audiophile tripe to be tested!

[mr. poopyhead]

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/calling-bull ... 311034.php

someone is finally taking the challenge to do a double blind listening test on ridiculously expensive audio cables...

dan of dansdata.com is gonna love this one.

$1 Million Speaker Cable Challenge Accepted
Audiophile Reviewer Michael Fremer Agrees to Double-Blind Loudspeaker Cable Test

Newton, Mass. - October 15, 2007 - Responding to accusations that the high-fidelity Pear Cable Anjou loudspeaker cables could not be differentiated from typical equivalent Monster Cable, Michael Fremer, writer for Stereophile Magazine and musicangle.com, has agreed to double-blind listening tests to prove that cables can be differentiated sonically. Accuser James Randi has claimed to offer a $1 million dollar prize if the high-fidelity cables can be detected.

While Pear Cable remains highly skeptical that the challenge is genuine, full support for Michael Fremer's effort has been offered. Although the cables to be used in the test have not yet been selected, Pear Cable has offered to loan Mr. Fremer any Pear cables necessary to conduct the test if he desires to use them.

To date, James Randi has provided no scientific evidence of any kind to support his accusations. No test protocol for the challenge was stipulated in the original accusation, however James Randi reserves the right to change test protocol in any way he personally desires.

Official rules for the James Randi Educational Foundation challenge state that $1 Million will be paid to "any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability." Michael Fremer has expressly stated as a condition of his challenge acceptance that he does not possess any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal abilities, and that he does not believe he has above average hearing. Fremer has also asked that interconnects be tested in addition to loudspeaker cables unless James Randi will concede that they affect sound quality.

[Otto69]

Isn't there something more sporting to do, like clubbing baby seals or something?

Ok, I'm a recovering audiophile. Some years ago I had to diagnose a recurring,intermittant, loud buzz in my rear channels. To make a long story short, it was one of my super expensive Monster cables, 3/8" thick, that had a short between tip and ring. My Fluke DVOM helped me debug it . I replaced those cables with even more expensive balanced cables made by the overpriced but highly reliable Bryston guys in Canda, who made my amps. $75 each as I recall for a 1/2 meter cable made from microphone wire and some balanced inputs. But they work, not because their made by virgin metal workers, or because they use only the finest Unobtainium in their conductors, but because the guys who made them bought a clue early on and took pride in their work .

[jessekopelman]

If you search for it, you will find an interesting story from a guy who did some double blind testing, using his friends as guinea pigs and his custom built multi-thousand dollar speakers and high-end rack system. One of the speaker wire types he tried were cables fashioned from wire clothes hangers soldered together. Those hanger-wires sounded indistinguishable from 14 gauge speaker wire. Another somewhat related story is the guy who did a bunch thermal paste tests and found toothpaste work as well as many name brands. Sometimes it is fun to buy over-priced gear just for that inner glow of conspicuous consumerism. Like everything, though; this sort of self-indulgence should be practiced in moderation and one should at all costs avoid proselytizing about how one's overpriced endeavor is the only true path to enjoyment of specific activity.

[HueyCobra]

Another somewhat related story is the guy who did a bunch thermal paste tests and found toothpaste work as well as many name brands.

That'd be Dan(iel Rutter) of Dan's Data as mentioned by mr. poopyhead.

[aristide1]

Such tests are useless for a very simple reason I have addressed before here.

Short term means only that, short term. There are very low levels of distortions that may not be audible, but become very irritating over a long length of time. Such tests do not address these issues. Example, some cables are shielded, some are not. In a place like NYC the shielded cable would probably be a much more satisifying cable without any perceivable initial response, because RF is not impacting what the circuitry is doing in as large a degree.

I had a preamp with a "direct" input, it bypassed much of the switching circuitry inside the preamp. It always sounded the same to me, but long term exposure made it clear, it was the only input that was worth using. Most people over time could perform the same differentiation with coffee or even chocolate pudding.

