Blind cable testing..... Guess the outcome lol

EndersShadow

Cable naysayers need not read: http://www.stereophile.com/content/minnesota-audio-society-conducts-cable-comparison-tests-0

janmike

I love those tests and so does my wife!

BlueFox

So much for the "all wire sounds the same" theory. Put it next to the flat earth theory.

Interesting how the more expensive wire won each round. Maybe it produces electromagnetic placebo effects.

heiney9

I can't wait to hear what the naysayers come up with for excuses why this isn't a valid test. Should make quite the entertaining thread for the weekend. Can't wait for more convoluted logic, back peddling and rationalization.

Thanks for posting this Enders

H9

pearsall001

I thought we just had a 13 page rant about how invalid these tests are. Now all of a sudden it's peach creamy that an 8k cable barely, & I mean barely edged out a 3 dollar cable. And depending on how one reads the results the 8k cable should be embarrased as hell & sent home holding it's tail between it's leg. The one thing they missed is pitting the same cable against itself...now those results have been hilarious. It did sound like the event was a lot of fun & the results will spur another 13 pages of humerous reading. Cables do matter but lets get real here.

headrott

I can see some naysayers complaining it was not a double blind test. I am not suprised at the results. Cable differences are real here.

jbooker82

It is like drag racing. The faster you go the more cash it costs to shave a hundredth off.

DarqueKnight

heiney9 wrote: »

I can't wait to hear what the naysayers come up with for excuses why this isn't a valid test.

I'm not a naysayer, and this was not a valid test. All it tells us is a group of 50 people listened to short snippets of music and listed which presentations they preferred. Unless I missed it, there were no formal evaluation criteria. For all I know, the cable that "won" might have done so simply because it made the female singer's voice sound a little bit "prettier".

This was no different than asking random strangers to do a Pepsi taste test.

---

No comment on the matrix style seating?

headrott

I thought about that as well Ray. I didn't think it was very good evaluation criteria only evaluating "bass, midrange, treble, and overall preference", and only overall preference was used in the tally. What about soundstage height, width, depth? What about imaging? What about image weight? Lumping all the criteria into "overall preference" is rediculous. As is using a blind test to begin with.

teekay0007

Funny how different people can interpret the same results much differently.

What struck me from the results was:

A) nearly one-out-of-three people who were tested had no preference between the $3 cable and both the cables costing well over $1000!,
Nearly 30% preferred the $3 cable over the two $1000 cables!,
C) nearly 40% of those tested preferred the $3 cable overall over the $8000 cable!,
D) One-in-five people tested preferred the $3 cable overall over any of the others, whereas the $8000 cable was preferred by ONLY 22% and the over-$1000 cables were preferred by about 30% of those tested!!

Looked at this way, the over-$1000 cables makers should be more than a little embarrassed and the $8000 cable makers should be hiding its head in shame!! :redface:

Further, as stated by pearsall001 above, I think a glaring gross omission is that they didn't test each cable against itself. My guess is that this would have truly given some entertaining results - which, in theory, should reveal nearly 100% "no-freference" results.

Also, how about the MIDDLE-GROUND cables (Blue Jeans, Belden, etc.), unrepresented here? There really should be one heck of a difference between a bottom-end cable (<$3) and ones that cost between at least 333 to over 2600 times as much! I mean really, why test a very bottom-ender? They certainly should have had some more commonly used middle-ground ones in there like your basic 12-14 AWG oxygen-free copper ones or some a little higher up the scale like those from Blue Jeans, Belden, etc. MUCH LESS than $1000 a pair, but quite a bit more than $3 a pair.

If the high-end cable fans want to take this study as a "victory" in the cable battle, then by all means, go ahead! :cheesygrin: I'd classify it as a slim-to-very hollow victory considering the extreme price differences of the cables tested and the fact that they had no middle ground cables tested and no head-to-head tests of cables tested against themselves.

DarqueKnight

headrott wrote: »

What about soundstage height, width, depth? What about imaging? What about image weight?

When you lump 40-50 people together, evaluating anything in the area of stereo performance goes out the window.

What reasonable confidence can be had in the "evaluation" from the poor guy in the green shirt at the far right?:twisted:
So sad.

BlueFox

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I'm not a naysayer, and this was not a valid test. All it tells us is a group of 50 people listened to short snippets of music and listed which presentations they preferred. Unless I missed it, there were no formal evaluation criteria. For all I know, the cable that "won" might have done so simply because it made the female singer's voice sound a little bit "prettier".

And that is basically all the audio hobby is, finding something you 'prefer'. Whether the test, or cable 'A' and cable 'B', met some defined criteria is irrelevent. The point is, for whatever reason, people were clearly able to state one preferance over the other. The conclusion is either they were deluded, or there was some type of audible difference between the cables. For whatever reason, their preference was the more expensive cable in each test. Maybe better cables do make a female singer's voice sound prettier.

However, it would be interesting to take the same cables and gear, and define a more scientific measureable test, and see if the results are the same.

