[Closed] Does speaker cable actually make a difference?

why the hell would I dream of doing that

To win a grand if you're so sure you're right?

I’ve always believed that blind testing in audio doesn’t work

Believe what you like but that's just special pleading. What makes audio different from the rest of the natural universe?

Either you can hear a difference or you can't, it's really that simple and and this is easily testable. If you can then great, let's prove it, we'll both be rich. If you can't then what we're left with is expensive snake oil.

And your increasingly defensive tone rather sounds to these old ears like you suspect it's the latter and don't want to admit it.

Did you read the article I linked to earlier? You really should.

if your going to quote people

I'm not selectively quoting to point score (hell, I don't need to when you're trotting out such nonsense) but rather using a short quote as a reference point as to what I'm replying to in a thread where many people are talking. I dislike verbatim quotes within verbatim quotes that you get on some forums. Your full quote is available previously and you, I and other readers all can see what you wrote.

do our heads work at different bitrates?

Demonstrably.

do our heads work at different bitrates?

More seriously,

Our heads are decidedly analogue and bitrate is a digital measure. I'm not sure as you can easily apply one to the other.

head are binary - its all open and close gates. Thats all your brain is - a series of switches

Either you can hear a difference or you can’t, it’s really that simple and and this is easily testable. If you can then great, let’s prove it, we’ll both be rich. If you can’t then what we’re left with is expensive snake oil.

Yes - blind testing is the only way to know.

head are binary – its all open and close gates. Thats all your brain is – a series of switches

Perhaps, but.

Catch a ball.

Now program a computer to catch a ball.

Brains are analogue computers. A neuron adds up the signals it receives on its synapses then if they exceed a certain value it fires, and it's connected to other neurons. That bit's simple. The software however is written as connections between the neurons and the thresholds themselves, and it's phenomenally complicated - the most complex thing known to science by a long way. The number of neurons is similar to the number of stars in the galaxy, and they are interconnected in a way that creates software in a way we can't even begin to understand.

So think about that next time you talk about science being black and white - and remember that science only exists inside people's brains. The universe is outside, but human understanding of it is on the inside.

like this?

Seriously tho - your brain is just on heck of a lot of on / off switches and gates

The universe is outside, but human understanding of it is on the inside.

And between them is a load of glitchy buggy software. thank goodness its parallel processing!

think about that next time you talk about science being black and white

Has that actually happened here?

like this?

You coded that, did you?

I wasn't suggesting it was impossible, rather that it was insanely complex to define in comparison to your average child who can just do it without thinking.

Also, that video is amazing, and from ten years ago. Thanks for that.

Cougar
Full Member

Perhaps, but.

Catch a ball.

Now program a computer to catch a ball.

There are people on this forum that could definitely program a computer to catch a ball, but probably couldn't catch a ball

🤣

Good point, well made.

.

Unless you have two-way communication then as soon as digital audio starts erroring beyond any ECC it’s game over.

Nope again you are wrong in a lot of systems it will interpolate between the last samples it got. This reduces the quality as the interpolated value won't be 100% accurate.

This is why high quality CD transports can sound better/different to cheaper ones. The "Its all 1s and 0s" is not as simple its there its perfect if its not its not.

There are also lots of other sources of electrical noise outside of a factory or industrial environment.

@Cougar That said I am not saying you should spend loads of money on Ethernet cables 🙂

This 'state of my ears now' thing is a red herring, though, because we're not talking about 'what we can hear' we are talking about 'what it sounds like' which is what Cougar seems to be missing entirely or wilfully ignoring for the sake of her argument.

Also I think Molgrips's point about the amygdala is great, and that all the people banging on about measurements and double-blind tests are missing the point completely ...

Do I win a shiny pound coin?

👏👏👏

Cougar is also missing/ignoring the reason why I think blind/back to back testing is not useful and substituting it for their own reason which seems to be the general argument that you can't tell the difference between cables because there isn't any, then trying to discuss that point with me rather than my actual reason (which so far hasn't happened). I don't know why but I can't be bothered anymore, how can that work as a discussion.

but the microphone is not “hearing” the same as your ears. Observer effect and many other issues. so that can give you a “more accurate” or “same accuracy” but cannot tell you “better” – only your ears and the processing in your head can tell you that

I wasn't sure before; but I think you are deliberately missing my point.

I'm not trying to say anything is better. I'm talking about taking measurements of two systems; in identical environments and comparing those to show that there are no significant differences between "speaker cable thats good enough" and "speaker cable that costs as much as a decent bike" - Which is entirely objective and not subjective at all. Your basically claiming that even if those two measured identically that one might be subjectively better; which is what I'm arguing against.

peter - why don't you think blind testing is useful - and what would you accept as a way of testing/proving/disproving any of this ?

