Audio Science Review = "The better the measurement, the better the sound" philosophy

@prof Do you believe that power cables can exert different sonic sound to a system, or they are not capable of a difference or significant difference.

My enigineer friend’s example of Pangea power cable versus GroverHuffman power cable is based not only on subjective hearing but also knowing the manufacturing process of those cables. The Pangea lacks the current capability and isolation of the GroverHuffman cable. The latter has a triple powdered metal suspended in a glue for the RF/EMI shield encased in a silver shield and then in a faraday cage-like copper shield. It has 2 mil thick, embossed all copper elements in an air core dielectric which he owns a patent on. After trying Furutech, Oyide and several other high end connectors, some Taiwanese all copper connectors were chosen as they did not impart a "brighter" sound for their brass, silver and rhodium connectors. Luckily he found copper connectors which did not get loose over time and had excellent grip. I don’t know if they are OFC or 6N. It was also determined that using these off-brand connectors were cost effective and permitted the cables to be sold at a reasonable price (some Furutech connectors can cost as much as the rest of the cable components or more). Every component of his cables was selected from listening to the results of various materials.

Cut open a Pangea 9 SE Mk II cable and you’ll find Cardas Grade One Copper, OFC copper, and Litz wire copper conductors. Quote-Counter-spiraled conductors offer superior noise rejection, and the triple-shielded design provides high-current noise isolation. The large-diameter 7-AWG construction boasts seven-way multi-gauge geometry optimized for high-current delivery of 50/60 Hz AC power. The solid-blade 24k gold-plated copper AC contacts provide superior electrical contact end quote. The triple-shield is not very sophisticated and the counter spiral, Litz design could or may not be the reason for the poor sound. Regardless, at least I know what the physical differences in the cables are. The difference in sound was extreme with the Pangea ruining a very high end system of nearly $1/2 million.

@mattw73

Do I make all my purchases because of high SINAD rating? No, but it helps as a starting point for certain types of gear I may be looking for. I have my own brain and I’m able to make my own decision on what sounds good to me without asking a hundred different people about what they thought about something I purchased.

Can you give an example of what that gear (you may be looking for) is that ASR helps you as a starting point in. It’s a bit confusing really. And where does the science come in, in measuring?

fleschler,

Here is my own approach to these questions:

Nobody is being force to become engineers or do scientific or blind tests when evaluating equipment. Nor should they be.

But it’s still the case that many of us want to know what is true...or LIKELY...or not in regard to claims about audio gear, because there are so many different claims, and we care about how we spend our money and time.

So if I’m voicing skepticism about your results, you don’t have to do a thing. Just carry on. But I am giving my reasons for why I find the claims uncompelling.

So when you say if you hear dramatic results it suggests you must be hearing something real, unfortunately that’s not true. We really can imagine "dramatic" results. Just consider the astounding number of experiences people believe they’ve had, everything from alien abductions to becoming convinced they were part of satanic rituals when they were a child to utterly implausible alternative-medicine treatments that "worked" etc. If someone can imagine they were probed by an alien, you think an audiophile can’t imagine "less midrange glare or better dynamics?"

So I approach another audiophile’s claims not on the strength of his personal conviction, but on the plausibility of the claim. If someone is describing to me the differences he heard between Devore and Magico speakers...hey...TOTALLY plausible given that we know very well speakers differ in very audible ways. Could there be some bias infecting the claim? Of course. But as a practical matter, it’s reasonable to conditionally accept the claims of the sonic differences.

But if someone is declaring their new $1,000 USB cable has dramatically improved his system, deeper bass, bigger soundstage, more dynamics and all that...well that is a more implausible claim based on how digital signals work. I’m not going to demand THAT person make his decisions based on MY criteria, but I am going to explain why I would want stronger evidence than that person’s say-so, before I accept the claim. And I will defend why that is rational for me to do so.

So don’t mix up what I’m saying as a declaration you have to do anything different at all in your pursuit of gear. I am simply defending the reasons for skepticism. If you think those reasons are poor ones, then yeah that becomes central to the debate.

@mikepowellaudio 

RE I had to weigh in as this is too hard to resist....

Excellent post!

