Audio Cables: All the Same?

I propose the same is true for cables – there is no scientific test for what we hear.

Agreed. None yet. The brain and perception are extraordinarily complicated systems. The notion that engineering is up to the task of measuring all that can be measured as it relates to those psychological and physiological systems is the fallacy most responsible for this debate -- in my view. It is redolent of a physicalist/materialist view of the world which does not pass muster. It is a dogmatism.

The other psychological question I would pose to you @jmeyers is this:

If you hear a difference and it makes a difference to you, why do you find this debate at all interesting? I mean that seriously, because I find it interesting to, and yet I cannot quite understand why. What’s your reason for "settling the score" in a debate you have settled for yourself?

Cables are a belief system, like many others in our lives. Some people believe that a $5,000 cable makes a significant enough difference to pay the money, others don’t. How is a newcomer to this hobby to judge for themself whether a cable is worth the money? In my case I purchased audio equipment first before considering cables or other tweaks. Initially I purchased good quality, well made Mogami power, interconnect & speaker cables. When I upgraded my hardware the dealer said I should consider getting better cables. He sent some mid-range (Super) Transparent cables to try. I tried them & could hear no difference. I listened to the Transparent cables for a week & then switched back to Mogami. If there was a difference I couldn’t hear it. Later my dealer sent some AQ Dragon HC power cables for my amps. Again, no improvement over the Mogami.

- it is not necessarily cost free to test cables whether they’re on loan or not. In my case I had to ship them back & the Dragons are >$5,000 Cdn and shipping and insurance for that max insurable value is about $350. Same for the Transparents when I shipped them back. And if you don’t insure them & they get lost, now you’re on the hook for thousands of $$ of cables you don’t have.

- when I first put the Transparent cables on I definitely thought that it sounded better. After a week when I swapped back there was no difference. If I thought that there was I would have done some blind testing to see if I was actually hearing a difference or just kidding myself. But the key point is that initially  I believed that they were better. Had I  stopped there, I'd never know that they weren't

- when I got the Dragons I did do some blind testing & neither the Mogami nor the Dragon were preferred.

- I’ve been told that the difference of an entire loom of cables is pretty small and should be a last step in finalizing the sound of your system. Something like a 10% improvement. But I was also told that swapping the entire loom isn’t necessary to notice a difference. Just one interconnect should be a definite change. So out of the 10 or so cables (power/interconnect/speaker) they can improve SQ by 10% combined yet some people can hear improvements of 1 out of 10 cables being changed. Potentially a 1% improvement.

- and now I read that cables can enable the listener to hear the music coming from the singer’s mouth or from the chest, or both. Couple that with the supposed ability to detect a change in SQ after 200-500 hours of using a cable... your brain can remember & compare something you just heard with something you listened to days/weeks ago and decide which is better... the necessity of pointing cables in the right direction (amp to speaker), elevating them off of the floor with high priced elevators, crossing other cables perpendicularly... it’s exhausting.

So by all means newcomers to audio equipment should consider cables and test their own belief system. But if you’re going to do it you owe it to yourself & your bank account to at a minimum compare your new "veil lifting" cables with your old cables by switching them blindly. I mean, why wouldn’t you? Other than not wanting to know that the new cables do nothing, why wouldn’t you compare without seeing the cables? Imagine if there was an easy way to test your faith in your preferred religion. Just do this simple test & you no longer have to have blind faith. Why wouldn’t you do it?

                                                 Religious faith? 

                         WELL: the Cargo Cult's still building runways.

                                          Time for another repost:

Cargo cult science is a pseudoscientific method of research that favors evidence that confirms an assumed hypothesis. In contrast with the scientific method, there is no vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis.[1] The term cargo cult science was first used by physicist Richard Feynman during his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology.[1]

Cargo cults are religious practices that have appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures.

     Do a bit a research and you'll learn those primitives were limited in their understanding, of what they saw with their eyes, based on their prior experience, education and BIASES.

