Does high quality digital cables matter?

Habanero Monk wrote: »

If ZLTFUL can't hit the 86% mark on what cable the dice indicate that is indeed data. I still don't know what possible, real world based objection you could have.

Given that typical GB Ethernet runs can certify out to 20 meters the lengths we are talking about are trivial.

Plan also on making sure the same nic silicon is used.

Once again (I believe we are marking a record number of times in one thread of stating that) any type of blind test should not be used in sterephonic evaluation. What do you not understand about this statement? You just have no other comeback than your irrational "well it wasn't design for it's use, but it still can be used to evaluate it." Please tell us WHY blind tests SHOULD BE used?

Why was any type of blind test not to be used for stereophonic evalutation (but was designed for monophonic, low resolution evalutaion)?

1) The test type used should be able to evaluate all the aspects of stereophonic reproduction (i.e. soundstage width and depth, detail level, transparency, imaging, tonality, image weight, and a number of other spects). A blind test, as you are suggesting is only testing to see IF there is a difference. That is not sufficiet for a valid test in stereophonic audio.

2) It has been shown that (in the past) when audiophiles who do blind tests and correctly identify a change or no change in a piece of audio equipment that naysayers simply state "they got lucky" and dismiss the results. Also please see #1 again, as regardless of whether audiophiles "got it right" there is no definitive answer as to HOW two pieces of gear are different. What good does this do for furthering stereophonic audio listening sessions?

Please learn something about listening to stereophonic audio from a high resolution system before trying to submit others to a test that should not be used in a stereophonic (high resolution) system (for the reasons above).

F1nut wrote: »

Why is it always the naysayers that try to shove their beliefs on others? Be it cables, gear or whatever audio related, it's never the other way around. It's a curious attitude that someone into audio would think that with all the various options available they would not result in differences, be it for the better or for the worse. In fact, it is a belief completely devoid of any sort of logic and borders on the lunatic fringe.

To justify why they won't spend over 40 bucks on cables I guess. Then they seem to define a whole industry by a few bad snake oil companies which is like saying Ford sucks because of one bad model.

It's also can be contributed to a generational thing when applying logic. Today, it appears the desired outcome is first thought of, and then the logic created to achieve that outcome. Applies to more than audio too. Forcing beliefs on others ? Look around....pretty evident in todays society isn't it ?

The thought of someone being able to hear things they can't isn't logical to them, when logic clearly dictates the opposite. Then they result to making wagers which also only entices people to lie. Logic Jess ?? Unfortunately there's a lot of people devoid of using any or even knowing how.

11tsteve wrote: »

"Well, if it makes a difference, why don't sound companies use better wires in live situations"....

Because live situations aren't about the SQ. Most have mixers to enhance the sound. A home environment, a live stadium, and a recording studio are all different in their own way. To achieve good sound in each takes a different approach.

A lot of sound companies have their cables made specifically for a certain purpose too. They aren't using off the shelf Wal-mart suff. Plus the majority of cables used are balanced, and they make up for any sound characteristics with the mixers or enhancers costing a lot of coin. Can you do that in a home environment....on the cheap ? Hardly....

Absolutely Steve, it can also work in reverse as I too have found in certain instances. More money isn't a guarantee of better sound. That's why I like to try a variety to find my own personal huckleberry....and why I encourage others to do the same. Once I'm happy, I get off the merry-go round and enjoy the tunes.

Habanero Monk wrote: »

I have seen so many posts about it 'having' to be on their system that I am not willing to change that up. I think with how much importance that has been placed on this that I would like to honor all those sentiments. I don't think I am off the mark on this one as there are plenty of posts here in that regard.

This will be an important aspect of the study. In most types of blind, "discrimination" testing, participants get better with training. That is, if subjects go through several "unblinded" trials of "training", they perform better at the discrimination phase. I think you should start with a basic A/B discrimination as that will make the statistical analysis a bit easier.

I'm always surprised at the lack of data on the subject. There should be enough data that this isn't really a question anymore.

BlueFox wrote: »

What are 'sound companies'? Recording studios, professionals? If so then, at least, some do. Those that care about the final product.

http://www.shunyata.com/index.php/reviews-all/professional-endorsements

just to be clear, his views not mine. I meant to demonstrate the stance of his non- belief.

I'd be OK wit holding da money for youse guys (less my customary 15% fees, of course).

Not me. I don't want to be in the middle holding $3200 should there be any dispute over the results.

I don't think the third party has to be impartial either, just honest, and willing to do it.

That's the down side of the internet. There's soo much information, good or bad, you can find anything to fit a narrative you want to portray. Which is why people need to find out for themselves.

badchad wrote: »

So where is the information stored? In know that most data related to the biological sciences is in pubmed.

I found a lot of information on this topic in the archives of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE Xplore database) and the archives of the Audio Engineering Society.

badchad wrote: »

I know there is a lengthy thread around here discussing the method and merits of double blind testing audio equipment, but I've seen few actual studies of the actual tests themselves.

You can start with the references cited in these threads:

A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing

A-Survey-Of-Early-Stereophonic-System-Subjective-Evaluation

Notice-Of-Sensory-Science-Journal-Publication

I wonder if Matthew Polk or any of the other powers that be within Polk Audio today read these forums....

badchad wrote: »

Ah yes, I had seen that initial post before. I vehemently disagree that double-blind testing is not applicable to audio equipment. It may be, however, that prior studies may not have been adequately performed.

Blind trials require the assistance of one or more other persons. It adds an unnecessary level of complexity to an exercise that is designed for trained subjects. Blind trials are designed for na