Topic: James Randi Posts $1M Award On Speaker Cables

[newscane]

From Slashdot:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/04/1354224

"James Randi offered US$ 1 million to anyone who can prove that a pair of $7,250 Pear Anjou speaker cables is any better than ordinary (and also overpriced) Monster Cables. Pointing out the absurd review by audiophile Dave Clark, who called the cables 'danceable,' Randi called it 'hilarious and preposterous.' He added that if the cables could do what their makers claimed, 'they would be paranormal.'"

The slashdotters are having a good time...
Side note: James Randi spoke to one of my classes in college, I think it was something in the school of communication (broadcasting major).

[carlbeck]

Give him my number & have him come over here. Anyone who does not believe there is a difference in the quality of cables has either not tried the experiment or has two corn muffins on the side of their head instead of ears.

[Nick's Picks]

"eh"...

I bet we'd both fail.
granted, I like to believe I can hear a difference.  In fact, I tell myself that its fact.
On the recording side, I can hear a difference.  On the playback side...i've only noticed a difference one time, and that was going from MIT term2's > Gregg Straley VR cables.

BUT..
I have never been in a double blind test.  or even a blind test where I had no clue what cable I was hearing.
I bet you could use the same cable in each test and get wildly different reviews between them.

Yea, I am a believer in cables.
but i dont kid myself.

[carlbeck]

When I went from the MIT's to the Satoris it was like someone turning a light switch on, John was there that night & agreed 100% Nick, maybe you need some better cables 

[Nick's Picks]

or maybe i've just had good cables all along.
;-)

[carlbeck]

Very very possible, didn't think of that.

[boojum]

I'll bet that Randi does not lose his money.  All this audio mumbo-jumbo fails one test: prove it.  And that is the reason "audiophiles" pooh-pooh the mainstay of all scientific growth: testing.  Double blind test are sinful to them because the deal in fact, not whimsy.  What other reason is there??  Wire is wire is wire.  It passes AC current between the amp and the speakers.  The fact that it is AC kind of knocks the directionality of speaker wire and interconnects into a cocked hat.  I am running 1,200 watts per channel so I use heavy wire.  Other than that there is nothing significant about it.  And had I spent US$7,200 for speaker cables you can damned sure I would hear a difference.  Just as the Emperor enjoyed his new clothes.   As usual, YMMV   

[carlbeck]

I will gladly take a blindfolded test anywhere at any time but there has to be a good set of cables involved for it to be valid. I hate to push this point for those of you who feel wire is just wire & it is used to just carry current only. I will suggest that you have never really heard a set of very nice cables? I am not saying it to sound high & mighty because I am not but I did do the test at my home with my system with someone else who was very familiar with my system at the time (who also owns my old speakers at this point) When I speak of good cables I don't just mean in cost, I mean a very well enginered set of cables with excellent geometry. I have heard & in fact owned a very nice pair of Acoustic Zen Satori shotgun cables, I reluctantly sold them from my last system because I could not justify keeping a $1000 retail set of speaker cables. I got $675 for my pair when I sold them & they were a steal at that price. I don't think it is all about how much you pay but really the quality of the design & materials. To compare a $200 set to a $300 set there will be no comparison but take those Satori's & compare them to a shotgun run of MIT terminators like we did & I can promise you there will be a difference. Is it all worth it in the end? I have no idea for you but for me at the time it sure was. I still use a very nice pair of Zu Cables for my speakers, they are very nice but not as nice as the Satori's. I also ALWAYS run a shotgun wire when the speakers can be bi-wired, it is probably the most important aspect of all IMO.

[Tim]

The only testing I ever did was between copper based cables and leegeddy's silver cables. They sound different, very different. Silver cables are much cleaner whereas coppers have a low end bloom. I know what I heard, it was obvious.

[boojum]

I will gladly take a blindfolded test anywhere at any time but there has to be a good set of cables involved for it to be valid.

Not a "blindfolded" test, a "doubler blind" test.  That may be why you are having trouble understanding the concept.  If you are that confident, take Randi's test.  That's what we are talking about.  Go take his test.  You have just put yourself out there as being willing so let the feet follow the words.

Yes, I have listened to excellent, high-priced cables.  I got to know the fellows in the audio shop quite well over a period of years.  And, on the QT, they told me Monster Cable is as good as any and to not waste my money on the exotic stuff.  And they were selling the high-priced stuff (Nakamichi, ReVox, B&W, KEF) and cables to match.  Later they were selling even higher-priced gear.  They had been to all the audio shows, set up audio shows, bought and sold high end gear for years, wired it, built it, and attended the SF Symphony and SF Ballet, so they knew what music is supposed to sound like.  Yup.  As usual, YMMV 

[Nick's Picks]

well...
we can take a $50 pair of "anit cables" and put them up against just about anything and see whats what.

very cheap cables.  obviously.
I consider my system revealing.  we'll see.

[cshepherd]

I bet $1,000,000 that James Randi's stereo sounds like doo-doo. 

Chris

[davepeck]

This is not Randi's first clash with audiophile reviewers who claim to hear differences between various pieces of exotic equipment. He promises a million dollars (which he has waiting in an account for them) if any can prove in double-blind scientific testing that their extraordinary claims are true. None have stepped up so far.

imo, the fact that no one has come forward to do the test speaks volumes.

[boojum]

It is one thing to talk the talk but a whole other thing to walk the walk.  Looks like talkers here. 

And, as the audiophiles are so damned sure of themselves I am sure they are all rushing over to claim their US$1,000,000.  If they are not they just demonstrated that all they are doing is blowing smoke.

[carlbeck]

Again, any of you are more than welcome to come to my house & do whatever test you like & see if I can tell a difference. I say my house because I am very familiar with my system. Please take me up on my offer, if I am wrong I will gladly admit it. I have no problem admitting fault but I have already done the test, you are mentioning what another store told you about gear you have but they may not have heard. Come over here & perform the test, tell me the results then. I have performed this test blind or not & there is an audible difference, until you do the same I don't feel you can comment.

Also, have you ever OWNED a set of high quality cables? I don't mean listened in a session or two, I mean owned & paid for with your hard earned money? Unless you have owned a set & swapped them out at will you really are only going of speculation of someone elses opinion. I can respect that you have a relationship with a retailer so you trust there opinion but quite frankly until you do the test yourself you can not pass judgement. Nick is one of my closest friends but he & I are on two totally separate worlds when it comes to audio & perception. Doesn't make him a bad guy or you but until you do the test yourself please do not pass judgement on someone else's claims. In my opinion, the original authors reward claim was ridiculous & I feel not based in actual fact or taken out of true context.

Finally I do feel that for $7250 those cables better make me dance & hover above the listening room but to say that all wire sounds the same is preposterous at best & really shows a short sightedness that I am uncomfortable with personally from my own experience. Regardless, if you don't believe it you don't have too but again, I think you should take the test yourself & see if it improves your system at all, if it does it is a win win, if it doesn't then you can resell or return your cables with no harm done. In the end it is all about improving your home system to better your enjoyment.

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

The only testing I ever did was between copper based cables and leegeddy's silver cables. They sound different, very different. Silver cables are much cleaner whereas coppers have a low end bloom. I know what I heard, it was obvious.

QFT, even on my crappy system, it was obvious...  Same results going to DogHouse silvers...

I'd agree the there are diminishing returns as you get these higher priced cables, but everyone should invest in good cables, it really does make a difference...

Terry

[Nick's Picks]

but thats the fault Carl.
paying for it..., mental investment before you even hear them.
and not just you, but anyone.

its hard to be objective when you have personal claims and investment at stake.
I, for one..would LOVE to partake in a great double blind test.
how would you even do that?
you'd need two identical stereo systems? and a way to switch back and forth.

Imagine if it were seamless...., the ability to switch.
would you want to know when the change was happening, or would you like to see if you can perceive any differences in the stream w/o knowing whats going on in the background ?

[carlbeck]

I completely disagree about the money aspect. Also john had no financial stake in the test & he could hear the difference.
Finally I forgot but I had a similiar èxperience when I swapped out johns kimber 8Tc cables for my ZU cables. I preferred the zu cables. Honestly again please some one take me upon my offer. Bring your cables to my house & prove to me that there is NO difference in cables & they all sound the same. I am waiting.

[boojum]

The topic is about the offer made by Randi.  If it is so damned easy to tell the difference, go and collect your one million dollars. 

[RebelRebel]

I have never been in a double blind test.  or even a blind test where I had no clue what cable I was hearing.
I bet you could use the same cable in each test and get wildly different reviews between them.

Yea, I am a believer in cables.
but i dont kid myself.