@crymeanaudioriver

in audio we are well beyond the observation and hypothesis stage. However you are wrong or at least simplifying. The hypothethis may be as simple as you are hearing things. The scientific side of audio has already stated that and tested it often. ...

In terms of general audio theory theory, much is established—I doubt we’ll be discovering parallel universes there—in terms of psycho-acoustics a great deal also. But sonic observations of new speakers happen all the time. And "you are hearing things" is an inadequately worded hypothesis, we have to be more specific.

My new forum posted as: 

Nearly all manufacturers do not advertise/exhibit their product measurements? Why?

@axo1989  in audio we are well beyond the observation and hypothesis stage. However you are wrong or at least simplifying. The hypothethis may be as simple as you are hearing things. The scientific side of audio has already stated that and tested it often. The I believe my hearing crowd simply refuses to test their hypothesis that what they hear actually is there. Hence it remains a hypothesis for them and them alone.   Unfortunately based on a available evidence even if proven they don't hear what they think they hear I don't think they will accept the results. See my Carl Jung quote.

@nonoise and @tantejuut  That's what I have been posting here.  If it is a subtle difference, then yes, my senses can be wrong.  If it is a DRAMATIC difference, not only can my friends with golden hearing, my very educated hearing but also totally equipment uninterested friends and family members can hear the differences.  I invite friends over and they exclaim how wonderful the music sounds (meaning reproduced).  If it weren't for time limits, they would stay all day (2-3 hours is usual).  Covid killed 1.5 years of friends coming over). 

To a few posters today, everything I say is anecdotal and has no relevance because I didn't do blind A/B/X testing to determine the measured differences.   Is that what this hobby (obsession for listening to music) is about?  Maybe it is for some but not for the overwhelming majority of music listeners who are overwhelmingly not audiophiles either.  

Now I think I will begin another forum concerning manufacturers supplying measurements and testing.  WHY DON'T THEY?  

prof, sounds like something a Crusader would say as he marches to retake the holy lands. No doubt they were quite talkative about it.

All the best,
Nonoise

nonoise, your response was, as usual, strewn with strawmen.

Sometime when you really want to interact with what has been argued, we are here for conversation.

@djones51 

I have seen this stated more than once "Science is observation then measurement". It's not really how it works,  it would be "verifiable observation". Science has no interest in measuring every non verified observation. ...

Verifying observations a priori isn't scientific though. We develop theoretical knowledge by observation, hypothesis and experimentation in that order.

Initial observation is how we come up with hypothesis in the first place. If you filter observation based on pre-existing theory you can't form new hypotheses. The science is in comparing the prediction of the hypothesis to the result of the experiment.

Of course, myths survive partly because falsifying non-existent things is tricky. I'm not going too far down that rabbit hole this morning.

@axo1989

Nice post of yours directly above this one.

Re the quoted one, thanks. I think I first posted there around Christmas time. I read reviews a few years prior. Didn’t find your user name but give me a clue and I’ll follow up :-) Best to avoid heavy baggage I agree.

I’ve often been treated like a "subjectivist-in-wolf’s-clothing" on ASR. But that’s usually from the small cadre of "the usual suspects. " So there is certainly some inflexible thinking going on, and some are triggered by any appeal to subjectivity or subjective descriptions.   (In fact at one point it was suggested that I should continually declare that I reviewed speakers for a little while, 20 years ago, so that everyone could view my arguments with the proper amount of suspicion and by association with the reviewer crowd my honesty should be suspect...)

As I think you've seen I am often arguing against that type of mindset just as I do about a "purely subjectivist" mindset here.

But there is a lot of common ground and agreement with many others and on the whole I find the forum agreeable.   Same with people here.

@tonywinga

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

The best humour, so many layers!

As I cannot claim to have absolute hearing, another one cannot not claim that my observations are 'wrong' from the start because my observations are not significant enough  (just anecdotal 'evidence'). I A/B a lot, but don't tell me from the start that my observations are delusional. It always comes down to cables because of the tiny advantages there are to gain in contrast with components. Let's asume that I might be right (huh no, the horror), are you willing to learn from my experiences and try to examine and study the differences. Or better, to learn from people like Galen Gareis, Garth Powell or Max Townshend. People that say I am rejecting science are incorrect. I combine technical information and measurement reports with common sense and good hearing/golden ears :)

Wow, I haven’t dropped by in a couple of days.  Still going, I see.

