Is it REALLY worth it?

Face

Lorthos wrote: »

How about the next time you guys have one of your polkfests, everybody brings cables and you all do some in house testing....

I've done that a few times here with fellow Polkies, what's your point?

concealer404

Demiurge wrote: »

Your question is kind of my point. I hate to drop into analogies like others have done, but I have another auto related one I feel is on point....

If a car has damaged shocks and struts and they are replaced with brand new ones and properly installed the car is going to have a smoother ride. There are tests that can be done that will show that statement to be factual, regardless of what your body may tell your brain.

In essence you can say the car isn't smoother and science can tell you you're full of chit.

With speaker cables, it appears no such test exists that can be put to graph paper (as noted above) so you're left with unsubstantiated opinions.

It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong in my opinion because I can't hear the difference. For the sake of you guys shelling out big bucks for your cables, I hope you guys are. I only would like to know out of sheer interest, not becuase there is any benefit to me.

I believe that you may have found the "right" way to disagree, sir.

treitz3

Demi, in a way you can be thankful you can't hear any audible change. It lets you sit back and enjoy what you can hear.

In a way, I'm jealous of you. For one, my wallet would be fatter [if I didn't] and two, I wouldn't be nit picking every damned aspect of the reproduction like I do flying through the cables of the month.

tcrossma

Demiurge wrote: »

Your question is kind of my point. I hate to drop into analogies like others have done, but I have another auto related one I feel is on point....

If a car has damaged shocks and struts and they are replaced with brand new ones and properly installed the car is going to have a smoother ride. There are tests that can be done that will show that statement to be factual, regardless of what your body may tell your brain.

In essence you can say the car isn't smoother and science can tell you you're full of chit.

With speaker cables, it appears no such test exists that can be put to graph paper (as noted above) so you're left with unsubstantiated opinions.

It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong in my opinion because I can't hear the difference. For the sake of you guys shelling out big bucks for your cables, I hope you guys are. I only would like to know out of sheer interest, not becuase there is any benefit to me.

Just out of curiosity, what scientific test is it that can show me that my car is riding better? And if there is such a test, how do I know it's not the road conditions or temperature changes that affected the test? Maybe one set of shocks hasn't been properly broken in. Who performs these tests? Car manufacturers? The manufacturer of the shocks? Doesn't each of these shock manufacturers claim their shocks are the best? Somebody might think their $1000 shocks feel better than my $150 ones, but damned if I can tell the difference.

I don't care. All I care is that my car feels good when I drive it home. Maybe it's just the placebo affect that causes me to think my newly replaced shocks feel better on the way home, who knows. The mechanic certainly didn't give me any scientific evidence to prove to me that it's a better ride...

But I do agree with you that I wish I hadn't stepped into this cable thread either -- I usually stay out of them.

Demiurge

inspiredsports wrote: »

You're certainly approaching it in a sensible way. If you vote with your wallet, and listen and decide for yourself with an open mind, it's easier to dismiss the "but how does it measure?" crowd (as in post #86 above).

Whoa, whoa, whoa....now you're questioning my sensibilities and putting me in some "crowd" or group I didn't place myself in? Thanks! I actually thought the dicussion had been pretty civil up until this point.

I asked a logical question when presented with an opinion wrapped in paper that says fact all over it. I'm perfectly content that there are two valid opinions on this subject and that neither has gone on to factual status. I readily admit I can't hear the difference you guys can. Either my ears are defective or your perceptions aren't reality.

In this instance, ignorance may be bliss for both sides.

See, and people wonder why these cable debates get nasty.

Polk user

Not only do you need to buy the expensive cables but you must keep them off the floor to get the best sound.

inspiredsports

DarqueKnight wrote: »

. . . The topic of this thread is "are expensive cables REALLY worth it?".

Good point!

At any rate, I'm sure some would accuse me of having way too much invested in the stuff behind my rack and speakers, and I smile a HUGE ear-to-ear smile every hour it's powered up (which is about 60 hours per week)!

inspiredsports

Demiurge wrote: »

Whoa, whoa, whoa....now you're questioning my sensibilities and putting me in some "crowd" or group I didn't place myself in? Thanks! I actually thought the dicussion had been pretty civil up until this point.

