View Full Version : Testing the audible differences in mains cables.
PaulStewart
23-12-2013, 21:39
There having been a lot of disparaging comment about people who give credence to mains cable differences on here lately, as I mentioned on the A/V Studio today, earlier this month, I had the chance to test the effect of mains leads on a system in a double blind test. In both our edit suites we have Tannoy Reveal active monitors, running from Mackie Big Knob controllers. As we were doing a bit of a rewire, I had both sets of monitors in the same room, so I decided to rope in an assistant and a couple of other pairs of ears and do a test.
Methodology:
Three pairs of cables were tested first were the standard kettle leads supplied with the active speakers, next a pair of DIY Belden cables which came as a kit from MCRU with silver plated mains and IEC plugs with silver plated fuses. The last set were Black Rhodium Cratos cables.
The controller was fed with a variety of sources, it has an RIAA input as well as line level so digital was from a TEAC broadcast CD player and disc was from a Technics 1210 with standard arm, Loricraft two part mat and Grado Prestige Blue cartridge. Music used was chosen by thetest subject and varied from Jazz to classical to blues and rock. All the test subjects used at least one vocally led tune and a mixture of electronic and acoustic sounds. We alsoused dry spoken voice tracks
The equipment was hooked up so that the cable lengths and distance to listener and were identical. Using a tone generator, identical CDs and records plus an SPL meter the gain trims were adjusted so that all the sources produced the same level at the listening position. The assistant changed the cables and took note of the results from the panel. The panellists were asked to score the cables out of ten for clarity, tone and texture and dynamics. Each panellist had the controls so they could set their desired volume and switch between the sets of speakers, but they did not know which pair had which cables. Each listener had three sessions of comparison and the results were averaged and then comments compared.
Scores:
The standard cable;
Clarity 12, Tone and texture 15 Dynamics 19 Overall 46
MCRU Belden;
Clarity 22, Tone and texture 22 Dynamics 24 Overall 68
Black Rhodium Cratos;
Clarity 26, Tone and texture 23 Dynamics 27 Overall 76
It was very demonstrable that these cable were making a difference and in the most cases for the better, although one of the editors said that he preferred the sound of the standard cable as he found the extra detail distracting while editing, even while noting the “better” overall SQ and agreed he would want this if listening for recreation. Other comments where that it was the difference between “dirty window, a clean one and an open one”.
This was the first test of this type and I want to repeat it at a later date with a larger group of listeners. However, it would seem that double blind random testing has shown a result. Further (constructive) comments are welcomed.
Cheers
Hi Paul
I really applaud this attempt at actually testing this controversial subject in a rational and controlled manner. Very interesting results that would seem to indicate that there is an improvement to be heard, at least with the specific cables used in the test. Not sure we can re-write the 'Engineer's Rulebook' just yet but it should give the more dogmatic types at least pause for thought.
Good effort, Paul, and great that you have the facilities to do it properly. Wasn't this a 'blind' test since the assistant knew which cable was being used? Or did the assistant take no other part in the testing?
PaulStewart
23-12-2013, 22:43
Hi Martin and Martin,
Thanks for the comments. Martin T no my assistant (work experience trainee, took no other part than to change the cables more or less at random but ensuring we all got to hear all the cables. He then noted the scores against the list but took no other part in the test.
Cheers
I'd like to echo the previous comments. A good effort and interesting results!
Well done, such tests are very hard work to do, I have tried them in the past. Just to avoid dissent, what you describe is a single blind test, but thats not in any way to discount what you found.
PaulStewart
24-12-2013, 00:06
Sort of semi double blind Nick, the other two didn't know what the purpose of the test was, though I knew the purpose but not which items we were testing, but I take your point. I expected the result from previous experience, but it was good to get confirmation.
MikeMusic
24-12-2013, 07:30
Thanks Paul
Good to see
Interesting thread and one that needs nothing further adding from me apart from I had no involvement or idea a test was taking place. Well done chief and Merry Christmas. :)
As a counter balance years ago I got together with some of the guys from the old WAD forum and tried swapping mains cables. I think we tested a Russ Andrews cable and block (Mine BTW!), a standard one and A N Other which may have been a DIY cable, I can't recall exactly as it was a long while back. We weren't too rigorous in how we tested and certainly didn't 'mark' anything but we made sure the volume setting was the same though out....and it was conducted blind. The cables where tried on a CD player, Pre-amp and power amp.
Bottom line was NOBODY could tell the difference and when we thought we had and noted what we heard it was revealed we had been listening to the same cable during that particular test! This was using a very revealing system as well. I came away from that with a very different perspective afterwards. I've also tested at home on a number of occasions since (still have the Russ Andrews cables) and can't detect any difference.
Wakefield Turntables
24-12-2013, 09:13
Fantastic, I applaud this test. However, who did all the setting up and did any of the participants listen to your test gear on previous occasions. The only reason I ask is because this can add bias into an experiment. Firstly if any other your listeners have heard your system previously they will know its strengths and weaknesses and this could be viewed as them being able to judge its sonic characteristics. Secondly did the person who assembled the test kit have any idea of the cable brand? Again this is another possible area where bias could be introduced. Sorry to sound like this but I actually get paid to design experiments and assess the validity of the methodology. No methodology is perfect but yours is the best I have seen so far to test cables. There are loads of other areas which could have also added bias into your experiment but thats for another day. Well done mate :clapclapclap:
PaulStewart
24-12-2013, 12:06
Andy, the person who assembled the kit and set it up was my assistant, he knew which lead was which for the purposes of switching the leads over and noting the results. He had no idea of my expectations of the leads, nor did the other test subjects. Even if you take my observations and scores out of the results they are not a lot different. This was done on kit we use every day that is pretty revealing, it's for monitoring after all. Sometime next year, I would like to repeat this with a larger subject base and more time. I simply did it 'cos I had the kit to hand and a quiet day and it seemed a good idea :)
Yep, but the point of a double blind is to remove any doubt about "He had no idea of my expectations of the leads". Also who selected the order in which the leads were used?
Again, not trying to be negative, but for a truly rigorous test these things matter.
PaulStewart
24-12-2013, 12:24
The leads were tested in no particular order and as I said Nick, this was done off the cuff but I feel the results are valid, as far as they go. Next year I'd like to do it bigger and better, I may approach one of the show organisers. I'd also like to test linear PSUs against wall warts 'cos preliminary results with an MCRU 12v supply against a Stax wall wart running my Stax energiser & cans show a marked improvement with the linear, too a number of people, again with the test done blind.
The leads were tested in no particular order and as I said Nick, this was done off the cuff but I feel the results are valid, as far as they go.
Yep, any thing I can do to help just ask. May be good to get Andy's input if this overlaps what he does professionally.
In some ways the point scoring system is moot, the fact that your test subjects could detect a difference between the three cables goes a long way towards putting this debate to bed. I look forward to the larger test Paul, well done ;)
Well I've tried swapping mains cables a few times and can hear no difference, even with Nordost level foo.
Measure any change and I might be convinced.
I got curious about tube rolling changing the sound a while back, so I did some system FR tests using a mic and different 211 valves. Tube rolling effects overall system FR - and what's more I have the data to prove it! As much as 3DB variations were detected in some parts of the frequency range.
Oldpinkman
24-12-2013, 15:22
Just briefly (cos I've got man-flu) to add my appreciation to this effort. Both the rational and non-defensive attitude, the desire for a reliable methodology, and the service of "being the ears"
(That was more than "both" wasn't it? Told you I've got man-flu) :(
The "Being the ears" is the key. As I have noted many a time before, I or anyone else not persuaded yet by mains cables or burnin, can sit and listen and not hear till we're blue in the face, and it only serves to prove we have cloth ears. To carry the debate forward constructively needs someone who is both able to hear the difference, and prepared to avail us all of that ability by giving up their time to do so. So much appreciated.
As I noted to Mike privately, the problem is that even the best test may not nail this subject forever, and it is doomed as Marco foretells to re-emerge recurringly through time, as the last debate is forgotten and it kicks off anew. To maximise the prospect of a really useful "nailer" rather than just another interesting account of someone who has heard a difference means that "the ears" need to be deployed as effectively as possible - the methodology Andrew and others alude to.