”The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

ASR uses science in the title but really reflects an engineering culture. Amir himself says they (generally) don’t do science, but measurements, which is correct.

My day job is in ecology, so I work with scientists, engineers, comms people, policy and legal and so on. In my experience science and engineering cultures differ: scientists observe reality, form hypotheses and test them via experimentation; engineers learn complex rule systems and solve problems by applying those rules. I think that’s why the core ASR dialectic is so linear-mechanistic. It’s all about the rules. Curiosity, less so.

I also like the old saying "in theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they aren't". The interesting people at ASR are these with enough experience and intelligence to see (and see the humour in) this.

Scientific measuring for the sake of ascertaining something is useful and needed but not for every damn claim made by someone who hears a difference. The fanaticism exhibited here by some in the objectivist camp are akin to religious extremism.

Every conceivable excuse as to why you can't hear what you're hearing is right up there with being born with original sin. That you can't hear correctly and are a fool to trust your senses, is quite an asinine position to take for a harmless and simple hobby.

Saving you from yourself (emotionally and economically) is yet another parallel aspect of this religious like zealotry. So is having a flock of sheep followers and acolytes sent out to other lands (websites) to combat (think Crusades), proselytize and convert.

If god were never invented or ASR never existed, we'd all be right where we're at, enjoying our hobby and sharing our experiences, as if none of this ever arrived on our doorstep in a flaming paper bag.

All the best,
Nonoise

@prof note my quote above from Carl Jung. Nothing more to add at this point.

@prof

I can see your point of view regarding ASR.

I don’t know if you have been a member long enough to have seen some of my skirmishes with Amir and crew. One got a bit crazy. But for me it’s always water-under-the-bridge.

Nice post of yours directly above this one.

Re the quoted one, thanks. I think I first posted there around Christmas time. I read reviews a few years prior. Didn’t find your user name but give me a clue and I’ll follow up :-) Best to avoid heavy baggage I agree.

@crymeanaudioriver 

Indeed.  I'm always conscious that there are other people reading who are more open-minded.

A lot of the rancor comes, as I mentioned, from the problem that some of us "don't know what we don't know."   And then that ignorance is projected.

So often one sees an appeal to "But this is mysterious, WE don't know the answers to this" or "Science doesn't know everything, and Science doesn't have the answer for the phenomenon I'm describing!"    Which is often just another way of saying "I'm ignorant of the science on this subject" and then projecting that ignorance on to science or anyone else who is aware of the science.

There certainly are jerks on all sides of an issue.  But in terms of the basic approach, the "objectivist/ASR-type member" is starting with acknowledging the inherent limitations and fallibility of our human condition.  And then going on to ask "ok, how can we account for fallibility in our method of inquiry?"  It's a personal acknowledgement of fallibility as it is a general acknowledgement about our species. "I Could Be Wrong" is the fundamental starting point of the inquiry.

On the other hand, we have folks who are Absolutely Certain of the reliability of their perception.  It's unshakable - and if you try to bring any objective or control methods to the claim, those methods will be faulted, never that individual's belief.

And since this is essentially a religious-faith-like stance of personal dogmatism, it tends to lead to rancor.  The "belief and confidence in what I hear" is wrapped up in someone's view of themselves, and they think it can't be challenged lest the whole thing fall like a house of cards (since they won't accept the "way out" offered by more objective inquiry).  Therefore there isn't much else left to say "I heard it, that's that" and the only recourse is ultimately feelings of insult "how dare you try to tell me I didn't hear what I KNOW I heard!" and so we get lots of ad hominem.

As I've said, this Purely Subjective approach leaves no way to ever adjudicate truth claims about audio gear.  If the idea is that our perception is the Ultimate Arbitor, then in the very same setting evaluating equipment, audiophile A can say "I heard a difference between these cables" which is supposed to mean 'therefore there is a change in the signal.'  But if audiophile B is there using precisely the same method and reports "I don't hear any difference" then that should stand as a refutation of the first audiophile's claim.  But it never is, because audiophile A will always say "Sorry, I'm not wrong, it looks like your hearing just isn't as acute as mine because I know I hear the difference!"    It's a completely unfalsifiable method in this sense.