Yeah, I believe somewhat..but not past a certain price point In a couple of studios that were acoustically treated to the hilt and built to rigid Acoustic  Specs I was able to ID cables accurately..but in less than stellar acoustics(IE real world) settings, I have done much worse. I do not believe that differences are as obvious as some peddlers of magic would have one believe..but I am certain that they do exist, be they miniscule.  There is a lot of clever marketing going on and I would bet any amount of money that for a lot of folks these(and I am not talking about anyone here--neither TS members that are dealers nor non-dealing TS members) "drastic differences" would dissapear into oblivion once put into a blind testing enviroment,,stripped of buzzwords, dealers with agendas, and mindscrewing scripts read by acolytes ..  Stereophile in particular(and the absolute sound, TNT, and pretty much every other ad-driven publication) provides hours of laughter, and for that I am thankful.

Again, I do believe that there are differences, but think that a lot of those "glaring" differences have a lot to do with psychology and marketing, and less to do with real scientific sonic differences..in a double blind test, differences became less obvious to me --most of the time, hardly noticeable at all in all environments but  "perfect" ones.. Crazy what the mind can do.  Cable/component shopping and setup(and research) is so fun, and I was quite dissapointed to see the lines blur. I want to believe in magic,but there is a line..and it stops at around 300 dollars.  When cables I have cost as much as a car or a treehouse for my daughter or a quilting machine for my wife, I question my own sanity and lack of dignity.  I also know that I , in times past, have bragged my ass off about things that I paid too much for. Partly for shame, partly because my dumb ass believed that these things were superior because they costed more. An immediate turnoff for me(dealer-wise) is when a dealer says something like "well those cables that costed XXX dollars are ok, but to get good sound, you must buy the cables that cost XXX dollars." That is a load of garbage. One cannot quantify "good" first of all, and it damn sure cant be defined by how much money is spent.

I am a proud disciple of vampire wire now. They sound as good as anything I have ever worked with, the maker isnt full of shit, and most importantly..they dont cost a damned fortune.

[Nick's Picks]

Carl...
the scientific community has proved that objectivity doesn't exist unless test are done in the double blind world.
you're sort of saying that your basement test trumps all that.
it doesn't matter who else was there.  I'm sure I would have also been nodding in agreement had it been myself w/you while you were swapping cables.

you cant claim to do a non-scientific test, that you conducted, performed and evaluated yourself and say that it is superior to "real science" (a good test).
you just can't.
to make that claim is just rediculous.  you have to know that you're going to hear a difference.

and i'm not saying there was or wasn't a difference.  i'm just saying that putting your foot down and claiming fact doesnt' happen this way.

[carlbeck]

I understand the scientific explanation of all this but what you are suggesting is that I don't in fact like what I like or hear what I hear? So if I was told that vanilla is the only flavor worth enjoying it would make it valid? My original feeling regardless of scientific tests is that I know what I heard, I know what I like.

There is in fact a difference in wire & all wire DOES NOT sound the same. According to the "scientific community", it is possible that if we took 3 different kinds of vanilla ice cream & double blind tested them that no one could pick out a taste difference? That is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard & strictly what I have issue with.


***Editied to say the Scientific community not you Nick, even though I still think your a dumbass  ***

[Tim]

The topic is about the offer made by Randi.  If it is so damned easy to tell the difference, go and collect your one million dollars. 

Randi won't let Carl or any of us....

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions: First, he/she must have a “media presence,” which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person’s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified.

reading that, does ANYONE qualify?

[Tim]

there's some good discussion of this here...

http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=music&m=153874

some good points....

Apart from that, listening tests—which is what Mr Randi's challenge involves—will never show whether one cable is better than another, only whether or not someone can hear a difference between them. Provided there is an audible difference, the question of which is better is a matter of taste or personal preference and that can't be proved by a listening test so even if someone can prove they hear a difference Mr Randi would be quite within his rights to say that hearing a difference doesn't prove the superiority of the preferred cable so he could hang on to his million dollars and I'm sure that, like anyone else with a million dollars, he wouldn't like to part with it. That means that he's always going to stack his challenges in his own favour and he certainly knows how to do that.

To my mind, the purpose of audio equipment is to enable a listener to enjoy the experience of music. This is about hearing, and it is about the ability of equipment to produce sound that is *audibly* evaluated by the *listener* as being poor, good, better, realist, unrealistic ..... whatever. We make those judgments every time we sit down to listen to music. How does it *sound* --- to *me*.

This is quite different from scientific measures. By most scientific measures, the audio produced by analog stereo systems just does not compare very well with the measures of digital. And yet, many people enjoy listening to LPs much more than they do CDs, and in fact consider the audio of LPs *superior*.

I think Randi is quite disingenuosly blurring the distinction between preference and better performance in his challenge and that he knows quite well what he is doing. He knows that a listening test can't demonstrate that one cable is better than another yet he's not asking people to prove that they can hear a difference. Instead he's asking them to show that one is better than the other by a listening test when this can't be done. The most one can do is say at the end of the test, if one has reliably demonstrated that one can hear a difference, which one of the two one preferred.

[boojum]

Well, when you find that difference in wire let the engineering world know.  They will welcome the info.  Comparing ice cream to wire is silly and a distraction.  No one, other than the poster, is saying that the scientific community says this.  That is because they do not.  CU tests ice cream in a double blind test and rates the differences.

This argument is so easy to settle: try a double blind test.  One test is worth a thousand opinions.   YMMV   

[Jammin72]

I can hear a difference between crap cable and decent cable, between decent cable and esoteric cable not so much if any.

Differences between Copper, Silver, and Silver coated copper though are fairly provable and consistent.  But then you're speaking of sonic character rather than good, better, best.

[cshepherd]

It all comes down to system matching.  You have to listen for yourself. A proper cable budget is different for every system.  For the Circuit City shopper who just bought a $500 stereo, a $100 set of interconnects is going to be a waste of money.  Perfectly good rca cables come with the stereo.  A $300 set of speaker cables may be stretching the limits of sanity for some, but that amount only holds true for that person and his system.  The perceived differences between a $500 interconnect and an $150 interconnect on a $150 dvd player will likely be marginal.  On a $2000 phono stage, the differences become much more apparent.  The differences between cables depend on the gear used to make the comparison.

How much should be spent wiring up a $25,000 reference system?  I'll offer a hint...it's more than $2500. 

Chris

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,67089.msg910689.html#msg910689
^^interesting reading here^^

[Tim]

Well, when you find that difference in wire let the engineering world know. 

are you saying that all wire is exactly the same?

[carlbeck]

Well, when you find that difference in wire let the engineering world know. 

are you saying that all wire is exactly the same?

This is my major argument in this thread that there seems to be a perceived notion that all wire is the same. IMO, those that feel all wire is the same have never heard good wire PERIOD. I don't feel a $7500 pair of cables is necessarily worth it but there are some genuine sonic advantages in using better cable. Until someone performs the test themselves they have no right to comment & I could care less about double blind tests or the scientific community, it's all heresay until you do it yourself.

[Tim]

This is my major argument in this thread that there seems to be a perceived notion that all wire is the same. IMO, those that feel all wire is the same have never heard good wire PERIOD. I don't feel a $7500 pair of cables is necessarily worth it but there are some genuine sonic advantages in using better cable. Until someone performs the test themselves they have no right to comment & I could care less about double blind tests or the scientific community, it's all heresay until you do it yourself.

yeah I'm with you, I was just curious if the position really was that ALL wire is EXACTLY the same. That's just silly imo. Certainly there's diminishing returns with the really expensive cable but cheap cable v. quality cable, there is a difference.

They're not using cheap cable in the Space Shuttle

[Nick's Picks]

but you can't do it yourself and be impartial.
thats what i'm saying carl.  the brain plays a HUGE role in this when you know the answers ahead of time.
thats the problem.
and its not just you.  I could do the exact same thing and probably hear the big difference too.  maybe its there, maybe it isn't.  but I wouldn't go claiming fact.
I'd just smile and tell myself it was money well spent.

[Tim]

I hear ya Nick... there is definitely an inherent bias that would exist if not a blind test. That doesn't mean though that there's no difference in wires.

[Nick's Picks]

nope. and i'm certainly not claiming that.
I'm just saying that to claim "facts" when you have no good science...
is bad science.

i am a believer in wire, personally.  but to a point.
I dont think that Chris's statement of wire costing a certain amount to match the rest of the components price tags means much.  at least not to me.
but I do believe that not all wire is equal.

[cshepherd]

It's not about the price, it's about the quality of wire.  The magical $150 interconnect doesn't exist, contrary to what many wish were true.  When the quality goes up, price will follow. 

