TARA Labs cable challenge!!

[paulraphael]

The relatively short periods of time where subjects are exposed to sounds is, of necessity, a typical feature of A-B-X testing. It has long been questioned whether or not subjects can reliably tell one sound from the other during these short time spans.

A little off topic, but this is part of why ABX, or even regular short tem A/B testing can lead you making bad purchasing decisions.

When you listen like this ... doing with your ears what you do with your eyes when you squint ... you're not listening the way you normally listen. For one thing, all your attention is on minute differences between component A and component B. It's like using a microscope to decide which of two women is the most beautiful.

I remember an interview with someone, I think an engineer at Manley Labs (they make high end amplifiers and microphone preamps), saying they abandoned the standard A/B tests as part of their product development. It always led them to making bad decisions. They prefer to listen to something over time, to allow it to reveal itself while the engineer is relaxed and listening normally.

Unfortunately, when you're trying things out in a store you typically don't have this option. Places that let you take things home for a tryout are ideal.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

But, what if there doesn't yet exist a scientific test that can reliably distinguish the subtle differences that the human ear can hear but that a measurement device can't?

The last time I heard, the sum total of human knowledge doubles every 15 years. It could be that a reliable scientific test has yet to be devised that can observe and measure the subjective sonic reality that so many folks are able to hear and articulate that are due to differences in cables.

Coffee break is definitely over, back to work.

There exists a pretty good scientific test, and it's ABX testing. What you forget is that such testing *is* in effect a form of measurement, just one that doesn't have to use oscilloscopes and the like.

The human ear, in the proper setting, *is* a scientific test. It's not in any way opposed to scientific testing.

Bottom line for me: if you can hear differences between cables, reliably and reproducibly, with a frequency significantly better than could be expected to be achieved by chance, in a properly constructed blinded test, then you actually can hear a difference. If you can't hear such differences under such conditions, you're fooling yourself to think you're hearing a real difference. I know for a fact it's possible to hear such differences between certain instrument cables and interconnects (though by no means all); I know of no reason to think it's possible with power cables.

If you (generic "you," not necessarily you personally) can prove you hear it, that's science. If you can't, that's science too. I don't need to understand all the theory, or to be able to make the audible distinction myself. If you prove you can do it, I'll believe it can be done. Sometimes, experimental data come in advance of the theory. But at some point, you've got to have some data, or the theory goes boom.

 

[paulraphael]

We need to think of a product for those guys too.

I'm thinking along the lines of some new special tolex that will improve the sonic resonance of both the amplifier and the speakers. Then let everyone argue over whether they heard a difference or not while I pick out my five million dollar yacht!

We'll have to get in line behind the guys selling the magical wooden cones and the resonant quartz crystals.

If we're going to b.s. our way to wealth, we should aim for a bigger, softer target, and write a diet book.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

A little off topic, but this is part of why ABX, or even regular short tem A/B testing can lead you making bad purchasing decisions.

When you listen like this ... doing with your ears what you do with your eyes when you squint ... you're not listening the way you normally listen. For one thing, all your attention is on minute differences between component A and component B. It's like using a microscope to decide which of two women is the most beautiful.

I remember an interview with someone, I think an engineer at Manley Labs (they make high end amplifiers and microphone preamps), saying they abandoned the standard A/B tests as part of their product development. It always led them to making bad decisions. They prefer to listen to something over time, to allow it to reveal itself while the engineer is relaxed and listening normally.

Unfortunately, when you're trying things out in a store you typically don't have this option. Places that let you take things home for a tryout are ideal.

But that's exactly why the alternatives to ABX testing are worse. It's well established that people forget what things sound like. Long-term retention of minuscule auditory nuance is poor. The longer somebody listens to a given piece of gear by itself, the less they are actually able to compare it to anything else in any meaningful way. Especially when they know what the gear is. You can't ignore the confounding aspect of non-blinded testing.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

A-B-X testing has long been held up as some kind of holy grail of sonic differentiation by the empirical set. These are also the folks who will typically buy a stereo or other musical amplification component according to the manufacturer's specifications. The relatively short periods of time where subjects are exposed to sounds is, of necessity, a typical feature of A-B-X testing. It has long been questioned whether or not subjects can reliably tell one sound from the other during these short time spans.

