1. Home
  2. cables
  3. 198670-134895

A fresh approach to cable analysis

Here’s an interesting idea that I wish someone would do. Start a YouTube channel in which you take full range of power cords, interconnects, and speaker wire ranging from cheap to top-of-the-line and carefully dissect them and expose how they are constructed and with what. In the past, we have been through all the arguments about measurements and subjective evaluation, and that gets us nowhere. I think, looking at the physical construction of these chords, which I assume almost no one ever does, especially on the more expensive ones, would produce some surprising results and really be hard to argue with. I’m sure manufacturers would hate this idea, but I don’t think there’s any way legally that they could challenge it. 

bruce19
seymour-krelborn
121 posts
 

@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.

seymour-krelborn
121 posts
 

@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.

gdaddy1
500 posts
 

@seymour-krelborn  Did you take the test?

seymour-krelborn
121 posts
 

@bruce19 

I see you haven’t been around Audiogon more than several months so I’m not going to report you.

Everything that I wrote I supported with quotes.

Your threat will not silence the truth.

You seem to have anger issues...

Quote me.  Or are you angry over not being able to support your position?

...in a hobby that we are supposed to be having fun with.

We agree.  It is fun to be truthful.

...calm down and you can continue the discussion but if you can’t, I suggest you move on because repeating the same argument over and over again does not win you any converts.

You are reading an emotional state that does not exist (unless you are imposing your anger as mine?).  Are you angry?  I am not.  And it was rude of you to make such a claim.  I forgive you, because you assumed a state of mind where you guessed wrong.

You can suggest that I or anyone move on.  But that is seen as you surrendering, because you can't support your position.  So you try to intimidate others into leaving.  You don't get your way, and so you cry foul, and you claim emotional instability, and you try intimidation.  That is not nice.  That is improper etiquette.

Am I reading your tone, incorrectly?

Do not make personal attacks.  Rather, support your position, and do so with good manners.

bruce19 OP
358 posts
 

So Seymour I asked Claude AI to provide the links to the tests you have been asking for. It was easy, you could have done this too if you were really interested. Here are the results:

 

Here's a roundup of the key double-blind tests on audio cables, along with relevant links:

1. Stereo Review (now Sound & Vision) — 1983
This is probably the most famous early test. In 1983, Stereo Review conducted a double-blind listening test using the ABX Double Blind Comparator System — a device using logic circuitry and relays to allow listeners to switch between two unknown sources instantly, eliminating administrator bias. A panel of 11 listeners, including experienced high-end audiophiles from the Westchester Audiophile Society, could not detect any difference in the music when comparing 16 AWG lamp cord to the much thicker Monster Cable. The only wire that audibly changed the sound was extremely thin 24 AWG wire. The conclusion: "This project was unable to validate the sonic benefits claimed for exotic speaker cables over common 16-gauge zip cord." The full article is available here:
🔗 https://www.soundandvision.com/content/speaker-cables-can-you-hear-difference Sound & VisionAVS Forum

2. AES Engineering Paper — 1991
A 1991 engineering paper from the Audio Engineering Society compared 12 cables priced from $2 to $419 per metre, finding that measurable performance depended on construction, not price. In a separate blind listening test, standard 16-gauge lamp cord matched Monster Cable over 50 hours of evaluation.
🔗 https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5975 (AES library — may require membership for full text) Headphonesty

3. Harman International / Floyd Toole
You're right to recall Harman. Dr. Floyd Toole joined Harman International in 1991, after 25 years at the National Research Council of Canada, with a mission to bring scientific methods — including rigorous double-blind testing — to product development across Harman brands like JBL, AKG, and Infinity. Toole authored a 1998 paper, "Audio, Science in the Service of Art," covering scientific measurements and audio perception. However, Harman's cable-specific blind tests were largely focused on loudspeakers, not cables. Harman is known to use blind-test techniques but does not publish all their findings.
🔗 https://www.stereophile.com/content/blind-listening-harman-international Sound & Vision + 2

4. Head-Fi Compilation — 50+ Tests (1977–2024)
Someone spent 14 years cataloguing more than 50 blind listening tests, covering eight equipment categories. Independent cable comparisons conducted in France, Spain, Britain, and the United States all reached the same conclusion: when tested blind, cable differences consistently disappear. Roughly 82% of cable tests failed to show an audible difference.
🔗 https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/ Headphonesty

5. Secrets of Home Theater — AC Power Cord Test, 2004
In November 2004, Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity teamed up with the Bay Area Audiophile Society to conduct a blind AC power cord test, attempting to determine if listeners could statistically distinguish generic cords from Nordost Valhalla power cords.
🔗 https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html HomeTheaterHifi

6. The "Banana" Test — diyAudio Forum, 2024
A more recent and entertaining test: a forum moderator named Pano routed audio through four mediums — standard copper wire, wet mud, a 13cm unripe banana, and a CD baseline — and challenged forum members to identify the source. Out of 43 guesses, listeners only identified the correct audio source six times, consistent with random chance.
🔗 https://futurism.com/robots-and-machines/blind-test-audiophiles-cable-banana ZME Science

The overall picture from decades of testing is remarkably consistent: blind tests almost universally fail to show audible differences between cables of adequate gauge, regardless of price.

 

-------------------------

Now can we get back to the idea I actually started this thread about and stop rehashing all the old objective vs subjective arguments that fill so many threads here and elsewhere?

More to discover