That said, expensive cables are often expensive only for that reason. Cables that are better are so for scientific reasons. The problem with the speaker cable industry is not that some cables are better than others, they most certainly are, it's the large number of snake oil sales people that have hurt all legitimate claims.

That said, most tests designed to show that all cables are no better than Monster are usually using equipment that is not capable of passing the differences onto the listener. IE, a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. A better example would be a stereo system is like listening to real music through multiple panes of glass. If you clean one and the rest are dirty you really won't notice much of a change. They(TAS) also correctly note, as will anyone who's been to an art gallery will back up, that viewing a great work of art, the colors, the textures, the impact, are all diminished to a degree, small it may be, by a single pane of perfectly clean glass.

That said, when one hears a difference in cables one still has to determine which is correct. Increased detail that may seem pleasant at first may be the result of a slightly harsh top end, which fatigues in the long run. More bass may actually be nothing more than a lack of proper bass control. To make the proper determination takes quite a but of time, a lot of exposure to the music being played, the type of instrument being played, and all the other equipment in the system.

In addition Panasonic did tests years ago, they had a group of people who listened to the same music in 2 ways. One was with the usually 20-20K range and nothing else. The other was how live music is presented, with a certain amount of ultrasonics. Brain activity was monitored and the results were the brain responded differently to the music with the ultrasonics than it did the other music, the same music minus the ultrasonics. Some ultrasonics manage to find their way on well recorded vinyl. They are never present on CDs.

Edited: Spelling.

[potsy]

Sometimes it's not that high end stuff is so much better, but that low end stuff might be really crap. There was a fun article in Audio Technology Magazine (issue 54) by a bloke who owns a mastering studio. He found a $500 IEC power lead in a fancy audiophile showroom. Yep, $500 for a jug cord. He borrowed it, took it back to his studio and used it to power his amplifiers and... discovered they sounded better. But then he tried out a bunch of other power leads and they all made his amps sound better too. Turns out the original power lead had only three strands of copper in the inner cable so it was current limiting the amplifier under load. And getting hot and probably throwing a fire risk into the bargain! Point being a fancy cable probably doesn't perform perceptibly better than an ordinary one, but cheap stuff might be cheap for a reason.

[mr. poopyhead]

i think the point here is not that expensive cable (or other audiophile gadgetry) doesn't make a difference, but that often times there is no measureable difference. so obviously, an unshielded cable that is experiencing noise CAN be differentiated from a good cable both sonically, and electrically... the conflict comes between people who believe that there can be audible difference between two sounds that are generated by identical signals, and the electrical engineering types who say otherwise...

but like aristide said, there are a lot of snake oil salesmen out there hurting legitimate, and scientifically verifiable claims...

[aristide1]

i think the point here is not that expensive cable (or other audiophile gadgetry) doesn't make a difference, but that often times there is no measureable difference.

Most distortion measurements are static measurements, while music can have a great many dynamic distortions. You can double or triple the capacity of an amp's power supply and gain tremendous sound improvements while the highly accurate Fluke meter registers zero change.

It happens all the time.

[aristide1]

Point being a fancy cable probably doesn't perform perceptibly better than an ordinary one, but cheap stuff might be cheap for a reason.

The cord may also have dealt with RF better than cheaper cords but he never had a problem with RF so he didn't gain that benefit. That does not imply the cord is not capable of that benefit.

The other thing with audiophile "high performance" equipment is that people (buyers) expect the stuff to look the part. It's not uncommon to spend 20-40% on cosmetics. But then, if a Corvette looked like a Ford Pinto, would as many people but it? A minority would and be even happier, but a huge loss of sales would also happen.

[mr. poopyhead]

Most distortion measurements are static measurements, while music can have a great many dynamic distortions. You can double or triple the capacity of an amp's power supply and gain tremendous sound improvements while the highly accurate Fluke meter registers zero change.

