DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?

glupson"$500 is plenty for a wire with two connectors when functionally similar, if not same, can be had for $10-20-30. Most of the people with decent income would agree to that, raising a question if sonic quality gain is worth the difference in price. That is not to say there is no place for pricier cables under the sun, but that $500 is not cheap"

$500USD is indeed relatively cheap for wire primarily intended for high performance audio purposes that would include connectors and you're statement that most people would agree with you is without doubt a reflection of your circle of acquaintances which is not typical or representative of the  universe of audiophiles in general and I have never seen $10 wire and connectors that are the practical, functional and equivalent performance, quality, and specification of more proper audio cables so you are clouded by your lack of experience, knowledge, and familiarity with the topic under discussion here.  

@geoffkait 
I disagree as it seems highly unlikely that someone would pay money for something they expect to provide an enhancement and not expect it to work. The "hope" that it will enhance is correlated with the pleasure in the brain. Moreover, confirmation bias is not ordinarily found in an experiment that focuses on empirical data.  It is found in pseudo science that seeks to pass itself off as veracity. Much like your skilled listener experiment-- you can't control variables properly.  There is your logical fallacy. You can't quantify listening skills, just as glupson described above. You can give hearing tests to determine the frequencies people can hear, but you certainly cannot attach a number to what they can hear when listening to subtle music which is comprised of always changing frequencies from multiple different instruments.

The degree to which confirmation bias may effect someone is, as I said up for debate. But even after a failed expectation, they certainly are not going to say, "I am going to find another cable that does not live up to my expectations," (Popper) rather they will look for one that meets their needs/hopes.  As such, they will, until the second they make up their mind, be pre-disposed to a positive outcome.  How much so is unclear.

Attaching value, $500 vs. $5000 is a highly personal position that you can not possibly know except for yourself.  How do you know what sort of disposable cash flow "undecideds and newbies" have, and how much value they place on it? You can't, which is yet another logical fallacy. Also, an assumption that I am a "newbie," your use of the word and, is based upon what? My number of posts? There is your slippery slope.

chemman

...  it seems highly unlikely that someone would pay money for something they expect to provide an enhancement and not expect it to work. The "hope" that it will enhance is correlated with the pleasure in the brain.

Before spending serious money on things like audio cables, I think most audiophiles have already experimented with them first. It's very common for audio dealers to hand a customer some used cable with a request that he try it in his system. No cost, no obligation. Many a skeptical audiophile has been surprised at the result, and the sale follows that. So in those instances, it's not the result of "confirmation bias."

Moreover, confirmation bias is not ordinarily found in an experiment that focuses on empirical data. It is found in pseudo science that seeks to pass itself off as veracity.

To the extent that confirmation bias exists, it is found everywhere, and the results of listening tests are themselves "empirical data."

You can't quantify listening skills ... You can give hearing tests to determine the frequencies people can hear, but you certainly cannot attach a number to what they can hear when listening to subtle music which is comprised of always changing frequencies from multiple different instruments.

This is completely mistaken. Many who have used double-blind listening tests - such as in designing audio codecs - absolutely have ranked listener acuity, usually after a training period to help them understand what they should be listening for in the test. As with many here, you seem to misunderstand the use of these tests.

@geoffkait 

But I will agree that not everyone, in the whole world, is susceptible to confirmation bias in regard to a purchase.  That would be a generalization.  There have to be a few people out there that would be unaffected.  Not me mind you, if I bought a cable, for virtually any amount of money, that was supposed to improve the sonic capabilities and did not, I would be disappointed.  Because I would have been super hopeful and probably could have even talked myself into the belief the sound was better. I will try it some day soon, probably, but not now.  I am too busy enjoying the music. Enjoy it yourself. I imagine you have a nice set up!

@cleeds 

I understand the test very well. "ranking listener acuity" is not empirical per se.  You are assigning numbers to a qualitative result.  You are attempting to control for variability by using a double-blind method of testing. The key is the word attempting. You are in no way controlling for human variability. Can knowledge be gleaned from such tests? Yes.  Is it definitive? No.  This is why these test will never be as reliable as someone running tests on the actual tracks of music through a sophisticated machine.  If total harmonic distortion and other variables t can be measured using actual electrical engineering equipment with associated units remain the same in a test of 10 different power cords, what explains improved sonic quality?