Conversely, a cheap, unrevealing interconnect on the phono stage is going to marginalize any upgrades made to the cartridge because the front end is producing more fidelity than the cable can transfer.  The system's owner thinks the new cartridge is not worth it and becomes frustrated because his expectations weren't met.  It's all about system matching.  If someone put a $500 interconnect on a system with zip cord radio shack speaker cable, they'd be disappointed as well.

Chris

[SparkE!]

Chris, if you sold jewelry, you'd probably be on here telling us that there's good reason to spend 2 months' salary on the diamond for your fiancée and that it's a matter of how much you want her to love you.  Some might not be able to tell the difference between $150 love and $7000 love, but if you had truly good equipment you could easily tell that $7000 love was better.

I'm a strong believer in the notion that differences in wire exist and that they can be measured.  What I don't believe is that it's possible for humans to perceive the subtle differences that exist.  They only fool themselves into believing that they can tell the difference, a side effect of knowing which cables they are listening to and wanting (either consciously on unconsciously) one cable to outperform the other.  If that were not the case, people could pass double blind tests when they are comparing cable.  The fact is that people aren't that perceptive.

That being said, I still see no harm in trying to do the best you can do when purchasing speaker cables.  It's a matter of deciding what's good and implementing it.  To some, it is mechanical durability.  To others it is getting the absolute lowest series resistance.  To others, it's about creating topologically balanced interconnect.  To others, it's about minimizing the capacitance of the wire.  To others, it's about minimizing the potential coupling to other sources of EM signals.  Each of these aspects of cable designs carries its own cost and you can't get them all at once.  And again, you couldn't tell the difference between zip cord and your ideal solution in a double blind test anyway.  It's only about what makes you happy that you've done the right thing and expended the appropriate amount of effort and money in installing your speaker cables.

Here's what one of the Electronic Engineering profession's leading authorities, Bob Pease, has to say on the subject of matching speakers and their cables to audio amplifiers:


Bob: Several years ago, an acquaintance bought a very expensive "high-end" audio system. The speakers were huge. The amplifiers were 350-W "mono blocks" using eight 6550s in a push-pull parallel configuration. The wires were about $100 per foot. Within a minute of first operating the system, the amplifiers were releasing smoke. He called the amplifier manufacturer. Their first question was "What cable are you using?" The strange impedance of the fancy cables interacted with the feedback system in the amplifier and caused an ultrasonic oscillation that destroyed them. So maybe the cable makes a difference, not because of its characteristics but its action on the amplifier and speakers. Not many amplifiers have a truly zero output impedance, especially vacuum-tube types.
• Bob Bodmer
• Pease: I have heard people say that low-impedance speaker cables have a lot of capacitance per unit length, if you just measure the cable open-circuit. "So when you run an amplifier that doesn't like capacitive loads, it can oscillate and cause great damage," these people say. First of all, vacuum tubes are supposed to be able to tolerate overloads in any good design. Second of all, a low-impedance speaker cable does not look like a capacitor unless you run it with no speaker. My favorite speaker cable is to parallel 20 strands of wire, going out to the speaker, and each wire serves as a twisted pair with one of the 20 (paralleled) return wires that come back to ground. If you run this with no 8-Ω speaker, it will indeed act capacitive, and the amplifier might be unhappy driving the many thousands of pf. It will look like an unterminated transmission line, and the reflections could be nasty. But when connected to an 8-Ω speaker, it looks like 7.5 Ω because it has the characteristics of a 7-Ω transmission line. So every amplifier should drive this cheerfully. The cable and load will act like 7 or 8 Ω at all frequencies, unlike lamp cord that acts like an 80-Ω transmission line at high frequencies. Audio amplifiers are not required to have a 0-Ω output impedance. Any low impedance that is consistent and predictable can work just fine. An audio amplifier that wouldn't drive an 8-Ω load sounds pretty flaky. And if a customer complains and the amplifier maker tells him "Oh, we forgot to tell you, our amplifiers don't like certain kinds of loads," but they didn't put it in their user's manual, that is a poor way to do business.

[RebelRebel]

The magical $150 interconnect doesn't exist, contrary to what many wish were true

Can't generalize. Perhaps to some,  it does. It all comes down to perspective, preference, and common sense. I always flinch when I hear that quality is always associated with with price. Why is a 150.00 interconnect always of lesser quality than a thousand dollar interconnect? Does the science/materials, etc behind the 1,000 dollar interconnect trump the science behind the lesser?? Do manufacturers that make multigazillion dollar cables know things that say...anti-cable, vampire wire, monster, (have to throw them in there because Telarc and Delos among others use some of their lines) Nick Georges or Todd Ramsden do not?? How does one make a statement like that with any authority?? If I say that my cable that was 50 bucks is much better than this guy's 3,000 piece of wire, am I wrong? (assuming everything else in the system is equal)Are his ears more right than mine? No. Authoritative statements like that need to have some sort of data to back them up. I am as guilty as anyone else is for spending a lot of money in my equipment, so please know that I am not trying to start a war of words or anything..I have no leg to stand on, but am honestly just curious about that statement. I know that you are not just interested in making a buck,  that you actually believe the things that you say, and I  respect that. I just want to know why the above statement is true.

It's not about the price, it's about the quality of wire.  The magical $150 interconnect doesn't exist, contrary to what many wish were true.  When the quality goes up, price will follow. 

Conversely, a cheap, unrevealing interconnect on the phono stage is going to marginalize any upgrades made to the cartridge because the front end is producing more fidelity than the cable can transfer.  The system's owner thinks the new cartridge is not worth it and becomes frustrated because his expectations weren't met.  It's all about system matching.  If someone put a $500 interconnect on a system with zip cord radio shack speaker cable, they'd be disappointed as well.

Chris

[Frank in JC]

What I don't believe is that it's possible for humans to perceive the subtle differences that exist.  They only fool themselves...

I knew should have kept those cheap-ass magnet-wire interconnects I made 10 years ago in lieu of the silver foil Alpha-Core ones I use now!  I feel so naive.

 

[boojum]

Cables can be built of varying capacitances and resistance.  This can affect the sound.  But revealing is not a measurable component, it is a marketing description.  This stuff can be reduced to science or fluffing.  I think Randi has made a reasonable challenge.  Let's see if anyone can claim the one million.  Easy money if what the audiophiles say is true.  This is where the rubber meets the road. 

[Tim]

except you have to "qualify" based on his arbitrary rules. If it was such an easy win for Randi why try and narrow the pool so greatly?

[jmz93]

I think what this comes down to is ... coloration. Do you like the way that expensive fat-looking cable, power cord, isolationplatform, etc. colors the soud or whatever else
colors/changes the sound of your system?

[L Ron Hoover]

I think what this comes down to is ... coloration. Do you like the way that expensive fat-looking cable, power cord, isolationplatform, etc. colors the soud or whatever else
colors/changes the sound of your system?

+T Now I think we're on to something.

[boojum]

I think what this comes down to is ... coloration. Do you like the way that expensive fat-looking cable, power cord, isolationplatform, etc. colors the soud or whatever else
colors/changes the sound of your system?

Has the distinct odor of snake oil to me.  Can it be measured in a double-blind test??  If it can't it is more than likely just wishful thinking from those guys in marketing.   

[boojum]

except you have to "qualify" based on his arbitrary rules. If it was such an easy win for Randi why try and narrow the pool so greatly?

I checked the rules (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html).  These are not arbitrary.  The test is open to anyone.  If you think you have a shot, go for it.  Quibbling about the rules doesn't feed the bulldog.  Either you take the test or you don't.  And you can bet that no one of the audio community will take the test.  Some may quibble about the ground rules.  Some will say that double-blind tests do not work, or, more laughably, do not work for audio.  Some will say that a double blind test cannot be devised for audio. But here it is: Randi has put up the cash and not one person has met the challenge.  Looks to me like Randi: 1, Audiophiles: 0.  As usual, YMMV   

[Tim]

I checked the rules (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html).  These are not arbitrary.  The test is open to anyone. 

Rule #12

12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions: First, he/she must have a “media presence,” which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person’s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified.

Again, if this is such an easy win for Randi why all of these bizarre qualifications? Who could possibly meet these? What do they even mean? If it was as cut and dried as you like to think he'd offer the cash to any and all, he hasn't.

I'd say it's at best a draw for Randi

[boojum]

analysis-plus hollow oval technology

you can get it in oxygen free copper, silver pc, and gold pc.