It happens all the time.

yeah, i'm not an electrical engineering type (i hated all the physics classes that had to do with electricity, ) so i can't really comment on that... but intuitively, it doesn't make sense to me that there can be a change in the sound output, but no change at the signal level... i dunno.

i'm just interested to see if this guy can really tell... either way, i won't be running out and getting $7k cables anytime soon (in this life...)

[aristide1]

Even if Mr Fremer can do this successfully it will only proves his brain can zero in on the nuances that would allow him to differentiate one cable from the other and to also determine which is which.

To be truly fair what should happen is he should have a solid reference point to start with, which would be live music. Say a 3 piece ensemble would be present, they would play a song, and the same song would be record, to be played back on a system with different cables. I doubt such a test will be executed, which leave Mr Fremer, like the rest of us, at the mercy of the remaining chain of equipment and it's resolution capabilities, in determining which cable is which.

but intuitively, it doesn't make sense to me that there can be a change in the sound output, but no change at the signal level... i dunno.

It's not like that at all, the problem is we haven't determined what's worth measuring and what's not. Sound has 3 aspects: Frequency versus amplitude versus time. The ear is most sensitive to phase shifts, the aspect that we measure poorly, if at all. And harmonic distortion is not as simple as just saying x amount. An amp with 2% harmonic distortion composed entirely of seconds harmonics is a wonderful amp. Another amp with .2% harmonic distortion that is composed or 3rd through 14th harmonics is basically a chain saw amp.

What people like Mark Levinson (the man, not the current company) understand is what distortion means what, whether its worth reducing or not, and the tradeoffs made in the process. If you look at the worlds most expensive cars: Bentley, Ferrari, Lamborghini, they are not perfect cars, they have their own set of tradeoffs. What is different about them is (alledgely) the tradeoffs are either better or more acceptable to the buyer. You can buy a single ended tube amp that supplies no more that 7 or 8 watts, measures horrendlessly, and sounds magnificent within it's capabiliities. Even at $5K many would call that wonderful tradeoffs.

[aristide1]

And also - I would sooner buy 12 or 10 gauge stranded wire at Lowes (not a fan of Home Depot) than I would Monster Wire.

[klankymen]

And also - I would sooner buy 12 or 10 gauge stranded wire at Lowes (not a fan of Home Depot) than I would Monster Wire.

QFT

[djkest]

I own monster cable. Lots and lots of it.

The reason being is I have worked for Best Buy and Circuit city, and I was able to buy it for 60% off, with free shipping. I'd have to say, for the price I paid I'm very happy with it. I did have a defective cable once. I called monster, they shipped me a new one the same day, with a reusable box and a pre-paid pre-printed return shipping label for the defective one.

Yes, there are defective parts from just about anyone. Most places don't test everything they make 100% (would be very costly). I do think Monster cable is in fact overpriced, but it also is most definately not "crap". They did bring quality cables to the mainstream, for whatever that is worth. And you can seriously notice the difference between the freebie crap cables that come with stuff and even basic monster cable.

From what I've seen, Belkin PureAV is probably one of the better "everyman" cables out there, and NewEgg sells them sell under retail.

[klankymen]

I do think Monster cable is in fact overpriced, but it also is most definately not "crap".

No denying that, but still. to me they're like the bose of wires, better quality than random stuff, but for the price you pay there are better brands that spend less on marketing, and more on research and the product itself.

[gmat]

The cables wont make any difference other than psychological one. They induce quite a strong self-persuasion effect, or kind of placebo effect...
Double blind tests have been properly done already, besides scientific measurements of dynamics, phase shift, etc DO exist, of course !

What's important in a GOOD cable is:
* proper shielding from RF, and crosstalk
* good connectors with a good contact surface
* and most of all good solder joints at the connectors !
That bring us into the $50-$100 area for most audio signal cables that are OK on all those aspects. Cheap no-name cables always fail in one of these (often the solder is poor, and the shielding is non-existant).
Paying more for unobtainium-braided cables, or whatever bullcrap they try to sell you (i've seen one of them try to tell their cables acted as a "flux capacitor" ! Yes the same from Dr Emmet Brown !) is just pure fantasy. Once the signal is transmitted properly, you cannot do it any better. Adding capacitance or inductance to the cable will of course alter its signal coloration, but that's well measured and even $50 cables have nominal impedance.