Your basically claiming that even if those two measured identically that one might be subjectively better; which is what I’m arguing against.

yes basically - because the microphone is an objective measure but what you hear is subjective - and thats due to the processing between your ears and your conciousness and because your ears function differntly to a micro[phone

which is what Cougar seems to be missing entirely or wilfully ignoring for the sake of her argument.

while not wishing to put words in his mouth, I think Cougars arguments is; Those two phrases are just splitting hairs. he argues; there's either a difference, or there's not.

Thats all your brain is – a series of switches

While this has some element of truth to it, it's so ridiculously simplified as to be meaningless. It's like describing War and Peace or the Bible by the letters it uses. One obviously can, but doesn't reveal anything useful

Right; well - to be honest; if you are going to argue that two things that are provably identical can sound different then I'm out of ideas.

we’re not talking about ‘what we can hear’ we are talking about ‘what it sounds like’

You may be.

The question posed was "does speaker cable make a difference?"

The answer is, for all practical purposes, no it doesn't once you've met the criteria for accurately transmitting a signal. And even that is seemingly questionable.

It may be true that, hypothetically, in TJ's "putting a microphone in the room changes the dynamic" sort of nonsense scenario, there is a microscopic difference measurable by highly sensitive frequency analysers but really, who cares beyond winning Internet arguments? Are you buying speaker cable to listen to music or to measure it?

which is what Cougar seems to be missing entirely or wilfully ignoring for the sake of her argument.

"Her"?

 Are you buying speaker cable to listen to music or to measure it?

Given that an audiophile friend of mine made me listen to a whole side of a Phil Collins album once, because of the way it was recorded, it's definitely the latter...

Cougar is also missing/ignoring the reason why I think blind/back to back testing is not useful

If you've explained your reasoning as to why you don't think science applies to sound then I missed it. Or I've forgotten, that might be on me, I didn't sleep well last night and I'm pre-coffee this morning.

Also, you've been "done" at least twice now yet are still posting.

It may be true that, hypothetically, in TJ’s “putting a microphone in the room changes the dynamic” sort of nonsense scenario, there is a microscopic difference measurable by highly sensitive frequency analysers but really, who cares beyond winning Internet arguments?

not even measurable! ( observer effect)

I'm just having a bit of fun on this thread partly because of the obvious confusion between objective and subjective measures

Most accurate is objective. sounds better is subjective.

Our ears and our auditory processing means that what we hear will always be different to what can be measured and no two people will hear in the same way. the auditory processing in our heads actually loses some of the sound ( thresholds etc) and alters others.

Most accurate is objective. sounds better is subjective.

Sounds preferable is subjective.

I'm swerving away from the word "better" because it's meaning is seemingly, uh, subjective.

One of the things your ears can do that a microphone ( even dual microphones) cannot do is tell if a sound is in front of you or behind you. Thats due to the shape of the external ear and sound reflections in it ie harmonics and stuff.

Put two microphones 25 cm apart and put them in artificial external ears then it gets closer to what you hear but will be "less accurate" because of the harmonics and of course then the brain processes the signals before you recognise it.

I’m swerving away from the word “better” because it’s meaning is seemingly, uh, subjective.

Yeeeeha!

“Her”?

Gender's all fluid now. Get with the program, Grandad. 😉

I have to admit I am fascinated why "blind trials dont work with music"

Blind trials are the only way to tell. My guess is because you cannot find a subjective or objective difference in blind trials then there is no difference and to the audiophile who believes in thousand pound cables they do not want their delusions destroyed

I’m swerving away from the word “better” because it’s meaning is seemingly, uh, subjective.

Depends...Better can be a noun, verb, adverb, or adjective...whether it's subjective depends on context.

peter – why don’t you think blind testing is useful – and what would you accept as a way of testing/proving/disproving any of this ?

Okay I will give it another go.... I feel it's not useful for audio equipment and cable purely because if there is a difference (which I feel is quite likely  with equipment but not so likely with cables) and especially if it's on the subtle side, the break between listening (switching equipment going back to the start of the track so your listening to the same piece) means the brain can't be relied upon to compare the 'memory' of the earlier music with what's going into the ears now, even if it's a quick switch your still relying on memory and that's the problem. If you think about it it can't possibly work very well relying on the memory to recall such detail. As I said before I feel it's much better listening to many albums you know well over the space of say a week and then at the end decide if the whole experience was more enjoyable, more musical than before and make a decision based on that.