And the problem with unfalsifiable claims which resort to ad hoc reasoning like this is that they are consistent with any observation (I hear a difference, if someone else does it confirms my claim, if they don't, they simply can't hear the difference), and hence do not predict any observation.

Now, nobody HAS to give a damn about any of this.  No audiophile has to be a consistent thinker, or aware of all the science, or do any scientific or rigorous inquiry AT ALL when choosing gear.  But the issue is that people will inevitably make claims of truth from their experience, with unshakable conviction, and that's where we end up in this mess.

Have fun measuring while I hallucinate and trip on my silver wires ;)

Since when does saying ALL humans have perceptual biases the same as saying someone is hallucinating? The rejection of basic science here is mindboggling.

@prof, excellent and very thoughtful answer to my post.  I agree wholeheartedly that if something measures differently (and I referred to REW, and not just S/N, distortion figures, etc., because that theoretically should give you lots of data points that show a difference when something is changed in your system, since something should change in some of that data if it sounds different). If you think that there is a difference, despite no objective support for it, A/B testing is the perfect way to eliminate confirmation bias.  Can a difference in depth of soundstage, or positioning of instruments within a soundstage be objectively measured?  I don't know the answer to that. What role does confirmation bias play in me believing that I hear a difference?  I don't know the answer to that either, although I like to think that I am being objective. I replaced an Audience Power Chord that I had used for a long time on my DAC with a $$$ Shunyata one (same length, but slightly lower AWG after liking what they did for my Preamp (over stock) and speakers.  I can honestly say that I hear no real difference . . . maybe an ever so slight improvement, but that could definitely be representative of a struggle to hear a difference because I expect/want a difference -- the paradigm of confirmation bias.

 But as you accurately point out, whatever the answers are, A/B testing should yield a consistent result that eliminates confirmation bias. That is why I am surprised that A/B testing is not more widely accepted here on AudioGon.  A very interesting thread as putting many manufacturers' claims to objective tests has always been an interest of mine.  Thanks for the thoughtful response.

@crymeanaudioriver I personally would love to participate in A/B testing for anything, but especially the seemingly wild claims of things like the Shun Mook, Stillpoints that you scatter around, risers that elevate cables off the floor, that weird brass salad bowl that "snaps the soundstage into focus," etc.. . every manufacturer has some sales patter regarding how their tweak real works, but no one really cites either objective measurements or the results of A/B testing. That would be a lot of fun! Maybe some tweaks manufacturers would be willing to do some A/B testing at Axpona?

I have seen this stated more than once "Science is observation then measurement". It's not really how it works,  it would be "verifiable observation". Science has no interest in measuring every non verified observation. "I saw a leprechaun hiding gold under a rainbow" isn't a verified observation neither is" I heard differences swapping power cords".  If you heard differences between power cords during a controlled blind test then that's worth investigating. That's a verified observation. 

So tantejuut, is it your contention that, unlike the rest of the human species, you are totally immune from perceptual bias effects?  That you just couldn't be wrong in what you perceive when you "hear" something?

No. The assumptions about my hearing capabilities and my openness to learning sound a bit dogmatic. I think being right is more important then enjoying audio for some people. Have fun measuring while I hallucinate and trip on my silver wires ;)

@prof  , people here have shown their underlying nature. I am sure others reading this will understand and accept your well thought out posts even if those you target do not. Most will see that your basic logic is sound and what you are being met with is emotion not logic or clear thinking. 

If people are not willing to accept the most basic, irrefutably obvious premise that their senses are inherently fallible, then there is no hope for an intelligent conversation. It is impossible no matter how hard we try.

I learned long ago not to engage ASR minions. You’re basically conversing with pre-programmed robots

This is the deep irony/hypocrisy that almost always arises in these threads.

