A fresh approach to cable analysis

@total111 

I want to offer something that may surprise some people in this thread: a genuine concession.

And then proceeds to make a concession / non concession.

The cable/crossover interaction is a legitimate variable that I think deserves more credit than the objectivist side typically gives it. The vast majority of us run passive speakers with crossovers, and a crossover is a reactive load. (Hence my choice of speakers never includes any such interference... ;-) ).

Mumbo-jumbo that has nothing to do with @total111 never listening to the cables he bashes.  But to a novice, it looks like he is a crossover expert, and hence his cable analysis surely must be correct -- but it is not.

Different cables present slightly different impedance characteristics to that load, which affects how the crossover filter behaves and how the amplifier sees it.

So now @total111's concession is down to "slightly".

In a genuinely poor pairing, you could theoretically drift into the ~1dB range — and that's audible."

Now @total111's concession is down to "theoretical".

That's not magic, that's measurable electrical interaction, and it's real physics.

The implication is that our ear's have no relation to physics.

So my honest position is this: cables can matter at the margins in specific reactive load conditions.

Now @total111 is being honest.

Now @total111 concession is down to the "margins", and only qualifies under "specific reactive load conditions".

So @total111 starts off with claiming to be making a "genuine concession", and then proceeds to water it down to "slightly", "theoretical", "margins", and "specific reactive load conditions" of his choosing.

That's a much narrower claim than the high-end cable industry makes — but it's defensible, and I'll own it.

Now we have to add "narrow" to @total111's concession.

And it gets worse.

@total111 claims that reality is defensible, as if the millions of people that hear the improvement of using quality cables can defend their position (as if they are the ones imagining things).  People that hear the improvement with quality cables have nothing to defend.  Rather, it is @total111 who makes claims about cables he never used that is obligated to defend his absurd claims.

...and I'll own it.

Own what?  A non concession, concession?

That is the crafty "genuine concession" of deceitful language.

And it gets worse, because @total111 then attempts to put zip cord in the mix as an actual quality cable that will do a job similar to quality, high-end cables.

I came here to have an honest discussion, not to "deny" anything.

Great sign-off.  Claim to be honest, in the same comment full of deceitful remarks.  Claim to not deny anything, when the entire comment was written to do just that.

@total111 Reminder to provide the link to the double-blind listening tests that you claim exist.

Every product we buy has some sort of marketing lingo to make their products the best ever. Cables are a product that also does this.  Here’s my take, buy what YOU like and feel comfortable spending.  Second,STOP telling others what to,think,hear,and spend. If you disagree with what someone is spending on cables,MOVE ON. It truly is none of anybody’s business how others spend THEIR money. Oh,and by the way,I like the idea of the cable YouTube channel. 

@gdaddy1 

I bet you'd like to censur him. I feel your frustration.

Never.  I live in the USA, where we have a Constitution which includes our Bill Of Rights.

Those protections are best served for speech we do not like; for speech with which we disagree.  I will defend @total111's right to post anything he wants (short of things like murder for hire).  But this is a privately owned forum.  So the administrators get the final word on what they allow on the platform that they own.

People do come here to learn but for some reason you don't like science as proof.

I am 100% in favor of science.  I have not been presented with such proof from @total111.  Quite the opposite.  He makes unsubstantiated claims of double-blind testing, and refuses the proof of using his own ears.  Are you reading this?  Prove it with a science.  You do not have to prove what you see right in front of you.  Same for hearing sounds that are right in front of you.

Using instruments that can measure far beyond the capabilities of audible ranges of human hearing.

You are implying that super-human hearing is needed to hear what quality cables do for a revealing stereo.  Do you need an electron microscope to read these words, or to choose a 4K television over a 1972 rabbit ear's TV?

Do you need science to prove that a BBQ smells better than a turd?

Instead you prefer to rely on your flawed imagination and your ears.

@gdaddy1 You have revealed that you have never heard a revealing stereo with quality, high-end cables.  You are claiming that what I and countless others clearly hear is imaginary.  From your lack of ever experiencing the sound quality of such a stereo, I do not blame you for being skeptical, and thinking that we are nuts.

It takes no super-human hearing.  You could have lost half of your hearing, and you would still be able to easily hear a revealing stereo's sound quality improvement if you swap out the cables from Target with Audioquest Sky cables.  Yes, you would hear it, and it would take you 5 seconds to hear it.

Yes, everyone including you has bias.

Everyone has lust.  But not everyone goes around groping people.  We control our bias.  But bias has nothing to do with what is plain to hear.

Bias implies that it is a strain to hear, and we allow our bias to influence us.  Is choosing a 4K TV, over a 1972 rabbit ear's TV bias?

Since YOU hear it, therefore it is true!!

Of course it is true, precisely because I hear it.  Am I supposed to believe you, and not my own ears?  You would hear it too, if you sat in front of a revealing stereo with quality, high-end cables.

You are reading these words.  Is that true, because you believe that you can see these words?  Or is it your bias that is fooling you that you are reading these words.

You need to shake loose your belief that quality high-end cables require dog ears to be heard.  You have the wrong impression.  You find it difficult to accept what you never experienced.  So others must be imagining things.

Ten seconds of exposure to a high-end system with a cable swap would rock your world.

@asctim 

A consensus among certain users...

The absence of a wide-spread consensus is due to the absence of a proper double-blind listening test.  To my knowledge, such a proper test has never been conducted.

I have asked several times for a link to such a test.  No one has posted any links.

If a proper double-blind listening test would be performed, then the participants would walk away and say that they did not need to be kept in the dark (in a manner of speaking).  They will walk away, wondering why the cloak and dagger for what was so plain to hear.

No blind listening test is needed to compare Radio Shack's Realistic speakers to Magico speakers.  And although cables will not be as obvious as such a speaker swap, the cable swap would still be plainly obvious.

There is a disease, of sorts, with cable deniers.  They are convinced (or pretend to be convinced) that only superman and his dog can hear the difference.  The rest of us need to strain our ears until they bleed, to hear a difference.  That is all nonsense.

No super-human hearing is necessary.  No confirmation from Scooby-Doo is necessary.  Those insisting that a double-blind test is needed are those that never heard what is plain to hear.  And that makes sense, because such stereos are hard to come by.  And high-end audio stores are few and far between.  And they will not allow you to walk in and swap out their cables for a listening test.

@seymour-krelborn  Did you take the test?