Speaker wire is it science or psychology

Steve and anyone else who is interested, I just posted a new thread refering to an artical I read. Please read it befor you simple test the responces of wire. The thread is "Attention Scientists, Engineers and Na-sayers!"

Redkiwi: You try out a new set of cables that sound different than your old set, and you report that here. A scientist sees your post and says, well, there are two possible explanations:
1) The new cable does something to the electrical signal passing through it that affects the sound in an audible way.
2) The new cable's impact on the signal is minimal, but you have imagined such a change in sound anyway.
Both explanations are possible (and well-documented). If the first is true, then we might expect that others will notice the same effect. If the second is true, however, then your experience won't be generalizable (except to the extent that their expectations and perceptions are influenced by the same non-sonic factors that influenced yours). How does a reader know which is the case? Well, one possible clue might lie in whether there's a sound scientific explanation for why such a cable would sound that way. If you switched from 12- to 18-gauge cables and reported that this improved the treble, I'd say you were imagining things. If you said it diminished the treble, then I'd be much more likely to agree that you heard a physical change in the sound.

Now, you might reply that, well, the best way for others to find out if I'm right is to try the new cable themselves. That's true, assuming they can do so without being influenced by non-sonic factors (which include your post suggesting to them what they should expect). But none of us have time to test everything. So what should we test, of the hundreds of products mentioned on Audiogon each week? I'd suggest concentrating on the ones whose claims are the most plausible. But to do that, you need to understand something about the science that underlies the electronics. And that's why some of us waste our breath on discussions like these.

Jostler-- re: what to test. I know what I need-- say it's a pre-amp, I narrow the list by price, features, tube vs SS maybe even appearance (or other things, eg maybe some dealers I like), and Viola' I've got a "short list". This is pretty quick and easy to do-- in fact you come across as a pretty intelligent person, so I feel sure you've done it-- many times too. I wouldn't even want to test every pre-amp available as that would make it a job. About ICs, I called The Cable Co., they made some recommendations, considered what I knew and what I wanted and sent me five different ICs to audition. Maybe I was lucky, but I found ones I liked with the first batch. I certainly did hear differences among similarily priced ICs, and they were all name brands and I had no reason to prefer one over another. I just want good satisfying music. It doesn't have to be as complicated as you seem to be trying to make it. But if you're a "scientist and just want to ferret out the absolute truth of the issue, well don't let audiophiles take the fun out of it for you. Investigate all you want-- and enjoy yourself. I just want good music. Craig.

Jostler - the issue for me is that 20 years of experimentation in this hobby tells me the reliance on measurement such as Stevemj suggests above is just ludicrous. I am not saying you should just accept what I say, and only wish to put my view forward. But I don't agree with you that someone expressing their opinions on this forum is adding a lot of value by presenting scientific evidence to support it. For example, I could argue that Cardas cables are the best, and that this is because of the scientific theory that supports the use of insulating every strand and using strands of different thickness. I could equally argue that Harmonic Technology cables are the best because the purity of the copper used is higher than that used by Cardas. Stevemj might argue that they are both the same because his oscilloscope cannot tell the difference between them. All of the above is meaningless while we do not have a unified theory that explains audio. You may think we do have a unified theory and Stevemj may think that the unified theory is utterly encompassed by what he can measure, but my experience leads me to think we do not. So in my opinion, argument based on sub-sets of a unified theory, as in my examples on cables above, cannot tell a complete enough story to support anything at all. More likely they will be used to justify an opinion already held. On one of your other points, we all have expectations before we listen to something, even in a blind test. But with 20 years of trying countless components, cables and tweaks there are too many surprises - sounds heard that do not match the expectations at all - to believe for a moment that it is all imagined. It also tells me that any suggestion that cables all sound the same is just ridiculous. So it is my opinion that the instruments and theories espoused by the nay-sayers are inadequate to the task. How come you have more trust in the existing science than the evidence of your own ears? How does Stevmj know that his instruments are not the audio equivalent of a black and white camera - pretty accurate in many respects, but failing to measure something that is quite important about the real thing ie. color in this analogy. A key difference between you and me is that my experience and my take on that experience says there is more going on than Stevemj is comprehending. So why don't I just leave this issue as a difference of opinion? Why do I feel the need to argue with people like Stevemj? Why do I find it necessary to indulge in this discussion when I do not believe the likes of Stevemj have anything valuable to contribute? I will tell you the answer. It is because I have observed the likes of Stevemj and others of his ilk on this forum and on others, continuously contributing nothing positive at all, and instead apparently getting their jollies by side-tracking debates onto their private agenda to ridicule anything that does not match their belief-set, and to pander to their feeble egos. The beligerent, monotonous rantings that the science they learnt at prep school says something cannot be so is hard to explain any other way. These opinions from the likes of Stevemj are not presented as observations but as condescending jibes at those with other opinions. It is hard to conclude that these people are much more than attention-seeking children unleashed with an adult's rights. It is hard to accept them as scientists when they apparently have minds like steel traps - once they have read a couple of science books, nothing else exists.

On your final point, I think it is the right of any poster to figure out their strategy for discerning which recommendations to take notice of. I think I have explained why I would not rely on a "scientific" explanation as the basis that I use, but understand that is what you wish to do. But I don't think that your arguments warrants the kind of "put up or shut up" attacks that posters get from the "scientists". If we don't put up scientific explanations then you have every right to ignore our opinions, but I object to the ridicule that goes on and cannot believe it is motivated in the way you describe.