DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?


Yes they do.  I’m not here to advocate for any particular brand but I’ve heard a lot and they do matter. High Fidelity reveal cables, Kubala Sosna Elation and Clarity Cable Natural. I’m having a listening session where all of them is doing a great job. I’ve had cables that were cheaper in my system but a nicely priced cable that matches your system is a must.  I’m not here to argue what I’m not hearing because I have a pretty good ear.  I’m enjoying these three brands today and each is presenting the music differently but very nicely. Those who say cables don’t matter. Get your ears checked.  I have a system that’s worth about 30 to 35k retail.  Now all of these brands are above 1k and up but they really are performing! What are your thoughts. 
calvinj
prof
But you listening ear is your ear. No one can tell you what you don’t hear.
calvinj,
Uh...yes they can.
Ever had a hearing test?
Yes, I have had a hearing test. Have you? The tests I’ve been part of don’t tell me what I hear at all. Rather, I have to tell the audiologist what I hear. Without that feedback, the audiologist knows exactly nothing about what I hear.

Remember the Yanni/Laurel debate? Only you can state what you hear. Anyone else has only a 50 percent chance of guessing correctly.

This business of establishing what we hear - and don’t hear - is very tricky. Real researchers know that. Those with simple answers and absolute pronouncements don’t. That’s the only part of the matter that’s simple.
A skilled lister is anyone with intact hearing? Nonsense...skills are developed over time, being able to hear doesn’t mean you’re a "skilled listener" anymore than having hands makes you a skilled painter. Well designed cables don’t have to be expensive, especially if you buy used ones...if you accept the design philosophy of any cable company and it makes sense to you, try the stuff. I like solid core cables, use various versions most places in my rig, including great sounding (meaning they don’t "sound" like anything at all) stuff from Audioquest and Morrow...from balanced cables where applicable to "digital" sp/dif cables from my streamer and CD player to my DAC...I did buy a solid silver coax AQ for that purpose, used...got a great deal...and my rig has never sounded better, which is sort of the point of all this.
Ahhh, hearing tests, a fave cudgel of naysaying pseudo scientists both far and wide.

Granted, tests do in fact produce information but the important question is what does that information show. Well beeps, which are currency of such tests , don’t occur much in nature, and since successful evolution involves dealing with nature, hearing or not hearing beeps is really not something we have evolved to do. What we have gotten very good at doing, and this is very important, is pulling salient information out of noisy backgrounds better than anyone else ( as an example predators generally don’t announce their presence with a warning beep like a truck backing up ...so if you fail this auditory test your evolutionary line quickly becomes a dead end ).

So here is a study that looks at something that I call functional hearing, the stuff that, I would suggest played a big role in getting us here as a species, and coincidentally the stuff that today helps allow some of us to routinely hear the differences that cable can make.

"Standard hearing tests had shown that the musicians’ ears weren’t any more sensitive than those of the other listeners. But Kraus knew that their brains, shaped by years of training, had become very good at a similar task:

"A musician will be listening to the sound of his own instrument even though many other instruments are playing," she says, a skill not unlike separating one voice from a crowd of voices.

Kraus wanted to know whether this skill helps musicians pick out a particular voice the same way they pick out a particular instrument. "And resoundingly it does," she says."

....and here is some science providing some cold hard facts to explain....

"Tests show that certain sounds produce stronger electrical signals in a musician’s brain stem, Kraus says. And, she says, these signals offer a more accurate representation of pitch, timing and tone quality — three things that help us pick out a single voice in a noisy room. "

...and here in a nutshell is an interesting contrast and comparison between the beep test and room test....

"A third study by scientists from Friedrich Schiller University in Jena, Germany, found that musicians could detect harmonies that were slightly off-key even when they had lost most of their hearing. Factory workers with similar hearing loss could not.

Results like these make sense if you think about the brain and the hearing system as if they were muscles, says Dr. Mark Jude Tramo, a professor of neurology at Harvard and director of the Institute for Music & Brain Science.

Tennis players tend to be good arm wrestlers because they have strong forearms, Tramo says. In much the same way, he says, a musician who exercises certain parts of the brain "is going to be able to do better on any task that involves auditory concentration."

Bottom line, it seems if you put some effort into active listening you are much more capable at listening than if you are a , uhhh, drive-by listener.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113938566


cleeds,

Yes, I have had a hearing test. Have you? The tests I’ve been part of don’t tell me what I hear at all. Rather, I have to tell the audiologist what I hear. Without that feedback, the audiologist knows exactly nothing about what I hear.


Obviously.  That's inherent in a hearing test.

What point do you think you are actually making, that undermines anything I wrote?

If you take numerous hearing tests, and you reliably identify the presence of tones 16K and below,  whereas above that your attempts routinely amount to random chance....do you think it's rational to claim to the audiologist:  "I know I can detect tones above 16K and you can't tell me what I don't hear!"
??


And do you not think that after many years of science studying human hearing, comprising audiology tests of various sorts on a massive array of human beings, that it is not reasonable to set the *approximate* limits of human hearing in the upper range at 20kHz (with some exceptions)?And therefore that demarcations such as "ultrasound" end up being useful?

There are always caveats.  Most claims are provisional.  Nothing is easy.There are many things we don't know.  And on and on. 


The thing is, folks like yourself seem to keep thinking you are taking a pin to the balloon with comments like the one you've just made, but insofar as you are making any accurate statement, it's already incorporated as a caveat into what I've been arguing.  So they are just red herrings.

(btw, yes I've had numerous hearing tests, and have been fitted for "musicians earplugs" for many years.  FWIW, my last test was several years ago and the audiologist said, with some astonishment in her voice, that she would have guessed she was looking at results for someone 15 years younger in terms of hearing.  A result, I presume, of my having been in to hearing protection for a long time).



No need to chase Teo’s usual phalanx of red herrings.

Instead of his usual throwing a bunch of confused sounding philosophy at a thread and hoping something sticks, or at least baffles someone, I’ll wait for the day Teo presents a cogent argument with a point, and actually defends it when critiqued. Then a conversation could be interesting. But knocking down those strawmen got old, fast.