DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?

Gee whiz, guys, it looks like your humble narrarator is the only one here with golden ears. I have no difficulty whatsoever hearing subtle differences. Or earthshaking ones, either. I wish I could help you guys and gal out, I really do. That’s what is known in the biz as tough toenails. That’s the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. 🍪

My observation is that by and large most audiophiles don’t know where they are on the curve or how to get higher on the curve and can’t even tell when their sound takes a step or two backwards. That’s called lost in the sauce.

Power Cords To Me Has The Most Profound Impact On Our Gear and The Most Hard To Say For Sure How They Will Interact With Your Gear Power Supply. I Have No Conditioner That Improves Sound Unless You Have Really Bad Power Issues. Yes they Change The Sound In Areas Of The Reproduction But They Just Makes Certain Areas Stand Out More and Other Less, A Good Power Cord and Outlets In My Experience Will Always Make A More Real Improvement Across The Board. 

Speaking of the clash of titans, which is of course the age old battle btwn believers of cables and naysayers, there was once a wee skirmish.

It begins with an article by Malcolm Omar Hawksford who is a pretty smart guy who knows his way around communication electronics and the theory it is based,

https://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable

But then I saw the following comment to this article from a naysayer and busted a gut . You see the naysayers are prone to ask for science/engineering to prove cable difference, and here was, what seemed like a pretty nice short and sweet examination of cable theory which covers a lot of the bases.

So after given what was asked for here is the response I mentioned above ( the counter-attack after the initial Hawksford salvo )....

"Those who state that the "laws of physics" don’t allow
> > for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies
> > might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics
> > predict the opposite.
>
>
> Publishing such an unecessarily math-intensive article in a
> consumer publication has an obvious subtext - "It’s all so
> complex that you can’t possibly understand it, so believe
> whatever we say".
>
>
That seems to be the plan: the article will "dazzle ’em with science",
than Atkinson, his minions and the snake oil merchants will swoop in
and baffle them." . IOW, a typical $tereopile ploy. "

What can I say. but that words fail me, and that I have no idea how to get the coffee spray off my screen ( anybody got any ideas ? ).

analogluvr,

You passed the reading test! ;-)

As you saw, I made it quite clear that any results from a well designed test are provisional, limited to the scope of that particular test or set of tests. Results never "prove" things but only possibly add data that do, or don’t add support for the hypothesis in question. You look at what you want to test, then you *do the scope of testing that hypothesis requires.* And you don’t draw conclusions beyond the scope of what you are actually testing for. When testing an individual, even if they "fail" multiple well designed blind trials that doesn’t mean there are no audible differences between the cables tested. The result is that individual simply didn’t demonstrate the claimed ability in a controlled test. Multiple trials will always, obviously, add more confidence in the results than single trials, whether it’s testing individuals, or groups. 

...

Nope, sorry, professor. That’s a lotta gobbledegook. My position is very clear. There is no such thing as a good blind test. Period. Let me know when it sinks in. The talking machine finally hits a brick wall.