DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?

@taras22  Spot on. Thanks!

Bottom line you are absolutely and positively dead wrong, in fact you are 180 degrees out of phase on this.

taras22,

Anecdotes from your days selling audio gear do not constitute a refutation of what cd318 wrote. (Selling! And we are to assume no bias may have entered the demonstration scenario to influence an outcomes benefiting the store?)


Not that I’m strictly defending the exact claim cd318 made...but the general spirit of the point made by cd318 - that so long as you have competently designed cheap stuff up front the hierarchy of sonic importance will go to the speakers, is quite reasonable.
If we are exchanging anecdotes: I’ve heard for instance John Otvos’ heralded (when they were available ) Waveform Mach 17 speakers driven at his house via cheap Kenwood amps and cheap no-name cables. That system to my and my audiophile companion’s ears outperformed much of what I’d heard elsewhere (at that time, I’d listened to most of the Big Name stuff, hooked up to gazillion-dollar sources and cables, at stores, shows, audio reviewer’s homes, fellow audiophile set ups, etc).

In terms of more strict test methodology for the type of claim you seem to be making, I don’t see in your example the rigorous attempts to control for possible confounding factors as I see in, for example, this test:

http://matrixhifi.com/contenedor_ppec_eng.htm

ATC SCM 12 speakers hooked up to both low end and high end sources, tested for a group of listeners blinded to the identity of the source.Results were consistent with random guessing.


So on one hand I can look at tests done by people clearly doing their best to reduce the contamination of bias, and on the other your anecdote about a scenario where an audio store sets up a "test" (with little information about the level of rigor) in the service of convincing customers on the merits of buying the expensive gear sold by the store.

Hmm.... I wonder which data seem more reliable ;-)

@ prof

"... in the service of convincing customers on the merits of buying the expensive gear sold by the store"

For the record it generally wasn’t expensive, though admittedly, sometimes it was. And basically I didn’t say anything about pushing expensive equipment, that was strictly your wee self fluffing fabulation.

And please its really bad form to fluff yourself in public to make your argument look more impressive than it is. There is a place on the interwebs for stuff like that but this is family site, so please exercise some discretion, I mean, think of the children.

And you were talking about rigour and studies and double binds and stuff, so if I get your drift here, you are looking for something scientificistical ( which for those keeping score is the science version of truthiness and not a nonsensical typo ). Well this is your lucky day because here is something that may just fit your bill. It was already posted up-thread but you may have missed it, after all fluffing yourself is probably a pretty hard trick to pull off and still be aware of your immediate surroundings.

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

Note it is a bit complicated and doesn’t easily reduce itself to a simple club with which to beat the opposition into submission so it may not fit your purposes here , but it does have a lot of valuable information that most people with a genuine curiosity about truth would find interesting.

So now you got some science homework, so off you go, and please stop the self fluffing in public, its really embarrassing and pretty transparent.

So, maybe my solid, soft annealed, silver, single core speaker wire with no terminations in an oversized jacket (making air the primary dielectric) is a good way to go after all. 

It has higher conductivity than copper and a less granularly crystal structure for a smoother propagation with virtually no reflections due to the lack of terminations.

Did I get that right?

All the best,
Nonoise

taras22,

My goodness, firing the personal insults at full blast! Is this going continue to be your modus operandi? Maybe you don’t care, but whatever titillation comments like those may bring you, it makes it harder to take your posts seriously.


You made some claims to cd318 about "facts" and I believe I showed it would be a rush to judgement to just accept your anecdotes as establishing the "facts" you assert to be true.

Given your attitude is one of disparaging what I write, I presume the article you linked to is meant to act as some form of riposte to what I’ve been saying here.

I’ve read it before. And read it again tonight.

I’m left with this question:

What do you actually think that article establishes, and how is it relevant to what I’ve written?