John Dunlavy On "Cable Nonsense"

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!)
-----

The community should understand the difference between "statistical" and "practical" significance. Consider the following example.

Through omniscience, we know that:

Car A gets 20.1 mpg.
Car B gets 20.2 mpg.

Obviously, the TRUE difference between the fuel efficiency of cars A & B is 0.1 mpg. Sampling a sufficiently large sample size of cars A & B, we would be able to detect a "statistically significant difference" between the mpg for the two cars. But once we do detect a "statistically significant" difference, what does it mean?

In this case, it means precious little in terms of "practical significance." That is, how much is a 0.1 mpg difference really worth in the real world? Not much! And certainly, consumers would not be willing to pay a significant amount of money for such a trivial difference in fuel economy.

Now to come back to the issue at hand in this thread, let's assume that it really is possible to find a "statistically significant" difference in the sound of cables (this is a leap of faith given JD's blind testing results, but references to a "J. Peter Moncrieff of IAR" keep cropping up and I'll accept this single result as valid). The central question becomes -- Is this "statistically significant" difference a "practically significant" difference. I would argue that it is not, especially in the context of the obscene prices charged by high-end cable manufacturers.

Understand that when statistical testing ends in non-significant results or mixed resutls (i.e., sometimes significant, sometimes non-significant) the most frequent reason is that the difference that is being observed (i.e., the "effect size") is so small. I suspect that it is the case here. Any true differences in the sounds of cables are so subtle and small that they cannot be detected with any consistency if at all. So a rational person must ask, is it really worth thousands of dollars to achieve such a subtle and small difference? Only the individual can answer that question for themselves. But as far as the audiophile cable manufacturers' claims of vast differences in and superiority of sound, I maintain that they are hooey at best.