I don't know of a way of proving or disproving all this, I'm not sure there is one with speaker cables (the video posted a while ago didn't deal with speaker cables but I don't know if that could be modified to do so). I dont have expensive speaker cables, I've never tried any because I can't afford them, I mainly listen on good headphones and the speakers are Bose (because they are small) wired with the cables that came with them. If I could afford to I would happily try some, and some new equipment, and if I enjoyed the music more I'm not sure I would be bothered why. That would be a subjective response but music and listening is to a large degree subjective.

I can't really say much more than that, I don't feel that's an outlandish belief or 'trotting out nonsense' - if you want to disagree with that fine but at least disagree with the actual point I'm trying to make about why I think back to back/blind testing isn't useful.

@petercook80 - thanks for that. I agree with pretty much all of what you said.

I think the problem is - that you absolutely *can* do tests akin to the null test video for speaker cables; and I actually proposed such a test earlier. But then we have tj jumping in with "but microphones are objective not subjective" and "the observer effect" - So people wont accept scientific evidence that there's no difference.

So we're left in an impasse - where nobody is prepared to agree on a test to prove or disprove this. Which is why companies can still market and sell £2000/m speaker cables !

“Her”?

I didn't want to assume that you were male just because you're prepared to spend days and days arguing on an internet forum with strangers about speaker cable and hypothetical double-blind testing and proving a point that is neither here nor there anyway. 🙂

Also, you’ve been “done” at least twice now yet are still posting

I know , it's the frustration with the follow ups when my reasons getting substituted for something else that bring me back 🙂

why you don’t think science applies to sound

Hopefully the above post explains I'm not arguing that at all and I don't think I ever have,  you have just thought that which is wrong. It's about the science of the brain in back to back/blind testing.

steve - missed my point slightly

the microphone can measure accuracy. It cannot measure "sounds better" because thats subjective and the mic can only measure objectively

I will happily accept a blind listening test can decide which sounds better and a microphone can assess which is the more accurate representation. Its just those two things may not be the same because of the way our ears and brain works

Peter - I get your point and it has a little validity but properly designed blind testing eliminates the unconcious biases

If you make it "listen to set up with cable A then listen with cable B for a single person once" then its fallible in the way you describe. If you do it multiple times in varying orders then that bias is removed

Right; well – to be honest; if you are going to argue that two things that are provably identical

It's only identical within the constraints of how you are measuring it. You can't say 'these two things are identical' you can only say 'the readings from our instruments were identical'. See the difference?

I think the problem is – that you absolutely *can* do tests akin to the null test video for speaker cables; and I actually proposed such a test earlier.

That's fine , I missed that in all the posts. If that's possible then that would obviously negate the whole back to back/blind testing argument.

So we’re left in an impasse – where nobody is prepared to agree on a test to prove or disprove this. Which is why companies can still market and sell £2000/m speaker cables !

Not really, does it really matter. If someone wants to spend £2k on speaker cables so what , if they enjoy them fine. I wouldn't spend 8k plus on a mountain bike but plenty do and if they get enjoyment from it then good on them.

tj - no; I didn't miss your point at all.

I'm saying - for a given input (lets choose Queen Greatest Hits II for the sake of argument) that you could record the output of the speaker using a high quality; calibrated microphone.

You could then swap the cables and repeat the test with all other things remaining the same; and compare the resultant outputs.

If these are the same; then where (because I'm struggling to work it out) would the 'subjective differences' emerge from ?

same for mol - ok; you can argue a microphone is not 100% without it's own frequency response (though this would be unchanged across both tests of course) - what kind of standard of measurement would suffice ? We could shine a laser at the speaker cone and sample it's movement; but you're basically arguing that "there are things we can hear that we can't measure"

Not really, does it really matter.

It matters; of course; that I think someone is wrong on the internet 😉

what kind of standard of measurement would suffice ?

Now you're getting it. These are the questions that need asking.

I have no idea, by the way, I'm not the one trying to prove anything. l'm happy that the modest sum I spent on cables had a modest effect, however I'm not sure enough that I could reproduce it in a double blind test to go to the trouble of setting it up in a different room and listening context etc etc. I probably could, but the confrontational nature of the discussion makes me reticent. And one person wouldn't be a very scientific sample either. If you came to me with a mobile listening setup in a lorry and asked me to take part in a survey, I would.

you’re basically arguing that “there are things we can hear that we can’t measure”

There might well be. Thing is, you can't set up an experiment and then say you conclusively proved there isn't a difference. You can only report that you didn't find a difference. I'm not sure how much scientific literature you read (I don't read much) but this is how they talk, for a reason.