Briefly (for me) I would suggest Paul's test was more elaborate than necessary for the purpose of "proving mains affects the sound" and seems, quite appropriately probably, better suited to mains cable product development, or evaluation of alternatives for the purpose of selecting the most appropriate to use. This doesn't spoil the test, but makes it harder to replicate. And to achieve the goal of "proving mains cables" it is going to need to be a test which is consistently repeatable - either by (at least some) others in "their labs" , or by demonstration by Paul and his team for observers satisfying themselves that the test procedures have no possible risk of contamination.
And it begs a lot of questions, which need to be addressed. Like "why can't some others hear these affects"? Is it only applicable to those speakers? That room? That local mains grid? Further testing would be simplest if it were possible to definitively identify an audiophile cable and a standard one, which were readily available, and which should readily be able to show the difference with specific readily available equipment it is attached to (say a Quad 405-2 amp, or the wall-wart for a Bushmaster, or whatever)
It would probably also be helpful if Paul could suggest what he thinks might be happening - ie how a mains cable might affect the sound of equipment. If we can theorise "how" it may be easier to identify good test peripherals.
If we can theorise "how" - we may be able to identify a relevant means of measurement to confirm, but unlike Justin I do not believe a measurement ESSENTIAL to providing a powerful confirmation. Just good (the very best) controlled test procedure.
Once again - congratulations to Paul for taking the initiative and volunteering his ears. :clapclapclap:
PaulStewart
24-12-2013, 15:57
As for theories, well very tentative at this time, looking at both the audophile cables, they scored very close to one another but I note they are both well screened for RFI and of good mechanical construction. All the kit used was fed from the edit suite's UPS which gives a very clean sine wave. So I think RFI may be playing a big part here. The Black Rhodium Cratos cables are constructed to reduce microphony, as this cable came out best overall this may also be a factor, but I suspect it is just better at handling RFI. As I said, needs more work and a bigger sample. The most telling thing thing was Raff and Dave the two editors I roped in to help on this did not know what part of the system they were comparing could have been interconnects or anything. They are both experienced A/V editors coming from the studio business and the BBC respectively, so I trust their observations as I trust mine. As to why some people can't hear this effect, unless it's a blind test, I still think reverse placebo effect has some merit ;)
If we can theorise "how" - we may be able to identify a relevant means of measurement to confirm, but unlike Justin I do not believe a measurement ESSENTIAL to providing a powerful confirmation. Just good (the very best) controlled test procedure.
Test kit is more sensitive than our ears. A lot more sensitive. Whilst there may be no change in frequency response, any change may be measurable elsewhere. If I was making the things, I'd make sure I had the evidence that they make some sort of measurable difference FOR THE BETTER. If I couldn't do so, I wouldn't make them.
However, a really large sample set indicating that the test kit is failing to measure the correct parameters i.e. there really is beyond any reasonable doubt people heard a difference, would be very interesting. For some Paul's test may be enough.
Is there really that much magic involved in pushing air around, though? Can there really be something we can't measure with such an activity? I doubt it.
Why don't you trust your ears, Justin? If mains cables sound different but you can't measure a difference then the things that you are measuring are not covering it.
Why don't you trust your ears, Justin? If mains cables sound different but you can't measure a difference then the things that you are measuring are not covering it.
That's exactly it I do trust my ears. If hear a difference, I expect to be able to measure it. I hear it with tube rolling and I measured the difference. I hear it with speaker cables and I know I could measure it. It is DEAD simple. You will only hear a change if it is measurably different. Plain and simple. There is no magic. Air molecules are air molecules and the way they are being moved will be picked up by a mic as lowly as a Behringer.
You will only hear a change if it is measurably different.
I don't disagree as it is a scientific principle. However, I'm not getting my point across. It takes vast amounts of up to date equipment to create fourier and waterfall plots, not all of which you may have access to. So you may well have a cable which sounds better but for which you cannot measure an improvement. It just means you haven't the wherewithal to make the measurements, not that your ears are wrong!
I don't disagree as it is a scientific principle. However, I'm not getting my point across. It takes vast amounts of up to date equipment to create fourier and waterfall plots, not all of which you may have access to. So you may well have a cable which sounds better but for which you cannot measure an improvement. It just means you haven't the wherewithal to make the measurements, not that your ears are wrong!
I agree with you, apart from the fact that you can do a lot with a cheap USB mic and a laptop these days.
I'm only really talking delta change measurements to detect if mains cables make a difference. I don't subscribe to looking at specs for "best subjective sound" in any way, shape or form.
If MCRU sends me some mains cables, I'll buy a mic and see what I can measure. Nail it once and for all, maybe.
I agree with you, apart from the fact that you can do a lot with a cheap USB mic and a laptop these days.
I'm only really talking delta change measurements to detect if mains cables make a difference. I don't subscribe to looking at specs for "best subjective sound" in any way, shape or form.
If MCRU sends me some mains cables, I'll buy a mic and see what I can measure. Nail it once and for all, maybe.
Many Japanese amps of the 70's and 80's sported very low distortion figures and yet were consistently outgunned in musicality by modest, home grown equipment which didn't ;)
PaulStewart
25-12-2013, 11:28
To be fair Dave, a lot of those 70s amps were out gunned by the "Flat Earth" prejudice of the audio press of the day. When Hi Fi for Pleasure gave one JVC amp a slamming, we arranged, with the help of Angus MacKenzie to do a blind test with the reviewer in question. He picked the amp as the best over the others in a number of sessions, including over his own confessed favourite the Quad 2/22 combination. Some Jap amps of those days were very good and some highly recommended UK amp were dire. The seventies were a pretty crap time for the UK Hi Fi press.
Gordon Steadman
25-12-2013, 12:28
Much as I love my valve amps and the A100, the one I continue to be impressed with is the wife's Pioneer A757. Beautifully built, heavy and with a very clear punchy sound that works just as well with classical.
The press really did have a lot to be ashamed of. I almost refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the Naim/Linn mafia because of the incredible bias shown. Those I have heard sound pretty ordinary to me so I do wonder why it was all pushed so hard if commercial interest wasn't involved.
If MCRU sends me some mains cables, I'll buy a mic and see what I can measure. Nail it once and for all, maybe.
I bet you a pint you dont, I have tried several times with all sorts of things.
Test kit is more sensitive than our ears. A lot more sensitive.
At what it can measure yes, but not if its measuring the wrong thing. The old quote "if we cant measure what we value, we end up valuing what we can measure"
Yes, its easy to measure a bunch of triodes, and you can say some will be more linear that others, but once you re,pve the faulty ones, I have failed to measure anything that correlates to listening experience.
I bet you a pint you dont, I have tried several times with all sorts of things.
At what it can measure yes, but not if its measuring the wrong thing. The old quote "if we cant measure what we value, we end up valuing what we can measure"
Yes, its easy to measure a bunch of triodes, and you can say some will be more linear that others, but once you re,pve the faulty ones, I have failed to measure anything that correlates to listening experience.
Heavens Im stuffed! Can hardly walk I've eaten and drunk so much, hic! :D I agree about measuring the right thing Nick but we see statements so many times like 'much lower noise floor', 'faster transients', 'deeeeeeper bass', 'greater dynamics' etc all of which could be measured and yet we never see anything to back up these claims.
Ammonite Audio
25-12-2013, 16:27
The trouble with measurements is the perception across great swathes of people in this hobby that there is something akin to a Star Trek Tricorder that measures absolutely everything and gives every possible analysis result, in an instant. There is no such thing; and what measurement kit we do have requires a great deal of understanding to set up properly, if there is to be any chance at all of capturing the elusive details such as those being discussed here.
So, someone please tell me exactly how, for example, Fourier transform analysis can be used to explain what we may or may not hear when comparing the effects of cables?
Wakefield Turntables
25-12-2013, 18:30
Its incredibly easy to standardise many of the variables in a test like this but there is one variable which will suffer from infinite variability.
