beliefs and then admit that you may have been mistaken.

“Remember... perception IS reality”

I can’t argue this point. There are those who will call Miss Cleo to find out what’s in store for them…some who believe that Pro Wrestling is real…or swear that a car goes faster after being washed (I still fall into this camp) .

Those who wish to play with cables are fine by me.

I’ve been there, done that. Have Fun!!!

Best regards,
Tom Garcia


[This message has been edited by TJG (edited June 29, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by TJG (edited June 29, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by TJG (edited June 30, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by TJG (edited June 30, 2002).]

"I'm not sure about vs. competitors, but Harmon Intl. uses ABX extensively in R&D."

Hi Charlie,

You're correct about Harmon Intl...and they often do use competitors equipment and conduct their test blind using various review panels. Dr. Flold Toole and Sean Olive oversee much of the testing. I have had extensive conversations with them as well as other Harmon engineers and designers on this exact topic.

Best regards,
Tom Garcia

Hi Merc, (No, I'm not picking on you!)
Actually, the testing performed was done as objectively as possible while observing realistic time constraints and a results-oriented process. But enough of that.
My perception is this: Y'all are a good bunch of people with whom I enjoy conversing. I can always expect good debate with a fair amount of intelligence thrown in for good measure. Thank God we don't all agree on everything! Wouldn't that be boring? I'll continue to throw my two cents worth in and hopefully I will have something of value to contribute once in a while.
With all of the seriousness that I can muster on a Saturday evening, I think that the Outlaw interconnects represent a good value.
I hope that everyone is enjoying their weekend.
Until next time,
Mix

Tom,
This one's for you.(again). I just got around to reading your post. Don't know how I missed it. At the close of another lengthy debate in this forum I lauded you for stepping-in with a well-worded, relevent, and on-the-money response. You are two-for-two. Nicely done.
Mix

Merc,

to a high degree i agree with you. But to add to the confusion consider which cables are being run if you are using the analog passthrough or even the analog input on the 950.

I still found the 950 a little edgy on the top end while using the Outlaw interconnects for music playback. After i added a cd player with a smooth, layed back sound quality and used some other good analog interconnects to feed the 950 the sound now became beautifully detailed with no sign of harshness. (the cd player is an Arcam 8SE and interconnects are the Acoustic Research Master series)

I heard exactly what Merc described on the Outlaw cables vs my old straight wire (brand) cables. A marginal taming of the highs, opening of the mids, and better bass extention (though no noticeable warmth added). But the improvements were very subtle, and I have no doubt that Merc was being facetious in the 950 having anything even approaching the warmth and smoothness of the Rotel. (or for that matter the somewhat less detailed and precise Rotel sound).

The effect is there but way to subtle to mistaken for even mild EQ adustments - unless maybe you're moving from lower end AudiQuests or something equally awful.

And by the way anyone that can't hear differences from the top to the bottom lines of interconnects after careful listening shouldn't be wasting their money on seperates. The Bose comes in a nice all in one package with those cute little speakers..

If it's that obvious that anyone with ears can tell the difference, how come they can no longer reliably tell the difference when the other cues to the cable change are removed, like seeing it happen? If it were that easy, there would be tons, tons of evidence from the cable people about the sonic differences.

To flip the coin, if you have yourself convinced that the cables sound different than bundled cables, I bet that someone could take Bose drivers, repackage them into an exotic looking package, and convince you that they were incredible!

I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

Well, I never got a chance to audition the 950 (they stopped shipping before they got to my name on the reservation list). But I can tell you that I'm using the 1066 with the Outlaw PCA interconnects, an Outlaw 770 amp, and Axiom speakers. This setup is most definitely not dark IMHO; I would consider it neutral or just slightly warmer than neutral, and I'm very happy with the sound.

I really think that the idea that all the claims of brightness on the 950 can be brushed off as an 'interconnect issue' seems a bit far-fetched IMHO. From what I can recall, 5 out of 7 people who auditioned both preferred the sound of the 1066. I really don't think interconnects were the deciding issue.

My intent is not to bash the 950; for people who are happy with it that's great. I probably would have bought one if they hadn't stopped shipping when they did. But still, for people who think the 950 is too bright/harsh I really doubt that changing interconnects is going to make a real difference.

Jeff


[This message has been edited by JKohn (edited June 30, 2002).]

I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

I've had it... so I'm editing all my posts in this thread.

I make a suggestion, which may or may not help some folks improve their 950's performance, and... boom, here comes the glass half empty, negative nebob folks with their criticism. Of course, none of them offer an alternative positive idea.
Once again, no good deed goes unpunished.

I'm done. I'm joining the thread farters. IT'S TIME for me to be a nasty Son of a Bitch too.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

Disregard my earlier comments if you saw them. I've already decided on my processor and my intent is to stay away from the comparison discussions. I just got sucked into this one there for a second.

You were not the only one to use the outlaw cables. What were your 20 seconds of material?

dropping out of this thread again
brianca

[This message has been edited by brianca (edited June 30, 2002).]

Yup, me too. I tried to delete this thread in its' entirety, but unlike AVS, only the admin can delete threads.

I'm just sick and tired of trying to help folks. No comment or suggestion ever goes unchallenged and I just have no incentive to prove ANY statement I make to ANYONE. If anyone wants me to substantiate my comments from now on, the cost is $5. My PayPal ID is govtdog@msn.com . Free positive and possibly helpful suggestions are just not appreciated anymore on the forums. From now on, I'm just gonna have fun being the devil's advocate like, seemingly, the majority of folks who post on the forums... and maybe make a Lincoln or two along the way.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

Merc,

Here are a couple of simple ways to prove to yourself whether you can really hear a difference, or not. In both cases,
you must make sure you are NOT aware of which cable is which. These aren't really scientific/statistically significant tests, but do try:

1) Simple attempt. Have someone hook your CD player to the 950. For one channel, use the Outlaw. For the other channel use a no-name, or bundled cable. Listen to soem straight, analog-bypass stereo music. If the Outlaw has different sonics, this should destroy imaging. One channel should stand out as different. You will no longer get a clean central image of common information that should come from the middle, like lead vocals. Repeat a few times with different CDs, cables swapped around, and with the same cable for both channels sometimes. See if you can reliably (better than random chance) tell which channel is which, and when the mis-matched pairs are in use.