I asked a logical question when presented with an opinion wrapped in paper that says fact all over it. I'm perfectly content that there are two valid opinions on this subject and that neither has gone on to factual status. I readily admit I can't hear the difference you guys can. Either my ears are defective or your perceptions aren't reality.

In this instance, ignorance may be bliss for both sides.

See, and people wonder why these cable debates get nasty.

You're certainly approaching it in a sensible way. If you vote with your wallet, and listen and decide for yourself with an open mind, it's easier to dismiss the "but how does it measure?" crowd (as in post #86 above).

Demiurge, I apologize.

I wish I had used the word "ACCEPT" instead of the word "DISMISS", and the word "MEMBERS" instead of "CROWD" in my quote above.

I think I had too much left over rum spiked egg nog last night

DarqueKnight

Demiurge wrote: »

In essence you can say the car isn't smoother and science can tell you you're full of chit.

Demi,

I appreciate your open mindedness about this subject.

I would like you to consider that audio is largely a subjective experience and as such, does not lend itself well to scientific measurement...at least not any measurements that we currently have.

Going back to your car shock analogy, science can absolutely verify that a car rides smoother after good shocks are installed. However, a person who grew up riding in old trucks with bad suspensions over rough gravel and dirt roads may be so desensitized to road conditions that they can't tell a difference between a vehicle with a good suspension and one with a poor suspension. Their mind and body has learned to just ignore the tactile feedback from the road because of the prior abuse they suffered.

There are so many variables in how individual people interpret the same sensory data. This, plus the unnatural way that gear is rapidly switched in and out in blind trials, is the main problem with applying blind testing to audio trials.

For example, some people crave and value a deep, wide and tall sound stage, and are therefore sensitive to changes in image placement and sound stage size. Another person, who is used to listening to speakers with images confined tightly between the speakers, may have a negative reaction the first time they hear an expansive sound stage. Such a person also may not be able to pick out differences in sound stage dimensions that are caused by different cables. Two cables, whose only sonic difference is sound stage dimension, might sound identical to this person.

Demiurge wrote: »

I readily admit I can't hear the difference you guys can. Either my ears are defective or your perceptions aren't reality.

No, neither one has to be true. Just because you don't hear something, it does not mean something is wrong with your ears. It could just be that you are not sensitive to, or acquainted with, a particular stimulus.

Just because one person can hear something that other persons cannot does not mean that they have golden ears. It could be that their ears have become trained over a period of time and/or their ears are more sensitive to a particular stimulus than someone else.

Most people have had the experience of taking their car to a mechanic and the mechanic knew what was wrong the second he "heard" the car. To us, the car sounded like it always did. However, because of their training and experience in diagnosing and repairing cars, they don't hear the sames things from an engine the we do.

heiney9

To piggyback on DK's post. How do you scientifically measure the width, depth and height of the soundstage and put that on paper to be analyzed? Some of the most signifcant changes I've heard from cables is in how the musical soundstage is presented.

Just one piece for thought to those that think all difference's can be measured and then put on paper for a nice tidy synposis.

H9

halo71

Polk user wrote: »

Not only do you need to buy the expensive cables but you must keep them off the floor to get the best sound.

Wow. I have seen everything now. This sure adds more fuel to the fire! Lemme guess, these are $500 each or better?

Googling Russ Andrews now.

dorokusai

I use cable standoff's but I've never heard an improvement. They were free and do make it much easier to vaccuum around my stuff. Even if I did buy them, they're like $40.

inspiredsports

halo71 wrote: »

Wow. I have seen everything now. This sure adds more fuel to the fire! Lemme guess, these are $500 each or better?

Googling Russ Andrews now.

They are about $30-40 each and this is one tweak that I've found not to do a heck of a lot, but the theory is that some floor coverings can cause a static charge to build up on the cables affecting the sound in a negative way. They do look cool and keep the vacuum cleaner from nibbling your cables if you have a carpeted floor.

halo71

^ Interesting concept! Hummm, maybe some lead lined conduit? Anyone making that yet?