It will leave pretty much anything else in the dirt, and has massive, real scientific documentation behind it, including solid white-paper research results.
http://www.analysis-plus.com/design_whitepaper.html

all of your favorite musicians are finding out about it and arming themselves with it.
don't get on the train too late.

shouldn't the shape of the signal at the amplifier be the same shape of signal recieved at the speaker?
anything else is distortion.

when I'm dead and gone, you all can pass around my bi-oval9's

They cite two papers from the 1930's and one from 1988.  Kind of dated supporting arguments.  I am surprised there is no recent research to support what he claims.  And, the manufacturer is making these claims.  Oh, that's a surprise.  When an independent third party or so starts to support this I will be interested.  As of now it is just the manufacturer, not possibly objective, and three obscure papers which are cited but not quoted.  That in itself is curious.  Oh, well.  Those folks in the audio world never cease to amaze me.  As usual, YMMV   

[som]

This is great reading (and surprisingly civilized), +T's all around.

I got anti-cables awhile back, mostly because:

1 - They were cheap
2 - Good reviews
3 - Supposedly okay to have a long run and a short run. One speaker is next to the stereo, one is about 8 feet away.
4 - Thin enough to slip into the tiny space between my fireplace and hardwood floors. I had fat wire before, and it ran right in front of the fireplace....bad WAF. (of course, stuffing the wire into a little crack, vs. having aged cedar blocks lifting it off the floor, probably destroys any possible benefits I may have received from the "cable upgrade"  )

Did I hear a change like someone opening a window and letting the air in, pulling the scales off my eyes, pulling the cotton out of my ears, whatever....? Well, I sorta kinda maybe thought it sounded better, maybe sorta kinda. There was a touch more....clarity.....extended, tighter bass.....greater resolution.....instruments more precisely located not just on a flat plane, but in a 3-d holographic spacial juxtaposition.....maybe.

But then, how could that be, since I'm still using Rat Shack interconnects?

I like the way my system sounds (not that it's perfect, and not that I don't have some improvements planned). 

[Frank in JC]

I've been partial to Alpha-Core for years, but when I upgrade speaker cables, there's a good chance they'll be Analysis Plus.  The handful of audio writers whose opinions and observations I value have spoken highly of it.

analysis-plus hollow oval technology

you can get it in oxygen free copper, silver pc, and gold pc.

It will leave pretty much anything else in the dirt, and has massive, real scientific documentation behind it, including solid white-paper research results.
http://www.analysis-plus.com/design_whitepaper.html

all of your favorite musicians are finding out about it and arming themselves with it.
don't get on the train too late.

shouldn't the shape of the signal at the amplifier be the same shape of signal recieved at the speaker?
anything else is distortion.

when I'm dead and gone, you all can pass around my bi-oval9's

[carlbeck]

analysis-plus hollow oval technology

you can get it in oxygen free copper, silver pc, and gold pc.

It will leave pretty much anything else in the dirt, and has massive, real scientific documentation behind it, including solid white-paper research results.
http://www.analysis-plus.com/design_whitepaper.html

all of your favorite musicians are finding out about it and arming themselves with it.
don't get on the train too late.

shouldn't the shape of the signal at the amplifier be the same shape of signal recieved at the speaker?
anything else is distortion.

when I'm dead and gone, you all can pass around my bi-oval9's

They cite two papers from the 1930's and one from 1988.  Kind of dated supporting arguments.  I am surprised there is no recent research to support what he claims.  And, the manufacturer is making these claims.  Oh, that's a surprise.  When an independent third party or so starts to support this I will be interested.  As of now it is just the manufacturer, not possibly objective, and three obscure papers which are cited but not quoted.  That in itself is curious.  Oh, well.  Those folks in the audio world never cease to amaze me.  As usual, YMMV   

you can ymmv all you want.

there are lots of us in this playback forum with exquisite playback rigs, who have spent many, many hours tweaking and comparing, over several decades.
for you to come in here and banter about how we know nothing about what we speak is proving nothing but of you having an argumentative side.

The results of switching to AP cable are nothing short of mindblowing, and for you to counter it with nothing but a smilie is asinine.

Thank F-ING god someone has finally said it, all this guy wants is an argument. He still has not ever owned any of the cables we have mentioned but yet only "heard" them in a rig at a store that he doesn't own. I am not saying whose rig is better than whose but I know my rig & I know it sounds damn fine. I challenged him or anyone else to bring ANY cable they want to my house & prove to me there is NO difference in wire, he can't because it is impossible. Thank you Moke for finally bringing out this point, thank you thank you, I am sick of arguing with someone who has no real world experience in what he is talking about & until he spends his money on his own cables & compares no name vs expensive he has no right to judge how good ANY cable is.

[Frank in JC]

all this guy wants is an argument...

That seems to be what many objectivists want. 

Guess who has more fun listening to music.

[boojum]

all this guy wants is an argument...

That seems to be what many objectivists want. 

Guess who has more fun listening to music.

"1) objectivism. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
...Philosophy One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events...."

Thanks for the compliment and tacit admission that you are subject to wishful thinking.  While I am sure you can hear that esoteric cables sound better to you I wonder can you demonstrate it.  Randi does, too.  While I find his number 12 qualification strange, I do support his position.  I think that the number 12 condition is in there from his dealings with quacks in the paranormal field.

All I am saying is that I would like to see double-blind proof that one set of cable sounds better than another.  In response I have gotten brickbats and rage, but not one iota of proof.  If the cable differences were all that wonderful they would be reproduceable and demonstrable.  I am not looking for an argument; I am looking for proof.  All I have seen demonstrated here is opinion, and not just mine.  So come down off the rager and righteous indignation.  We are all entitled to opinions. 

And, Moke, you never did answer the question about the dodgy citations in the manufacturers fluff piece on his cables.  I am quite willing to accept that these oval cables are the best in the universe but I would like to see it substantiated by some folks other than those in marketing.  The marketing department is not known for either honesty or technical prowess.

In short, "Sounds better to me" is not the same as "is better."

 

[Wiggler]

I have several thousand dollars worth of cable in my house mostly Audioquest and Kimber.
I really don't know if it sounds better or not.
I even went as far as to buy a $800.00 pair of Audio magic excalibur II mic cables from Nutter.
I'm going to sent them out and chop them up to make some interconnects out of them.
Now they sit in the closet because I paid even more for a pair of Kc5 actives.
I often wonder how much difference the cables make.

[SparkE!]

The results of switching to AP cable are nothing short of mindblowing, and for you to counter it with nothing but a smilie is asinine.

So you are saying that you could pass a double blind test to identify your cables vs. other reasonable speaker wires that contain a similar amount of copper?

By the way, the AP cables suffer from the same problem that other low distortion cables have.  Their geometry of construction causes them to be more capacitive than your typical speaker cables.  I've been looking at speaker wires that are based on CAT-5 cables (and other similar impedance controlled cables).  The general idea is to parallel enough of the connections that the resulting cable impedance is the same as the impedance of the speakers that they drive.  That way, they present the same impedance as if you had connected directly to the speakers.  Like your cables, this increases the capacitance of the cables, relative to your typical 2-wire speaker cables.  The danger is that if your speakers are not connected at the other end of the cables, your power amplifier ends up driving a highly capacitive load.  Some power amps will break into oscillation when driving a highly capacitive load, essentially becoming a power oscillator.  In some cases, the oscillation is at such a high power level that it will damage the amp.

[SparkE!]

How can you see a double blind test result. isn't that an auditory experience?
aren't the results of your sacred d-b test, just more expressed opinions?

Moke, I know these questions weren't aimed at me, but I would like to comment on them anyway.  A double blind test in this context is a test to see if you can reliably identify a particular audio source when you hear it.  The test result is that you either can identify which source you are listening to or that you can't.  The result of a double blind test is not opinion or subjective auditory experience, it's merely the outcome of an experiment that is aimed at whether or not you can tell the difference.  Either you can tell the difference or you can't.  There is no subjectivity involved, nor is there any opportunity for opinion to shape the outcome of the experiment.

[boojum]

all this guy wants is an argument...

That seems to be what many objectivists want. 

Guess who has more fun listening to music.

"1) objectivism. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
...Philosophy One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events...."

Thanks for the compliment and tacit admission that you are subject to wishful thinking.  While I am sure you can hear that esoteric cables sound better to you I wonder can you demonstrate it.  Randi does, too.  While I find his number 12 qualification strange, I do support his position.  I think that the number 12 condition is in there from his dealings with quacks in the paranormal field.

All I am saying is that I would like to see double-blind proof that one set of cable sounds better than another.  In response I have gotten brickbats and rage, but not one iota of proof.  If the cable differences were all that wonderful they would be reproduceable and demonstrable.  I am not looking for an argument; I am looking for proof.  All I have seen demonstrated here is opinion, and not just mine.  So come down off the rager and righteous indignation.  We are all entitled to opinions. 