For the most part people making the "ASR-type case" are trying to offer a reasoned case with civility.  The ad hominem and insults, like above, tends to come from the "anti-objective" side...who then go on to blame the "objectivists" for being the dogmatic thread-crappers.

And then also claim it's the objectivists who are close minded hive-thinkers.

This is why I mentioned earlier, the level of "projection" one sees in these threads is often quite amazing.

@moto_man 

The thing was, your post started off fine with the idea that IF X is audible, it makes sense it should be measurable.

Except throughout the post you kept implying that you ARE hearing differences and from that conviction...therefore it should be measurable.

There wasn't really an acknowledgement of the obvious variable that you could be misconceiving differences that aren't there.  It was more about "I hear it...so why can't we measure it?"

"That is why I ask the ultimate question: If it doesn’t measure differently, does that mean ipso facto that there are no sonic differences?"

Remember that measurements, and measurement devices, didn't just arise out of some abstract vacuum.

The main reason measuring devices arose is to extend the known limits of our senses!  That's why we need devices to detect X-rays that we can't see, telescopes to see distant objects we can't see, devices to detect radiation, ultrasonic noises we can't hear, and on and on.  The measuring equipment used for audio gear can reliably detect and quantify both things we can hear, and cannot hear.

And the the use of measurements in audio only arose by correlating those measurements to what we hear.  That's the whole point.  It seems lots of audiophiles start with this strange assumption that measurements in regards to audio equipment are just some laboratory abstraction, whereas they arose by careful correlation to what we hear (and can't hear).

So, as to your question: It will depend on the particular claim.  We don't have Absolute Certainty about anything of course, so it's a matter of adjudicating the likelihood based on what seems to be known.  So if you take an AC cable, measure the signal with an expensive cable vs cheap cable and there is no detectable difference, that strongly implies it's not changing the signal.  And therefore it's more probable a bias effect is responsible for the listener thinking he hears a difference.  It's not Absolute.  Just the more probable explanation.

Someone may object and say "Ok, but what If I AM hearing a real sonic difference that you can't detect by those instruments?"

Ok...how could that be tested?  You CAN also test that claim: do a blind test to remove the possibility of listener bias.  If you can detect the difference reliably, then even if the measurements are the same, this DOES suggest there is something audibly detectable happening.  You are vindicated!

But if you are going to reject BOTH any attempts at objective verification (measurements) and subjective verification-with-controls (blind tests)...then what is left?   What way forward to you have to figuring out what is actually the case?

If the way forward is "always trust our perception" then that flies in the face of all we know about the fallibility of our perception.  And it also leads to countless contradictions where one person perceives "no difference" and someone else "obvious difference," which tells you NOTHING therefore about what is actually happening, and it would validate literally every crazy claim anyone has ever conceived (because no matter how crazy the idea, there are people who believe they are experiencing it).

If anyone is getting tired of beating this horse to death please try some other threads. I just started one on Atmos music, if you are interested in immersive audio please drop by. If you want to "measure" in immersive audio it is very easy and you can just use your fingers. (with 5 channels, or 7 channels you can use your fingers, when you go above 10 channels it gets a little tricky).

@lalitk You nailed it. ☠☠ Poison. 

it is not about expertise nor a defensive reaction to scientific explanations. If I hear more detail, I hear more detail. Simple as that.

^^^^

You literally contradicted yourself within your first sentence.  Your posts really do exemplify precisely the problem here.

So tantejuut, is it your contention that, unlike the rest of the human species, you are totally immune from perceptual bias effects?  That you just couldn't be wrong in what you perceive when you "hear" something?

@jerryg123 

I learned long ago not to engage ASR minions. You’re basically conversing with pre-programmed robots 😂 

@mitch2 

Please clarify, which side is the “cult”?   

Whichever side is the one that believes they are right and the other is wrong. It varies by the individual regardless of ideology.

A new Camry is a better car in every measurable way than an old bathtub Porsche. I know which one I’d rather own. A new iWatch keeps better time in every measurable way than an old Zenith chronograph. I know which one I’d rather own. A new cello or guitar is likely more “accurate” than one from 250 years ago (cello) or 50 years ago (guitar). I know which one I’d rather listen to. 

I don’t need or desire to convert anyone to anything. Those that do are attempting to do so for another purpose.