2) Harder, more valid test: use a good CD player that happens to have 2 sets of outputs. Have someone besides you hook up both outputs to separate inputs on the 950. Again, make sure you have no clues as to which is which. Play a CD, switch back and forth, see if you can identify the outlaw channel. Repeat several times with cable swaps and different CDs. Note -- cable swaps should be random, sometimes switched, sometimes not, as long as there is no pattern that you know about.

In both tests, by random chance, you should be right about half the time. If there are true differences, you should be correct nearly 100% of the time. If you are almost always right, someone needs to set up a controlled test, because you have a first -- a remarkable cable with different sonic characteristics that might be provable scientifically.

Note that because of the nature of statistics, even if you are right 100% of the time, it doesn't totally prove that it is correct. Statistics merely says to some high degree of probability (easy calculatable) that you are correct. Likewise, if you can't predict them with high accuracy, statistics doesn't rule out that they are different, simply says it is unlikely that there are audible differences.

Although neither of these is really a scientific test, please try -- let us know the outcome.

Sorry if you feel offended by the posts in this thread. You posted some advice, others posted other advice. What's so damned bad about that? You believe the cables are different, others don't. That's the whole point of boards like this!! You seem mad that we don't offer any "positive alternatives". Here's the positive alternative: you don't need expensive cables, because cheapo bundled cables sound the same. Save your money for other things! People oughtta be happy that they can ignore cables as a $$$ sink as use the money elsewhere where it is well KNOWN to help!


[This message has been edited by bigmac (edited June 30, 2002).]

Actually it is now close to 50/50 (5 out of 9) with Jeff, Dusty, Merc, and Bruce all preferring the 950 over the Rotel, but who's counting? Actually I can't remember the 9th person after Brianca, Mark, BigJeff, and Erik who also did the comparison.
Merc, I wish you would re-edit just your first post so at least the people who want your opinion can have it without having to pay 5 bucks for it


[This message has been edited by Jed M (edited June 30, 2002).]

But!!You got to have FAITH!!!!

Amen, brother!

Okay, you guys have convinced me. None of us really do hear or see what we think we hear or see, since we need to use our "biased by our experience" brains to do so.

Therefore, I have now joined the camp which says that in reality all components sound the same. And, I will continue to believe that until someone does a DBT, ABCDEFG...X trial and can say to a significant p value of at least .05, that each one of these units sounds differently and that each unit can be idendified by its' sound alone.

Remember though that a DBT requires that some sort of shroud be placed over all units with only a code showing in order to have a real DBT. NONE of the test's researchers nor subjects can know which unit is which until the trial is unblinded at its' conclusion. Testing order and subject selection must also be done on a fully random basis. And, a sufficient number of trials must be done for each unit. Depending on how many components are tested at once, this could mean hundreds of opinions on each unit. Finally, all results should also be valid for each of us. This means that all units must be tested with all possible combinations of equipment so that a p value that shows pre-pro A is better than pre-pro B, is not only a valid statement for that individual mix of components used in that specific testing system. Trial results CANNOT be extrapolated outside of what exactly was tested.

Silly me... I always thought that well controlled DBTs were only good for proving the efficacy of drugs. Now, I realize they are good for everything, including evaluating music and art. Afterall, how can we be sure of anything we hear or see anymore. Dang... I guess I better get started on that DBT of whether or not I really love my wife... DOH!

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 30, 2002).]

Does someone maybe take all of this, and themselves, just a little too seriously? Maybe.
Either way, it's a source of entertainment that I didn't expect from my HT.
What a bonus!
Mix

[This message has been edited by MixFixJ (edited June 30, 2002).]

Oh Merc, I don't recommend. From someone who's been with one man a long long time.
Some things are better left to BF, (blind faith)

You know, I just dont seem to have to common sense to sit out of these sort of arguments...I may as well run around Minnesota wearing antlers with a huge bulleye across my @$$, but geez guys.

A. we all know not all componients are created alike. I dont think there is any argument out there that states that because component A uses part A, and while componient B uses part B that because the differances in their construction elements make a differance. Come on...if through your sarcasm you are saying that regardless what materials are you, you will always get the same result in componient construction...If that was a case, Technics would dominate the market place.

B. From an electrical standpoint, when we talk about interconnects and speaker wire we are talking about circut properties. If two wires are made identicaly, shielded properly, and have the same resistive properties...the circut will act simmilarly. It's a rather moot point. Now yes, I strongly reccomend getting some quality products (good conductivity...GOOD shielding). I think we cann all agree that the $5.00 s video cable that yoyu can pick up at wal-mart (which I was using before I discovered "quality" products) wont hold up to a decently shield s-video cable. Same thing with the el-cheapo audio cables. Anyone who states that for some reason wire A is better then wire be, although they are both the same wire, and then charge you three or four times (or in some cases ten times) realy aren't any better then Bose selling you a $1,200 "speaker system" that is little more then five clock radio speakers with bass ports, an a $10 boombox speaker for a sub.

I'm the type of person who will come home at the end of a day and spend 3-4 hours with my system before going to bed...and then another 2 hours listening to music before going to work (and then depending on what day it is, and weither I'm at the college, or at the studio) spend another 6-8 hours listeing to music or broadcasts live. My system is far from perfect, but I know where to spend my cash to mazimize the experiance. I know that the last part of my system to get an upgrade is the interconnects.


Now back to my fox hole to watch the flak.

Hi Merc,

I generally leave most of these types of cable threads alone…I’ve yet to see a convert born for either perspective during an on-line discussion!

I have participated and argued for both causes as my post above indicates. My purpose for sharing my personal experience was to provide an alternative view to this debate. Some may find it relevant, others may consider it the babbling of an audio burnout (I was called this by several retailers when I quit finding discernible differences in esoteric cables). In addition, I’ve been accosted by various audiophiles for not sharing their beliefs regarding the sonic effects of these cables. Seems that when you switch sides you forfeit all credibility…

Many of my friends that are into audio still pursue various esoteric cables to enhance their systems. They know I no longer do and we have no conflict with each other’s personal practices or beliefs. We agree to disagree on the impact of these cables (among a few other things). Still we enjoy the hobby together…isn’t this why we’re all here?

