[Carlman]

We've been down this road before... Eventually everything about 'the test' will be questioned....
Double blind testing sessions and experiments that anyone has tried are great anecdotes in this  hobby but will not prove anything to anyone.

I'm sure Johnin's test was a good thing and proved valuable to him.  The only problem is some A/B switchers are pretty crappy in quality and will impart a sonic signature so great that the small (subtle) changes between most speaker cables will be lost.  This is a common argument point in these types of tests.  You're not testing the wire, you're testing the switcher... etc.

There seems to be some interest in having a cable debate these days in the 2-channel forum and I don't know why... but I'd appreciate it if you keep it civil. 

I predict the usual, questioning of test methods, your gear, etc... followed by a slew of examples of other tests... each one more 'scientific' than the one previously cited... followed by nay-sayers using zip cord... lamp cable, etc..   I'm bored with that old debate personally....

Well... I've rambled enough.  I should be asleep...

Good night,
Carl

[LightFire]

There are 2 types of audiophiles:
1- "Objectivists": don't believe in cable/wire burn in, don't believe in santa claus, don't believe in tooth fairy, etc.
2- "Subjectivists": which are divided in two categories:
2-1- "Unaware Subjectivist": believe in absurdities like wire burn in because they don't know yet it is absurd. But as soon as they find out they stop believing and become objectivists.
2-2- "In denial Subjectivist": Hopeless insecure people that waste huge amounts of money in fancy cables/wires, power purifiers, tube amplifiers, magic crystals, homeopathic medicine, etc. Instead of investing money in the part of the system that really can be improved: amplifiers, DAC, loudspeakers. I call them hopeless because even when proved wrong they refuse to accept the truth. Some of them have the nerve to doubt ABX blind tests!!

[JohninCR]

John,

What specifically did this a-b switch switch. Could you provide a link to the specific switch? The manufacturer and model #?

TIA,
Paul

It was just a cheap Radio Shack A/B/A+B speaker switch.  We connected 2 pairs of 6ft cables to the speakers with one set to A and one set to B, with a very short 1ft run of magnet wire from the amp to the switch.  I was doing it to test whether I should invest in cryoing a whole box of CAT6 to wire my HT, and I figured why not test burn-in while we were at it. 

Since there was no interruption when the switch was made, I thought there must be something wrong, so we alternated disconnecting some of the cables to verify that it was in fact switching from cable set A to cable set B.  We tried with my FE206 and FE108 based speakers, both of which are quite revealing.

I was expecting at least a subtle difference, or an "I think I can hear a difference", so zip, nada, nothing really caught me by surprise.  I build a lot of speakers and do a lot of tweaking, so I'm used to listening for subtle differences, even the subtleties of minor changes in my room's acoustic treatments.

Anyone who doubts the results should just put their convictions to the test and perform it themselves.  It's simple and easy.

[warnerwh]

Be honest with yourself. Do not expect to hear or not hear any difference as the placebo effect is alive and well. See if you can borrow some expensive wire and compare it to some inexpensive wire. If possible let someone else swap it out for you so you don't know which is in the system.

The differences are subtle to non existant. Much more important is room acoustics. If you spend money on room treatment you'll never go without it again. Adjusting your speaker/listener position should be done first.

After you've done everything you can to improve your sound then maybe change wire. I've even read in Stereophile and The Absolute Sound by some reviewers who've auditioned tons of wire that it should be the last thing to consider. That should give you an idea of how much to make it a priority. Often in even a 20 or 30,000 dollar system which is very revealing the differences are subtle and I mean very subtle. Room treatments however can have a profound effect on the sound of your equipment. Read up on room acoustics FIRST, then worry about burn in of wire when everything else has been done.

Even the people who believe wire has a large effect on the sound will tell you that an inexpensive wire may sound better than a super expensive one, depending on your system. A much more cost effective tweak has been Sonicrocks. Nathanm is a dealer for them. You set them on your equipment and these rocks will take the sound quality to the next level.

[Steve]

The article written in Bound For Sound contains in depth information, the basics of which, impurity atoms, grain boundaries, and lattice vibrations, are mentioned in the mid to late 60s introduction to electronics college text book, again some 40 years ago. So at least some information was widely available, at least back then.

I have personally tested cryoing with the same type of wire and found cryoing does make a  difference. Breakin also occurs in my experience. However, as posted above, room correction is first order business.

I have also heard amplifiers (in a system) that "recovered" whispering in a recorded song while other amplifiers did Not (what about quality of the other components?). Thus one's system may or may not have the "sensitivity" for one to hear the sonic changes a wire may cause.