@prof I admit that my friends and I are either lazy in your opinion or don't care to measure/take scientific accounting of why our equipment is sonically different from other equipment (cables, tweaks included).  We don't care when we feel it is better/more enjoyable.  If the change is worse, we unplug and disown it.  

I read measurements when available.  One of ASR's long time members writes how he loves Von Schweikert speakers and now owns the VR5.  I don't recall many published measurements of his past or current speaker (or any of the VR5).  There are several published reviews sans measurements.  That didn't stop him from purchasing it and loving it.  

@prof, I think you misunderstood some of my points. Starting with the basic assumption that, for example, power cables can sound better, that should be something that is objectively measurable. If it cannot be, why not? I personally have heard differences between cables - not all, mind you, but some. Logically that should be measurable.  I heard a sonic improvement when I added an ARC REF6 instead of going DAC direct to amp, although that was counterintuitive to me.  That difference should be measurable too.  But ultimately, assuming that measurements do not show any difference, does that mean that I am imagining a difference or we have not developed a methodology to test differences in soundstage,for example.  I am pretty sure that I am not imagining things, but always open to confirmation bias.  That is why I ask the ultimate question: If it doesn’t measure differently, does that mean ipso facto that there are no sonic differences?

@prof 

it is not about expertise nor a defensive reaction to scientific explanations. If I hear more detail, I hear more detail. Simple as that.  Calling that delusional is wrong. The assumption that I really don't want to learn is incorrect. I learn everyday. From diyaudio, Agon and ASR. I am an open minded engineer. Maybe iIt is difficult to accept that some people have better hearing skills. Other people have beter measuring skills. 

You do know that these measurements came about from observation first, the measurements didn’t come before observation. The science will never further if the measurements stay in stagnation, the ear/brain is more complex than the standard measurements we use for audio.

Did you read what I wrote? Scientists continue to do testing on human hearing to explore limits but those limits change at most now by very small amounts. Scientists are doing that. Audio companies make claims with no basis. It is quite a different process.

You have a belief that our ear and brain have a complexity that cannot be tested by current measurements. That is your belief. I do not see Amir disputing that for speakers. Do you? He does and it appears almost all on the scientific side dispute that for many products such as the oft hated cables (accurately most cables). No one has proven them wrong that I can tell. Lots of beliefs but no proof.

If you REALLY care about "learning what is going on" it may indeed entail that real audible differences are occurring in your cables.

I absolutely am open to the possibility. However, without any valid proof, not belief, but proof, I will err on the side of what has been proven. I used to be convinced of the same thing people hear believe till I was "forced" to accept otherwise. I don’t think any of the detractors here have ever truly tested their beliefs. How can you claim to have strong convictions if you are unwilling to test them?

There does seem to be consensus on the engineering side that some cables can have audible effects. I don’t see black and white, but nuanced reasoned positions. I am not seeing that from competing beliefs.

@axo1989 No you are so wrong. ASR nope never, Darko never even frequent his site or YouTube as he reviews the cheap crap Amir does. 

Swing and a miss. 

Try again this is the only place I post at. WBF I just read as they have people who are real experts there. Not posers like ASR. 

BTW Juan Manuel Fangio II was an Icon in F1. My Grandfather was an engineer on the Alfa Romeo team in 1950 and 1951 working with Mr. Fangio. Juan one 5 F1 Championships. 

His Nephew Juan Manuel Fangio II (my moniker) was a very accomplished IMSA and AMLS driver. 

Keep fishing. 

@moto_man

As cryneanaudioriver pointed out: you really left science and engineering behind in your post because you have simply assumed (e.g. in the case of your Shunyata cable) that your perception is SO reliable that you just CAN’T be wrong, and that therefore if no technical theory or measurement can validate "What You Hear" then it MUST be tests that are wrong, not...ever....you!

THAT is the fundamental problem underlying most of the subjectivist/objectivist debate. The Utter Certainty many have in their own perception...which flies in the face of all we know and has been studied about the fallibility and liabilities of human bias and perception.