As for a suggestion for altering a bright sounding system, I’ll always default to speaker and system setup as well as treating the acoustics of the room. Pretty generic stuff I know. For me, this has always provided the greatest real world results that I could easily quantify.

Best regards,
Tom Garcia

Fix,

Thanks for your comments…they are appreciated!


[This message has been edited by TJG (edited June 30, 2002).]

Merc,

i don't blame you for being frustrated/peaved in trying to help others only to get criticised left and right in doing so. I have no idea what happened at HTF but you have always been helpful and your insight is always appreciated by me anyways. Others blabber on about nothing meaningful while you opt to take the straight shooter approach. The later is obviously a good thing...

Keep the faith man!

When I have some time later tonight, I'll address all of your latest comments directly, but for now, I'm still waiting for the protocol you are going to use to do a simple DBT, ABX comparison of any two cables. Remember, your results must be significant, reliable and valid for ALL of us who are reading your post. Anything else, and once again it comes down to someones personal opinion of what they think they heard or did not hear.

Anyone?

Hi Merc,

I also am limited on time this evening. I can provide a brief outline of some of the testing I’ve been involved in.

Some of the earliest test used the Clark switching device (I forget the official name of this unit) used by Stereo Review during their “infamous” cable test. I believed it would allow different cables to be switched remotely and randomly as well. Many audiophiles including myself question the transparency of the device originally. We then bypassed the switcher unit with identical cables to a different input on the preamp and used the preamp as a switcher to compare the Clark unit inline verse the bypass. All tests were matched to less than one tenth of a db. Through multiple tests I did not achieve a score that showed any significant preference. Later we also used custom designed switchers with high grade contacts that had a computer scoring system which could be programmed to conduct AB, ABX, AA, BB testing randomly or by any combination requested. It is truly amazing how often you will identify AA or BB as being different components when conducting a blind test. As I mentioned I participate in these tests during the course of a few years…about the same time it took me to begin altering my views.

All this really means little. I participated in many tests, I altered my opinion, and nothing that I have experienced during my on going love for music and audio has changed that. Maybe someday something will. Once again, this is only my experience…YMMV!

Best regards,
Tom Garcia


[This message has been edited by TJG (edited June 30, 2002).]

Hi Tom G: As best I can tell, you are a kind soul who has decided that his previous experience biases, regardless of where they are placed, regardless of how valueable those experiences are, are in fact irrlevent, and need to be discarded in your decision process.

As much as you might believe so, I do not agree, even in your case. In fact, I now believe that you are even more aware of those preconceived opinions and are over-reacting for those thoughts while you might listen, test and judge.?

I believe that KNOWING that you might be pregidiced against a certain decision, either because of previous decisions or because of previous knowledge of a unit, actually makes you, or makes me, MORE sensitive to making sure that what I hear is actually "what I hear", and not what I expect to hear. Still... we are occasionally fooled, especially when the choices are close or the same. In that case... what is the problem with siding with the side which makes you personally happy, or is less expensive??? After all, I was not recommending that you try a costly silver cable, but instead... I was suggesting a low cost, high value, copper cable. Which incidendly, the 950 was possibly originally tested and designed with...?

Why in this case would anyone want to do a DBT ABX cable test???

As I mentioned previously, if revealing the truth is your goal... then you probably don't ever want to deal with ART or MUSIC. Both of those are highly subjective and personal in nature.

Okay, now dinner is over and I can take my time and address your comments...

Hey fmcorps: I'll try to address each A,B,C individually to avoid confusion.

Okay. How do we know that all/some components are not performing alike? Where are the DBT/ABX trials which show this? How could you make such a statement without them for some, and not for all??? Please show me the DBT/ABX trial results for the latest Technics vs Denon units?

So... according to this statement you agree with me? A copper cable may sound differently than a silver cable since it is "made differently". Good thinking.

So, you are admitting that by your listening experience, you too can tell the difference between stuff when they exist? Is that what you are saying?

This is my last entry on this subject! I'll check-in in a few days when hopefully the subject has changed to something that has not been beaten to death and is being handled with a slightly higher level of maturity than 'high school debate bait-and -switch' and 'nyah, nyah nyah'. first of all this is a very, very old debate. As long as there has been high fidelity componentry and a way to connect it, this debate has flourished. So y'all haven't come up with something new! It's human nature for us to believe that we are 'special' and can discern trace differences in an audio signal that is being effected by this or that interconnect. It hurts our fragile egos to admit that we can't. Now let me be VERY clear. I said interconnects, NOT components. Please don't confuse that or try to twist it around. Also for clarification, I'm talking about good quality, similarly constructed interconnects. Not somebody's coat hanger! (Yes, I know that was a digital comparison, but I'm making a point so please don't try to twist that around either.) You've been given good information from Tom G. about blind testing with professionals under controlled conditions. You've gotten good information from me about testing done by professionals with no axe-to-grind and nothing to gain by the choice of either this, or that, component or intrconnect. We were just looking for what sounded best for our audiences. In both testing situations it was found that there was no discernable difference in good quality interrconnects. Not by testing instrument, or the human ear. Further, if you could test,by instrument, differences in an interconnect, then the differences would only amount to degradation of signal quality and the inferior interconnect would be tossed in the trash as non-functional. Interconnects are only a conduit for electron flow. They either work, or they don't. They are most definately not 'mini passive eq's' that impart there own character on a signal. (does anyone else notice how silly that idea sounds?) If they do, then throw them away because they are flawed. Sorry kids, what you are talking about is NOT physically possible! Until we are talking about some new technology for electron flow, the physical laws governing the technology that we currently using, will remain firmly in place. Metalurgical advances may change impedence, capacitence, and inductence, but they won't change equalization.
I've said my piece in a logical, non-adversarial way. Feel free to twist it, confuse it, misdirect the logic involved, or take it off on a tangent. The truth remains. And no, I don't think that I've said something profound. Just collated real information and thinking for your review.
Until next time,
Mix

Oh, why am I getting involved...