1. The humans doing the testing, they will have varied levels of hearing, perception, ways of descibing things etc etc etc.
This I'm afraid is something we can't standardise.
To be fair Dave, a lot of those 70s amps were out gunned by the "Flat Earth" prejudice of the audio press of the day. When Hi Fi for Pleasure gave one JVC amp a slamming, we arranged, with the help of Angus MacKenzie to do a blind test with the reviewer in question. He picked the amp as the best over the others in a number of sessions, including over his own confessed favourite the Quad 2/22 combination. Some Jap amps of those days were very good and some highly recommended UK amp were dire. The seventies were a pretty crap time for the UK Hi Fi press.
To be fair Paul, most of the 70's Japanese amps you seem enamoured of actually sounded average at best. I also like the way you cite the flat earth prejudices of a reviewer and then say his favourite amp was Quad, a manufacturer never aligned with the flat earth.
The old quote "if we cant measure what we value, we end up valuing what we can measure"
That's a fab quote - and *so* true! I'm going to add it to my signature :)
Marco.
PaulStewart
25-12-2013, 20:13
To be fair Paul, most of the 70's Japanese amps you seem enamoured of actually sounded average at best. I also like the way you cite the flat earth prejudices of a reviewer and then say his favourite amp was Quad, a manufacturer never aligned with the flat earth.
Err sorry Mark, that's your opinion but not quite accurate, even in those days a lot of the Naim/Linn fanboys still confessed a liking for the Quad II sound, it was the Quad tranny stuff they slated. As for the Jap amps sounding average, the flat earters used to recommend the little JAS 11G amp with a Dual and a pair of videotone MiniMax speakear as an ideal starter kit. Amps like the the JVC P3030/M3030 and the AX9 SuperA amps were staggeringly good As were the top end Sonys. Frankly, they blew Naims rehashed RCA PA amp circuit and it's various derivatives, out of the water.
I bet you a pint you dont, I have tried several times with all sorts of things.
At what it can measure yes, but not if its measuring the wrong thing. The old quote "if we cant measure what we value, we end up valuing what we can measure"
Yes, its easy to measure a bunch of triodes, and you can say some will be more linear that others, but once you re,pve the faulty ones, I have failed to measure anything that correlates to listening experience.
Downtown Abbey is on FFS, so time to answer...
I'd not be trying to correlate measurements with listening results. I'd just look for any delta changes between cable changes.
I'd bet I can't find any. Temporal FFTs, impulse tests, FR etc will all find absolutely f'all I suspect.
Vertex AQ type products discounted - where I am sure I have heard changes for the better.
Wakefield Turntables
25-12-2013, 20:50
Downtown Abbey is on FFS, so time to answer...
Hah! Why do you think I'm reading this:D
Hah! Why do you think I'm reading this:D
And there's two hours of it LOL!
Wakefield Turntables
25-12-2013, 21:01
Fook! Good job I'm listening to my Xmas haul of vinyl, I have Gentle Giant 3 friends on right now. :eek:
Wakefield Turntables
26-12-2013, 19:21
Guys, do you not think that this experiment would be more credible with someone who has qualifications that may be able to explain what we do/don't hear?
Err sorry Mark, that's your opinion but not quite accurate, even in those days a lot of the Naim/Linn fanboys still confessed a liking for the Quad II sound, it was the Quad tranny stuff they slated. As for the Jap amps sounding average, the flat earters used to recommend the little JAS 11G amp with a Dual and a pair of videotone MiniMax speakear as an ideal starter kit. Amps like the the JVC P3030/M3030 and the AX9 SuperA amps were staggeringly good As were the top end Sonys. Frankly, they blew Naims rehashed RCA PA amp circuit and it's various derivatives, out of the water.
Well, as you say, that is my opinion but I would contend that you are the one who has it wrong (or at least, are being rather selective). I also remember those days well, have the T-shirt etc...
PaulStewart
26-12-2013, 20:20
Well, as you say, that is my opinion but I would contend that you are the one who has it wrong (or at least, are being rather selective). I also remember those days well, have the T-shirt etc...
How many Japanese super amps did you listen to back in the day? Hi Fi for pleasure and Hi Fi Answers both gave recommendations to the JAS 11G system I mentioned, till a "British" amp the NAD 3020 came along and then it was the best (it wasn't) and this of course had nothing to do with advertising budgets these companies spent with these specialist mags, yeah right. The LP 12 really was better than the JVC QL 10 or the Technics SP10, hah bloody hah :lol:
Wakefield Turntables
26-12-2013, 20:25
Come on lads lets not start a slagfest off. :)
I don't think there's any doubt that 'back in the day' the UK audio press were extremely biased against Japanese equipment (and not always for genuine reasons), whilst simultaneously having a massive 'hard-on' for Brit-fi, such as the LP12.
Marco.
I had a few classic Sansui AU amps in my system that sounded good
Guys, do you not think that this experiment would be more credible with someone who has qualifications that may be able to explain what we do/don't hear?
But isnt that the point, to see what we do/dont hear?
The clinical audiologist I know (who also builds amps and speakers) would say his profession has little to add to this subject.
I don't think there's any doubt that 'back in the day' the UK audio press were extremely biased against Japanese equipment (and not always for genuine reasons), whilst simultaneously having a massive 'hard-on' for Brit-fi, such as the LP12.
Marco.
Correct until the Pioneer A400 was launched of course!
I'm not saying the press weren't critical of the sound quality of Japanese amplifiers, they were. But in my experience that was fair comment and I also found them deeply disappointing, often being 'seen off' by quite budget equivalents from smaller manufacturers.
Of course, I appreciate that the above doesn't necessarily fit the spin that some people would like to apply these days.
-------
I also remember the launch of the A400. I believe, at the time, Max Townsend used it as leverage to demonstrate how you needed to spend all your money on his speakers and What Hi-Fi proclaimed it as the second coming. Personally I thought it was utterly abysmal (sold quite a lot though thanks to What Hi-Fi - but not if demonstrated).
Let's just remember that both sides created some horrors. I remember never having been so aghast as when I heard the first Linn amplifier. It was a flat, lifeless horror of some magnitude, the extreme opposite of the rather coarse Naims of the time. Then there was the first Hitachi behemoth using their newly developed power MOSFETs, belying its great power by also sounding feeble and undynamic. Nothing wrong with MOSFETs, just the way they were used.
walpurgis
26-12-2013, 23:39
Correct until the Pioneer A400 was launched of course!
That's largely true, but the Luxman and (Japanese made) Harman Kardon amplifiers amongst others, were always liked and respected. I seem to remember a big fuss being made about the Trio KA-701, KA-801 and KA-901 and Sansui BA series, not to mention many of Yamaha's amps.
Where they flat and lifeless or where they just lacking a bit of 2nd harmonic to jazz up the sound? Perhaps it was the sources that were lacking in life or ability? Lots of people now rate the Sonys, Sansuis, Pioneers etc of that era.
walpurgis
26-12-2013, 23:46
Lots of people now rate the Sonys.
I owned a seventies Sony TA-5650 V-FET integrated many years ago and it sounded superb, even by modern standards.
Wakefield Turntables
27-12-2013, 17:15
But isnt that the point, to see what we do/dont hear?
The clinical audiologist I know (who also builds amps and speakers) would say his profession has little to add to this subject.
Well that would depend upon his experience and level of knowledge. But we are talking about testing the audible differences in mains cables. For validity and credability of an experiment design we need someone who is qualified in the area and uses validated methods of measurement otherwise bias is introduced into the experiment design and the findings can easily be debunked.
Ali Tait
27-12-2013, 17:44
Well the person Nick is referring to is certainly well qualified in his field, and in fact holds four or possibly five degrees in various subjects. He also has many years experience in the building of valve amps and loudspeakers, and IMO has a great deal of knowledge in matters audio.
Just sayin. :)
Ali Tait
27-12-2013, 17:47
Another point - who decides what the validated measurement methods are?
We are after all talking about an individuals subjective experiences. How do we quantify such?
Wakefield Turntables
27-12-2013, 18:07
Another point - who decides what the validated measurement methods are?