As far as subjective AB/ABX testing, it has been shown in the past to be totally worthless. Too many assumptions, impossible magical mind reading by the administrators, as mentioned above the equipment used, room/system interaction, confusion, and other faults. So I would say AB/ABX testing has pretty much been put on the shelf.

[DSK]

...Do it yourself rather than sit back a take potshots at someone else....

John, no pot shots were taken, no malice was intended and nothing personal was stated. As I said, I do not doubt that you heard what you heard. My only point is that despite how strongly you believe something that is subjective in nature, you cannot force others to believe it or declare that it is right or proved. It is your interpretation of your test in your environment. Nothing wrong with that at all. Suggesting that others replicate your test is fine too (they may or may not change their minds) but your test results are insufficient to make categorical cart blanche statements as to what others should (or shouldn't) hear or what is right or proved. Again, please understand that I am not attacking you, your test methodology, or your findings. In fact, I think your test is a good idea. I am simply saying that there is insufficient data to make the leap of suggesting that you have proved the premise that there are no differences to be heard.

Also, don't try to change the subject.  I didn't say all cables sound the same.  I said burn in and cryo treatment make no difference with speaker cables...

Well, you did say ...

...Once you understand that there is no audible difference, throw some other types of speaker cables to the mix.
Been there, done that, and now I know there is no difference (at least with speaker cables)...

and I interpreted that to mean differences between speaker cables. Perhaps you were still implying differences of cryogenically treating and/or burning in different cables? If so, then I misunderstood and my comment about the 'all cables sound the same' is not relevant here.

[LightFire]

Interesting links I found about burn in:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/truthcablesinterconnects.php

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Cable-Breakin.html

[lonewolfny42]

Yea, next there will be a special hat to wear or something. Maybe it will be made of Aluminum foil. 

Matter of fact Danny.....there is. A special tin foil one........
I've heard it works wonders.....

[gitarretyp]

Interesting links I found about burn in:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/truthcablesinterconnects.php

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Cable-Breakin.html

Audioholics are very biased objectivists. Their belief is that if they can't measure a difference using their own defined methods, there is no difference or the product is overpriced/snake oil. Also, they basically call you an idiot if you believe otherwise, which is a great way to begin a healthy debate on a poorly understood subject.

[Steve]

Unfortunately, From a glance, these articles do not even mention the basics of conduction on a molecular level, from a physics standpoint as mentioned in the BFS article or an introductory engineering college text book.

An interesting article: www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/107

I also want to add I don't necessarily condone $10k wire or infer that all the manufacturers are knowledgeable or ethical.

I hope no one is taking this personally. I am glad we are keeping this on a civil level as Carlman has requested.

Interesting links I found about burn in:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/truthcablesinterconnects.php

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Cable-Breakin.html

[JohninCR]

Well, you did say ...

...Once you understand that there is no audible difference, throw some other types of speaker cables to the mix.
Been there, done that, and now I know there is no difference (at least with speaker cables)...

and I interpreted that to mean differences between speaker cables. Perhaps you were still implying differences of cryogenically treating and/or burning in different cables? If so, then I misunderstood and my comment about the 'all cables sound the same' is not relevant here.

Sorry, yes I worded that poorly.  I meant it as try exactly what I did (to test cryo and burn-in of speaker wire all from the same piece of original cable), then try some other cables to get a accurate idea of their effect.  Speaker wires are the one thing that, with the help of someone else, we can all easily perform and achieve valid test results. 

Resistance of the switch is so small that my multimeter didn't register any, and the inductance or capacitance over that short span is miniscule, so calling it the limitation of the test is grasping at straws (What about speaker connections, wiring inside the speaker, wiring inside the amp after the last active component, etc.).  Try it yourself.  If you believe the switch is limiting, then test that too.  Afterward, please share your results.

[LightFire]

Interesting links I found about burn in:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/truthcablesinterconnects.php

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Cable-Breakin.html

Audioholics are very biased objectivists. Their belief is that if they can't measure a difference using their own defined methods, there is no difference or the product is overpriced/snake oil. Also, they basically call you an idiot if you believe otherwise, which is a great way to begin a healthy debate on a poorly understood subject.

Audioholics methods are quite scientific. I know that because I am an electronic technician and what they say agrees with what I learned in school. You can not be biased by the truth!