I'm a big believer in spending my upgrade money where it makes an actual noticeable difference. Now, I don't personally go around doing double blind tests all day, but you'd be surprised what a little "A/B testing" vs. "A and then (later) B" testing can show you. Before upgrading my inexpensive JVC receiver to a Yamaha DSP-A1 a few years back, I did extensive listening tests. I discovered that when I tested units back to back, differences were subtle, but easily discernable. However, when I brought different units home one by one, I could no longer reliably distinguish the subtle differences between each unit enough to justify a huge outlay of extra money. My wife - who had not been in the store for the A/B tests - declared that they all sounded the same to her. (The processing and DSP modes ended up clinching the upgrade - they were dramatically different, and when used judiciously, an improvement.)

With cables, the importance of "properly shielded" and good build quality cannot be underestimated. When I first got the home theater itch, I had read the ABX results that all well designed cables basically sound the same, and combined it with a "I have no money - so cheap cables it is!" mantra. When I noticed that cymbals didn't shimmer and horns didn't spit, I first checked the speakers, then the gear. Then I thought to look at the lamp cord that served as my speaker cable, and noticed brown imperfections? burned out areas? in sections of the stuff. When I switched it out for 'the original offering from a monster company in the cable business' I was treated to simply amazing results: there was no high end before, now there was. I'm sure Merc will point out that some cables clearly DO sound different. In any case, I've used better quality, name brand stuff ever since.

Finally, to all the ABX'ers out there who delight in trashing Bose, I seriously hope you've spent time ABXing Bose systems vs. competitive lifestyle systems. Have you?

-avi

Mix: Sorry, but what scientific proof did you offer in all you script??? I must have missed your links in your somewhat prolific post.

Please post your proof of what you say so that we too can believe you???

If you too have no DBT ABX proof for ALL of everything that you say, then we can no true'er believe you than we can those who merely make sonic decisions with their own senses and brains and pass them on to us all. Can We???

Please... I'd really like to believe you, but how can I without proof which is reached via scientific DBT ABX trials done to a significant p value.

Where can I find your proof???
Otherwise, according to your own previous posts, you are only full of bullshit when it comes to judging audio/video comparative performance. Sorry... but why should we believe you for one component and not for another....???

------------------
Take Care,
merc

Yo AVI,
In most cases... the change I suggested to try would save the user money. Silly me... DOH!!!

there is no need to abx bose befor you trash them. there is pretty good proof that they are bad, http://www.intellexual.net/boseframes.html check this site out. i just had to put this. hahaah.

Hey, youngguns... Your link didn't post any ABX DBT comparison so none of us can really be sure that the poster's opinion was correct without a DBT/ABX type comparison. As far as we know... (based on some of the previous posters opinions), we MUST assume that the Bose crap is as good as the Wilson/Watt stuff until it is formally and scientifically tested.

Until then... we should all believe that the Bose speakers are at least equivilent. Right???

no. i thing we should go buy what we hear, and data that is scientificly mesured, like the graph.

Yeah baby! I agree with you entirely. If you are judging two units which measure closely, GO with the one which sounds best to YOU... That is Fantastic Advice... I can only hope others think about following those words...

I tried not to respond. I really did.
Merc, I find your use of profanity truly literate, mature, and effective! My response is just to keep my previous post clear of confusion. I'll address yur comments proceding last-to-first in order:
In one of my other posts I asked the advice of others with seemingly more experience in the video realm. I've always left the projection aspects of production to those that specialize in it. As they have always left the audio concerns to me. So, once again, you are using mis-quoting and misdirection to try and argue your point. To the point, I asked advice on video monitors. How that translates to me not knowing anything about all components, I'll never know. By so blatently misrepresenting the quotes of others you only lessen your own crediblity. Back to the subject. I don't have 'links' to the testing that I have been involved in because the results weren't for broad release. As I stated, the testing done was performed for the sole purpose of evaluating equipment for new installations at the Disney properties in Florida. These tests were performed in the late 80's. Cable construction technology hasn't changed much since then, so I still find the results valid. As for Tom G's tests, he may have quantifiable results. You'd have to ask him.
Now you go back to your little debate. Do you even remember the question? Some of us have work to do tomorrow.
Mix

Mix... what the F are you even talking about... you cannot even prove your cursitive point that you made in trying to derail my simple suggestions, how in hell can you even try to prove misdeeds on my part at all...
Simple... you can't and it is better to run than to defend.

Come on Fix... what do you want???

If you choose to pick one personal decision for cables and not for speakers, receiver, preamps, amps... you are simply a hypocrite.
Don't you agree?

congrats merc, this has to be one of the more clever troll threads I've seen in a while.

Jeff... if this is a Trol thread, then why didn/t you please supply an answer??? DOH!\

Thanks for adding the FARTS!

They Stink! PeeeUuuuw.

[This message has been edited by merc (edited July 01, 2002).]

Why do I even bother to join in on these things...



Well, it's clear that my previous post went in one ear and out another. Two pieces of equipment that are constructed using identical materials, and laid out in an identical fashion, they will operate identicaly (as is the nature of anything constructed in mass). Provided that the "guts" of your reciever, pre, or amp are in fact the same guts (transitiors, chips, decoding software) you will get the same sound. If you didn't, lord only knows why names and product numbers would have any influence over your purchase, because there would be no guarantee that it would sound like the other piece of equipment. Amps, recievers, dvd players, pre's, tv's use thousands of parts in their construction. It (should) go without argument that if you use AB and C to make product X, that in every case you will get a product X when you use A, B and C. If however you replace C with say Y, there's no assurance that you will get X. That's where subjectiveness comes in. You may prefer X over Y, that''s personal preferance. However if company A sells what is essentialy X for $10, and company B sells X for $100, there is only one way that they can pull it off, and that's by convincing you that for some reason their product X is far superior to company A's product X. (much akin to Bose's model of operations...by gosh)



NO, what I"m saying is that your interconnects are simply a conductor for the electrical current between your pre and your amp. IT'S A BRIDGE FOR ELECTRICAL SIGNALS. It's wire. No matter how fancy you think it needs to be...the bottom line is that it's WIRE. Conductivity and shielding are the two most important factors (the first, in order to pass your electrical signals along to their path, the second, to prevent other more powerfull signals from interfering with your desired signal from readhing it's desired path.)