Not being a smartass or anything. Really I am not.

Demiurge

tcrossma wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, what scientific test is it that can show me that my car is riding better? And if there is such a test, how do I know it's not the road conditions or temperature changes that affected the test? Maybe one set of shocks hasn't been properly broken in. Who performs these tests? Car manufacturers? The manufacturer of the shocks? Doesn't each of these shock manufacturers claim their shocks are the best? Somebody might think their $1000 shocks feel better than my $150 ones, but damned if I can tell the difference.

I don't care. All I care is that my car feels good when I drive it home. Maybe it's just the placebo affect that causes me to think my newly replaced shocks feel better on the way home, who knows. The mechanic certainly didn't give me any scientific evidence to prove to me that it's a better ride...

But I do agree with you that I wish I hadn't stepped into this cable thread either -- I usually stay out of them.

You're making my simple analogy more complicated than it needs to be. If you have busted shocks or struts even the lowest grade ones are going to allow your vehicle to ride better regardless of what a human being says to the contrary. I'm just pointing out that human beings have the ability to be proven wrong despite what their mind tells them.

Whether or not a $1,000 pair of shocks are any better than a $300 pair of shocks would clearly depend on the results of an A-B comparison. Of course the technology exists to check for the smoothness of a vehicles ride. Is it something you and I have access to? No, but then again I don't work in the R & D department of an automotive company or a part manufacturer. I do know this techonolgy has been displayed in several ads.

If speaker cable manufacturers had such technology to prove the superiority of their product over another wouldn't they be sharing it with us all?

Clearly, such a test doesn't exist yet for audio clarity or what have you. I'm not trying to tell anyone who thinks cables make their system sound better that they're wrong because I certainly don't have the facts to back that up. At the same time, the opposite is also true of people who just simply say I'm wrong for holding a different opinion.

tonyb

halo71 wrote: »

Wow. I have seen everything now. This sure adds more fuel to the fire! Lemme guess, these are $500 each or better?

Googling Russ Andrews now.

Do you have any experience with un-shielded cables ?

inspiredsports

halo71 wrote: »

^ Interesting concept! Hummm, maybe some lead lined conduit? Anyone making that yet?

Not being a smartass or anything. Really I am not.

China could probably do it if you want the health risk. After all, they still put lead in kid toys.

halo71

tonyb wrote: »

Do you have any experience with un-shielded cables ?

Probably not as much as you or most on this forum. But I've never really had any issues either. None that I noticed anyways.

Demiurge

treitz3 wrote: »

Demi, in a way you can be thankful you can't hear any audible change. It lets you sit back and enjoy what you can hear.

In a way, I'm jealous of you. For one, my wallet would be fatter [if I didn't] and two, I wouldn't be nit picking every damned aspect of the reproduction like I do flying through the cables of the month.

Yeah, that's true.

Thing is I'd like to experience what others are at the same time. It was probably all of those metal concerts I went to in my teenage years.

tcrossma

Demiurge wrote: »

You're making my simple analogy more complicated than it needs to be.

Yes I know I was

But I guess my point was that measurements are not everything. And it seems to me that cable companies do show their version of scientific proof for their cable improvements, people just choose not to believe it.

I guess what I was primarily getting at with my attempt at a somewhat humorous post was that I don't care if double-blind testing or independent 3rd party testing (who would devote the time to this, anyway?) has been done to prove/disprove whether cables matter. It's not all about measurements to me.

Demiurge

inspiredsports wrote: »

Demiurge, I apologize.

I wish I had used the word "ACCEPT" instead of the word "DISMISS", and the word "MEMBERS" instead of "CROWD" in my quote above.

I think I had too much left over rum spiked egg nog last night

I realize there are a-holes on both sides of this debate, and I really don't want to be one of the a-holes on this side.

inspiredsports

Demiurge wrote: »

I realize there are a-holes on both sides of this debate, and I really don't want to be one of the a-holes on this side.

Me too.

Demiurge

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Demi,

I appreciate your open mindedness about this subject.