Peter – I get your point and it has a little validity but properly designed blind testing eliminates the unconcious biases

If you make it “listen to set up with cable A then listen with cable B for a single person once” then its fallible in the way you describe. If you do it multiple times in varying orders then that bias is removed

But I'm not talking about any unconscious biases, I don't think you have absorbed what I said , or judging from your reply you haven't. Short and sweet -  I'm saying that the falibity of memory can make the back to back/blind test as useless as random guessing which makes it pointless.

Stevehine says there is a more scientific way of doing it and that sounds more useful.

I'm almost tempted to take up Cougar's challenge tbh.

I think I could tell bell wire apart from the Audioquest Rocket I have on my own system, using those components as reference.

(Which I prefer or which is 'better' would be irrelevant for Cougar's purposes I think.)

I'm not sure I could tell £2,000 per metre stuff (say) from the Audioquest but that point's been made anyway (diminishing returns).

But I really can't be arsed 🙂

@tjagain regardless of the microphones lack of perception it can still produce a measurable result, with all other factors remaining constant you could change the cable and then compare the data. Job jobbed. If the data captured is the same then there is no way you can argue that one is better than the other.

@petercook80 sorry but your argument against double blind testing could be equally applied to any other testing. If memory is such an issue then write notes about your depth of punch, sound stage, treble tribbing or whatever else you think you can hear. Take as many goes as you need. Then move on to the next test. You're literally arguing against science.

I’m saying that the falibity of memory can make the back to back/blind test as useless as random guessing which makes it pointless.

Which can be eliminated with proper blind testing. alter the order, pretend you have changed when yo haven't and most importantly repeat many many times. that way you get a statisticlly significant resulrt

Squirrelking - can the microphone do everything the human ear can? Or can the human ear and associated processing do things a microphone cannot ( sound in front or behind is one example)

so the best you can get from a microphone is no measurable difference

Thing is, you can’t set up an experiment and then say you conclusively proved there isn’t a difference. You can only report that you didn’t find a difference.

See; this right here for me is the problem. You are correct from a purely technical point of view. But you are also setting a bar so impossibly high that there is always some wiggle room for "but maybe you didn't measure the thing that made the difference"

As I said before I feel it’s much better listening to many albums you know well over the space of say a week and then at the end decide if the whole experience was more enjoyable, more musical than before and make a decision based on that.

So do that. Then do it again. Without knowing which set of cables are connected.

In one breath you're arguing against blind testing because switching every couple of minutes isn't valid, in the next you're incidentally arguing for the same thing just over a longer time frame.

I don’t know of a way of proving or disproving all this

Oh, you do, you just refuse to accept that it works.

Once more with feeling: You can either tell a difference or you can't. Even if you can't quantify it, you don't need to, that's not important. Those 'many albums you know well' over the course of the week that you think sounded better or worse than they did last week will tell you what you need to know. But only if you don't know which cables are in use.

Actually Cougar - I think peter is happy that we could prove this with measurements and science. We've only got mol + tj arguing that we can't measure the things that make the difference 😀

I think I could tell bell wire apart from the Audioquest Rocket I have on my own system, using those components as reference.

I think I could too. But I really wouldn't like to bet any serious coin against it.

But I really can’t be arsed 🙂

Funny how this seems to be a common narrative, isn't it.

We’ve only got mol + tj arguing that we can’t measure the things that make the difference

and me

Funny how this seems to be a common narrative, isn’t it.

Well that was a joke really.

so the best you can get from a microphone is no measurable difference

I rather fear you've got that arse-backwards.

You're arguing that there is a difference, just not a measurable difference?

Well that was a joke really.

I know.

I really need to use more smileys.

What would be interesting is if the human listener could tell the cables apart, but the 'scientific' instruments couldn't.

We’ve only got mol + tj arguing

Must be Tuesday.

What would be interesting is if the human listener could tell the cables apart, but the ‘scientific’ instruments couldn’t.

It would be astonishing.

Why is "scientific" in inverted commas?

I think the shiny pound coin thing is a red herring too, like Molgrips says - just introduces an unnecessary level of jeopardy.

Why is “scientific” in inverted commas?

Good question. I think maybe I had a John Prine line in mind - 'the lonesome friends of science say...'

I think the shiny pound coin thing is a red herring too

I have a dull pound coin if that's preferable?

Close your eyes and see if you can tell them apart.

🙂

I could do that with my quartz crystal.

Oh, you do, you just refuse to accept that it works.

Now your just being a blunt instrument.... as usual

In one breath you’re arguing against blind testing because switching every couple of minutes isn’t valid, in the next you’re incidentally arguing for the same thing just over a longer time frame.