[Occam]

JohninCR,

Thanks for the response. I assume the switch you used was this or roughly equivalent -
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2062679&cp=2032057.2032187.2032193.2032223&pg=6&y=7&x=14&numProdsPerPage=20&parentPage=family

Assuming the switch was perfect with no audible contribution, I still question the validity of the experiment (I'm not questioning the validity of your conclusion that LS cables don't make a difference, only the conclusive nature of your experiment) for the following reason -

Both cables with respect to certain reactive components were in parallel to both the loudspeaker and the amplifier even when you switched one of them 'out' of circuit. Assuming you switched at the amplifier, both cables were still connected at the loudspeaker terminals, or vera visa. In all situations both the loudspeaker and the amplifier saw the parallel capacitance and inductance of both cables, as they were both connected at at least one (either) end. You weren't listening to one cable at a time, but rather both, whether you were listening to 'a', 'b' or 'a+b'. Draw the circuit and you'll see what I mean. Given that, I can certainly see why you perceived no difference.
Even assuming you had perfect switches, the only way to make your results unassailable (assuming you had single LS runs from amp to the switch 'A' and a similar perfect run(s) from switch 'B' to the stereo speakers, and switched 2 different cable runs connecting  switch 'A' to switch 'B' simultaneously via your really, really long arms. [actually you could practically do this with 'perfect' relays, 2 dpdt relays at the amplifier end, one for each channel, and 2 more dpdt relays, 1 at each speaker. This would allow you to take one of the LS cable pairs totally out of the circuit by toggling the relay coils in parallel.]

Obviously its far easier to take potshots at anothers experiment as opposed to conducting ones own perfect experiment, and you certainly deserve 'props' for your excellent efforts.

Regards,
Paul

[nathanm]

Here's a great way to fulfill two essential goals of the audiophile which are of course,

1) Spending a whole lotta money
2) Listening to incredibly dull, excellent sounding music over and over again

http://manleylabs.com/containerpages/skipjack.html

Of course you must be careful before spending your money on an educational, yet potentially debuncted listening exercise.

[JohninCR]

Paul,

If there's no current flowing through the other cable, how can it contribute at all?  We were careful to keep the wires separatefrom each other and from power cords, etc. to prevent interference.  Plus, we used twisted pairs, which would alse resist interference.  For the single strand tests we used the same colors to ensure the same twist rates as well.

[gitarretyp]

Audioholics methods are quite scientific. I know that because I am an electronic technician and what they say agrees with what I learned in school. You can not be biased by the truth!

Their approach is scientific, but that doesn't mean it's complete. Also, what you learned in school isn't necessarily the whole story (very rarely is what you learn in school anywhere near the whole story). The problem is not well researched (as far as i know, anyway) by the people that would truly understand the problem, solid state physicists not engineers.

You can most certainly be biased by the "truth" when you refuse to pursue other possibilities. If you truly believe the problem was solved 50 years ago and no further advancement has been made or will ever be made in understanding crystal structures and dielectrics, then their findings are the truth.

It's fine to propose that measuring the parameters audioholics chooses define the cable to the best of our knowledge and should describe exactly the way the cable sounds, but to state it as precisely known fact and disregard any other's input is a very poor approach and completely unscientific.

I'm a theoretical plasma physicist by trade, so i don't have a solid understanding of all of the concepts and can't add much to the heart of the matter. I'm merely pointing out that the problem is not very well understood, and no one should espouse complete knowledge of the subject.

[Occam]

John,

As long as the unused cable is tied to the cable in use, even at one end, its capacitance is in parallel and additive.Many, many years ago when I was mucking with RF circuitry, it was standard practice to implement capacitive neutralization in grounded grid circuitry by making a capacitor from a pair of wires twisted together and connected in parallel at one end, leaving that pair unconnected at the other end. That by definition is a capacitor. [I'm embarassed that I even mentioned inductance, for reasons that Dan Banquer would only be too happy to point out  ]

Regards,
Paul

[JohninCR]

Paul,

I'll have to accept your double capacitance explanation, but I don't believe it makes the test invalid.  It just means double the capacitance of a single length for both the A setting and the B setting.  Since it's the same for both, that should make it a non-factor.

[Danny Richie]

Hey John,

I been there done that too, but I didn't use a $5.00 Rat Shack switch and telephone cable.

I had Dodd Audio build me a high quality switching box using good wiring and all Cardas solid Copper binding posts.



I have compared everything using this switch including speaker wire. It was pretty easy to tell which set of cables were burned in and which set was not. It was obvious enough to not even need a switch. You can tell a difference easily even if you take the time to switch them out.

[Danny Richie]

Audioholics methods are quite scientific. I know that because I am an electronic technician and what they say agrees with what I learned in school. You can not be biased by the truth!

There methods are hardly scientific. Check out there "data" on speaker burn in:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/loudspeakers/SpeakerBreakIn.php

They took a set of measured parameters that they probably didn't even measure themselves. Then they guessed at how long they would take to burn in and thought that a few seconds would probably do it.  Then they derived new figures by guessing that there would be a 5% change in the measured data. Then they posted all of it like it was some kind of fact. They never did any scientific research at all. Just a bunch of basely assumptions.