John Dunlavy On "Cable Nonsense"

So You Want To Argue.
Dunlavy's argument is that people can not distinguish between cables better than
chance IN BLIND TESTS. His support is the result of many tests conducted at his
facilities.

Right, and this is the problem - YOU CAN NOT GENERALIZE from one test situation and then declare that "A" is the truth based upon these results. This is what John *tends* to imply by his posts and writings - when questioned closely he either avoids the issue(s) or has to agree.

If you want to argue against Dunlavy, prove that people can sucsesfuly
distinguish between cables IN A BLIND TEST, or that his sample was not
statisticaly strong enough to make the generalization.

I do not have to do EITHER to question his CONCLUSIONS. It is sufficient to say that his test methodology is flawed and so the results that stem from it are equally flawed. They are statistically valid, but this comes from FLAWED tests. PERIOD.

Mentioning that you can discern differences under other circumstances is
TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. That is what he claims is the placebo effect which he is
so frustrated by.

I don't want to slam JD or his products, but let me say again that the LIMITING FACTORs in such tests are A) the listener's hearing ability, B) the system. I would suggest that at least in the tests published so far that item (B) is extremely questionable. Let me add that (C) the source material is also a limiting factor. NO DIFFERENCES CAN BE HEARD if any ONE or ALL of the limits are reached.

And even if under his circumstances YOU can, that does not refute the claim, you
would also need a reasonably statisticaly valid sample of people to perform the
same way.

Statistics are only as good as the TEST that underlies the statistics. There's little doubt that one can design tests that will give the appearance of being statistically valid for almost any result.

Think about the problem more fully.

_-_-bear (http://bearlabsUSA.com)

Most cable manufacturers are not wire manufacturers at all. It requires a significant capital investment to set up and operate a wire factory. The barrier for YOU to become a wire manufacturer is mostly the need to run the damn thing 24 hrs a day to make a profit and cover your overheads! So, unless you can sell MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of feet of wire, you're not going to be in any sort of wire business. MANY of the domestic wire operations have folded in the last several decades because it's tough to sell that much wire.

So, it is necessary for audio cable manufacturers to sub contract out their needs to one or more existing factories - their runs are insignificant compared to a typical industrial order - THUS, the prices are higher.

I have my pure Silver stranded wire drawn, stranded, and jacketed with PTFE ("teflon") for me by a small specialty manufacturer, I assemble it into what becomes Silver Lightning Interconnects. It is very expensive per foot because of the small quantities involved. By the time I'm done with the labor involved in the assembly and add in the costs of overhead and the materials, believe me there isn't a ton of profit. You can't look only at the cost of materials when you think about these cables.

I agree, some are junk, snake oil, and WAY overpriced. But not all.

Bear is up to his usual "debating" tactics. If decades+ of established acoustics methodology and all the evidence (from scientifically valid testing) goes against you, then just claim that the testers don't have a system with sufficient resolution. Could you give us an example of a system that you feel does have sufficient resolution?

BTW, this is not to say that people don't get more enjoyment from their system from various cables even without any audible difference. I use Nordost from my DAC to amp just because I like knowing that it's extremely low capacitance, and almost bought Straightwire Rhapsody speaker cables just because they look great! In neither case did I hear a difference from the previous cable, but maybe my system just doesn't have enough resolution, eh?

Cheers,
JHunter

The problem with blind tests is that they are typically conducted in less than familiar surroundings. As such, one may not be comfortable in test setting. They are also not allowed to familiarize themselves with the subtle timing, tonal or spatial cues that various cables CAN produce, but may take time to recognize. As such, being able to pick out the irregularities that do occur when going from cable to cable can become an extremely difficult task simply due to lack of familiarity.

With all of that in mind, the tests conducted by J. Peter Moncrieff of IAR showed his ability to differentiate between cables 100% of the time under double blind test conditions. On top of this, he was also able to distinguish whether there was was an ABX box in line 100% of the time. His ability to do this with witnesses refutes ALL other tests. Once an accuracy level that is irrefutable has been achieved, it simply becomes a matter of system resolution and the individuals' ability to hear such changes that comes into question. It is NOT a question of if there are audible differences anymore.

The fact that David Spiegel (the inventor of the ABX box) also told me first hand that another reviewer was able to differentiate between cables. This gives further credence to the FACT that cables can be audibly different. While Spiegel could not remember the reviewer's name, she showed up in response to a challenge that he issued that was open to ALL reviewers. My guess is that it was Enid Lumley, but i'm not sure. Keep in mind that Spiegel did these tests because he wanted to be able to prove or disprove that there were sonic differences amongst cables. As such, he will to this day say that HE can't hear a difference between cables under test conditions but acknowledges that others might be able to.

Give it a rest. Sean
>

My post was stuck on the front of Bears.
*I* wrote So You Want To Argue, everything down to "...frustrated by". We must have hit POST simultaneously or something.

Re: system resolution and J. Peter Moncrieff, like I said, you can't draw conclusions from that small a sample, he may be an extreeme statistical outlier. I'm not convinced yet, but I am willing to accept that a critical number of people can hear cables in a "high enough resolution" system, it's just a shame to have to rely on so much anecdotal evidence from both sides.
Still, overall we're talking about the discernment abilities of everyone who considers cables (most all audiophiles willing to make the investment) and their individual systems.

:Grungle:
end of message (just in case!)
-----