The Science of Cables

@jmlmx,  "What I find interesting is that the second highest rated cable in the test had the worst fidelity, and the worst rated cable was right there in the middle when frequency and amplitude were measured." 

The magazines realised a while back what the implications of these kind of results were. That's why they turned their backs on them years ago. What magazine would want to report a coat hanger/ zip cord being preferred to a high end cable? Then what about amplifiers, or even CD players, DAC's etc??

Had the results supported their opinions I'm certain that blind listening tests would have become the gold standard of audio testing and reviewing. 

As things stand it's up to the likes of Floyd Toole, Sean Olive and a few others out there to continue to demonstrate that there is no reason for us consumers to be scared of blind listening tests. 

cd318

“Had the results supported their opinions I'm certain that blind listening tests would have become the gold standard of audio testing and reviewing.

As things stand it's up to the likes of Floyd Toole, Sean Olive and a few others out there to continue to demonstrate that there is no reason for us consumers to be scared of blind listening tests.”

>>>>>Actually, as I’ve oft proposed, blind tests should not be given too much credence inasmuch as they, like all audio tests, are fraught with difficulties. This is why The Amazing Randi has such success challenging audiophiles to participate in his Million Dollar Challenge - blind tests of high end cables and other controversial audiophile do dads.

A great many things can go wrong with cable blind tests, including variables that are either unknown or unaccounted for. Also operator errors, failure to follow directions, listener skill and capability, system mistakes, etc., not to mention specific cable issues: cable break in, the problem with physically unplugging/plugging cables, and cable directionality. 

To summarize, negative results of blind tests have very little import and should not be taken too seriously. There are too many things that can go wrong. It’s not a question of being scared of blind tests. It’s a matter of not trusting blind tests.

There is one more bit I would like to add to this discussion. Written by a gentlemen named Bob Smith, a really bright guy who I think has written something that is equal parts brilliant and provocative. It is a wee bit long but in my humble opinion a very worthwhile read.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5925b92115d5db394ff30043/t/5925e6e2be65945a7f0ab479/149565616...

And in case that link doesn't work its from....( its the article on sub-debye )

https://www.mytdss.com/engineering/

@glupson

You may well be right on that one cause haven't seen any reference to the eutectic alloy we use being found in nature. But I will stand by my contention concerning credibility that is strained, diced, mashed or otherwise.

I’m of a mind that it’s entirely likely there are characteristics of music (or an audio signal) such as ’ambiance’ or ’staging’ or ’presence’ that exist - we can experience it - but which science just hasn’t yet figured out how to measure. Just because you can’t see or quantify a thing, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.