Oh and yes i'm an electrical engineer.

[derekva]

Paying more for unobtainium-braided cables, or whatever bullcrap they try to sell you (i've seen one of them try to tell their cables acted as a "flux capacitor" ! Yes the same from Dr Emmet Brown !) is just pure fantasy.

Ah yes, but you're forgetting that their speaker cable could handle 1.21 giga-watts.

Not sure what happened if they turned their stereo up to 88, though.

-D

[floffe]

Paying more for unobtainium-braided cables, or whatever bullcrap they try to sell you (i've seen one of them try to tell their cables acted as a "flux capacitor" ! Yes the same from Dr Emmet Brown !) is just pure fantasy.

Ah yes, but you're forgetting that their speaker cable could handle 1.21 giga-watts.

Not sure what happened if they turned their stereo up to 88, though.

[HueyCobra]

Ah yes, but you're forgetting that their speaker cable could handle 1.21 giga-watts.

Or "jiga-watts" as Dr Brown would say

The BTTF trilogy aired here over the last three Sundays. I regret missing the original. Mmmm, Lea Thompson

[aristide1]

Adding capacitance or inductance to the cable will of course alter its signal coloration, but that's well measured and even $50 cables have nominal impedance.

Oh and yes i'm an electrical engineer.

The machines that wind wire in patterns to minimize inductance are low volume and very expensive.

Most cable nay-sayers don't understand wire impedance as opposed to wire DC resistance.

Promotion of low volume items like cables of extoic alloys results in a higher advertising cost per unit volume.

Full page ads in Stereophile are not cheap.

Bad reviews can't bankrupt a small cable company.

It's been suggested that, because of RF interference, power cables carry more frequencies than speaker cables.

I have a lot more faith in a company that markets perhaps 2 level of cables, an all out effort and a best bang for the buck cable, as opposed to a company that markets cables for every conceivable marketable price point. In the case of the latter, will a $80 cable sound much better than a $60 cable? Doubt, and perhaps even worse, because they are a product of marketing, not of listening.

Yes, the big players in the cable business are the business equivalents of Nike, not Stradavarius.

[aristide1]

Mmmm, Lea Thompson

Yes, even today.

[JoeWPgh]

The cables wont make any difference other than psychological one. They induce quite a strong self-persuasion effect, or kind of placebo effect...
Double blind tests have been properly done already, besides scientific measurements of dynamics, phase shift, etc DO exist, of course !

I have no faith in DBT as a scientific tool for measuring subjective audio qualities. I'm not naive enough to think that placebo effect and self persuasion are not very real factors, or that I haven't fallen victim to them myself. My problem is that these are artifacts of conscious, or intellectual listening, where the listener is actively looking for differences. DBT, by definition, demands this manner of listening, so it will inject the very artifacts is seeks to eliminates. The difference is that 'results' will be randomly distributed. I prefer to use distracted listening - where I ignore it and go about my business. If a resulting sound difference distracts me from what I'm doing - good or bad - it means something that is as unaffected by intellectual artifact as I can manage on my own. What I've decided from evaluating cables in this manner is that further down the signal chain you get from the source, the less difference a cable makes. Source to pre ICs can make a huge difference. Pre to amp, not so much. Amp to speaker? Aside from gauge, nothing I would swear to.

But aside from that, I agree with everything you said

[VanWaGuy]

I am a home Depot / Lowes wire guy myself. I am not an audiophile, and have old Klipsch speakers. Zip cord was good enough for old man Klipsch, it is good enough to me.

Electrons are pushed through the wire. That's what voltage does. If you have enough copper not to impede their flow, and enough shielding so as not to mess with their flow, then you have a good enough wire.