BlueFox

teekay0007 wrote: »

What struck me from the results was:

A) nearly one-out-of-three people who were tested had no preference between the $3 cable and both the cables costing well over $1000!,
Nearly 30% preferred the $3 cable over the two $1000 cables!,
C) nearly 40% of those tested preferred the $3 cable overall over the $8000 cable!,
D) One-in-five people tested preferred the $3 cable overall over any of the others, whereas the $8000 cable was preferred by ONLY 22% and the over-$1000 cables were preferred by about 30% of those tested!!

All that shows is that in any group of people there are those with either bad hearing, or have no idea what they are listening for. The problem here is that these are the same people who then think that everyone has the same bad hearing as they do, so others are imagining any differences in cables.

headrott

DarqueKnight wrote: »

When you lump 40-50 people together, evaluating anything in the area of stereo performance goes out the window.

I understand that Ray, which is why you stated "No comment on the matrix style seating", I think. When there are 40-50 people trying to listen to a stereophonic signal approximately 80% to 99% of listeners won't perceive the imaging, and soundstage characteristics (at least well enough to evaluate them) depending on the audience layout and speaker setup and type used of course. The testers should have explained that in their write up. Also, they should have explained their reasoning for only including the evaluation criteria they chose, specifically if it was because of the reason you brought up.

DarqueKnight

BlueFox wrote: »

And that is basically all the audio hobby is, finding something you 'prefer'.

For me, it's much more than that. I can actually explain why I prefer something. I can also set my preferences aside and objectively evaluate things based on formal performance criteria. I have bought a lot of gear that met certain performance goals when my "preference" was for another brand, price point, color, etc.

teekay0007

What this study does do is set the stage for a similar comparison at an upcoming Polkfest gathering. I'm sure there's enough CP members who would be happy to give their input as to proper study design and equipment used and the room layout. Many members would probably be willing to bring their prized cables to be in the comparison groups. People in the listening group would be from both sides, and middle-grounders, of the "cables make/don't make a difference" argument. Then, the results could be compiled, presented on this forum, and agreed on to be a topic to never be brought up again! :cheesygrin: Newbies could be directed to the thread upon membership registration and they would have to sign off on said results as gospel prior to being able to make any forum posts!

teekay0007

BlueFox wrote: »

All that shows is that in any group of people there are those with either bad hearing, or have no idea what they are listening for. The problem here is that these are the same people who then think that everyone has the same bad hearing as they do, so others are imagining any differences in cables.

Wow! That's a pretty high and mighty self opinion! Funny, but my guess is that in your next post you'll be telling us that what's most important is how what's being played sounds to the listener. And if that listener chooses the "wrong cables" - which by this definition is impossible - then they have "either bad hearing or have no idea what they are listening for". Again, just "Wow! Do you ever catch your tail?"

Syndil

teekay0007 wrote: »

Funny how different people can interpret the same results much differently.

What struck me from the results was:

A) nearly one-out-of-three people who were tested had no preference between the $3 cable and both the cables costing well over $1000!,
Nearly 30% preferred the $3 cable over the two $1000 cables!,
C) nearly 40% of those tested preferred the $3 cable overall over the $8000 cable!,
D) One-in-five people tested preferred the $3 cable overall over any of the others, whereas the $8000 cable was preferred by ONLY 22% and the over-$1000 cables were preferred by about 30% of those tested!!

I noticed the same thing as I was reading the results. I was expecting a surprising upset, but instead I was left scratching my head, wondering if I was reading the same article. This is a victory, how, exactly? I'm reminded of the oft-quoted cliche:

The figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Given that the highest margin of "victory" by any particular cable was only 59%, that's not even enough to rule out a non-random result. All of the so-called "victories" were 50% +/- 9%. I suspect there's also a reason why they aren't telling us how each individual scored, as that would undoubtedly be even more revealing of the randomness afoot.

So, yeah. Go cables!

teekay0007

Hey, just for fun, let's look at this one other way - a car analogy. :biggrin:

22% of consumers preferred the ride overall in the $100,000 Mercedes-Benz 550 series- Car 1
28% - 30% preferred the ride overall in the $12,500 Kia Rio or Ford Fiesta - Cars 2 and 3
20% preferred the ride overall in Car 4, purchased for $37.50


I doubt many of the sales and marketing people on the teams for Cars 1, 2, or 3 would be running back to Corporate saying how they "trounced" Car 4 in consumer preference! :frown:


No....don't get me wrong, I LOVE great music and great home theater and have heard plenty of rigs that have just blown me away. I have never heard a system with $8000 cable pairs, or even $1000 cable pairs - hope to someday, but haven't as of now. If any of you can hear a difference that is worth that much of an investment for youself, then go for it with my blessing. I actually hope I never develop the listening sophistication that will allow me to make that distinction 'cuz I'd always want to get there. Also, I'd forever be pointing out to all my friends and family how deficient their systems are, nose in the air, and all!