We are after all talking about an individuals subjective experiences. How do we quantify such?
HO HO HO.. try telling a qualatitive researcher that you can't measure subjective outcomes, you'd soon be shot down in flames. Validated measurement methods are/have usually been statistically analysed and peer assessed for their validity. I have no idea how you would measure individual subjective experiences. My thoughts around Paul's experiment are that both a subjective and objective section would need to be defined, designed and standardised. It's not as simple is it. I'd be happy to help try and design the objective testing of mains cables characteristics. Perhaps others on the forum would come forward and help with the subjective section. My training is based around quantative assessment.
Well the person Nick is referring to is certainly well qualified in his field, and in fact holds four or possibly five degrees in various subjects. He also has many years experience in the building of valve amps and loudspeakers, and IMO has a great deal of knowledge in matters audio.
Just sayin. :)
Great, stop being so secretive, who his he? Lets see what he has to say on the subject. My point has been made in the fact that a well respected person within a given field is usually believed/trusted with people being at least prepared to listen or read what they have to say. The fact that he has degrees and experience dosen't give him immediate validity but a collection of well respected published papers certainly would help.
Ali Tait
27-12-2013, 18:14
Not being secretive at all, he doesn't post here, and I daresay would have little interest in doing so.
Yes yes, but I'll say it again, how on earth do you peer assess and statistically analyse someone's subjective response to how a power cable sounds? How would you validate that?
Wakefield Turntables
27-12-2013, 20:06
Not being secretive at all, he doesn't post here, and I daresay would have little interest in doing so.
Yes yes, but I'll say it again, how on earth do you peer assess and statistically analyse someone's subjective response to how a power cable sounds? How would you validate that?
Right, I will make this simple. You need to define what you want to assess, only then can we start to think which way of analysis is needed. Additionally there are many many many different ways to statistically assess data. For example you would need a power calculation to define the number of people to take part in an experiment. You would need to make sure that each participant had good hearing and all participants could hear the same frequency spectrum, this could be done by saying taking 36 males/females (matched to 18 males/females we dont want to introduce sex bias), we could test the participants hearing range with audiology kit (which will have been assessed and validated). You need to define your level of probability in a population (p values .01/.001/.0001 (sexy) etc etc.
Why don't you give us some sort of an idea what audible changes you would like to measure in a mains cable????
And I again re-iterate. You will need a section of qualitative analysis to assess participants - THIS IS NOT MY SPECIALITY, and you will need a section on quantitative analysis to measure mains cables characteristics THIS IS MY SPECIALITY. I will not be going over this again. If your having problems getting your head around my suggestions why not do a little reading around the subject as I can see your interested in it otherwise why post a reply? :)
Why don't you give us some sort of an idea what audible changes you would like to measure in a mains cable????
THE definitive signature benefit to me of a mains cable upgrade is the reduction of bass overhang which I can hear very clearly. I used to play a little game of identifying which of the demonstration systems at hi-fi shows did or did not have sooper dooper mains cables fitted by listening to the music outside in the corridor so I couldn't possibly see the system itself, much less what cables were being used. I would be delighted if someone could focus on that particular attribute that I hear and devise a measurement for that. It shouldn't be beyond the technical expertise of the people that CLAIM if there is a difference then it CAN be measured by objective/scientific means.
Right, I will make this simple. You need to define what you want to assess
Unless I am missing something, the thread title just about sums it up.
Wakefield Turntables
27-12-2013, 22:01
It shouldn't be beyond the technical expertise of the people that CLAIM if there is a difference then it CAN be measured by objective/scientific means.
You have one big problem with that statement. A population of similar people would all have to have the ability of discerning a high end cable versus a low end cable. This is impossible because of the variability of humans, we all have different perceptions. You would have to standardise perception as a variable which would be impossible. Secondly, we dont know which quantative variable of the mains cable (i.e. a physical characteristic, lets say purity of Cu, or Ag, or girth of the conductor in mm's) produces the subjective differences that you claim to hear. Difficult isn't it. But, Frank, thanks for the input it's the first +ve comment anyones posted so far.
You have one big problem with that statement. A population of similar people would all have to have the ability of discerning a high end cable versus a low end cable. This is impossible because of the variability of humans, we all have different perceptions. You would have to standardise perception as a variable which would be impossible. Secondly, we dont know which quantative variable of the mains cable (i.e. a physical characteristic, lets say purity of Cu, or Ag, or girth of the conductor in mm's) produces the subjective differences that you claim to hear. Difficult isn't it. But, Frank, thanks for the input it's the first +ve comment anyones posted so far.
Well, I will fill in some more details based upon my own first hand experiences and probably several thousand others that have given me their own empirical subjective evidence.
In addition to a significant reduction in bass overhang, I and others have noted that a silver mains cable will reduce background hiss, more so than a copper cable will. Dynamics have a real start/stop too.
Shielding in my opinion has little or no real effect, despite all the claims of "RFI reduction" by having it present in the construction. Parallel, twisted, plaited too makes in my opinion not much difference either, although there may be nominal differences in capacitance and inductance.
What DOES make a difference is wire gauge and the ability to convey high current instantaneously. I believe this overall reduction in the total loop resistance of the entire AC circuit back to the local substation transformer, so that mere 1 metre or so of wire betwixt wall socket and component can and does make a difference. The connectors and method of attachment to the wire will also play a tiny yet perceptible difference to that loop resistance figure. Of course, there remains one more bottleneck in the loop and that is fuses, but we all understand the risks involved with taking that out of the loop as well.
My contention has always been that we are not ADDING anything "sooper dooper" into the mains loop for that sonic upgrade, we are in fact TAKING OUT what I believe is the cheap and nasty 5 amp computer lead of indeterminate parentage that is given away free, or purloined from lighter current usages i.e. computers. A true 13 amp "kettle lead" is indeed an upgrade from one of those for sure, purely on wire gauge used.
The final part of the argument has always been that the objectivists claim that a thicker gauge wire MAY reduce the resistance of the cable only slightly if at all but will provide no sonic benefits. I beg to differ on that.
EDITED TO ADD:
I maintain that a hi-fi system rewired from wall to socket to speaker voice coils with pure silver wires will outperform an identical system in standard form copper wired. Kondo San has enough testimonials to say there is truth in that statement ;)
Wakefield Turntables
28-12-2013, 15:25
Frank,
Again thanks for your post. You have many things that you want to test! We can only test one things at a time. This is because of the possibility of one variable affecting the outcome of another so for example testing A against B would be ok, so lets say wire gauge to convey current, that would be easy. But, testing A against B against C (or variants) is going to be very difficult i.e. so lets say wire gauge to convey current against RFI rejection. The best thing to do is pick out the two variable which interest you the most and then start from there. Hope this makes sense.
andy
Frank,
Again thanks for your post. You have many things that you want to test! We can only test one things at a time. This is because of the possibility of one variable affecting the outcome of another so for example testing A against B would be ok, so lets say wire gauge to convey current, that would be easy. But, testing A against B against C (or variants) is going to be very difficult i.e. so lets say wire gauge to convey current against RFI rejection. The best thing to do is pick out the two variable which interest you the most and then start from there. Hope this makes sense.
andy
It's both a short list and a long list at the same time Andy.
For me it's that signature reduction in bass overhang that epitomises a mains cable upgrade which is consistent and repeatable, so perhaps it would be best to focus on that attribute alone. I suspect that an increase in dynamics would also be associated with that, so two birds might be killed with the same stone. What a cruel saying that is when you think about it :eek:
Wakefield Turntables
28-12-2013, 16:27
Brilliant.
Now we need to make a list of the physical characteristics of the mains cable which we think might change Bass overhang. So an example could be the conductor used or the connector used, or the length of the cable etc.
But, Frank, thanks for the input it's the first +ve comment anyones posted so far.
Well, you seem to have taken over this thread, and given the above comment, I will leave it to you.
Brilliant.
Now we need to make a list of the physical characteristics of the mains cable which we think might change Bass overhang. So an example could be the conductor used or the connector used, or the length of the cable etc.