Whew.

Soo...what I"m saying is provided you've got either (your preferance) a copper insulated wire, or a silver insulated wire, or if by id doesn't realy matter. But if someone is telling you that their wire made of A and insulated by B is better then the competitions wire that is constucted from A and insulated with B, well...it doesn't hold up.

Jason

Avi,

I'm not saying that the different cable gagues dont make a differance, but simply that someone who is trying to sell you a 12 guage copper cable for $1.00 a foot has more honesty then the guy who will sell you a foot of the same 12 guage cable for $100 a foot. Especially after toting someone's review of how it made his sistem "shimmer" or "mellowed it out". If it's ABC, its ABC..

Back to the fox hole

-Jason



[This message has been edited by fmcorps (edited July 01, 2002).]

Good Morning All,

Maybe if we're quiet he'll just go away! Have a good week.
Mix

Jason-Lobbing magic cables into your foxhole

For me personally different cables have made a difference in my system. (In my best Forrest Gump voice) And that's all I got to say about that.

[This message has been edited by werner52 (edited July 01, 2002).]

“It is my view that the gun fight was neither an ambush or an execution, I feel it was more of a tragedy/accident. As you what happened leading up to the battle you will realize that mistakes were made by both parties. Virgil should not had had Doc Holiday involved and Ike Clanton should have not shot off his mouth. I hope to show that most if not all of the Clanton gang wanted to leave town instead of fight. What I will also suggest is that the Earp party did not murder the cowboy's but they only reacted the way that threatened men would react in dangerous situations….

The Cowboys were watching with terror as the Earp party walked right passed Sheriff Behan. The Earps rounded the corner and then everyone was in lot 2 block 17 just off Freemont street. So on one side you had Wyatt, Virgil, Morgan Earp and John Henry Holliday and on the other you had Billy Claiborne, Isaac and William Clanton , Frank and Tom Mclaury along with 2 horses.(the identity of the horses are not known.)..

The Town was divided into two camps: Pro Earp and Anti Earp. Many townspeople would say that the Earp's were murderers and that they should be hanged. Many people felt that justice had been served. It is important to note that prior to the shootout the general feeling of the town was that ranchers and cowboys (including the Clantons and the Mclaurys) were lawless trouble makers. A good number of the citizens were happy that the cowboys died and some of the people would have preferred that they all killed each other.”

Courtesy “The town too tough to Die” @ http://www.tombstone.250x.com/

-- great post, SLL...

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

Heck... I'm going to the beach.

Happy 4th of July Everyone!

------------------
Take Care,
merc

Happy 4th of July as well and not to forget our friendly neighbors to the north, Happy Canada Day! Enjoy the beach Merc! We don't have much water here in Vegas but I can lay out on the sand.

Jed: thanks for the reminder... Yes, Happy Canada Day too!
Be careful in Vegas this week.

------------------
Take Care,
merc

I'm an idiot. Edited for wrong location
Kcuse!

[This message has been edited by Smart Little Lena (edited July 01, 2002).]

"Audiophile" digital cables are here mainly because someone asked himself how to trasfer a digital signal from one point to another with the least interference possible. This man is "Chris Sommovigo, the first one to manufacture a specially-designed digital cable.
Why not let him explain how the whole thing came out? Mr. Sommovigo, after my request, has written the following interesting article (exclusively for TNT-Audio) that will explain his views on the topic."

© Copyright 2002 Lucio Cadeddu - http://www.tnt-audio.com

"Digital Cables. Those two words when thrown together can spark a raging, vein-popping screaming debate between two otherwise friendly nuns ... not to mention what they do to audiophiles, especially audiophiles enamored of communication over internet news groups. Just point your reader to rec.audio.opinion and pose the question: "Do digital cables make a difference?" ? and then brace yourself for a brutal battle.
It will usually begin with a touch of eloquence, manners, even rather articulate examinations of the topic. It soon degrades into a lumpy-lipped drooling rage. Why?

It seems that some high-minded and educated individuals believe that the cable connecting a CD transport to a DAC cannot possibly have an effect upon the translation of the digital information that it carries. The argument "bits is bits, and them are bits" usually shows up in one form or another, soon to be followed by a usually incomplete examination of digital theory, error correction, noise shaping, Fletcher-Munson curves, Phase Locked Loops. Wielding this information like a priest might wield a crucifix against a particularly nasty vampire, the denizens of this philosophical camp are usually disappointed when the intended victim of their diatribe doesn't readily disappear in a puff of green smoke. Instead, the scurrilous heathen simply fire back from their "subjectivist" viewpoint that, regardless of what the theory may have to say about the audibility of variations in digital cables, there is an impressively large group of people who have for many years observed and appreciated the audible differences between digital cables.

This is just another layer heaped on top of the whole "audiophile cable" debate that has raged for at least two decades. While Dilbert after Dilbert launches theoretical stone after theoretical stone at the audiophile analog and digital cable world from their own flat-earth, terra-centric universe, the fact remains that over the last 20 years the industry has grown to accept and appreciate the sonic contributions that audiophile cables have made. However, there was a bit of splintering back in the day when digital cables first showed up on the scene ? some fence-riders accepted the ability of analog cables contributing to the overall sonic presentation of the hi-fi system, but couldn't reconcile that a digital cable could have a similar effect. Their understanding of the digital equation, based largely on incomplete marketing materials, disallowed the digital cable phenomenon. A short-lived victory for the flat-earthers, because the high-end specialized digital cable had quickly become accepted as another important piece of the audio-rig, a component in and of itself.

The initial rise in popularity of separate digital components must be directly credited to Audio Alchemy. Indirectly, one might also credit them with the rise in awareness about the digital cable debate and digital cables in general. The reason is fairly simple: Audio Alchemy was the first to make a truly inexpensive outboard digital to analog converter, the DDE. When the DDE was released it sold like crazy. For the first time regular Joes, audiophiles on a budget, enjoyed the luxury of an outboard DAC and took advantage of that mysterious single RCA jack on the back of their CD players. Thousands upon thousands of DDE's sold around the world to people who suddenly were in need of, you guessed it, digital cables.

