The Science of Cables

So many opinions/observations! Anyone know anything, about what may be occurring, regarding how we perceive sound, or- the reality of what’s(possibly) happening in cables/sound systems, in the quantum world? Combine these bit’s of SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htmAND: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/quantum-experiment-space-confirms-reality-what-you-make-it-0 WITH THIS: https://www.nature.com/articles/527045a and ANYTHING’S PLAUSIBLE! More, for the interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon The OP asked, " Why aren’t cables discussed in terms of physical measurements very often?" Perhaps, one day, we’ll know how to quantify/measure what’s actually happening, regarding our consciousness/observations and reality/sound(not to mention, cables).

It's weird to me that one can own "too much personal investment" in a post one makes largely anonymously. But welcome to the virtual world of communications in social media!

Hi Douglas,

I hope you notice that I haven’t cast aspersions at your new "Schroeder Method." Frankly I haven’t investigated it to a degree I’d feel comfortable having offering any opinion. So I was speaking to the general idea of the types of claims made by audiophiles for boutique cables, vs the justifications for a turntable/vinyl set up.

I agree and have said often: we audiophiles aren’t operating in a scientific lab. We all do the best we can with what we have.


For myself, I have tweaked here and there like other audiophiles, either having bought various items or having been given items to try at home - everything from high end speaker/interconnects, boutique AC cables, mpingo discs, isolation tweaks of various kinds...you name it.

Having done my time in tweakville, and having assessed my own experience along with looking at the case for and against many such items, I believe I’ve come to well justified skepticism in some areas.
I don’t, btw, use "Skeptic" or "Skepticism" in the sense of "close minded" "Mind Already Made Up And Won’t Change it" kind of thing.Rather, I see Skepticism as simply good ol’ critical thinking, asking for appropriate evidence for a claim before jumping in to whole hearted belief.

A couple of points: it seems something of a shibboleth among audiophiles, particularly those most invested in a purely subjective version of the hobby, to say "If you haven’t tried it for yourself: SHUT UP.You have no grounds for critiquing or saying it doesn’t work."


This is of course a fallacy. One can have well-grounded skepticism about a claimed phenomenon without having tested it oneself.If I claim the moon is made of cheese, or that I have a perpetual motion machine doing work in my backyard, you can be rightly skeptical. The reply "but have YOU been to the moon to test it? Have YOU tested my perpetual motion machine?" are red herrings because it’s reasonable to point out other qualified people have done the work to establish the improbability of such claims.

The high end cable controversy is not as cut-and-dried as those examples, but nonetheless one doesn’t have an EE degree, or have examined specific cables, to comprehend that people with suitable qualifications (and who don’t have a business interest in selling boutique cables) decry lots of audiophile cable claims as B.S. And you don’t have to be an EE, or test a cable yourself, to note the rather dubious nature of the claims made by many high end cable companies. (As I often point out: they tend to point to problems of a measurable, technical nature that their technology has ’solved,’ but instead of providing objectively verifiable measurements showing they have indeed solved the problem, marketing takes over and we get appeals to subjective, anecdotal evidence).
There’s also the problem of the methodology. When an audiophile says "Try it for yourself and see the results" the problem is the method itself.If the method on offer is unreliable, my using that same method will amount to unreliable results as well. So it wouldn’t be unexpected I would "experience a difference" as well, but that still doesn’t tell us that the phenomenon is due to the cable, or due to me.


You mentioned that people often aren’t sufficiently skeptical of their own assumptions, and it takes humility to put those to test by trying something we may be skeptical about.

There is certainly some truth to that. But there are issues mixed in that have to be untangled. As above, there can be good reasons to be very skeptical about X without having tried X. And for those reasons, it can be reasonable to think trying X isn’t worth one’s time. In those cases, it isn’t some lack of humility in action; it’s just good sense about how to devote one’s limited time on earth ;-)

But back to testing one’s beliefs and skepticism: I wonder how far you have gone in that direction?
Myself: Over many years I’ve tried tweaks before, during, and after being skeptical about them. But I’ve also learned to question my deepest assumptions, and experiences that just "seemed obviously true." I have sometimes taken an experience of "hearing a difference" that seemed very solid, but realized I’m prone to bias like anyone else, and have gone further to try to get behind that bias. For me, blind testing, which I’ve occasionally employed, has been very eye-opening.


It’s really something to feel "I absolutely heard a difference" and then, when you no longer know which you are listening to, experiencing that ’obvious difference’ fade away.

I wonder: Have you tested your own assumptions/conclusions/experiences in a way that tries to account for the type of cognitive/perceptual biases we all share? Have you ever tested, say, AC cables, or even your Schroeder Method, via a method (blind testing) where you actually trust your ears, and not your "eyes" too?

Keep in mind, I’m not "demanding" you do so. I wouldn’t bother doing it on the demands of anyone else (unless I wanted to). I’m just curious.

Thanks.

I'm more of a Schrodinger guy than a Schroeder guy but don't let that stop you.

Let's face it some of us are here to share our experiences in the wish of it being helpful to those new to audio, some of us wish to perhaps learn something new - perhaps a different angle and some amongst us may wish to promote some products they may be associated with.

Some form of declaration of interest is always helpful, but I think most of us can usually deduce where the poster is coming from.

Hopefully, all of us share an interest in high quality audio playback regardless of whatever our intentions may be.

Of course we are always faced with the problems of semantics. Sensations are not the easiest to distill into words and this is compounded by the problems of memory as this Bruno Bettelheim quote illustrates,

"Instead of reflecting the impact of a symphony of feelings, interactions and experiences, played, so speak, by full orchestra, a stale report recalls to mind only selected motifs played by but a few instruments."

Ah! The problems of memory!  Audio memory is often notoriously short for most of us, with only vague sensations remaining mere days later the event. 

Then there's the question of shared meaning. The challenge of remaining within the current linguistic zeitgeist is one faced by anyone posting here or anywhere else. One persons 'warm' can equal another's 'muddy' in the same way slim / skinny and devious/ intelligent can all too easily.

One way around this may be to employ  comparisons when comparing products. You may well love the Wilson Sasha speakers, but do you love them more or less than the Wilson Sabrina? And why? Ditto for cables. We may not always agree, but at least we can see where you are coming from.

What about tactics such as linguistic obfuscation? It's common for some to try to derail attempts at clarity as proposed by the lucid and detailed posts from the likes of prof among others here. 

A recent case in point was a post about the uncertainty regarding quantum behaviour which neglected to mention that this phenomena is strictly confined to sub atomic particle behaviour.

In our world the sun always shines and will do for a good while yet - the same sun the dinosaurs once basked under.