And, Moke, you never did answer the question about the dodgy citations in the manufacturers fluff piece on his cables.  I am quite willing to accept that these oval cables are the best in the universe but I would like to see it substantiated by some folks other than those in marketing.  The marketing department is not known for either honesty or technical prowess.

In short, "Sounds better to me" is not the same as "is better."

 

you need to do the research for yourself. I'm not willing to do one bit of it for you.
there are any number of rave writeups about these cables by some of the most cynical critics out there. you need to find them, I'm not going to find them for you.

How can you see a double blind test result. isn't that an auditory experience?
aren't the results of your sacred d-b test, just more expressed opinions?

for you to deny that a study done in 1933 is of any worth, is completely ridiculous. It wasn't as if they were still sweeping up dinosaur terds, at that point. My father-in-law received his masters degree in EE not much removed from that cited date. I can guarantee you that USC didn't extend him that advanced degree because he figured out how to make two wires spark when they touched.
Yes, there was entirely substantial science surrounding electrons, audio, auditory sensitivity, back in the day.

As far as do I trust their claims?
I consider it to be beyond reproach, as do substantial other people.

My dear friends Tom, whom i've recorded extensively with, and was amongst the first true audiophiliac dead tapers, is an AP dealer, and is very close friends with the AP staff, since its inception.
He / we've been running this stuff for about 8 years now, and in that time, we've sat back for any number of comparison sessions, on what can be thought of as being some of the finest of audio componentry.
In that time, nothing has come close, including cables that come in at several times most costly.
This includes your sacred double blind tests, set up in hotel suites, at the big conventions. While I've not experienced it myself, Tom has, and IMO, his word is golden, as we've spent so many countless hours taping this stuff, and then critically tearing it apart, for at least 20 years, as a "team".
The worlds top audio manufacturer are rigging with AP, both as amp to speaker feed for demo's, but internal componentry wiring as well.
As far as I'm concerned, and in the opinion of the finest of critics out there, design is where its at, and  hollow-oval is it.

Well, I am happy that you admit it is an opinion.  I never said that research in the 30's was not significant.  I just wondered why there were no citations of more recent work and why the works were not quoted.  We used to have an old sergeant who used to quote various Army manuals in support of what he was saying.  Like, "FM-22-5 says that these items should be stored in such-and such manner."  Well, someone wrote down the numbers of the manuals he was quoting.   One was about laundry, one was about the motor pool and so on.  They bore no relation to what he was saying.  He was bulllshitting.  Now these two articles from the 30's may be very pertinent to the oval wire story.  But how do we know??  We do not even see the referenced text in his article.  If they had data supporting his argument I would think he would have it quoted there.  I would.  I suspect that you would, too.  It is supporting proof.

As for double-blind tests.  They are not just so important to me, they are important to the entire scientific community.  This is not some quirky bias I have.  All of science uses it.  I programmed computers for years, and damned little was put into production on an untested basis.  Testing is how to evaluate things.  Double blind testing eliminates the possiblity of unconscious and unintended bias.  I would think that the audio community would leap at the chance to demonstrate that one particular item was far superior to other, if, indeed, it is.

[SparkE!]

What I'm saying is that every other cable that I've tried was removed, and the AP's were put back into place.

My recommendation for these cables came from the very person quoted in the bottom of your signature line.

Please understand that I'm not doubting that your cables are among the best available or that they don't enjoy the endorsement of true experts in this field.  What I'm doubting is that the differences are discernible by mere mortals.

[fsulloway]

In short, "Sounds better to me" is not the same as "is better."

For me, when it comes to listening to music, sounds better IS better. That's all, carry on. 

[Tim]

I would think that the audio community would leap at the chance to demonstrate that one particular item was far superior to other, if, indeed, it is.

You're trying to apply a scientific test to something that is wholly subjective. For example, "superior" measurements do not necessarily make for "superior" audio, look at tube amps vs. ss. We can obtain objective measurements but all people hear things differently and have their own preferences.

As Skalinder pointed out to you in the open forum, we might be able to tell you that one cable sounds different than another cable but there is no way to "prove" that one actually sounds better.

I'm all for science and reason but when discussing a subject that is by it's very nature subjective NO ONE can ever meet your or Randi's standards.

In short, "Sounds better to me" is not the same as "is better."

For me, when it comes to listening to music, sounds better IS better. That's all, carry on. 

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. We're all very impressed by your dedication to science boojum; it's just that these scientific tests can not measure something that is inherently subjective - audio preference.

[fsulloway]

My second fave's were a home-built pair, made from coast guard approved battery cable bulk stock by a company that I don't recall, but can look up again (the leading cable manufacturer in marine wiring). They were thcker gauge, at something like 4ga, if I'm not mistaken.

Ancor maybe?

[Frank in JC]

As Skalinder pointed out to you in the open forum, we might be able to tell you that one cable sounds different than another cable but there is no way to "prove" that one actually sounds better.

That's my position too.  Perception is subjective by definition, and when doing something as astronomically irrational as listening to music, perception is all.  All that matters is, how do you feel?  What you know doesn't mean squat.

Why the hell do we enjoy music in the first place?  There's no rational, objective basis!


That's the last from me in this thread.  I'm wise enough not to belabor the point.  [Edit: by wise, I mean I know how these discussions go.]

[boojum]

As Skalinder pointed out to you in the open forum, we might be able to tell you that one cable sounds different than another cable but there is no way to "prove" that one actually sounds better.

That's my position too.  Perception is subjective by definition, and when doing something as astronomically irrational as listening to music, perception is all.  All that matters is, how do you feel?  What you know doesn't mean squat.

Why the hell do we enjoy music in the first place?  There's no rational, objective basis!


That's the last from me in this thread.  I'm wise enough not to belabor the point.  [Edit: by wise, I mean I know how these discussions go.]

Randi's test is can you tell one from the other.  That is all.  Can you??  BTW - it is news to me that listening to music is irrational, astronomically or otherwise.  Have you ever listened to Bach??  That is not irrational.

Cheers   

[Wiggler]

one of the beauties of this discussion group, is that some members can actually discuss their own recordings of bach, and how the recording techniques translate in critical playback and listening,... and how minor adjustments might make for substantiated, though subjective, opinion calls.

Are you talking about recording a Bach cover band.
Isn't that like recording Dark Star Orchestra? 

[Wiggler]

That sounds like fun.
Enjoy the evening Moke.

[SparkE!]

My recommendation for these cables came from the very person quoted in the bottom of your signature line.

You quoted Srajan, you know his "place" in the world of audio reviewing.
Srajan, and, my audio mentor, Tom, are friends, and speak all the time. Srajan was the spark that brought Tom into the AP fold.

Yes, I'm aware that Srajan is a big fan of the Analysis Plus cables.  In fact the quote in my sig line is from his review of AP's Big Silver Ovals on 6moons.com:

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/analysis+3/bigsilver.html

I thought the quoted aphorism was ironic, coming from a person that so often articulates his opinions with such platitudes as "The kernel of the tone remains the same but the halo around it has slightly more energy to reach farther into the surrounding space."  (This was included in his description of Big Silver Ovals.)

I mean no disrespect for Srajan because I think he truly is an expert in the field of high end audio gear.  In fact I found even greater respect for him when I read his words, "It's not that audiophiles are dumb. Most of us simply ain't engineers. Worse, neither are most reviewers (or manufacturers for that matter). We are thus nearly predestined to repeat, ad infinitum, certain maxims. Their apparent truths seems based mostly on stubborn longevity."

On the other hand, the truth I find in his quote is not entirely complete unless also presented with the other quotation in my sig line from the great Lern Tilton, upright bass player for the 4020 Band.

[RebelRebel]

one of the beauties of this discussion group, is that some members can actually discuss their own recordings of bach, and how the recording techniques translate in critical playback and listening,... and how minor adjustments might make for substantiated, though subjective, opinion calls.

That is true without doubt.

(Off topic, but I believe that some folks rush to switch gear before they have even learned all the ins and outs, rights and wrongs of a particular pair of mics, amp, etc..Moving a mic(or speakers) this way or can make such a drastic difference that it is impossible to get any sense of how they perform in a short period of time. Many times(at least in my own experience..and I dont know dick, and I suck at recording...honestly)I have blamed my microphones and other components in the recording or playback path when the reason(s) for the dismal experience all pointed at the room, placement decisions and my own shortcomings as a recording guy. While I Have bought and  sold way too many things in way too short a time, not putting blame where it mattered , now that I have a little bit of sense(not much)I get a bit sad when I see top notch mics being floated around like some college dorm or army barracks tramp.Any
 well made gear is capable of producing stunning results. It is Just a matter of knowing what one is dealing with.  Performance ,room, and ability of the person doing the recording(or listening) ie me)are the first places I look when I desire improvement.
I do wish that the Pro Audio/Audiophile manufacturers and dealers would devote as much time to research and good science as they do to developing that idiotic vernacular for the dramatic ad campaigns..some of which read more like some Fantasy Movie Trailer Voiceover script than ad for wire.  