It seems either a case of flat out refusal to learn this due to maybe some ego-protection mechanism, because people wrongly feel they are being personally insulted if it’s dare suggested they are "hearing things." Or it’s a case of some people just not-knowing-what-they-don’t-know and so they just won’t accept any informed testimony that contradicts their self belief.

Which is too bad.

My son was involved in a large study for a peanut allergy treatment. It was double-blinded - neither we nor the researchers knew who was on the actual treatment or the placebo. This is STANDARD in such trials because of the well known influence of bias - people who know they are getting the treatment will often report it made them better (even if it didn’t) and visa versa. Wouldn’t it be strange for my son to have objected "How dare you insult me by suggesting I may be prone to imagining anything! I demand that you unblind this study. I can trust myself, why can’t you?"

That would just be a flat out misunderstanding of the nature of human bias, right?

And yet this is pretty much what one sees among many here: a flat rejection of the proposition they may actually be imagining differences, and a rejection of any way of coming to that conclusion. It’s a one way street: I KNOW I hear the difference, so the only answer I’m looking for is one that affirms that belief!

As I mentioned earlier:  I also felt very strongly I heard an "obvious" difference with a Shunyata cable in my system.  But I was open to the possibility of listener bias as well.  So I did a blind shoot out and when I didn't know which cable was which, there was NO detectable difference - my guesses were completely random.

Saved me a lot of money :-)

It's too bad more audiophiles haven't had such experiences.  It's an eye-opener.

@tantejuut

The problem I have is people telling me what I can not hear.

Again: do you have a problem with scientists who study human biology telling you what is or isn’t possible? The reason, for instance, scientists have sent up the Web telescope is to see things that they KNOW can not be seen from earth with the naked eye. Wouldn’t it be strange for someone to say "they don’t have to do that! They can’t tell ME what I can see or not!"

???

Therefore: Why are you not open to a suitable expert on a subject (in which you are not expert) explaining what you may, or may not, be able to hear? This stuff really has been studied! Just as the limits of human hearing in regards to frequency response has been studied, so have thresholds for distortion levels, dynamic range etc.

And that really does have consequences when we are talking about what type of distortions are likely in cables and how audible they are likely to be or not.

If I hear differences in cables, I want to learn what is happening. If other people tell me that it is impossible and I am delusional, I find that not the right attitude for investigating the parameters for what is causing that effect. (geometry, dielectrics, purity, etc...).

But then you really DON’T want to learn what is happening. That is:you are blocking off any answer you don’t like, especially one that would conclude you are wrong in what you thought you heard.

There are people who have good knowledge of electronics - what type of distortions are plausible or not, how to measure it, and also have good knowledge of the thresholds of audible distortion. Amir is one of them, but there are numerous others.

If you REALLY care about "learning what is going on" it may indeed entail that real audible differences are occurring in your cables. But it also MAY be the case no audible differences are occurring, for very well known technical reasons, and you REALLY MIGHT be mistaken in your perception. If you don’t allow for the latter possibility - one VERY well documented in science - then you really aren’t approaching this with an open mind keen to learn the truth.

@crymeanaudioriver 

You do know that these measurements came about from observation first, the measurements didn't come before observation. The science will never further if the measurements stay in stagnation, the ear/brain is more complex than the standard measurements we use for audio.

@moto_man I suggest a good start would be to compare like with like, and at the most basic this would mean the same AWG. Same length, same connectors.

Anything else is meaningless because you may be comparing things that are not alike in their physical characteristics. 

If stock is 20 AWG, and the $$$ ones are say 12 or 14 AWG and are a few metres shorter, yes, you will hear a difference.  They will measure differently.

@axo1989 

I can see your point of view regarding ASR. 

I don't know if you have been a member long enough to have seen some of my skirmishes with Amir and crew.   One got a bit crazy.  But for me it's always water-under-the-bridge.

@ghasley 

Thinly veiled disciples of a cult “subjectively” preaching to a crowd of those who know better…then when the preaching doesn’t work they continue to sermonize with neither an invitation nor a rational purpose for continuing.

Please clarify, which side is the “cult”?   
With both sides playing a zero-sum game, there is no room for compromise or understanding.  

@crymeanaudioriver you still here? I had already forgotten you stopped by….