No I don't think I am. Some people have understood you don't. Not much more I can do.

You can tell the difference, or you can't. Set your own parameters as you see fit. It's that simple, there's little for either of us to misunderstand.

... because, I don't believe you can tell the difference. And I believe that you know you won't be able tell the difference if pressed. So you're inventing all sorts of "science doesn't work" excuses to try to bury that, then tying a "you just don't understand me" bow on it to insinuate that it's actually my failing.

Shiny pound coin, Peter. Shiny pound coin. I'll even throw in a grubby one for blind testing purposes if you like.

Regardless of any scientific testing or blind-testing etc. if the person listening to the music who has invested in 'better' cables thinks the music sounds 'better' to them, then the rest of it is just, erm noise.....if they perceive an improvement & as a result increase their enjoyment of listening to music - who cares if a scientific test can prove there is no difference?

as for "does it actually make a difference"....here follows a crap story.....

My girlfriend at uni was massively into Reef. The album Glow was virtually on repeat and we knew it inside out.
I'd swapped my speaker cable from basic 79p/m stuff to some Cable Talk 3, which I think was about £4.50/m. She didn't know I'd changed the cable. I hadn't mentioned it as it didn't seem like something she'd be terribly interested in.
The next time we had Glow on the stereo she kept pointing out nuances that she hadn't heard before. There was some words she'd struggled to understand that she said were clearer and lots of little background subtleties.
She even commented on it; words to the effect of "this is a bit weird. Why are there all these things I'd not notice before". I was pretty chuffed by this, but didn't say anything to give the game away until she'd listened to a bit more stuff.
After that I put The Commitments soundtrack on & got a similar response to that.

Eventually I told her that I'd changed the cables & maybe that was why she was picking up some differences. But, there was no question that she heard more of the nuance in the music without having knowledge that anything had changed.
I remember it because these arguments about speaker cable & interconnects were always being had and as a student, spending about £30 on some cable was a pretty extravagant thing to be doing. I was pleased that the cost seemed to have been justified.

I have no idea whatsoever if a piece of scientific equipment could have picked up on it, but it was definitely enough of a change for someone to comment on it with no prior knowledge that anything had changed.

You’re arguing that there is a difference, just not a measurable difference?

Nope - I am saying that you cannot measure two things and say they are identical. You can only say you cannot measure any difference

Scientific and linguistic rigour ( and teasing)

cougar - i quite agree with you that properly designed blind testing will tell you which people prefer or which is "better" or that no one can hear a differnce.

… because, I don’t believe you can tell the difference. And I believe that you know you won’t be able tell the difference if pressed

It's why I said "because if there is a difference (which I feel is quite likely with equipment but not so likely with cables)" - did you read that?

So you’re inventing all sorts of “science doesn’t work” excuses to try to bury that,

No I'm introducing another area of science, I've never said science doesn't work.

Shiny pound coin, Peter. Shiny pound coin. I’ll even throw in a grubby one for blind testing purposes if you like.

The image that conjures up isn't pleasant...

Stumpy01's post is interesting isn't it.

No I’m introducing another area of science, I’ve never said science doesn’t work.

Nope - you are claiming blind testing - the gold standard - does not work.

Blind testing is the only [possible way to show differences. What you suggest is far far weaker and prone to bias and memory issues

How the brain works is another area of science

Maybe your right... I'm just not sure I care anymore....

If these are the same; then where (because I’m struggling to work it out) would the ‘subjective differences’ emerge from ?

Because a microphone does not work in the same way as ears and ears can detect things a microphone cannot. You can tell if a sound is in front or behind you. Not because of the stereo sound and triangulation ( that only gives you either in front or behind) this ability is to do with harmonics / delays generated in the external ear at tiny relative volume levels

also the brain does not just accept raw sound - its highly processed leaving some stuff out and amplifying some stuff

It’s why I said “because if there is a difference (which I feel is quite likely with equipment but not so likely with cables)” – did you read that?

So you're saying that cables probably don't make a difference?

Stumpy01’s post is interesting isn’t it.

So you're saying that cables probably do make a difference?

No I’m introducing another area of science, I’ve never said science doesn’t work.

"Making shit up" isn't another area of science, it's making shit up.

ears can detect things a microphone cannot.

A microphone array will outstrip ears any day of the week, by a long chalk.

Not that that's relevant in this discourse because, again, are we setting up a home system to listen to music or to measure it?

.....

Can a microphone ( and any processing) tell you the direction of the sound source?

Microphones will be more accurate but ears and brain processing can do things a microphone and computer processing cannot

See the word "array" back there?

Maybe like you doesn't read stuff properly......