AP..ive read so many good things about them that I am intrigued here..

[Nick's Picks]

why run the sf12 mid side ?
isn't it a fixed blumlein ?  running it mid side and then matrixing will result in blumlein any way.

[rokpunk]

From experience I can tell you that guys running half million+ dollar major concert PA systems aren't using multi-thousand dollar cables to interconnect their systems, they are using standard $25 XLR and speaker cables. The super high tech ones are using standard CAT5 at $.19/ft.


/just sayin'

[Wiggler]

I must say the best sounding sound system I have ever heard was the Deads.

This is from a interview with Dan Healy for absolute sound in 1993.
Well worth reading it can be found on this link.
http://kazart.com/bus_stop/gd_index.htm


FD: How about an audiophile question: What type of cable do you use?

DH: We use oxygen free copper. Made to our specifications--it's more rugged
than most. It also has a good capacitance specification--about 13 pf per
foot. The cable used in the snake [the long cable connecting the control
systems in the sound booth to the amplifiers on stage] has even less
capacitance, bout 6 pf per foot. I'm sure all the "hi-fi" guys are advocates
of that sort of thing... essentially, non-inductive speaker cable. Although I
think these considerations applied to a three foot length of [interconnect]
is a little bit ridiculous.

FD: The whole High End cable industry is built around differences in cables
and connectors and things like that.  Valid to a point, but a lot of it is
just an attempt to take advantage of people who want a new toy every couple
of months.

DH: That's marketing. I can understand that. Why not?

FD: But no manufacturer wants to reveal his trade secrets.

DH: That's because a lot of considerations are debatable as to their
validity. You can't really prove [whether one design is better than another],
so if your opinion is [that] it makes your sound system groovier, then go for
it! Although the differences in cables tend to be outweighed by the much
larger differences in the rest of the equipment. If you want to [improve the
sound of your system] there are so many other things you should attack.

[RebelRebel]

FD: The whole High End cable industry is built around differences in cables
and connectors and things like that////Valid to a point, but a lot of it is
just an attempt to take advantage of people If you want to [improve the
sound of your system] there are so many other things you should attack.

Good stuff right there.

Mike runnin 4 mics...This gonna be a more frequent thing?? Lord knows youve got the stereo thing down !

[Nick's Picks]

Mike.., now this is just from what I understand of the SF12/24 and M-S.
that mic is a fixed ribbon stereo mic.  Its two figure of 8s.  Its set in a fixed 90deg pattern and pointing it straight ahead levels you out at a 45deg mark to "point" at the source.

If you ran this mid side.
first, you'd want to turn the mic so that your blumlein clover leaf would be more of a + than an x.
then, by running those two channels through a matrix, you'd have some control over the depth I suppose, by adjusting that forward lobe.
but the output is still blumlein, and back to what the mic does natively any way.
I'm surprised there is much to be gained by doing it MS.  But, having that depth control must be the issue.
interesting.
+T for making me think this hard at 7am.

[SparkE!]

me,... I'm perfectly satisifed with canare ofc cable.

So do you use the AP cable or not?

[Colin Liston]

Challenge has been accepted:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/calling-bullshit/updated-journalist-accepts-1-million-challenge-do-7250-cables-sound-better-or-not-311034.php

[boojum]

Well, no, the challenge has been met with another challenge, known also as a cop-out: "Fremer has also asked that interconnects be tested in addition to loudspeaker cables unless James Randi will concede that they affect sound quality."  So Fremer has put something out there to make it unpalatable to Randi who may turn it down and the loonies in the audiofool world will whoop he would not let them take the test.  Well, that is what I suspect.  Let's see.  We all know that in a double blind you should only be testing for one thing.  In this case the speaker cables.  Looks like the audiofools copped out.   

[BJ]

Well, no, the challenge has been met with another challenge, known also as a cop-out: "Fremer has also asked that interconnects be tested in addition to loudspeaker cables unless James Randi will concede that they affect sound quality."  So Fremer has put something out there to make it unpalatable to Randi who may turn it down and the loonies in the audiofool world will whoop he would not let them take the test.  Well, that is what I suspect.  Let's see.  We all know that in a double blind you should only be testing for one thing.  In this case the speaker cables.  Looks like the audiofools copped out.   

How very cynical you are.  I read every post by Randi on the subject, including the emails he copied over.  Nowhere does Fremer say they are tested at the SAME TIME.  I believe him to be issuing a challenge back at Randi saying he wants both "cables" tested under the same conditions.  This is why he gave him the option of "James Randi will concede that they affect sound quality".  He just wants Randi to admit that "cable" affects sound.  He clearly has accepted the challenge, and went further to push Randi into admitting that his challenge could be bs.  I do not see any cop out.  After all, if Randi will concede, then the speaker cables are all that is tested no?

[Tim]

Well, no, the challenge has been met with another challenge, known also as a cop-out: "Fremer has also asked that interconnects be tested in addition to loudspeaker cables unless James Randi will concede that they affect sound quality."  So Fremer has put something out there to make it unpalatable to Randi who may turn it down and the loonies in the audiofool world will whoop he would not let them take the test.  Well, that is what I suspect.  Let's see.  We all know that in a double blind you should only be testing for one thing.  In this case the speaker cables.  Looks like the audiofools copped out.   

does the term insufferable mean anything to you?

If you and Randi are so confident that we are all fools what does it matter if someone wishes to add a seperate test for interconnects? Since you two are smarter than the rest of us I'd think you'd welcome another opportunity to "prove it."

[boojum]

The question and basis for this thread is: can a person distinguish a set of monster cables from the pear cables.  What I have for a system is irrelevant and a distraction.  This is not a "my system is better than yours" pissing contest.  That would be a whole other thread.  I have a feeling if I were agreeing with you "insufferable" would not apply. 

[Tim]

You're holding yourself out as some sort of expert and calling others "fools." Your qualifications are most certainly at issue. We're not trying to make it a pissing contest, just trying to figure out how us "fools" can get as smart as you apparently are.

As for the insufferable comment it has nothing to do with your opinion but instead with your attitude towards everyone else in this thread. It is, in a word, shitty.

[boojum]

Well, no, the challenge has been met with another challenge, known also as a cop-out: "Fremer has also asked that interconnects be tested in addition to loudspeaker cables unless James Randi will concede that they affect sound quality."  So Fremer has put something out there to make it unpalatable to Randi who may turn it down and the loonies in the audiofool world will whoop he would not let them take the test.  Well, that is what I suspect.  Let's see.  We all know that in a double blind you should only be testing for one thing.  In this case the speaker cables.  Looks like the audiofools copped out.   

How very cynical you are.  I read every post by Randi on the subject, including the emails he copied over.  Nowhere does Fremer say they are tested at the SAME TIME.  I believe him to be issuing a challenge back at Randi saying he wants both "cables" tested under the same conditions.  This is why he gave him the option of "James Randi will concede that they affect sound quality".  He just wants Randi to admit that "cable" affects sound.  He clearly has accepted the challenge, and went further to push Randi into admitting that his challenge could be bs.  I do not see any cop out.  After all, if Randi will concede, then the speaker cables are all that is tested no?

RB -  Fremer changed the rules to suit himself.  Were he willing and able to do the test he would have just plain accepted the challenge.  Something simple like, "Yes, I will take the test."  Instead he weaseled it with this little curve thrown in.  And were he that interested in testing interconnects, he could have asked Randi to administer a separate test.  But he did not.  And lets see if this point is clarified by Fremer and Randi. 

The only time I have seen the audio nuts offer a challenge was when they said you could not make a transistor amp as good as a tube amp.  And Bob Carver took their money from them.  They could not tell their super hotsy-totsy tube amp from a transistor amp he modified at the test.  Made them look pretty stupid, too.  That was the guys at Stereophile who were beat out of $10K, years ago.

[boojum]

You're holding yourself out as some sort of expert and calling others "fools." Your qualifications are most certainly at issue. We're not trying to make it a pissing contest, just trying to figure out how us "fools" can get as smart as you apparently are.