Much of the industry initially responded with an unfortunate supply of "digital" cables that were essentially just the analog interconnect cables that they had already been selling, one length broken out of a pair and repackaged for the purpose. The standards for S/PDIF interface (Sony/Philips Digital InterFace) were either largely misunderstood or largely ignored. That's when I jumped in with my first product, the DataStream Reference digital cable. It was a true 75 Ohm semirigid cable, stiff as virgin on prom night, and sported two huge, bulbous connectors that could have been equally at home on the business-end of a hookah. They were shaped that way so that they could extend the 75 Ohm impedance characteristic as far as possible before terminating into the RCA jack on the target DAC. The Illuminati DataStream Reference had the world's very first 75 Ohm RCA plugs. THAT got enough attention from a few of the right people that I was able to actually get the ugly thing listened to. It was actually the first cable to break The $ensible $ound barrier with a fantastic reception by Gerald Burt. A couple of more decent reviews later and the news would be out: digital cables matter, and the proof was the DataStream Reference.

Why did it make a difference? The upshot of the theory was that it provided a correct impedance match for what was essentially an RF interface, and as such allowed for an appropriate bandwidth and didn't allow for as many signal reflections as competitive products did. The important part was that it was probably the first truly proper cable for this relatively new interface, and it was being appreciated.

Over the following couple of years I developed a flexible version of that cable, marketed as the model D-60 and also as the DataFlex Studio. The D-60 was to the digital cable world what the DDE was to the DAC world, and soon the D-60 was the ubiquitous reference digital cable. Good timing, great product, lots of luck and no complaints. The D-60 remains unchanged, still marketed worldwide and still used in both home and professional audio systems.

What made that cable so different from its competition was the attention to the needs of the interface and the standard imposed by the interface. This was my brand of design, my philosophy for getting the most out of the potential of the interface. But it would be short-sighted and unfair of me not to mention that there were plenty of people who didn't prefer the D-60 in their systems and that actually chose cables that did not necessarily adhere to the standards of the interface. While my formula for success was based upon the certain technical requirements of the interface standard, others have enjoyed success with wholly different approaches to the problem. Even today you will find a variety of design approaches in digital cable products, and a variety of adherents to each and every one of them.

As an audiophile and music lover I appreciate the efforts that have been put forth by others in this industry trying to solve the digital cable conundrum. It's at the very least an incredibly interesting subject to participate in and also very satisfying to explore experientially. That is what our beloved editor has embarked upon in this shootout: an exploration of the experience of listening to different digital cables without regard for the technology or philosophy governing their construction ? just an appreciation for their effect on the music as noted by pure observation.

If repetition and replication can be said to be the mother of scientific method, then observation must necessarily be its father. That is what the babbling, lumpy-lipped flat-earthers fail to appreciate when they scream raging Papisms from the Audio Vatican. Good science is founded upon observation, bad science is trapped on paper. What's it mean? It means that no one can choose a girl or a digital cable for you. Trust your own observations."
Courtesy by © 2002 Chris Sommovigo exclusively for TNT-Audio


Just my little contribution in stiring the $#!T!!

Everyone have a Happy 4th of July!!!

That is one funny argument in favor of digital cables.... no facts. Just throw out some technical terms to make everyone think you know what you are talking about, and throw insults at anyone who disagrees. "Flat earthers" over and over. Hee, hee!

The arguments in favor of digital cables get even funnier when extended to include formats like Dolby Digital. DD is a compressed, packetized digital format. The packets are reconstructed by the processor,
disassembled, and processed. Jitter on a cable will either cause complete failure (dropouts) or no effect at all. External devices that 'stabilize' this bitstream are a joke.

Here's a perfect analogy: I'll zip up a word document. I'll e-mail it from two different ISPs. It will therefore be broken up into some number of packets, each of which will take various routes to get to the destination. Along the way, they will go through many wire types, many protocols, and probably across cheap, noisy phone lines. Unzip each once they reach the destination, and count how many words have changed. In the very unlikely event some bits got flipped around, you'll have an invalid zip file (=dropouts), or it will be perfect.

Interesting discussion. Boy am I glad I didn't know before that there was no differences between interconnects - I would have returned my DVD9000ES which I love now.

When I first got it, the treble was very rolled off and the whole presentation was out of whack with minor details overpowering the vocalist etc. Before returning the unit though, I asked my audio dealer what he'd recommend to give better bass extention, not roll of treble etc as much as my AudioQuests.

He recommended the straight-wire brand, and sure enough it did the trick. The mids weren't as sweet, but the presentation was corrected and everything put in its place. As I posted elsewhere, the Outlaw cables even were another slight improvement over the straight-wire.

Discussions, reviews, etc are helpful, but end of day hearing is believing.

BTW, anyone looking to save $5 on the Merc deal - here is the basic message of his thousands of postings at any time near the 950 introduction(s).

blah blah blah blah... buy the 950. I said Buy the 950! BUY THE FREAKEN 950 RIGHT NOW!!! JUST BUY IT OK??? How'd I do Merc?
No offense inteded, just havin a little fun.

Some interesting links:

ABX test results for various things (DACs, interconnects, speaker wires, scroll to table at bottom of page:

http://users.htdconnect.com/~djcarlst/abx_data.htm

Notice that no significant differences between any tested interconnects or speaker wires. However, a level difference of only 0.3dB was identifiable 76% of the time, up to 93% for 0.4dB.
Also interesting were the video and MiniDisc tests. In both cases, test tones/signals were different, but real-world material did not show identifiable differences.
This shows how our brains can tend to fill in gaps and hide things: basically the process that all lossy compression schemes (MPEG, DD, DTS, etc) all feed on.

Cable manufacturer won't do listening test:
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

Will post other interesting finds later..

What's unfortunate about this thread is that I think everybody started out with the best of intentions:

1) Merc and company suggested that for those who just dropped a grand on a new processor and are not loving its sound, they might be able to solve their problems with a relatively cheap fix.

2) Others feared that these new 950 owners were going to waste money on a solution that wouldn't actually make a difference.

And, unfortunately, when people put their money where their mouth is, emotions run strong.