In order of priority:
Conductor gauge.
Conductor metallurgy
Connector quality
Length plays little or no importance.
But, Frank, thanks for the input it's the first +ve comment anyones posted so far.
Andy - you need to take care with statements like this. Different members have different skills sets and ALL contributions are valued.
Well, I will fill in some more details based upon my own first hand experiences and probably several thousand others that have given me their own empirical subjective evidence.
Are you actually saying that several thousand people have expressed an opinion to you personally regarding mains cables? If so, how did this happen?
In addition to a significant reduction in bass overhang, I and others have noted that a silver mains cable will reduce background hiss, more so than a copper cable will. Dynamics have a real start/stop too.
How can a mains cable of any sort impact upon the hiss an amplifier (presumably it is an amp you are referring to)?
Am I right in thinking that you earlier wrote that you could tell what kind of a mains cable a system was using from listening outside in the corridor?
Are you actually saying that several thousand people have expressed an opinion to you personally regarding mains cables? If so, how did this happen?
I ran a cable making business for over 10 years and during the course of that period many of my customers reported how the change of mains lead affected the sound of their systems.
How can a mains cable of any sort impact upon the hiss an amplifier (presumably it is an amp you are referring to)?
Am I right in thinking that you earlier wrote that you could tell what kind of a mains cable a system was using from listening outside in the corridor?
It is quite likely that the hiss is being produced by the cable itself, although it is also well known that output semiconductors also produce their own hiss and noise. The significant reduction in hiss was first noticed when I was visiting a dealer who was interested in stocking my range of mains cables from reading the reports on forums about their benefits. We connected a "Titan" mains cable (a copper wired cable) to a Consonance valve integrated amplifier into a pair of sensitive corner horn speakers, then we connected a "Mercury" pure silver mains cable into the same amplifier and we both noticed a dramatic drop in hiss and background noise when this cable was being used.
You are right in thinking that I said I could tell the difference between which type of mains cabling was being used in the demonstration systems from OUTSIDE the rooms in the corridor without entering the rooms. Year after year in the early 90's it would annoy the heck out of me that the Rega demonstrations would always without exception have a bass overhang and nasal midband to the sound, so one year I took a bag full of my own mains cables for them to use but they declined my offer. But now, Rega have finally upgraded all their mains cabling as have the vast majority of the exhibitors so I doubt if I could do that again these days.
Many times too on this forum I have said to people don't change the mains cable while you are in the room yourself, but get someone else to make the change and note the changes blind from outside the room. It might then make sense to you what all the fuss is about.
In respect of bass tightness, I can vouch for the improvement that my Furukawa based cables made in that area, and it was a quite significant change for the better.
I ran a cable making business for over 10 years and during the course of that period many of my customers reported how the change of mains lead affected the sound of their systems.
Ah, I see, thank you for the clarification. May I ask what the company was called?
It is quite likely that the hiss is being produced by the cable itself, although it is also well known that output semiconductors also produce their own hiss and noise.
As you say, the noise produced by semiconductors is well known, but what I don't see is how the mains cable would alter this or how the cable could produce audible hiss of its own?
Oldpinkman
28-12-2013, 19:23
I have been a bit distracted, and not been following this thread closely. It appears to have been drifting into Japanese amplifier discussions too. There appears something of a core discussion regarding the original title between Andrew and Frank.
I appreciate that this has been a subject of great importance for Frank for many years, and that he had sought to sponsor research into it, and been quoted a 6 figure price tag. There are accordingly many aspects which are of interest to him, and which would hopefully be pursued if resources were available.
However, on this forum, and elsewhere, the discussion (OK - argument) has been more binary. Do mains cables make any difference at all? It seems to me that if evidence of sufficient quality were available to establish that fact, it would make the task of sponsoring further research into details like which element of construction affect bass overhang an easier one.
Accordingly, might I suggest this thread takes the cliche'd advice about how to eat an elephant - "One bite at a time"
A binary test to demonstrate to an appropriate standard that it is possible for some listeners to hear differences between 2 mains cables, in the way that is possible say between 2 cartridges, would provide the first base from which to move forward to further research
Whilst Andrew, with his experience may be best placed to determine the exact methodology, it should be relatively straightforward. At PT we would have had a means of screening the cables from the auditioner, and switched between them on a random pattern for a sufficient sample size. I would suggest 10 random (dice generated) plays preceded by standard mains then audiophile mains, to give the auditioner a reference. Then the 10 random plays. A simple blind test - with sufficient control to ensure no contamination.
As you say, the noise produced by semiconductors is well known, but what I don't see is how the mains cable would alter this or how the cable could produce audible hiss of its own?
The name of my cable making business isn't really relevant to this discussion.
My observation was that the silver wired cable produced less hiss and noise than the copper one leads me to assume that metallurgy played a role in what I heard.
I can only speculate but in no way prove that perhaps the crystal boundaries within the wire are creating the hiss, much in the same way that a stream with stones, rocks and debris produces noise as the water rushes over them but a clean channel or culvert produces no sound from the flowing water. Perhaps this happens all the time by using copper wires but when feeding light bulbs, kettles, cookers, heaters, etc., they are not able to produce a tangible signal to the outside world unlike hi-fi systems and televisons which can produce an audible noise or speckles on the TV screen. If I knew the answers to that conundrum I wouldn't be posting this right now.
Hmm... I see; water rushing over pebbles, an entertaining analogy but not one I find very convincing, sorry.
I'm not aware that there is any actual evidence that copper and silver behave as active components (like semiconductors) or that modulating the mains, especially in the extremely subtle way of altering the metal the cable is made from, can impact on the hiss an amp produces - which is entirely generated by the active devices employed.
With regard to the company, I was merely interested in which cable manufacturer managed to solicit thousands of customer testimonials - doesn't matter though.
---------------
As an aside, I've attended very many shows over the years. I have to say, the idea that what mains cable is being used in a system from listening outside the room I find rather amusing. Particularly when just sitting in a different seat in the room can give a quite different rendition of the music being played, not to mention how many people are in the room. What I, and others, have noted though is that the bass response often alters enormously as you stand in the open doorway, or just outside - but then the room is behaving rather like a large secondary cabinet coupled to the speakers, and the doorway is the port. It's never occurred to me to attribute this aspect to the mains cables used - perhaps because I've never had any financial interest in them...
Hmm... I see; water rushing over pebbles, an entertaining analogy but not one I find very convincing, sorry.
I didn't expect you in any way to accept my analogy - it was the best I could come up with :eyebrows:
I'm not aware that there is any actual evidence that copper and silver behave as active components (like semiconductors) or that modulating the mains, especially in the extremely subtle way of altering the metal the cable is made from, can impact on the hiss an amp produces - which is entirely generated by the active devices employed.
There is no actual evidence available that the wire metallurgy is responsible because nobody has ever looked at the subject. I was quoted a six figure sum for that research and to be truthful it was cheaper to keep that theory to myself. These days I don't really care either if it is or it isn't. I heard what I heard at the time and many times since and have not been suffering a mental aberration when I did.
With regard to the company, I was merely interested in which cable manufacturer managed to solicit thousands of customer testimonials - doesn't matter though.
Before I declined to name the company I did a google search which revealed that the name is now being used by another company. I also found some comments on forums which were blatant lies about my pure silver products which I find bizarre, given that the person making the comment has had ample opportunity to contact me but never has, in which case I could have told him a simple foolproof test to establish that the cable he has is indeed a pure silver one and not copper as he freely spouts about on that forum and others too so I have found. Must have an attention seeking problem.
---------------
As an aside, I've attended very many shows over the years. I have to say, the idea that what mains cable is being used in a system from listening outside the room I find rather amusing. Particularly when just sitting in a different seat in the room can give a quite different rendition of the music being played, not to mention how many people are in the room. What I, and others, have noted though is that the bass response often alters enormously as you stand in the open doorway, or just outside - but then the room is behaving rather like a large secondary cabinet coupled to the speakers, and the doorway is the port. It's never occurred to me to attribute this aspect to the mains cables used - perhaps because I've never had any financial interest in them...