@moto_man  you started fine then rejected science. You can pick and choose what you believe but that is the point where you transition from science to belief.  ASR people don't reject listening as a method they reject personal accounts listening accounts.  The science side has done many many blind listening tests, documented so they can be repeated, that have explored the limits of hearing. ASR does nothing but accept that science absent any well controlled studies that prove otherwise.  They inherently are not the people to prove otherwise in a controlled listening test as they are biased. The people here are. Ideally the best situation is the people from ASR running the test and the people from Audiogon being participants. One group will come away right. I have little doubt the ASR crowd would participate. Would the people from here participate?

I am a longtime member here, and a member of several other forums, including ASR.  ASR has its good points and its bad points, as does AudioGon and every other forum.  Just as I am confused about the hostility here by many towards A/B testing, which is one tool, I am confused by the hostility towards objective measurements.  It seems that neither pure “objectivists” nor pure “subjectivists” are correct.  Sound is a combination of system synergy, room acoustics, and even a person’s hearing. So it seems that while neither group is absolutely correct, ultimately the subjective sound counts more to me in my system that objective measurements.  That does not seem to be a controversial position.

That being said, I struggle with the concept that differences in sound cannot be objectively measured, perhaps by REW.  It seems logical that a difference in sound should measurable in some way.  That goes especially for the idea of “break-in,” which theoretically could be measurable in some way.  If a power cord or speaker cable needs 100 hours of “break-in,” which I really dont understand, shouldn’t that difference be measurable in some way?

Power cables are a very good example of the objectivist v. Subjectivist dilemma.  I recently put some pretty pricey Shunyata Research power cables in.  The first one that I used was clearly (to me) an audible improvement over stock.  Why?  Who knows. But why isn’t that difference measurable in some way?  Logic dictates that it should be.  Same when I changed speaker cables.  Many cable manufacturers make all sorts of jumbo-jumbo marketing claims.  But shouldn’t there be a way to test those differences objectively between one cable and another? Sure seems so. Even if there is no way to measure the difference, I hear a difference.  Doesn’t mean that measurements are meaningless . . . It just means that we don’t have the means to test that difference, I suppose.

On ASR, the consensus is the opposite.  If it can’t be measured, then any difference is in the imagination or bias of the listener, which I know at least in my case is not accurate. Nonetheless, I like to know that my $$$ Shunyata power cable measures the same as lamp cord, even if it sounds much different.  To me that shows the failure of pure objectivism, although I can’t explain why the difference cannot be measured.

For similar reasons, I don’t understand the hostility among many to A/B testing.  I know that it is sometimes difficult to set that sort of test up, but logically, a listener should be able to discern differences quickly.  I remember a friend and I wanted to determine whether there was any difference between a manufacturer’s digital cable and a toslink one.  Switching back and forth, we were both in agreement that the Toslink cable sounded better. So there is a value to A/B testing too.

Then there is the tweaking.  Surely, if a tweak improves the sound, there should be a measurable difference, right? What about one of my favorites, the Shun Mook $5,000 record clamp made from aged ebony from swamps in Africa.  The claims made for why that magic ebony makes any more difference than a regular record clamp has got to be measurable in some way, doesn’t it?  Or are we supposed to simply accept the jumbo-jumbo without looking for some scientific basis?

The bottom line to my rambling is that ASR has its place and its utility.  People do not need to accept those findings as gospel, but they are a factoid to be weighed and balanced with other things.  Ultimately, the test is a subjective one:  regardless of measurements, how does it sound to YOU.  And that means that someone might hear an astounding difference and another person might not.  Doesn’t mean that there is no difference.  It just means that when you add a person’s hearing into the mix, it sounds better or worse for that person.

I’m not rejecting science @crymeanaudioriver I’m just rejecting the audio equivalent of fanatical Scientologists. U B U, but this isn’t the ideal venue for your message, you’re just too arrogant to realize you are much more entertaining as an anomoly than you are appreciated.

@laoman You clearly have no idea who you are talking, what my qualifications are and for whom I have worked.

Because you introduce this aspect of yourself, it is now imperative that you elaborate for the avoidance of doubt.