As for the insufferable comment it has nothing to do with your opinion but instead with your attitude towards everyone else in this thread. It is, in a word, shitty.

If disagreeing with you and agreeing with Randi makes me "shitty", I plead guilty.   

Even reasonable people can disagree.  It is not apostasy.  Anyone who accepts wild claims of technical superiority of a product without any proof other than advertising claims is foolish.  The proof is in the testing.  The audio world clings to these ideas but will not test the ideas.  That is kind of foolish.  As usual, YMMV 

[Tim]

If disagreeing with you and agreeing with Randi makes me "shitty", I plead guilty.   

Try again, that's not at all what I said. Your smug attitude is shitty and irritating. It has nothing to do with your opinion but the way you present that opinion.

Even reasonable people can disagree.  It is not apostasy.  Anyone who accepts wild claims of technical superiority of a product without any proof other than advertising claims is foolish.

That's a strawman argument. Find me one person in this thread who is accepting claims of technical superiority without any other proof than advertising? Time after time people in this thread have discussed doing comparisons.

The proof is in the testing.  The audio world clings to these ideas but will not test the ideas.  That is kind of foolish.  As usual, YMMV 

Really? The "audio community" will not test these ideas? That's just flat out false. There is plenty of testing occuring within the audio community.

Now, again - what are your credentials? Are you a scientist? Do you own a hi-fi system? Have you participated in any testing? Since you're the expert and we're all fools why don't you enlighten us a little?

edit: don't PM me, anything you have to say to me you can say right here.

[BJ]

Well, no, the challenge has been met with another challenge, known also as a cop-out: "Fremer has also asked that interconnects be tested in addition to loudspeaker cables unless James Randi will concede that they affect sound quality."  So Fremer has put something out there to make it unpalatable to Randi who may turn it down and the loonies in the audiofool world will whoop he would not let them take the test.  Well, that is what I suspect.  Let's see.  We all know that in a double blind you should only be testing for one thing.  In this case the speaker cables.  Looks like the audiofools copped out.   

How very cynical you are.  I read every post by Randi on the subject, including the emails he copied over.  Nowhere does Fremer say they are tested at the SAME TIME.  I believe him to be issuing a challenge back at Randi saying he wants both "cables" tested under the same conditions.  This is why he gave him the option of "James Randi will concede that they affect sound quality".  He just wants Randi to admit that "cable" affects sound.  He clearly has accepted the challenge, and went further to push Randi into admitting that his challenge could be bs.  I do not see any cop out.  After all, if Randi will concede, then the speaker cables are all that is tested no?

RB -  Fremer changed the rules to suit himself.  Were he willing and able to do the test he would have just plain accepted the challenge.  Something simple like, "Yes, I will take the test."  Instead he weaseled it with this little curve thrown in.  And were he that interested in testing interconnects, he could have asked Randi to administer a separate test.  But he did not.  And lets see if this point is clarified by Fremer and Randi. 

The only time I have seen the audio nuts offer a challenge was when they said you could not make a transistor amp as good as a tube amp.  And Bob Carver took their money from them.  They could not tell their super hotsy-totsy tube amp from a transistor amp he modified at the test.  Made them look pretty stupid, too.  That was the guys at Stereophile who were beat out of $10K, years ago.

Sorry, but that is the pot calling the kettle black there.  He didn't change any rules, as they haven't been set yet.  Randi uses words and twists them to suit his objective.  He has repeatedly done this, and not just in this challenge.  I detailed the reasoning behind the extra portion, without ever having talked to Fremer.  It was understood, as he is just calling Randi's bluff.  sorry, but if you can't see the logic, and follow everything RB says so blindly, then this thread will never go anywhere other than the same dizzying rhetoric thus far. 
I have never read, subscribed to, nor supported fremer, i have no clue who he is.  I have no stake in this, as for cables, I built my own out of Belden wire.  I don't have the skrillz to spend $10k on a stereo, enough to judge for myself whether monster can be distinguished from Pear.  I DO know that when i did upgrade my equipment, i could tell immediatly that my current wire was insufficient, hence building my own new ones.

[Tim]

looks like Mr. Randi is a bit of a schister himself
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

more criticisms of his rules http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

edit: I guess my point here is to try and put an end to the silliness of this thread. We get your point boojum, many of us disagree and no matter what we say or do we'll never "prove" ourselves to you. I'm sick of your smug attitude and I'm sick of you calling us fools. You've made your point and we've made ours.

[carlbeck]

I agree with Tim, I have not posted to this thread recently because of Boojum's smug attitude. I think the fact that he is not willing to disclose his system & tell us how he analyzes his efforts speaks vollumes.

Honestly when I had Kenwood gear & Polk speakers I thought my stereo was pretty bad ass, the best I had heard up to that point, no reason to change anything. Again, I am not claiming to know what Boojum has for a system but I have been there too & would have agreed with his arguments of cable being cable, blah blah blah. It was until I started listening to different components & how they interacted with each other that I started to realize how poorly my Kenwood sounded. Sure the cynic can say it is because I have invested so much money into my stereo that I have to think it sounds good, more of that I am tricking myself into perceived quality differences that don't exist bullshit. Like I should take a blind test to see if my Cary sounds better than my Kenwood? Please, it has nothing to do with money at all. My last system which I considered to be the best I had ever had up until that point retailed at close to 10k, my newest system retails for less than half that & blows the first one out of the water. It has nothing to do with money at all.

So instead why don't we take your "scientific" approach & see how valid it really is in the context of this speaker cable comparison. How about I cover the Mercedes emblem & Kia emblem (just like your blind test) have you drive each one & see if you can tell me which is better. A car is just a car right? If you pick the Kia I will call you a fool just as you have called me. I am quite certain you would pick the Mercedes. Honestly this is the first time on this section I have run into such a smug attitude from a poster. Again & finally, if you or ANYONE else want to come to my house with all your cables & compare them to mine you are more than welcome.

[Brian Skalinder]

We can settle this right now. 

If cable is cable, then anywhere in the recording / playback chain we place different cables that allows for ABX testing may provide an effective test.  Nashphil posted just such a test ~6 months ago:  different cables between mics and preamp.  If only one person performs an ABX test and can determine the difference between the two cables, then cable is not just cable, and the cable one uses makes an audible difference (though, of course, it's impossible to determine which one sounds "best" as that's purely subjective).

Any volunteers to ABX the samples and report back your findings?  Foobar2000 allows one to save the ABX test results to a text file, so I'd say that's best for proving one's point (one way or the other).

Edit to add:  Of course, this doesn't address speaker cables specifically.  But it does start to get at the "cable is cable" thing.

[som]

that just sound wretched, and wonderful at the same time

I've said for years, if Springsteen's Born To Run blaring out of a cracked 4-inch car speaker can't send shivers down your spine, it *ain't* about the music!


+T on vintage reggae!

[Tim]

that's a very special project Mike

An Error Has Occurred!
Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 12 hours.

[rokpunk]

me,... I'm perfectly satisifed with canare ofc cable.
I tried some of the fancy silver plated stuff, but was pretty much underwhelmed. I don't have the $$$$ to experiment with the gold wire stuff.

comparing recording cables to speaker cables, is almost like comparing rocks to water, apples/oranges.
The speaker cables has to be able to carry a much larger current load than the microphone cable, and it needs to be a much larger pipe to carry that load.

Many modern day PA systems are self powered and run along standard XLR cables.

[fsulloway]

.... so I'm sort of blowing fart bubbles when it comes to this stuff (the pa end of audio).

fart bubbles? ewww! you might need this. 

[rokpunk]

The amp is at the speaker, correct? so, you're just sending a balanced signal to the amp??
At least, I've seen that with the smaller scale PA on a stick rigs.
If you were sending an amplified signal that far, you'd need a large pipe to send it down,... is what I'm thinking(?)
I haven't ever rigged anything larger than the old fashioned JBL's stand spkrs at the side of the stage, so I'm sort of blowing fart bubbles when it comes to this stuff (the pa end of audio).

exactly. the amp lives in the speaker cabinet. the theory is, the shorter the distance that the amp is from the speaker, the less loss there is. so a line level signal is sent out of the console/rack directly to the speakers via a standard XLR cable, line level. the old school method is to send a line level signal to an amp (or a rack of amps), then use 12/2 copper cable to send it to the speakers. obviously 12/2 or 12/4 (bi-amp) is much heavier and harder to deal with than an XLR cable. most of the high end stuff you see out there these days (ala Meyer Sound, EAW, Turbosound, even JBL) is self powered. the future will be that all audio travels over CAT5 cable. infact, it's already happening. pretty amazing that 32 channels of digital audio can travel from the stage to the console via a single, .19/ft, CAT5 cable. copper is pretty much a thing of the past in live sound.

the whole reason i brough this up is that these major tour sound companies (Clair, Showco, etc) aren't using any special, multi-thousand dollar XLR cables to interconnect their systems...they are using standard, off the shelf, XLR cables to hook up their half million dollar PA systems.