I am glad you find it "amusing" because I certainly don't.
Are you therefore making the inference that my ability to detect the usage of upgrade mains cables in those demonstration systems was driven purely by a financial motive, or am I simply lying to embellish or to impress? To whom? If so, I resent that because right now I have no incentive whatsoever to repeat the facts as I see them and it was only the ONCE that I took my own cables along to one of the shows, even then I was only interested in improving the sound I was hearing because I had long since given up trying to deal with any dealers who expected 60% or more trade discount off list.
This is simply saying as it is and if that displeases you then I will trouble you no further.
I have been a bit distracted, and not been following this thread closely. It appears to have been drifting into Japanese amplifier discussions too. There appears something of a core discussion regarding the original title between Andrew and Frank.
I appreciate that this has been a subject of great importance for Frank for many years, and that he had sought to sponsor research into it, and been quoted a 6 figure price tag. There are accordingly many aspects which are of interest to him, and which would hopefully be pursued if resources were available.
The subject itself matters less to me now because all the years of squabbling on forums has led me me to the position of thinking "Whatever" to what other people think about mains cables differences. I have a decent set in my system and when I take them out I certainly notice their absence - as I did at a local bakeoff a couple of weeks ago. What still gets my blood boiling is the same old accusations of "delusion", "placebo" and "expectation" being trotted out when none of those descriptions any relevance at all in reality.
However, on this forum, and elsewhere, the discussion (OK - argument) has been more binary. Do mains cables make any difference at all? It seems to me that if evidence of sufficient quality were available to establish that fact, it would make the task of sponsoring further research into details like which element of construction affect bass overhang an easier one.
Accordingly, might I suggest this thread takes the cliche'd advice about how to eat an elephant - "One bite at a time"
A binary test to demonstrate to an appropriate standard that it is possible for some listeners to hear differences between 2 mains cables, in the way that is possible say between 2 cartridges, would provide the first base from which to move forward to further research.
I agree, but you are suggesting below that a black and white level of proof isn't sufficient, whereas I have found by experience that running complex tests simply muddies the waters from a confirmation that there is a difference in a black and white test, then resorting to confidence levels by statistics
Whilst Andrew, with his experience may be best placed to determine the exact methodology, it should be relatively straightforward. At PT we would have had a means of screening the cables from the auditioner, and switched between them on a random pattern for a sufficient sample size. I would suggest 10 random (dice generated) plays preceded by standard mains then audiophile mains, to give the auditioner a reference. Then the 10 random plays. A simple blind test - with sufficient control to ensure no contamination.
I kept a photo of the last blind test I carried out:
11267
As you can see a pair of hefty lined curtains was drawn around me and my system (It was VERY hot that day and I sweated buckets in there!)
A formal written test routine was devised which I had to follow to the letter, that required the same 10 pieces of music being played and swapping in a set routine between 3 mains cables in a pre-determined order. I had no say or control over that order by the way.
Half way through the test I could see that the 9 participants were losing the will to live and by the end they truly had enough.
I collected the written sheets the participants had written with their finding an I couldn't establish a preference for any one of the cables tested. I then asked them to sit back down again and do a simple quick A-B and see what transpired. Despite all the moaning and groaning they did and a clear unanimous winner was established.
My conclusion was that the moment someone said "TEST" it was stuffed from the beginning. It is futile trying to get a number of participants to sit "cold" in front of a system they are not intimately familiar with from the start and expect them to produce a valid and unbiased result. It must NEVER be prolonged.
Ah yes, before I forget, I need to add that the upgrade mains cables had very little effect (negligible in fact) on components that had switch mode power supplies fitted, rather than linear power supplies with a transformer.
This is what led me to believe that it was loop resistance in the total mains circuit between transformers that was responsible and that nobody was in fact ADDING anything sooper dooper, they were TAKING OUT the inadequate sections of the mains circuit, as in low current capability rated leads. It isn't "proof" by any means but a notion that had validity in it.
Wakefield Turntables
28-12-2013, 21:22
Andy - you need to take care with statements like this. Different members have different skills sets and ALL contributions are valued.
You have mis-understood the post. I'm glad that Frank is receptive and willing to discuss the subject, unlike others who sometimes sit on the sidelines. People are more than welcome to comment on what I say. I have long since stopped trying to defend my statements, you either accept or dismiss them. I've stopped worrying about the politics on this forum.How you concluded that I didnt value other members contributions escapes me. We've managed to develop a somewhat meaningful discussion on how we could test audible differences in cables which I believed is better than waffling on for 20+ pages of bollocks and back-biting as in other cable discussions.
it's the first +ve comment anyones posted so far.
I don't think I've misunderstood anything. The above does not tally with...
How you concluded that I didnt value other members contributions escapes me.
Any hiss or noise reduction as alluded to above would be easily measurable. I take it nobody actually thought to take a measurement at the 'speakers to back any of this up...
Any hiss or noise reduction as alluded to above would be easily measurable. I take it nobody actually thought to take a measurement at the 'speakers to back any of this up...
Nope, I only went to the dealer to demonstrate some cables and by golly gosh I left all of the measuring and analysis equipment at home. Drat, how forgetful of me :doh:
Ok, so lets 'assume' we can measure the differences.
Cable manufacturer A supplies full measurements for their new mains cable.
Cable manufacturer B offers 30 day trial and full refund if not satisfied.
How do you choose? With eyes or ears?
Justin, I agree with you, curiosity being why we want to know whats going on (head), but music stirs the emotions, (heart?)
Happy new year all..
Oldpinkman
29-12-2013, 10:14
I agree, but you are suggesting below that a black and white level of proof isn't sufficient, whereas I have found by experience that running complex tests simply muddies the waters from a confirmation that there is a difference in a black and white test, then resorting to confidence levels by statistics
It is futile trying to get a number of participants to sit "cold" in front of a system they are not intimately familiar with from the start and expect them to produce a valid and unbiased result. It must NEVER be prolonged.
Frank - you misunderstand me. On the contrary I entirely agree both that blind testing at all is stressful and artificial, and that it is not best conducted in groups. As mentioned before, I have done a fair bit of it in my day. A wee bit recently for Arthur at Funk.
It may be that some legitimate differences are not best revealed by blind tests, but that doesnt appear to be the case here. The OP has effectively established that the differences are large enough to hear with blind A:B's, and the likes of Martin T have posted "strokes of genius" reviews suggesting that the differences are large enough to be A:B demonstrated. Perhaps not all of the subtle effects that you would like researched - but the "first bite of the elephant"
Group listening is also potentially problematic. There are some differences that can and are heard in such sessions. But like Mark referred to with shows, I am a bit of a nerdy about "imaging" and "space" and LOVE the stereo illusion created by ESL63's and my favourite ancillaries. There is one seat in the house for those illusions. If there are 9 people in the listening room, a minimum of 8 are not getting the proper effect.
So my proposal was that the first bite of the elephant should be the simplest blind A:B . It only needs one "set of ears" and proper controls and observation. (I noted before that I had discussed with Mike how hard it would be to nail this because, although new to this, it is clear even to me that this debate just rumbles on and on. Even if I posted on here that I had listened on a blind test and could now hear a difference between mains cables, that might be persuasive on this forum where my current position is well known, but would soon disappear into the sand in the big wide world. Ideally we need Brian Cox to "observe" but more realistically a properly independent "panel" or we will all just be wasting our time)
So - just to get the ball rolling - I suggest the simplest blind A:B. The "ears" can pick the 2 cables to be used, ancillaries (in particular what the cables are plugged into), program material. The test is achieved by the cables being concealed by curtains (or the equipment behind the auditioner or whatever). "The ears" can appoint an observer to ensure that the cables recorded by the controller are as he records them, properly plugged in, etc. Other neutral observers just monitor the test procedure and results. A roll of dice determines 10 A's and B's. A is standard cable. B is audiophile. Even numbers on the dice are B odd numbers A. The first 2 sessions are A then B to help the "ears" orientate themselves. So we get a controller record that is something like 1:A 2:B 3:B 4:B 5:A 6:B 7:B 8:A 9:A 10:B 11:A 12:A
The ears listens and then texts "next" to the controller to move from say 4 to 5. If necessary (it shouldn't be from my observations above, but it would be OK) the ears can text "back" and return to 4 from 5 etc. At the end we get an ears score card which should read 1A 2B 3B 4B 5A 6B 7B 8A 9A 10B 11A 12A and we have PROVED there is a difference between the cables that "the ears" can hear. I could achieve that score with that test procedure if A was Flamenca and B RP6. Even up to 2 errors would still be extremely persuasive (1A 2B 3B 4A 5A 6B 7A 8A 9A 10B 11A 12A for example)
That would then provide a base to move onto more interesting tests for what the effects were, what caused them, and which cables were "better" on the sort of grading test that you (and the OP) have described.
