Audio Engineering Society and cables


128x128thyname

Showing 1 response by sdl4

This paper discusses some very interesting issues that have been poorly managed in other attempts at double-blind listening trials involving audio components. I am especially glad to see that some thoughtful scientists are not blindly accepting ABX style paradigms as the gold standard for testing differences between cables or other audio gear. The authors point out that rapid, brief exposure to auditory stimuli may be confounded by overlap between what is being heard in earlier and later samples. The results of this study make a strong argument for presenting listeners with longer samples of music and introducing a "palate cleansing" break between samples so that the differences between samples do not become blurred by trying to fit them all into a brief chunk of short-term memory. This approach is consistent with the argument from audiophiles that it is important to use more extended listening sessions to compare different audio gear, whether listening is done blindly or not.

For those cable measurers who over-focus on differences in frequency response being necessary to hear a difference between cables, the authors caution against a simplistic analysis that focuses mainly on frequency response. Other issues appear to be more important, especially those related to noise handling and possibly phase response. It is interesting that this study provides scientific evidence that two cables that have virtually identical frequency response can nevertheless be distinguished from each other based on double-blind listening. 

I was also pleased to see that the "better" interconnect in the study was a Straight Wire product while the alternative was a Monster Cable interconnect. In 1992, I replaced my Monster ICs with a much better sounding pair from Straight Wire. I guess it still took several decades for science to catch up with my ears. ;-)