[Tim]

Different cable for different purposes. Why use expensive cable in a system that isn't meant to deliver precise, pin point accuracy, imaging, soundstaging etc.? Not to mention the environmental factors working against PA's - bad acoustics, bad rooms, dirty power, crowd noise

in hi-fi you can control all of these factors in ways that are not possible feasible in a live setting

all imho and based off of my limited experience with pa's..

[Jammin72]

Here's an interesting read on the subject:

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm


Here's an except though there's quite a bit more info.

Stereo Review Dares to Tell the Truth (1983)

A 6-page article by Laurence Greenhill titled "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?" was published in Stereo Review magazine on August 1983. It compared Monster cable, 16-gauge wire and 24-gauge wire. The price at that time for a pair of 30-foot lengths of monster cables was $55.00. The cost for 16 gauge heavy lamp cord was $.30/foot or $18.00 and the 24 gauge "speaker wire" was $.03/foot or $1.80

"...So what do our fifty hours of testing, scoring and listening to speaker cables amount to? Only that 16-gauge lamp cord and Monster cable are indistinguishable from each other with music and seem to be superior to the 24 gauge wire commonly sold or given away as 'speaker cable.' Remember, however, that it was a measurable characteristic--higher resistance per foot--that made 24 gauge sound different from the other cables. If the cable runs were only 6 instead of 30 feet, the overall cable resistances would have been lower and our tests would probably have found no audible differences between the three cables. This project was unable to validate the sonic benefits claimed for exotic speaker cables over common 16-gauge zip cord. We can only conclude, therefore, that there is little advantage besides pride of ownership in using these thick, expensive wires"

Needless to say there was a strong letter to the editor in the October Stereo Review from Noel Lee, President of Monster Cable. "...was not the conclusion of nearly three thousand Monster Cable purchasers who participated in a warranty/response card survey in 1981-1982. Among those responding, 56 per cent indicated 'an overall significant improvement, '42 per cent attested to a 'noticeable improvement,' and only 2 per cent wrote back that they heard no difference in system performance."...

Yes, some of this claim is believable but for the wrong reasons. If the wire used previously had resistance that was too high, there would be an audible difference. If the wire connections at the amplifier or speaker were loose or corroded, installing the new cable tightly would make an audible difference.

Then we get into the more subjective evaluation. Suppose you're already using adequate size wire and have good connections at the speaker and amplifier. If you're then told the new wire will make an improvement, you will be looking for it and truly believe that you hear an improvement. Some people might go as far as saying "If I spent all that money for these cables, you can be sure I'm going to hear a difference." (rather than admit I wasted my money or have bad hearing).

There are other factors as well. If you listen to the system with the old wires and then replace them with the new ones, it could take 5 or 10 minutes to do this. By then you will have forgotten what the old sound was like. How many of the customers made an instant and more reliable comparison like what was done in Gordon Gow's demonstration or in the Stereo Review test? I wonder how these customers would fare in a test where they didn't know which wire was being used.

[BC]

From Slashdot:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/04/1354224

"James Randi offered US$ 1 million to anyone who can prove that a pair of $7,250 Pear Anjou speaker cables is any better than ordinary (and also overpriced) Monster Cables. Pointing out the absurd review by audiophile Dave Clark, who called the cables 'danceable,' Randi called it 'hilarious and preposterous.' He added that if the cables could do what their makers claimed, 'they would be paranormal.'"

The slashdotters are having a good time...
Side note: James Randi spoke to one of my classes in college, I think it was something in the school of communication (broadcasting major).

Hmm, how can you prove that one is "better" than the other? Sure you could prove that one has lower impedance/resistance/capacitance, but I don't see how you can prove "better". To me "better" is a completely subjective term and things are only "better" to specific people.

Now, you can definitely prove "different", I would think that cables will likely sound different, particularly with amp/speaker combinations whose performance is sensitive to impedance/resistance/capacitance issues.

[Tim]

thanks Jammin - I've actually seen it written that longer cables sound "better" than short cables ymmv

[Jammin72]

thanks Jammin - I've actually seen it written that longer cables sound "better" than short cables ymmv

I enjoyed the read. 

Thing about it is that so much of our experience is really and truly what we intend it to be that trying to make blanket statements about better or best when it comes to individual perception is nearly impossible.  The conversation is healthy, and it's fun to really see this applied.

Personally, the feel, the look, the heft, the polish, or the satisfaction of my brain for the nod to esoteric ideologies are all components when it comes to enjoying your audio system.  And I KNOW that when I feel good about something for whatever reason it sounds more like it should.

[boojum]

Yes, but how valuable are these perceptions?  I am "sure" my truck runs better and smoother after I wash it.  It doen't though.  The wash job cost next to nothing, and I have a clean truck to show for it. 

This fussing over the esoteric reminds me of all the paraphenalia in the dope days.  There was ritual and toys and weird gadgets.  But it was just the dope that got you high.  The other stuff contributed to the "fun" of the moment.  I cleave less to ritual these days.

[Tim]

good for you

[illconditioned]

Just use lamp cord!  Spend the money on mics, in particular, mic capsules!

  Richard

[Tim]

I've never used lamp cord but comparing the homedepot diy to the leegeddy cables the difference was very obvious. No financial incentive in that either as the leegeddy's were prototypes and sent to me for listening

[SparkE!]

I would like to point out something well in advance of the A/B/X testing, should it occur.  In order to be "successful" at identifying which cable is in use, there needs to be some criteria in place that defines exactly what constitutes "success".  I think it's reasonable to insist that the test subject must be able to identify which cable is in use with significantly more certainty than could be achieved by merely guessing.  By guessing, we should expect a 50% success rate, but just because the guy happens to choose correctly more than half the time is not sufficient to declare him a winner.  The fact is that he should be expected  to choose correctly 50% of the time and he should be expected to choose wrong 50% of the time.  For a given set of trials, though, it's very likely (nearly 100% likely if the number of trials is large and even, 100% if the number of trials is an odd number) that the number of correct choices and incorrect choices will not be identical.  Also, we need to remember that if I do trials where I flip a coin 100 times, I'd expect that in 99% of those trials, the number of heads will be between 37 and 63.  (This is based on the binomial cumulative distribution function with probability of success of heads of 50% and 100 coin flips.)  So we have 99% confidence that if someone flips 64 or more heads out of 100 flips that the coin is biased towards heads.  But the question we have to ask is, "is it a strong bias?"  If the coin, on the average flipped heads 63% of the time, 50% of the time it would give 64 heads or more out of 100 flips.  Being right 63% of the time is not a strong bias, so just picking the right cable 64 out of 100 times tells us that we're 99% sure that he can pick the right one more than 50% of the time, but we can't say that he has more than 63% confidence in his choices.  That's not very good in my opinion.  I'd like to see something more like 95% confidence.  In that case, we'd expect him to pick the right one 95 times or more out of 100 tries.  The chances of him doing that by pure 50% chance are vanishingly small.  You could spend all your time flipping a coin and never get 95 heads out of 100 trials and in fact, it's very likely that you would not have time in your entire lifetime to accomplish that feat.  Or 100 lifetimes.

But guess what?  They aren't going to to 100 trials.  That would be way too fatiguing to the test subject.  I bet that they do 15  or less.  With only 15 trials, it's not until he gets 12 of 15 trials correct that we know  with 99% confidence that the results could not have been obtained by 50% chance.  If his confidence level was 95%, we'd expect him to get 14 of 15 right at least half the time and 97% of the time, he'd get 12 or more correct.  So, by changing the number of trials from 100 down to 15, we require a higher percentage of success to achieve the same level of confidence that we've reached the correct conclusion about the test subject's ability to tell the difference between cables.

Of course, it's not up to us to set the criteria for these trials.  Those will be set by someone else.  We just need to keep in mind that we need to look at what the math actually says about the results that they publish.  It's pretty easy to make persuasive-sounding arguments using data that only weakly supports your assertions.  I'll be watching their results with a critical eye and I hope the rest of you will too.  Don't be fooled by their words.  Their numbers will tell the real story.

[boojum]

Darn, there you go with facts and science again.   

Good points.  A 50-50 split means nothing; and it takes a high number of correct choices to mean success.  Let's see if anyone takes the test.  I am not too surprised the fellow who makes the Pear cables has not offered.  It seems like a lack of confidence in his product.