Speaker wire is it science or psychology

I hear noteable, often stunning differences between cables and interconnects, as I did between stereo receivers in the mid-70s when the dealers told me there were no such differences (that's how I got into this hobby in the first place). I do very little blind testing myself (it's difficult to do casually), but intellectually I believe it is compelling. This is because I know that I bring to any evaluation of any product a strong set of perceptions and preconceptions about the product, a function of how it looks, what it costs, what its name is, what its logo looks like, what reputation it has, and so on. In my line of work, this is called "brand perception."

Although what I hear often is very different from what I expect to hear, I freely acknowledge that I bring these preconceptions to the party when I evaluate products, and they play some role--maybe small, maybe large--in my final evaluation of a product. Unless you are from some other planet, you are the same, try as you might otherwise.

This is why, it seems to me, blind listening tests are important. They let us separate true differences from those we hear as a result of not only what we hear but of all the other factors we bring to the listening experience It isn't about the science or lack thereof of cable differences. It is about using a scientific method (or even just a little common sense discipline) to do SUBJECTIVE listening. And I will add, the blind listening method itself deserves careful scrutiny. My experiece is that rapid A-B switching hides real differences in a big way.

In the end, the goal isn't to weed out brand perceptions from our component choices. We choose what we choose becaue we like it and it makes us happy. Pride of ownership is part and parcel of being an audiophile The goal is to separate true audible differences from the other things that influence our choices, so that we have this knowledge when we make our choices. -Dan

Paulwp: A wire really can affect frequency response. In fact, the scientists would tell you that's about the only thing it can affect--although a RatShak SPL meter is not an appropriate test tool here. Sean's right about 18 vs 12 gauge (although his side-by-side mono test is not the right way to find out)--assuming the cables are long enough the difference will be audible. (18-gauge has pretty high resistance.) As for the effects you say you hear, sibilance is plausible--high-frequency roll-off is a common effect. Imaging is dominated by source material and speaker-room interaction (which is frequency-dependent, so who knows?) Clarity is in the ear of the beholder.

Trelja: I've seen similar measurements, but they don't, by themselves, prove what you think they prove. Just because a difference is measurable (and every cable will measure differently) doesn't mean it's audible. Whether we can hear a frequency response anomaly depends on how big it is, how braod a band it covers, and whether it's a dip or a peak. That said, some cables do affect frequency response enough to be audible. Most of those roll off the high end, which some audiophiles seem to like even though they insist they're looking for something that sounds like "real music." Go figure.

See what I mean? Jostler, there was no need. I said I hear differences, but it's "hard to imagine how wire could impart SUCH A LARGE BOOST to any part of the frequency range." As opposed to a smaller boost (although that I still dont understand) or a cut (which I do think happens). My impression of the Kimber cable jph was talking about is the same as he reported measuring. It sounds a little bright and forward, because, I think, the highest frequencies are attenuated compared to the upper midrange low treble and presence region. But that's just my guess. I have no proof of anything, including whether or not I can hear at all.

Oh, and trust me, if I say I can hear a difference in imaging, the room, equipment and music are the same. Just the wires are changed. But you know, the differences are subtle and may well be imaginary. I have no interest in arguing with anyone about this subject.

Paulwp: I agree that a boost is implausible, but I've seen frequency response plots for cables with HF rolloffs down several dB at 20kHz. Also, I think you're talking about someone's measurement with a consumer-grade SPL meter, which is not a tool designed for frequency response tests. That seems the most likely explanation for the "boost," to me at least.

The rest of my post was meant to try to square what you thought you heard with what cables might actually be doing to the signal (though we're talking hypotheticals here). My point was that cable measurements might very well correlate with at least some of what you think you hear, which would be solid evidence that you were not simply imagining it. That's a good thing.