DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?

ganainm,

I’m totally with you, and have myself reiterated many times: I’m not arguing that anyone shouldn’t buy whatever makes him/her happy, for whatever reason they want. Nor do I advocate turning every purchase we make into a scientific double-blind experiment. I have had numerous bits of gear, even some tweakier stuff, that I’d think is well on the fringe of actual audibility (or well over the cliff). But it’s stuff that makes me happy, and I’ve even been happy enough to avail myself of likely placebo effects here and there. I’d hate for anyone to demand how I spend my money and would never push my own standards on others.

It’s only when people start making objective claims about reality, using their own subjectivity as the apparent standard of reality, that I think becomes problematic. So I add my own opinions and reasons for believing as I do, as a counterbalance. I’ve been very glad over the many years of inhabiting audio forums to have seen rigorous debate about these issues, as they have been quite helpful in guiding my own approach to my system. (And saving money!).

The problem is many people don’t seem that acquainted with the principles of rigorous empirical inquiry, as exemplified in science.
If you question their subjective experience, they react emotionally and defensively, thinking it’s an insult or that you are being dogmatic and arrogant, as in "who are YOU to tell me what I did or didn’t experience??!!"

But of course all we are doing is applying the principles learned and used in science; acknowledging the obvious fact that we are fallible, including our perception and our inferences from our experience, and trying to account for that fallibility. The example I’ve used before: my son is involved in a long term double-blind study w. placebo control group, for a new allergy treatment. The doctors are not allowed to know who is on the real medicine or on the placebo. Why? Because we know their having such knowledge can influence/bias the outcome of the trials.Do the study doctors protest "What? Are you trying to tell me I can’t trust my own judgement to get around my bias? What insulting nonsense! I’ve used my judgement to get through life, and I’ll use my knowledge of who is on the medicine and who is not to get through this study just fine thank you"

Of course the doctors don’t throw such a fit. Because they are simply acquainted with the facts of the matter about human bias, and the need to control for that variable.


But when these variables are raised in threads like this you invariably raise hackles as if you’ve attacked someone’s religion, or at least some of their cherished beliefs. It’s understandable on one level because, hey, our subjectivity is essentially our main tool for getting through life and making inferences about how things work. Threaten someone’s strongly held belief based on a strong subjective experience and it seems on the surface a bit destabilizing. One can say "Oh yes, I agree we need that rigor for certain areas of science...but I don’t need it to come to firm conclusions in my audio hobby." And in that way compartmentalize things. But unfortunately, human bias doesn’t stay compartmentalized like that and it seems the honest thing to do is admit it, and take this in to account when deciding on how strong our claim is going to be about cables and other things, where objectively verifiable evidence is less forthcoming.


(That said, I think many in this particular thread, including those who believe cables often make a sonic difference, seem more open to the points being made by some of us more skeptical critters).

elizabeth,

Thanks for those details.

In those cases, it certainly seems that you did not fall for a certain type of expectation effect (e.g. that something newer, or more expensive, will sound better).

However, that's not the only way perceptual biases work.  First, expectation bias doesn't work with perfect regularity only in that direction (expecting better).   Perceptual errors can work the other way, hearing something as worse - even when there may be no actual audible difference.   When we start looking for differences, very often we find them whether they are "there" objectively or not, and then we may decide we don't like a difference we think we perceive.

It reminds me of years ago when I had several levels of power cords to test out from a big manufacturer, from their modest version to their expensive.  I was of the mindset that I wasn't sure if they would make a difference or not so I would have said "I'm not biased to think these more expensive cables make a difference."  When I heard the "cheapest" one on my system, which was still many hundreds of dollars more than the stock power cords I'd been using, I didn't perceive any difference.  "See, I did just go and think I heard a difference just because it's a more expensive boutique power cord.  I'm not biased!"

Then I heard the next one.  Thought...well maybe I am hearing something.

Went to the most expensive.  Wow!  Such an obvious change!  Bigger, richer sound, more organic.  Loved what I thought I was hearing and "it's not because of bias, I wasn't expecting this!" 
 

But then after a while I thought part of the effect of the cable was to make my system sound tonally darker than I liked.  Ok, so now it's doing something obvious I don't like.

But then I decided to have a pal help be blind test it against a stock power cord.  Then, when I didn't know which was playing...voila!...the differences I was sure I heard vanished.  No "extra smooth, richer, more organic and darker sonic signature" was there to distinguish the very expensive power cable from the $15 stock cable!

That was one of the early encounters with the power of my own perceptual biases that made quite an impression.  It's hard not to do some re-orientating once you've been shown the power of your biases and how utterly sure you can be about something you perceive, yet show that inference to be entirely questionable.   


(BTW, I used and loved my Meridian 508.20 CD player for many years and at one point jumped "up" to the "better, newer" 508.24 player.   Yet I was disheartened in perceiving the 508.24 as less engaging than my 508.20 so I sold it at a loss.  I know where you are coming from on that).

The most recent instance where I used blind testing was when I changed music servers, from imac/itunes to a raspberry pi/logitech server.  The last thing I expected was a sonic difference, and yet the new server immediately sounded more pinched and "brighter" to my ears.  After a while I had someone help be blind test against the itunes/logitech server and the difference I thought I heard was gone; they were indistinguishable to me.  From then on the new server never bothered me and the "brightness" never seemed to appear again.


Again, these are just examples concerning the principle that perceptual bias and mistakes are not so simple as "I expect to hear a difference so I'll hear one"  or "I didn't expect to hear a difference, but I did, so it wasn't a case of expectation bias."  There are various factors going on.

Anyway, I won't pursue that any further, and thanks again for your input!

The problem with reviewer-based, double-blind audio gear testing is that there are still significant variables that remain largely uncontrolled, rendering illusory the apparent objective being sought for the purposes of recommending a purchasing decision to another. Some of those variables include differences in human perception and differences in the acoustical environment of sound reproduction. 

Pharma drug trial double-blind testing really has no parallel in the audio gear double-blind testing realm. First, unlike pharma drug studies, there is no “placebo” control in audio. Second, in pharmacy drug testing, the component of human perception (no change in health vs a change in health for better or worse (adverse side effects)) is more varied, yet often more quantifiable, than a binary decision of preference between two audio products based upon one's hearing perception. 

Prof. Sadly I gotta tell you many docs  DID and sometimes still do put up just such objections as you mentioned although now studies and their interpretation are taught early and often to the profession. Ironically I am one who does sometimes object to the way Evidence Based Medicine is used when the systems (people and their pharmacophysiology) are so incredibly complex and variable and even really good studies are hard to reproduce. The "evidence" in Evidence Based Medicine is highly subject to the finances involved. And many docs still do cry out "how dare you" when you suggest, and show them good studies, that their practice is influenced by that industry sponsered golf trip. By contrast the measurements and mind set of the engineering world which I stay in touch with is generally pretty straight in part because the outcomes are much more closely tied to first principals. You know, the math works, the bridge stays up. Two pieces of copper are much more alike than 2 people.  Fortunately the medical profession is generally improving fast.
The good double blind study is now coupled with advanced molecular biology and genetic understanding to make the science stronger.
Good luck with your son's study!
Audio content:  good music especially live at the bedside definetely helps people relax and feel less pain. And probably helps them heal faster. Studies evolving.