A butt-load spent in cables - how much improvemt?


We spend quite a bit in cables for our systems, I'm wondering how much overall sonic improvement we get from cables? Let me explain my thought.....

I'm very happy with my current cabling (IC's, PC's, digital coax, and speaker cables). I was thinking about removing ALL of them and putting in ALL the original stuff I started with (stock PC's, cheap Monster IC's, Monster digital coax, and Monster XP copper speaker wire).

Then listening to the system to see how much degradation in sound I would have. Has anybody else thought of doing this or has done this?
vman71

Showing 5 responses by jimmdavis

Bin, I would go one step further and contend not only that the vast majority would hear no difference in a double-blind test, but that the vast majority of those who claim they CAN hear a difference would likewise fail said double-blind test. This has been pretty well demonstrated and documented.
The results of every double-blind cabling test ever performed speak for themselves. The reluctance of proponents/salesmen of expensive cabling to engage in such testing speaks volumes.
In a well-matched, ultra-low-power, single-tube, single-driver system, with clean isolated battery power (lemon/CU/ZN), ideal feng shui, purified air, properly oil-suspended granite floor slab, and fibonacci-sequenced room proportions... you really shouldn't need actual cables, as they interfere with the natural electrosonic energy path. So I've done the only sensible thing, and eliminated those damn thangs altogether. My plebian neighbor claims he can't hear the pure sound, but evidently he's never really developed his critical listening skills.
Mothra, I'm sincerely curious as to what you mean by "well documented that DBT's are unreliable themselves". Unreliable at doing what?... because the only thing a double-blind test (as applied to audio) claims to do is determine whether a person can distinguish a sonic difference by hearing alone. Participants in the test are given ample opportunity to identify the difference between conditions 'A' and 'B', and that's all the test aims to determine.

Now I realize that some people will confuse the question of auditory perception with that of explanatory physics, which is an entirely different issue. When listening tests fail to identify phenomena that can be measured with other instrumentation or mathematical models, this is no different than a motorcycle "failing" to get you to the moon.

Can you give an example of how a double-blind listening test would be unreliable at its intended purpose (determining how consistently one can identify an audible difference)?
Mothra,

Appreciate the intelligent response, specifically the example of turning up the jitter effect and then returning it to its normal level. These discussions need more elucidation of that sort, and less ad hominem.

While we must consider whether or not the listener knows what he's listening for, I wouldn't say that the phenomenon you describe undermines the credibility of double-blind tests, but rather more clearly defines what they actually achieve. In other words, DBT's never proved that amps sound alike, but only proved that the test's participants couldn't readily identify the difference.

I guess we should always qualify the question of audible difference in terms of whose ear(s) we're considering. The general public wouldn't be expected to differentiate between cables, but those individuals who CLAIM they can tell the difference (like those in your example who've already heard the jitter turned up) should have little trouble discerning reliably in a blind test.