And to me, all things considered, I guess the whole debate just stinks to high heaven of a lesson in the law of diminishing returns.

decal

chumlie

Good one decal. Well stated.

EndersShadow

teekay0007 wrote: »

And to me, all things considered, I guess the whole debate just stinks to high heaven of a lesson in the law of diminishing returns.

And thats all we want people to admit. There "is" a difference between cables. I a openly admit there is a law of diminishing returns, but all we want is for people to say "cables do sound different". Its ok if you decided not to make that next step up to get that little bit extra of performance, there are people that might either because they have the money to, or just enjoy the music that much.

leroyjr1

IMO there are slight differences in cables, slight and doesn't warrant me spending thousands and thousands of dollars on cables. What I can't understand is people spending thousands on cables and the speakers and/or gear doesn't match.

heiney9

Don't get me wrong, I think this test is flawed for all the same reasons DK and others have mentioned. My point was this is exactly the kind of test a cable naysayer would want us to participate in. Short snippets of songs, many people in matrix style seating, blind, etc. The average naysayer doesn't believe in sound stage height, width, depth and all the other attributes a well trained listener would listen for. This is the EXACT type of test as well as implementation a lot of the people who want proof cables sound different have in mind. The point is the cables sounded different. It's funny because the guys who are quoting the stats that are not that impressive Teekay and Syndil are basing the results on price (a bias) and now stating there should be more a difference because of the difference in price. Why not revel in the fact that the cables sounded different to a bunch of strangers in a room who may or may not have been familiar with the music played or even been in the best seating position for maximum performance. Instead let's break it down on $$$. Many of us have said it before, the most expensive piece isn't ALWAYS the preferred piece.

All I can say is, yes, the test has a plethora of flaws but it did reveal in a very crude way differences can be heard, even by untrained listeners listening on a foreign rig to very small snippets of songs they may or may not be familiar with. I can come to the conclusion that if a test were administered based on what DK has proposed in the past (I'm not going into detail for brevity) even more profound differences would be noted. Not to mention that would be a much more controlled and proper way to evaluate.

If a crude, poorly implemented blind listening test like this one can reveal differences, image what a properly administered test with trained listeners would reveal. Unblinded of course

H9

Obsession18

I think it’s a pretty damning indictment for the three high dollar cables that some low-rent 16 ga zipcord held up that well. As someone else mentioned - what if the cheap stuff were replaced with some mid-grade stuff like Canare 4S11, it could have been a downright debacle for the high end stuff.

tonyb

What a worthless test if there ever was one......and these are the things that circle jerk the internet as fact. Well, I guess I can see the attraction if you have no more than a 5th grade education and are the type to believe everything you read on the internet.

Thats a hint for the next one to post up for the millionth time a Roger Russell article.

DarqueKnight

The whole thing read like a parody to me...as if they were making fun of audio blind tests.

I wouln't think that Stereophile (a magazine known for stringent audio gear test procedures) and a formal audiophile club would expect such a sloppily conducted test to be taken seriously.

headrott

That would make more sense. So we should be saying "So yeah. Go blind tests.":loneranger:

Lietuvis91

We all have come to our own conclusions on whether or not cables matter. I swapped audioguest cables bought at best buy for MIT's cheapest exps and kept the MITs for a reason. No one can come tell me otherwise, I hear what I hear...

I only wish I was part of the group that didn't hear a difference between $3 cable and $1000 cable. That would have saved me some pocket change! Even though my cables were not that expensive anyway...

WilliamM2

heiney9 wrote: »

If a crude, poorly implemented blind listening test like this one can reveal differences, image what a properly administered test with trained listeners would reveal. Unblinded of course

H9

This test didn't reveal any differences, the results are completely random as usual. Certainly isn't any type of test I would setup. I would want the best chance for a positive outcome, which would mean listening 1 person at a time, in the sweet spot, with their own choice of music. This test was a joke.

pyrocyborg

If you really want to do a test like this, take a large population of audiophiles one at a time, and place them at the optimal listening position. I do not think that we need an "objective" measure as a subjective measure like preferences is what audio is all about, but we need a way to do that type of experiment with less bias possible. Results are interresting, but they are in no way astonishing.

As someone pointed out, that poor guy with the green shirt wasn't even in a position to really hear anything. Maybe all those who couldn't hear a difference were poorly positionned? Maybe we could say the same thing about the fact that they could not discriminate between a 3$ cable and a 8000$ one? Anyways... I do think that even if we end up with a methodologically correct experiment, we'll always end up debating.

Sure, cable A do no seem to have any clear advantage if you look at the results, but a lot of people thougt it sounded way better than the 8000$ cable! Maybe they do not have golden ears, but that's why I think people that we should make an experiment with a population of audiophiles. At least, we would know that those peoples can usually detect even a minimal difference in sound.

I would also like to know how a 30-50-100$ cable would fare up against those exotics cables? And against the 3$ one?

So many questions, but yet, this experiment provides no actual answers.