My system sounds more than good enough for my needs. I am not going to listen to 10K speakers and expensive wires, amps, etc. I do not want to be spoiled and not enjoy the sound that I have and enjoy.

[derekva]

Ah yes, but you're forgetting that their speaker cable could handle 1.21 giga-watts.

Or "jiga-watts" as Dr Brown would say

The BTTF trilogy aired here over the last three Sundays. I regret missing the original. Mmmm, Lea Thompson

Sorry, whenever I hear it pronounced 'jiga-watts', I can't help but respond with 'Giga-what? Giga-who?' a la Rob Schneider in Deuce Bigalow Male Gigalo.

Yes, I have that movie...on DVD...it's a cry for help, dammit!

[aristide1]

....Electrons are pushed through the wire. That's what voltage does. If you have enough copper not to impede their flow, and enough shielding so as not to mess with their flow, then you have a good enough wire.

That's 100% correct for DC direct current, but AC, especially at higher frequencies has impedence issues as well, both inductance and capacitance.

[VanWaGuy]

Also 100% true, but speaker wires are not handling anything near high frequencies. Some of the behavior of RF still seems like magic to me. From 20 hz to 20K hz, the inductance or capacitance in a short run of big wire I believe is insignificant, and there can be significant power pushing the signal. Notice the "I believe", and if there is a test, it may change my mind.

I used to be in the same camp for interconnects too, but since they can carry a much weaker signal that will be greatly amplified, I believe more that interconnects can cause audible differences.

I doubt for my system with a $1000 receiver and Klipsch Cornwalls designed in the late 50's or early 60's, that any difference between the best possible wires, and heavy gauge lamp cord would be audible.

I think that most of the effect is psychological, and I am by nature frugal, so lamp cord appeals to me just fine.

If I were building a quiet PC, I would not start by quieting the quietest part. If I were going to try and improve the sound in my listening room, I certainly would not start with the speaker wires.

[aristide1]

Also 100% true, but speaker wires are not handling anything near high frequencies. Some of the behavior of RF still seems like magic to me. From 20 hz to 20K hz, the inductance or capacitance in a short run of big wire I believe is insignificant, and there can be significant power pushing the signal. Notice the "I believe", and if there is a test, it may change my mind.

I used to be in the same camp for interconnects too, but since they can carry a much weaker signal that will be greatly amplified, I believe more that interconnects can cause audible differences.

I doubt for my system with a $1000 receiver and Klipsch Cornwalls designed in the late 50's or early 60's, that any difference between the best possible wires, and heavy gauge lamp cord would be audible.

I think that most of the effect is psychological, and I am by nature frugal, so lamp cord appeals to me just fine.

If I were building a quiet PC, I would not start by quieting the quietest part. If I were going to try and improve the sound in my listening room, I certainly would not start with the speaker wires.

Yes AC is interesting, coils of wires become stonewalls to electrons, while two wires laying next to each other (but not in contact with each other) become a short circuit. Such is the nature of the beast.

25 feet of speaker wire can have significant capitance and/or inductance. Lots of ways of dealing with inductance, such as weaving wires. An amp's capabilities can not overcome inductance. But capacitance, an amp can deal with that if its well designed. And that's the problem with the wire, it's the effect it has on the amp. Not all amps handle capacitance that well, it makes them unstable. A capacitor is like a fast acting battery, it is an energy storage device (actually so is a coil of wire). Ask anybody who deals with high voltage in a TV, capacitor storage must be released before prying hands get involved.

Now by itself the wire may not be an issue if the wire hooked up your amp or receiver to a resistor, but it doesn't, it hooks it up to a speaker, which is also an electrical storage device, and a complicated one. It's mostly inductive at bass frequencies and mostly capacitive at the very top. And it's impedance is typical an odd curve with at least one dip, if not 2 or 3. The wire merely adds more capacitance and inductance to this mess of an electrical load. Sometimes the wire is but the last straw, the one that breaks the camels back.