But get the first bite of the elephant sorted first. It is too easy not to see the wood for the trees otherwise. IMAO :)
Nope, I only went to the dealer to demonstrate some cables and by golly gosh I left all of the measuring and analysis equipment at home. Drat, how forgetful of me :doh:
So when you got back home to your own system it still didn't occur to you to measure the reduction in hiss...now that is very forgetful of you! :D
Wakefield Turntables
29-12-2013, 10:52
I don't think I've misunderstood anything. The above does not tally with...
Martin, I'm hear to disucss measurements in cables and not the construction or interpretation of previous posts. Lets stick to topic, please.
Wakefield Turntables
29-12-2013, 10:55
one word BIAS.
Frank - you misunderstand me. On the contrary I entirely agree both that blind testing at all is stressful and artificial, and that it is not best conducted in groups. As mentioned before, I have done a fair bit of it in my day. A wee bit recently for Arthur at Funk.
It may be that some legitimate differences are not best revealed by blind tests, but that doesnt appear to be the case here. The OP has effectively established that the differences are large enough to hear with blind A:B's, and the likes of Martin T have posted "strokes of genius" reviews suggesting that the differences are large enough to be A:B demonstrated. Perhaps not all of the subtle effects that you would like researched - but the "first bite of the elephant"
Group listening is also potentially problematic. There are some differences that can and are heard in such sessions. But like Mark referred to with shows, I am a bit of a nerdy about "imaging" and "space" and LOVE the stereo illusion created by ESL63's and my favourite ancillaries. There is one seat in the house for those illusions. If there are 9 people in the listening room, a minimum of 8 are not getting the proper effect.
So my proposal was that the first bite of the elephant should be the simplest blind A:B . It only needs one "set of ears" and proper controls and observation. (I noted before that I had discussed with Mike how hard it would be to nail this because, although new to this, it is clear even to me that this debate just rumbles on and on. Even if I posted on here that I had listened on a blind test and could now hear a difference between mains cables, that might be persuasive on this forum where my current position is well known, but would soon disappear into the sand in the big wide world. Ideally we need Brian Cox to "observe" but more realistically a properly independent "panel" or we will all just be wasting our time)
So - just to get the ball rolling - I suggest the simplest blind A:B. The "ears" can pick the 2 cables to be used, ancillaries (in particular what the cables are plugged into), program material. The test is achieved by the cables being concealed by curtains (or the equipment behind the auditioner or whatever). "The ears" can appoint an observer to ensure that the cables recorded by the controller are as he records them, properly plugged in, etc. Other neutral observers just monitor the test procedure and results. A roll of dice determines 10 A's and B's. A is standard cable. B is audiophile. Even numbers on the dice are B odd numbers A. The first 2 sessions are A then B to help the "ears" orientate themselves. So we get a controller record that is something like 1:A 2:B 3:B 4:B 5:A 6:B 7:B 8:A 9:A 10:B 11:A 12:A
The ears listens and then texts "next" to the controller to move from say 4 to 5. If necessary (it shouldn't be from my observations above, but it would be OK) the ears can text "back" and return to 4 from 5 etc. At the end we get an ears score card which should read 1A 2B 3B 4B 5A 6B 7B 8A 9A 10B 11A 12A and we have PROVED there is a difference between the cables that "the ears" can hear. I could achieve that score with that test procedure if A was Flamenca and B RP6. Even up to 2 errors would still be extremely persuasive (1A 2B 3B 4A 5A 6B 7A 8A 9A 10B 11A 12A for example)
That would then provide a base to move onto more interesting tests for what the effects were, what caused them, and which cables were "better" on the sort of grading test that you (and the OP) have described.
But get the first bite of the elephant sorted first. It is too easy not to see the wood for the trees otherwise. IMAO :)
Wakefield Turntables
29-12-2013, 11:04
It's super super important that as much as or ALL bias is removed from any assessment otherwise we will not objectively be able tell which variable (X (say cable element i.e. Cu, Au etc) has an effect on variable Yconductivity. Such a study with one person would be called a case study or pilot study. These are usually conducted prior to larger studies and work as "tester's" to see if the original hypothesis is worth testing. I think we seriously need to stop designing the methodology (how we are going to conduct the experiment to collect test data) and starting working out what we want to test (the hypothesis). So for Frank for example he wanted to test overhang in Bass notes so a decent hypothesis would be something like.
Positive Hypothesis
The conductor of a mains cable definitely effects the overhang of Bass notes.
Negative Hypothesis
The conducotr of a mains cable has no effect whatsoever on the overhang of Bass notes.
We are running before we walk.
Frank - you misunderstand me. On the contrary I entirely agree both that blind testing at all is stressful and artificial, and that it is not best conducted in groups. As mentioned before, I have done a fair bit of it in my day. A wee bit recently for Arthur at Funk.
It may be that some legitimate differences are not best revealed by blind tests, but that doesnt appear to be the case here. The OP has effectively established that the differences are large enough to hear with blind A:B's, and the likes of Martin T have posted "strokes of genius" reviews suggesting that the differences are large enough to be A:B demonstrated. Perhaps not all of the subtle effects that you would like researched - but the "first bite of the elephant"
Group listening is also potentially problematic. There are some differences that can and are heard in such sessions. But like Mark referred to with shows, I am a bit of a nerdy about "imaging" and "space" and LOVE the stereo illusion created by ESL63's and my favourite ancillaries. There is one seat in the house for those illusions. If there are 9 people in the listening room, a minimum of 8 are not getting the proper effect.
So my proposal was that the first bite of the elephant should be the simplest blind A:B . It only needs one "set of ears" and proper controls and observation. (I noted before that I had discussed with Mike how hard it would be to nail this because, although new to this, it is clear even to me that this debate just rumbles on and on. Even if I posted on here that I had listened on a blind test and could now hear a difference between mains cables, that might be persuasive on this forum where my current position is well known, but would soon disappear into the sand in the big wide world. Ideally we need Brian Cox to "observe" but more realistically a properly independent "panel" or we will all just be wasting our time)
So - just to get the ball rolling - I suggest the simplest blind A:B. The "ears" can pick the 2 cables to be used, ancillaries (in particular what the cables are plugged into), program material. The test is achieved by the cables being concealed by curtains (or the equipment behind the auditioner or whatever). "The ears" can appoint an observer to ensure that the cables recorded by the controller are as he records them, properly plugged in, etc. Other neutral observers just monitor the test procedure and results. A roll of dice determines 10 A's and B's. A is standard cable. B is audiophile. Even numbers on the dice are B odd numbers A. The first 2 sessions are A then B to help the "ears" orientate themselves. So we get a controller record that is something like 1:A 2:B 3:B 4:B 5:A 6:B 7:B 8:A 9:A 10:B 11:A 12:A
The ears listens and then texts "next" to the controller to move from say 4 to 5. If necessary (it shouldn't be from my observations above, but it would be OK) the ears can text "back" and return to 4 from 5 etc. At the end we get an ears score card which should read 1A 2B 3B 4B 5A 6B 7B 8A 9A 10B 11A 12A and we have PROVED there is a difference between the cables that "the ears" can hear. I could achieve that score with that test procedure if A was Flamenca and B RP6. Even up to 2 errors would still be extremely persuasive (1A 2B 3B 4A 5A 6B 7A 8A 9A 10B 11A 12A for example)
That would then provide a base to move onto more interesting tests for what the effects were, what caused them, and which cables were "better" on the sort of grading test that you (and the OP) have described.
