Is there a difference in HDMI cables?

headrott wrote: »

Obviously you haven't read Ray's excellent thread regarding the history of Blind Tests. Please read this and get back to us afterwards.

Link: http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104973-A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing&

A nice review of the process. A scientific review is different than doing an actual study. The criticisms of the method are weak, and easily dealt with.

Cable shootouts are extremely easy to conduct yourself. Get 2 cables and compare them. What else really matters?
You get to use your system , your source material , your eyes and ears.
Everything else is basically blah blah blah.

Based on all of the above, I see no reason why the standard, scientific technique of double blind testing couldn't be used to evaluate audio equipment.

When a $200 Japanese receiver and a pair of OTL mono block amps are judged to sound the same in a DBT, you know the test is completely WORTHLESS for audio purposes.

badchad wrote: »

It may be equally plausible that the test was designed incorrectly. Maybe only experienced audiophiles can tell the difference?

I'd return to my favorite analogy of wine once again: I've had several hundred dollar bottles of wine before. It all tastes pretty much the same to me. Hell, I prefer the $8 bottle from my local store. If you lined up 10 bottles of wine ranging from 5-$1,000, I probably couldn't rank order them.

I'd fail a wine DBT, but that doesn't the method is inapplicable to wine.

I think part of the point of Ray's thread is that since the use of blind, double-blind, ABX tests were not intended to be used for complex stereophinc audio (but instead to be used for simpler monophonic audio) that in reality, a blind, double-bilnd, ABX test is inherently designed incorrectly for judging stereophonic audio due to the fact that these tests themselves were not intended to be used for such a purpose. That is, one cannot use a hammer to install a bolt. You need a wrench or ratchet to install a bolt.

Also, one needs to be trained in how to use the wrench or rachet (which granted is pretty simple training). Related to stereophonic audio (and as the example you used, wine tasting), training is necessary to understand how to listen for and describe differences in stereophonic audio. You need to know and understand what you are listening for to explain differences in stereophonic audio (things such as : Soundstage, detail, image weight, transparency, tone, realism, clarity, etc., etc., etc.). You don't need to be blind to the equipment to tell differences in audio equipment, you need to be learned in what you are listening for and how to catalog and describe these differences. The same goes for wine. You don't need to be blind to which wine you are drinking to know what differences in the wines you are tasting. You need to know what aspects of the wines tastes, sensations (tannins, flavors, mouth feel, smells, color, etc., etc. ,etc.) you are trying to describe. You need to be trained in how to identify, catalog, and describe these differences. It has nothing to do with being blind to what audio equipment (or wine) you are judging, it has to do with the training involved in learning to judge audio and/or wine.

That said, since (as you stated) you would fail a wine DBT, it is because you don't have the knowledge and experience to judge the differences in wines to accurately determin which wine is "better" and which is "not as good". Even if you knew which wines you were drinking, you still would not be able to accurately describe the differences in the wines because you lack the knowledge and/or experience to judge them. It has nothing to do with being blinded or not blinded to what is being judged.

If you have the same amount of knowlede and experience in audio as you do in wine, you would also fail a non-blind test and DBT when judging stereophonic audio. This is because you would not have the necessary knowledge and/or experience to accurately identify, catalog, and describe the differences in stereophonic audio signals and the differences different pieces of audio equipment put out. Education and training are what are required to change this. Not being blinded to what you are evaluating.

Bring those bottles of wine by me, I'll rank them for ya. :biggrin:

Listen kids, we can talk about the science of cables until the sun explodes, a defined answer is always going to be allusive. Which is why we always say to try for yourself with your ears and make that decision yourself. We don't need 20 pages on the merit of one thing or another, experience trumps it all.

If there was not a difference with HDMI cables before, there is now. There is a new sheriff in town who does not BS around.

http://www.thecableco.com/Product/Venom-HDMI

I recently got a 1.5 meter long Audioquest Cocolate and notice a difference between my Monoprice and BJC to justify replacing the cable that came with my Oppo 105D with another Chocolate.

It's not necessarily the what's in the puddin' it's the quality of the ingredients, copper alloys, shielding, and the crimp connections. Pay a little extra and they last longer.

I purchased two 8' original Monster Cable speaker cables back around 1986 for a $100.00 or so. Never had an issue with them, not one........................until I replaced them and realized how bad they were.

^^ valid point. I'm only saying that I have never experienced a drop out, sparkles, connection issues etc. with my cheap cable.

As long as I have my decoder ring, all is good.