                                                A rewind:

                 It isn't that the Denyin'tologists are ignorant.

               It's they're knowing* so much, that's WRONG.

                       *heart of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

                                              OR, two:

     The Church of the Naysayer Doctrine (like every other faith-based, religious cult) has as many dopes as it does Popes.   

     Bring up anything resembling SCIENCE/PHYSICS, dated later than the 1800’s and they become apoplectic, not having the formal education to comprehend the concepts, or- possible ramifications.    THAT would be hilarious, were it not so pathetic!        

           Gimme That Old Time Religion, Gimme That Old Time Religion, etc.

        At the very first mention of something as simple as Wave Function (a BASIC tenet of Quantum Mechanics), the Cargo Cult will label you a KOOK.

        But remember: they can only view/understand you, based on their limited experience, education and BIASES.

         They have overlooked the fact that, if not for the hypotheses/theories and experimentation, regarding Quantum Mechanics: a plethora of modern conveniences, medical devices and the gear they so love, would not exist.

          Had scientists, chemists and inventors shared the doctrines of the Cargo Cult (Denyin'tologists), there would be no semiconductors, computer chips, LASERs, or Magnetic Resonance Imaging devices (MRIs).

                                         Solid State amps?

                                     OOPS (back to tubes)!

                                        Your Smart Phone?

                                        FA'GET ABOUT IT!

                                         Your car's GPS?

                                                NOPE!

    Then too: some may be willfully ignorant and just enjoy being contentious.

                        Others: obtuse, uneducated*, misinformed?

      *Typically, from what's been exhibited here: H.S. STEM, if that, would be a safe inference.

      Either way: the result, when the Cult begins it's rhetoric, is a classic demo of the Dunning- Kruger Effect.

                                          But, I digress: 

       Bring up those pesky details, regarding the likes of QED, Dielectric Absorption, Poynting's theorem and possible application/effects, relative to frequency, that our musical signals are carried via photon or wave, outside the conductor and you're a KOOK?

         Again: the Cargo Cult can only understand anyone with an actual background, experience and education in Physics/QED, based on heir own beliefs, (limited) education, experience and biases.                                      

     One anecdote  that some may find interesting: about their walks in the woods and how Richard Feynman's father would encourage him to look beyond the fact that something in nature exists, into why and how.

     It saddened him that while attending college, during a visit home and one of their walks: his dad asked what he was learning in college.

     At that moment, he realized: if he tried to explain what he was learning, there was no way his dad could understand.                               

                            It wasn't an insult or condescension.

                                                Just reality.

                                  Oh well: let 'the cult go build a runway!

                                                        references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_quantum_mechanics#:~:text=Examples%20include%20lasers%2C%20electron%20microscopes,systems%2C%20computer%20and%20telecommunication%20devices.

https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsquantum-mechanics#:~:text=Quantum%20mechanics%20led%20to%20the,the%20science%20of%20quantum%20mechanics!

https://uwaterloo.ca/institute-for-quantum-computing/quantum-101/quantum-applications-today

          But: I'm, "religious", because I believe in the SCIENCE, from which all that sprang?

     https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-practical-uses-spooky-quantum-mechanics-180953494/

           Einstein got that last one wrong (Quantum Entanglement), BUT- I still wish he'd been alive, when the Hubble Telescope proved, what he considered his, "greatest blunder" (his inability to bring symmetry to his field equation, without lambda)

.https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200507/history.cfm#:~:text=Einstein's%20original%20equations%20had%20been,how%20the%20universe%20will%20end.                                     

                                            How about that?

Another example of a hypothesis/theory, with no way to EXPERIMENT/MEASURE, what you're sure must be there, in some detectable way, or another.

                                               Just for fun:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-times-quantum-physics-blew-our-minds-in-2022/

                                            Happy listening!

Yup. Definitely not a cult.

@cleeds 

Hearing is tested using objective standards 

No it isn't. Traditional hearing exams are thresholding tests, and by definition are not objective.