You can always do a longer and more complex ABX test. Regardless of any criticisms of ABX testing, well-founded or not, it's certain--not just "questioned" but certain--that people forget what stuff sounds like when they haven't heard it for a while. So the idea of taking stuff home and living with it for a while just ensures that you'll forget exactly what the old stuff sounded like and thus will be less able to define differences with accuracy. Again, I in no way claim that all gear sounds alike. I'm also not saying that somebody who takes home a new preamp, listens to it for a week, and then concludes that it's better than the old preamp would be wrong. Quite often, he'd be right. But I'm willing to bet that any real differences that would be picked up on in that situation would have been equally apparent, if not more so, on a sufficiently rigorous ABX test.

 

[MikeBass]

I have access to some of the best cabling and EE in the buisness.
The quality of cable at OUR cost is more than the Tara LAbs could even charge to you with a straight face.
I help design cables the run as close to 1/4" from high power resistance weld power cables carrying 480v at rates at times higher than 50,000 amps.
I have presented this same question over and over, and yes for interconnects is MAY be possible to actually hear a difference.
As for power, well there are these thigs called capicitors which store and release energy (power in the case) at a give rate.
Think like a holding tank (I'm way over simplfying here).
Reguardless of the method (ie. cable) of input, the goal is to have a constant output from there.
The only thing a "high end" cable would help with is resistance in geting the power to them. It should (should for the price actually) be significiantly lower. Also the contacts are a point of resistance and can at times when the device is being taxed heavily be a source of not "recharging" those caps efficiantly. But this can be rectified by using a large gauge cable with tight, clean contact points.
Does this affect what you hear?
If it was plugged in at your electric companies power plant maybe. Because at that point it would be the worst point in your system.
But the 6 to 10 foot from the wall to your termination point, no.
Like I said, I have posted this question to some of the best EE's who do nothing but design cable. I usually get a funny look or have another EE book dropped on my desk and told if I can design a cable to do that, they'll work for me.
The crap in your walls is so "dirty" that even if you replaced it with the best on the planet, it comes in off the pole in your yard that is just as bad.

Oh yeah, we have a audio division as well. And I ran it by them a few times as well.
They agree, for interconnects there can be a difference, but for power in consumer products, no.

Just passing along some info that I aquired. Not saying that anyone here is wrong or didn't think they gear a difference.
Enjoy!

 

[cheezewiz]

A short summary of my views, since I posted way back many pages ago. I tried the Tara Labs cables. Using the power cable, there was NOT ONE IOTA of difference in sound. It's snake oil, BS, and hype, and nothing more.

 

[paulraphael]

Your analogies are comical and not at all relevant.

Did you miss the part where I said "A bit off topic ..." ?

 

[paulraphael]

A short summary of my views, since I posted way back many pages ago. I tried the Tara Labs cables. Using the power cable, there was NOT ONE IOTA of difference in sound. It's snake oil, BS, and hype, and nothing more.

A level-headed conclusion would be: Using that particular cable, with your gear, compared with the particular cable you previously had, under those listening conditions, you couldn't hear a difference.

Based on that, "snake oil, BS, and hype" is only one of several possible explanations.

I just tried a blind microphone cable listening test on a recording website. There were 6 or 7 different samples. All but 2 sounded exaclty the same to me (me listening, on my playback system, etc.). But some of the professional recording engineers heard differences that were obvious (to them). Should I believe that they're full of it, or just that I didn't hear it? Personally, I don't think I have enough information to judge one way or the other.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

A level-headed conclusion would be: Using that particular cable, with your gear, compared with the particular cable you previously had, under those listening conditions, you couldn't hear a difference.