I would like you to consider that audio is largely a subjective experience and as such, does not lend itself well to scientific measurement...at least not any measurements that we currently have.

Going back to your car shock analogy, science can absolutely verify that a car rides smoother after good shocks are installed. However, a person who grew up riding in old trucks with bad suspensions over rough gravel and dirt roads may be so desensitized to road conditions that they can't tell a difference between a vehicle with a good suspension and one with a poor suspension. Their mind and body has learned to just ignore the tactile feedback from the road because of the prior abuse they suffered.

There are so many variables in how individual people interpret the same sensory data. This, plus the unnatural way that gear is rapidly switched in and out in blind trials, is the main problem with applying blind testing to audio trials.

For example, some people crave and value a deep, wide and tall sound stage, and are therefore sensitive to changes in image placement and sound stage size. Another person, who is used to listening to speakers with images confined tightly between the speakers, may have a negative reaction the first time they hear an expansive sound stage. Such a person also may not be able to pick out differences in sound stage dimensions that are caused by different cables. Two cables, whose only sonic difference is sound stage dimension, might sound identical to this person.

Makes sense.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

No, neither one has to be true. Just because you don't hear something, it does not mean something is wrong with your ears. It could just be that you are not sensitive to, or acquainted with, a particular stimulus.

Just because one person can hear something that other persons cannot does not mean that they have golden ears. It could be that their ears have become trained over a period of time and/or their ears are more sensitive to a particular stimulus than someone else.

Most people have had the experience of taking their car to a mechanic and the mechanic knew what was wrong the second he "heard" the car. To us, the car sounded like it always did. However, because of their training and experience in diagnosing and repairing cars, they don't hear the sames things from an engine the we do.

I probably shouldn't have overlooked this, but a trained ear is a real thing. I play guitar as a hobby and certainly hear things others don't and it doesn't make their ears defective.

I do kind of want to swap out all of my "garbage" ICs and some better speaker cables all around and see what the big difference is. I thought about buying a set of 5 ICs from Signal Cable to see if there's a difference there, but haven't been willing to pull the trigger yet.

I was using "regular" speaker cable years ago and switched to a pair of Signal Cable wires on my LSi15s and noticed a difference for sure. Then again, I attributed that to being a higher guage wire and better metals. All experiences considered, I doubt I'd see some glorious difference between the Signal Cables I have now and that $3K pair of wire in the OP in my very modest system.

halo71

Demiurge wrote: »

I play guitar as a hobby and certainly hear things others don't and it doesn't make their ears defective.

I to play guitar. Been playing for over 20 years. I have tried Analysis Plus cables, $250 each, before. Playing through a Mesa Triple Rec. And I couldn't tell a bit of difference between it and a $25 Fender cable.

zombie boy 2000

Just some food for thought (and only because I appreciate the way Demi is handling himself in this discussion)... but I know that he probably listens to music a whole lot closer than many in this thread.

Systems

Face wrote: »

I've done that a few times here with fellow Polkies, what's your point?

I didn't really have any point, was just a suggestion.....

BAD ASP

tcrossma wrote: »

Sorry, wasn't a double-blind test. Doesn't count. /sarcasm off

would it help to admit that I had been drinking to excess (holidays and all) lol!

hearingimpared

Demiurge wrote: »

What gets tedious is essentially being told you're an idiot if you don't agree with an opinion in the face of a lack of science.

It goes the other way too Demi. In the face of a lack of science, if you hear a difference or improvement, you're delusional, placebo effect, imagining things, wishful thinking etc. It does get tiresome.

Science is and always has been trial and error. Just because science has established a belief doesn't mean it isn't subject to change. Look at science before Eistein. Measuring equipment is no substitute for the human ear.

vc69

halo71 wrote: »

I to play guitar. Been playing for over 20 years. I have tried Analysis Plus cables, $250 each, before. Playing through a Mesa Triple Rec. And I couldn't tell a bit of difference between it and a $25 Fender cable.

That is a very different situation than what is being discussed here.

halo71

vc69 wrote: »

That is a very different situation than what is being discussed here.

Not really. Cheap cable versus expensive cable. How does that not relate to this discussion?