But get the first bite of the elephant sorted first. It is too easy not to see the wood for the trees otherwise. IMAO :)
Obviously I did misunderstand your point in your previous post Richard, so thank you for taking the time to clarify.
I also agree that whatever tests we may conduct with satisfactory results here today this week/month/year on AoS it will still be the raging topic for a long time yet on many forums :exactly:
So when you got back home to your own system it still didn't occur to you to measure the reduction in hiss...now that is very forgetful of you! :D
Read my post carefully Neal, as I did mention that I had similar results at a later time. Then and now the best test equipment that I ever had to hand was a digital multimeter, an oscilloscope and an RFI meter (and a tape measure LOL), all of which are very primitive instruments IMO for measuring such phenomena as hiss and bass overhang. A friend care round with a Behringer room analyser thingy one day and that did show some differences, but not of sufficient detail to be worthwhile.
So when you got back home to your own system it still didn't occur to you to measure the reduction in hiss...now that is very forgetful of you! :D
Unintentional double post :scratch:
Oldpinkman
30-12-2013, 10:58
one word BIAS.
Andrew - I appreciate your concerns about bias. However, the idea I was trying to suggest was that before more elaborate testing was considered, a screening test to confirm that it was possible to demonstrate mains cables made an audible difference was appropriate. It would be, as you say, a pilot study. The methodology for a more advanced study would I am sure need to be more sophisticated, and I understand you have the specialist skills to devise such tests. It may be that they are beyond the scope of a "bit of fun" on a forum. It may be that academic organisations with the resources and skill sets could be persuaded to take an interest if the pilot study could demonstrate there was a subject for research. The faculty of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering at Essex University, would be one such possibility, and it's Emeritus Professor Malcolm Hawksford is well known to a friend of mine.
It is pretty obvious that on this forum, and elsewhere there is a basic binary divide between those who have not heard any difference with mains cables, and / or have scientific or engineering reasons for considering such differences to be impossible, and those who have heard important differences from using superior mains cables and may have an interest in understanding why. Probably the main reason for lack of proper research into the nature of any differences is that those best placed to carry out such research, like Essex Uni, are in the "mains cables make no difference camp"
This is a big elephant to eat. I still believe the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. I would suggest a pilot study, kept simple, but properly "observed" along the broad lines I outlined, would be a good first bite
Richard
Wakefield Turntables
30-12-2013, 12:04
Andrew - I appreciate your concerns about bias. However, the idea I was trying to suggest was that before more elaborate testing was considered, a screening test to confirm that it was possible to demonstrate mains cables made an audible difference was appropriate. It would be, as you say, a pilot study. The methodology for a more advanced study would I am sure need to be more sophisticated, and I understand you have the specialist skills to devise such tests. It may be that they are beyond the scope of a "bit of fun" on a forum. It may be that academic organisations with the resources and skill sets could be persuaded to take an interest if the pilot study could demonstrate there was a subject for research. The faculty of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering at Essex University, would be one such possibility, and it's Emeritus Professor Malcolm Hawksford is well known to a friend of mine.
It is pretty obvious that on this forum, and elsewhere there is a basic binary divide between those who have not heard any difference with mains cables, and / or have scientific or engineering reasons for considering such differences to be impossible, and those who have heard important differences from using superior mains cables and may have an interest in understanding why. Probably the main reason for lack of proper research into the nature of any differences is that those best placed to carry out such research, like Essex Uni, are in the "mains cables make no difference camp"
This is a big elephant to eat. I still believe the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. I would suggest a pilot study, kept simple, but properly "observed" along the broad lines I outlined, would be a good first bite
Richard
Richard,
Even a pilot study needs to have a design, of which you have provided, which has got us another step further I suppose in trying to produce something. I still firmly believe we need a methodology for a pilot study. The method of defining how,why and what we are testing are very important so others can follow our work and improve on it. I would suggest that the work done by those at Essex uni and the methodology they use would be a very firm starting point. We would have an already defined protocol, we could see how they did the research, check the credibility, review the findings etc etc. I think it would be a case of using what we have. Utilising a mixture of your protocol and Franks would be a very good idea. I could make some suggestions to improve things. I'm not staying we would have a PhD pieces of research but as you say for a bit of fun it would be interesting to see what we find.
Andy
Wakefield Turntables
30-12-2013, 12:06
Ok, I think I've added all I want to this discussion. We are going around in circles and not achieving anything. I feel a bit like this :brickwall:. If other members are interested in getting a design study together and maybe organising a test then feel free to send me a PM.
I'm afraid I doubt there is any real interest in investigating this issue beyond the most superficial.
I would have thought the procedure ought to be very simple.
Assemble a system capable of resolving a difference.
Find a mains cable that is capable of making a difference, plus a generic standard 5 amp computer lead to compare against.
Find someone who is attuned to the differences and has the confidence to put it to the test.
Having established that the attuned person can identify which cable is which in blind conditions from a predetermined test order, take both cables away and analyse to isolate what caused the difference - if one is found.
Job done.
I am sure it is easily within the capabilities of the forum members to get that arranged.
Mr Kipling
30-12-2013, 15:19
Eating elephants is just NOT ON. Don't care how you justify it.
Were's Marco when he's needed?
Ban him! Ban him!
AFAIK next months hi-fi choice has a mains lead mini test in it, 4 different cables
Neville Roberts is doing the testing
Maybe in hindsight I should have sent him a pc power cable!
I'm sure it is easily within the capabilities of the forum members to get that arranged.
I'm sure it is too - but I still doubt that it will happen. Not long ago there was a lot of friction on pfm between the objective and subjective camps as to whether subjective amplifier differences existed. In the end my friend Andrew took upon himself to organise a proper blind test. However, despite the opportunity none of the most vociferous for or against members decided to take part (it was interesting though and the food was lovely!).
PaulStewart
30-12-2013, 17:31
Probably the main reason for lack of proper research into the nature of any differences is that those best placed to carry out such research, like Essex Uni, are in the "mains cables make no difference camp"
This surprises me if you read Hawksford's Electrical Signal Propagation & Cable Theory piece from 1995, it gives all the information, albeit derived from proving signal cables make a difference, it provides many clues as to why mains cables do too. As Andrew says this is now getting circular and pointless. As the OP and some one versed in testing these things for companies, if anyone wants to take it further PM me.
I'm sure it is too - but I still doubt that it will happen. Not long ago there was a lot of friction on pfm between the objective and subjective camps as to whether subjective amplifier differences existed. In the end my friend Andrew took upon himself to organise a proper blind test. However, despite the opportunity none of the most vociferous for or against members decided to take part (it was interesting though and the food was lovely!).
I tried much the same thing with some guy here before ( a few years ago when the site used to have a lot more characters)but no matter what I tried in the end he backed out.
Sorry John, not sure I understand, do you mean you tried to set up a blind test and involve a particular individual? If so, I can't say I am surprised - forum memberships are similar to the regulars in the pub - there's always someone who's done that, seen that, knows the brother of the best friend of the bloke who did it first etc - dig a bit deeper and it's often just hot air. Also, most members are more at home with armchair theorising than actually putting any of their ideas to the test!
That's why I offered to make some CD mats for people to try. I thought Marco and Co. would be prepared to give it a go and they are easy enough to make - better than just randomly hypothesising.
yes after that I gave up on this kind of stuff
I would happily volunteer to be the listener testee but I am not able to travel any sort of distance due to cost I'm afraid.
FWIW (probably not a lot as it's a single non-blinded observer with low sample size [n=2])
I recently changed the standard power cable on the Teddy Pardo PSU for my Wadia 170i/signature for a used off eBay Supra LoRad one and my ears told me there was a definite improvement (all be it small) in low frequency control & top and end clarity.
This was on the ring that does not have balanced mains. I should say that all the other equipment power cables in use are the standard "kettle" as I've given this area scant thought before.
Steve
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.