The standard problem that Merc and others have raised with the ABX argument is that there hasn't been lots and lots of extensive ABX testing by many different people with lots of different ancillary equipment. Pro-cable-difference people argue that this means that there is insufficient scientific evidence to dismiss the possibility that cables make a difference. Anti-cable-difference people argue that if there existed any setup in which expensive boutique cables were clearly discernable from cheaper varieties, surely the well-funded cable companies would have published such results, given the huge financial benefits that such a published study would bring them. Thus, each side takes the LACK of evidence as supporting their claim. And, unfortunately, they're both right, though on different levels.

Given the multi-million dollar cable industry, more extensive ABX testing really should be done in order to put the issue to rest. But who would pay for it? The only public ABX tests I know of all suggest that differences between well-constructed cables aren't discernable. That likely makes the risk of failure for substantive experiments unbearable for cable companies. Moreover, in my opinion, is it not a viable option for audio magazines, who receive valuable advertising dollars from cable companies and sell copies by touting their "golden ear" reviewers, who are allegedly able to hear these differences. Anyone remember the $20 CD edge laser light blocking pens that made Stereophile's Recommended Components list?

Personally, I don't believe in the value of the esoteric cables because (1) not a single ABX test of which I know supports their making a difference, (2) physics suggests that their miniscule LRC differences are orders of magnitude too small to have discernable psychoacoustic effects, and (3) I've personally never been able to hear the difference in blind comparisons. I believe that my opinion is well-founded, but I know that it is not proof. My great concern is that heated discussions like this will be going on for a long time, because it is in no corporation's interest to scientifically test the validity of cable corporations' claims.

Merc requested some info on cable testing... this info was posted in the Interconnect forum:

Jason,

Oh, I agree with you completely. In fact (since everyone else is throwing URLs around), one of my first columns was on the subject: Controversial Topics: Politics, Religion, and Cables . But I have learned not to take things too far in the other direction, either: lamp cord should be left to lamps. Maybe my batch was an anomaly, but the lesson I learned was to stick with cable that's designed to pass an audio signal and has a higher level of quality control.

-avi

[This message has been edited by Avi (edited July 02, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Avi (edited July 02, 2002).]

Hi Jeremy,

Thanks for your input and information.

I do have a question regarding the comment in your post that states “Trust your own observations". If I put a straight pole into a pool of water, the pole will look like it’s bent (a case of refraction). If I slide my hand over the pole, with my eyes closed and through the water, it will still feel and seem straight. Which observation should I trust?

This is not intended to invalidate your opinion. And my inquiry definitely doesn’t support either perspective. It’s just another thing to make you go hmmmmm…

Best regards,
Tom Garcia

[This message has been edited by TJG (edited July 02, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by TJG (edited July 02, 2002).]

Hi Merc,

Thanks for your comments…

You bring up a valid point. You stated in a previous post:

“I believe that KNOWING that you might be prejudice against a certain decision, either because of previous decisions or because of previous knowledge of a unit, actually makes you, or makes me, MORE sensitive to making sure that what I hear is actually "what I hear", and not what I expect to hear.”

I have, through the years, sometimes wondered if I had adopted a belief that so closed minded that I was limiting my ability to hear or appreciate any possible differences in cables. But the fact is, I rewire or relocate components of my various systems at least every month or so. I seldom use the exact cables on the exact piece of when they are moved. I have literally storage boxes full of cables that I have bought or were given to me through the years. Some are MIT, Straight Wire, Transparent Audio, Monster Cable, etc…others are AR or Radio Shack. I never notice anything being added or subtracted by changing any of these cables so I really never think about it. When everything is connected, I will get out my test equipment, tape measure and laser level to assist me in my system setup and tweaking. As you know, a ¼ inch here, ¼ inch there can go a long way when voicing most speaker systems.

In addition you mentioned:

“As I mentioned previously, if revealing the truth is your goal... then you probably don't ever want to deal with ART or MUSIC. Both of those are highly subjective and personal in nature. “

Again I agree…art and music are totally subjective. I find by seeking and revealing what is “truth”…all that I’m left to deal with is the beauty and enjoyment of art and music.

As always…

Best regards,
Tom Garcia



[This message has been edited by TJG (edited July 02, 2002).]

Avi,

Alas, I have no urls to flash around since neuroaudio has seemed to have taken all of the good ones. I mean this to be a "friendly quote", not a tirade, and not a scolding or a "mighter than thou" quote. This is a "college buddy" post. Please, feel free to laugh...and read with the fran earnistness if say...Mel Brooks or Gene Wilder were delivering these lines in a movie.

I am currently using 12 guage monster (or refered to up here in the great white tundra as "shotgun wire") for all of my speakers. I'm using the Monster speaker wire namely since I know the owner of a local audio shop pretty well and he sold me a 100 foot spool for close to cost. I definatly heard a differance from the previous speaker wire I was using...18 guage. Yep speaker wire so thin you could threat pencil lead with it. However, I've also experimented with some rat shack, and made my own CAT5 cables (hey working as a TV/Radio engeneer has it's benifits)...and the differance between them is a moot point in my book. Provided they offer low resistance and proper shielding it doesn't matter.

Again, I personly don't use anything less then my shotgun wire. Mainly because that did the trick for me, and I am more then happy with it.

I'm using RatShat Gold interconnects...yes I borrowed Monster 3, and AVR interconnects...granted that these are pretty much what some would consider the "bargan basement" of the interconnect world, but for the love of GOd...I live in North Dakota where it's a friggin miracle we have electricity. To me there was very little differance between any cable that was properly shielded. Now if your are compairin an unshielded cable with a diamiter 1/2 that of the others...it's a no-brainer that you are probibaly looking a a greater resistance, and more electrical interferance. But using quality shielded cables with the proper guage...There shouldn't be any proplems. And from a strict scientific, and electrical standpoint the ELECTRONS DO NOT CARE what they pass through provided that you give them enough space. We aren't transporting miniture violins and tympani here, we are transmitting electrical signals that move the magnetic drivers in our speakers. (Or in the case of analog interconnects, we are creating a path through which those electrons move to our amp or other gear.)