Based on that, "snake oil, BS, and hype" is only one of several possible explanations.

I just tried a blind microphone cable listening test on a recording website. There were 6 or 7 different samples. All but 2 sounded exaclty the same to me (me listening, on my playback system, etc.). But some of the professional recording engineers heard differences that were obvious (to them). Should I believe that they're full of it, or just that I didn't hear it? Personally, I don't think I have enough information to judge one way or the other.

The difference being that there are known reasons why some instrument cables, mic cables, and interconnects MIGHT differ. So thinking someone else can possibly hear something you or I might not be able to is not unreasonable. This doesn't seem to apply to power cables.

 

[cheezewiz]

We used several different basses, amps, etc. The only LOGICAL conclusion is, BS, snake oil, hype.

 

[funkycarnivore]

I like cables that are blue.

 

[cheezewiz]

I like cables that are blue.

I dig those too Jer, although my favorite cable right now is yellow.

 

[funkycarnivore]

I dig those too Jer, although my favorite cable right now is yellow.

d00d THATZ JUST U LISTENING WITH UR EYEZ!

 

[Akami]

d00d THATZ JUST U LISTENING WITH UR EYEZ!

LMFAO

 

[Hawkeye]

Your analogies are comical and not at all relevant.

As for the above quote, that may be a good way to judge if something generally sounds good but it is no way to judge if a specific thing sounds different and an engineer will tell you the same unless perhaps they got their "diploma" from a school that advertises on matchbook covers. In any case, the stuff you're claiming - differences in specific frequency bands - can easily be verified via a scope.

OK, now go ahead and post how scopes can't measure what you imagine you can hear.

In the context of this ongoing discussion the analogy is totally relevant and speaks directly to one of the issues of this conversation. "Is A-B testing as reliable and conclusive as many in this thread assume it is?" It appears that the conclusion among many who make professional sound their business is that it is only one measurement that has limitations and certainly not the final measurement.

Manley labs is well regarded in both pro and audiophile circles as a manufacturer of high-end, very good sounding equipment for recording and for home. It's full of engineers who, as paulraphael has pointed out, have discovered that their are limitations to the type of test that everybody seems to be holding up so high as a final arbiter of comparison. They rely also on extended listening to familiar tracks or passages to let the ear be the final measurement.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

In the context of this ongoing discussion the analogy is totally relevant and speaks directly to one of the issues of this conversation. "Is A-B testing as reliable and conclusive as many in this thread assume it is?" It appears that the conclusion among many who make professional sound their business is that it is only one measurement that has limitations and certainly not the final measurement.

Manley labs is well regarded in both pro and audiophile circles as a manufacturer of high-end, very good sounding equipment for recording and for home. It's full of engineers who, as paulraphael has pointed out, have discovered that their are limitations to the type of test that everybody seems to be holding up so high as a final arbiter of comparison. They rely also on extended listening to familiar tracks or passages to let the ear be the final measurement.

A secondhand loose recollection of what engineers at one manufacturer said is "many"? How do you get to that conclusion?

And it's by no means clear that these engineers have "discovered" anything of the sort. They believe it, perhaps, or assert it, but discover? Not unless they can prove it.

The problem with holding up the extended listening approach as a superior alternative to ABX testing--and this is really basic to any kind of study that attempts to establish a matter of fact--is that it doesn't control for confounding variables. In the first place, when you know what you're listening to, it is impossible to guarantee that you're not subject to assumptions and predispositions. (This doesn't guarantee that you will be prejudiced either; it just can't rule out the possibility, which you need to do to ensure the validity of your results.) In the second place, we know that people lose their ability to recall small differences in sound over time. Therefore, the longer you have preamp B in your house, listening exclusively to it, the less you'll be able to recall any minute differences it may have had with preamp A. (It's of course quite possible to remember gross, obvious differences. If preamp A had 20% distortion, and preamp B had 0.02%, you'd have no problem remembering that.)