Speaker drivers store energy, which is released when the cone goes back to it's starting position. In the old days this principle was used in small transmitters, the speaker was also the microphone. You listened or you talked but not both. The energy a speaker releases gets back to the amp. How well the amp handles it depends on design, but no two amp handle it the same way.

Audioquest did a demo years ago at an audio show. They upgraded the wire on a boombox and most people said it sounded better. Now one - Boombox? Better doesn't mean all the way up to good, it only means better. Two, it tells me the boombox's ability (the amount of amps it could deliver to the load) probably exceed the capabilities of the wire the manufacturer chose to use, which was probably thinner than standard bell phone wire. Yes, a reasonable conclusion that wire can make a difference, but as you said it's not a starting point, never has been.

[N7SC]

Okay, why don't we see what an electrical engineer, who was Director of Acoustic Research at McIntosh Laboratory, Inc. has to say about the subject. He spent a lot of time, effort and money researching the subject.

This guy designed the best sounding speakers I've ever heard (McIntosh XRT-20), and I've been an audiophile since I was in my late teens (am 5 weeks from being 52 now), and have been fortunate enough to own top of the line equipment since 1971. And I've never even heard his two ultimate speakers, the XR290 from McIntosh, and the IDS-25, both of which probably blow away the XRT-20s that left me with my jaw on the floor. He knows his stuff better than anyone in the business.

For his discussion of speaker wire: http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm

For his home page: http://www.roger-russell.com
Lotsa neat stuff about all sorts of things, including the history of McIntosh Labs.

[aristide1]

Any article that uses Stereo Review as a reference loses all credibility. That piece of crap, with such great columnists as Julian "I can't hear any difference in anything at anytime in anyplace" Hirsch was less than useless, as he provided a lifetime of dis-information. If I could go back in time I would eliminate these idiots from my reading. Even Audio was usually junk. Just a backboard for advertisers, like all magazines, except for early issues of TAS.

Helen Keller can hear the difference between copper and silver cables, though in many cases revealing is a doubled edged sword.

Being an "audio engineer" is not enough, one needs to comprehend the physics of electricity in a dynamic environment, not just memorizing circuits and formulas. Improvements and innovations come from people who think outside the box.

And lets not forget some "engineers" designed the Yugo and the Ford Pinto. While McIntosh is not the bottom of the barrel, it's not known as the ultimate in performance either. Yes they sell a lot of product, and so does GM. Bose sells a lot of product as well. Had you used Keith Johnson as your engineer then things would be more balanced. Or try even David Chesky of Chesky Records. The way the latter two people differ? They actually listen, not dismiss first, like the title of the article.

According to "engineers" a DAC requires a steep digital filter. Lately DACs are available without it and they work fine, often better because they don't have the phase distortions.

As for the "reasoning" for the expensive wiring that hardly realistic. Conrad Johnson does not feel balanced circuits are required and does not make them, even though they could make a lot more money if they did. It's also worth noting that the explanation can appease the reluctant crowd while still providing the benefits. Clever.

Worth noting, scientists can't explain why aspirin works or why cement powder gets hards when water is added, but it still happens.

None of this infers that all expensive cables are worthy, but it doesn't accept the reverse argument either. Generalizations get us nowhere.

This guy designed the best sounding speakers I've ever heard (McIntosh XRT-20),

Where were you when the Mark Levinson HQD Reference System came out in the 1980's?

90% of all recorded material is crap (poorly recorded, destroyed by sound engineers), so if you're using any typical commercial music as a source the whole thing about high end equipment is a waste of time. I still play this music, though it could never tax a real system.

[aristide1]

Add Mark Levinson, Nelson Pass, Mr Conrad and Mr Johnson of, duh, Conrad Johnson, the guy who created "Fi" products, the creator of Arcam, Dennis Had, the guy who runs Atma-Sphere.

There's a company or an amp named "The First Watt". I believe they have an interesting white paper on the subject.

Most designers would agree, if you don't get the very first watt correct, none of the other will matter all that much.