Now please, before anyone makes an angry post..or trys to "whip it out" and claim that I am (in the immortal words of Hannibal Lecter) "Not more then one generation removed from poor white trash" since I prefer to spend my cash on gear, movies, and other things that I can think a few hundred greenbacks can be better spent on...say what you will. I am not saying that anyone is stupid, ignorant, dimwitted, buffonish, catterwig...crap, I'm running out of synonyms. All I'm saying is this:

A) Products constructed identicaly will behave identically.

B) Interconnects/wire/circuts are symply "electrical bridges"..the only thing that they can to to "influence" your system is be poorly insulated, or ad a healthy dose of resistance between componients.

C) Gear constucted with differant componients can possibly sound different from each other.

D) it is absolutly mental that this keeps going around in circles. I didn't have to do this much typing on my thesis in college.


-Jason

TJG - I'm sorry if it wasn't clear in my last post, but it was an excerpt from a discussion on this subject that I found on the internet. Those were not my words, and if you read the copyright on the bottom of the post, you can see it was written by Chris Sommovigo, a cable designer. I just thought it was a pretty intersting observation.

As far as a good ABX test that is unbiased and performed by those who appreciate the nuances of audio reproduction, I just got finished looking through a back issue of Home Theater Magazine in which a very good test was performed using speaker wires and interconnections from 8 different speaker manufactures. It was written in the November 1998 issue of Home Theater Magazine, Vol. 5, Number 11, by Brent Butterworth and Jeff Cherun, and I will try to either scan the pages into my computer and put it in a PDF file for you, or rewrite it and post it at another time. The test in the issue most clearly defines what I personally experienced when I performed similar testing on speaker wires. As a matter of fact this test was inscentive for me to go out and perform my own test, because I wanted to hear the differences for myself.

In the tests that I performed, I was changing between 6 different SPEAKER WIRES of different manufactures and guages. I think I only changed the actual interconnection cable between the SACD transport and Pre/Amp once during my testing, and then tested all the speaker wires over again. To reiterate, I was using a Krell Showcase Pre/Pro, Krell Theater Amplifier Standard amp (Set @ 4 ohms, 400 watts per channel) with a Marantz reference SACD player, through Martin Logan Odyssey electorstatic tower speakers with no subwoofer , listening to 2 channel SACD and CD music. I ensured that the system was level matched and did not adjust trim once during the entire session, to ensure accuracy. I did the best I could to make the test a blind one by having the salesman, a friend of mine, tape off the ends of each cable, and write a number on each piece of tape, so that I couldn't see the maker of each cable while hooking them up. It was only after the session was finished that I removed the tape and wrote the manufctures name next to the corrosponding number. My wife, my brother-in-law, and I were the test subjects. Would this not constitute an ABX double blind test?

I personally have very keen hearing and have been able to pass every yearly hearing test I have for my work with flying colors. I am not trying to promote myself as some kind of superhuman freak, I'm just stating that I have extremely sensitive ears. My wife sat through the test and was unable to hear hardly any difference in the wires I was testing ( granted she has some hearing loss in both ears). Her brother-in-law, on the other hand heard almost all of what I was hearing in the sonic differences between the wires, though we were split on which ones we prefered the most. I am just trying to convey that this entire debate is based totally on personal opinions. And as my dad likes to say, "Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one!"

I have had very little preference for specific cable manufactures, and in fact use quite a plethera of different brands in my home system, and honestly they are fairly cheep. So the thought that I am some seudo-religious zeelot blindly following one manufacturer down the road to hell is pretty silly. I try to keep an open mind and take the time to listen for differences in sound reproduction and quality in different products, including wires.

My intensions in responding to this thread were to reinforce Merc's statements with my own personal experiences, not to be drawn down into firing flaming posts at one-another. I know how very personal an issue this is to many people, especially myself, and never intended to try and force anything down anyone's throat. I mearly was stating my personal experiences in this area.

So in the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

Hi Jeremy,

I was aware that the comments I responded to were not your own...I can see how my post was unclear about this. I truly didn't intend to fan any flames. My apologies...

Best regards,
Tom

Oh my goodness... is this thread still live?

[This message has been edited by merc (edited July 02, 2002).]

I remember reading that article a few years ago. I could be sorely mistaken, but I don't remember it being a double-blind, ABX, scientific test. It more was of the "gee this cable sounded better than that one variety".



No it does not. For an ABX DB test, neither the subjects nor the 'switcher/tester' are aware of which cables are which, or what changes are made. The X also represents a control choice, which I believe can vary according to test design. It could be a third cable, or just a repeat of A or B.
For a true ABX DB test, you would run a series of trials, where you try to identify differences in the cables. If you can hear a difference between the two, say one is brighter than the other, you would try to pick the 'brighter' one in each run. Cable switching must be nearly instantaneous (not someone going back and changing them around). If you are able to identify a single cable reliably (better than by pure chance) under these conditions, you may have identified a true difference in cabling. Just saying X sounds better than Y after swapping them doesn't prove anything.



No offense, but many people in audio/video feel they have better than average hearing. It's like driving skills. Go poll a whole bunch of people about whether they are average, above or below average drivers. The vast majority think they are above average, which is obviously impossible!
It's kind of like this: approximately 1/3 of all humans ever born are alive today. Therefore, you have a 33% chance of never dying, right



... and most of 'em stink



As for keeping an open mind, try out a true DB ABX test someday, and see if you can still tell the difference between different wires.

As an aside, speaker wires are in a _slightly_ different category (although many audiophile cables are still ridiculous). Speaker wires tend to carry much higher power signals, over longer runs than interconnects. So, using 24 gauge wire between your 400 wpc amp for a 40 foot run to a speaker probably isn't a good idea. But, 12 gauge Home Depot wire is more than sufficient.

Guys: alot of good points are being made in this thread on the need for DBT ABX testing in component selection... which certainly has nothing to do with the original topic, yet, I STILL have not seen a single post or link(some links were dead) which details how you can personally perform a true, well controlled, Double Blind, ABX trial for yourself, using only your own gear and the two components in question?

And so, I reiterate, that without a reliable and valid DBT ABX, using ones own ears and perception is as good as any other method I can imagine for deciding which component sounds best to you in your system.