Finally, the whole idea of one piece of gear sounding better than another is that you can hear the differences. That's what sounding better means. Thus, if you can't hear the audible differences, there aren't any audible differences, by definition. I seriously don't see how anybody can claim that extended listening could reveal any differences that would not also be apparent on a sufficiently rigorous, sufficiently extensive ABX test. If there are differences you can hear with extended listening, differences substantial enough to convince you that one piece of gear is better than another, why would these audible differences disappear in the context of ABX testing? Shouldn't they still be audible if they're real?

Again, for the record, I certainly don't believe all pieces of gear sound alike. I am certain that in many cases blind testing will reveal quite obvious differences. I've heard it. I just don't buy the idea that the extended in-home testing many audiophiles like to advocate is a better tool for the job.

You also have to keep in mind that in addition to being in the business of making gear, audio companies are in the business of selling it. That in no way makes them automatically liars or crooked--I would in fact bet that most people who go into high-end audio do so out of a true passion for it--but the fact that they have an interest in the situation is a potential confounding variable.

Finally (really, I promise), as for the ear being the final measurement, that's exactly what happens in an ABX test: your ear is the measuring instrument. You hear a difference or you don't. The thing is, in this setting, the things your ear is supposed to measure are presented impartially and equally, with as many variables as possible controlled for. In the scenario you advocate, the ear is also the measuring instrument, but the things measured are not presented equally and impartially. You are evaluating current experience with a piece of gear whose maker and model you know against an increasingly dim recollection of another piece of gear, whose maker and model you also know, in the past. It simply is not as good and reliable a test.

 

[paulraphael]

I'm going to duck out of this thread, but before doing so want to clarify my generally feelings on the topic.

To those who believe that a power cord cannot make any significant difference in the sound of a piece of gear: you could be right. It might be shown one day that all these effects people hear are hypnotically induced by expectations, and that the prevailing understanding of the science involved answers all the relevent questions.

Or you could be wrong. There may be more to the phenomenon than what we currently understand. If anything gives credibility to this possibility, it's that two of the disciplines involved--wave propagation in wire, and human psychoachoustics--are young sciences. And there isn't a whole lot of surplus research money available for the study of fetish-level audio gear. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I only want to invite anyone who's genuinely curious about the phenomenon to try it out yourself some time. Not even scientifically ... just try it casually and see if you perceive a significant difference, a subtle one, or nothing at all. Ideally do it on a revealing stereo system, not a boom box or bass amp. If you hear no difference, then there's no point in worrying about an abx test. But if you hear something, maybe that will open your mind to some further investigation.

Or not! In the end it's not that big a deal; we're talking about wires, not nuclear proliferation.

Do keep in mind that exectations based on science have often been broken. Just a century or so ago, some of the brightest scientific minds had proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that human flight was impossible. One of them created an impressive presentation, comaparing decades of study of the physics of bird flight to the flight requirements of a heavy object. He demonstrated convincingly that the required power-to-weigh ratio could never be achieved.

His equations were all correct; a contemporary physicist auditing them, accepting his suppositions, would find his thinking sound.

But this scientist had neglected to account for two things: the discovery of the airfoil, and the larger point that an airplane is not a bird.

The science wasn't wrong. But as in many other cases in history, a prevailing understanding of science had proven too limited to be helpful. It's worth remembering this before declaring what is and isn't possible.

 

[agedhorse]

Richard - excellent explaination, well said.

As far as human flight being impossible, it was and still is based on the same process as bird flight as the power/weight ratio is a physical limitation to that process. The air foil is a completely different process not subject to the same limitations. It's like comparing DC power to AC power. With DC power the statement "electro-magnetic transformers will never work" is completely true for the DC process BUT if the power is AC, the statement is false because the process changed.

There's a lot of information in the details, provided the details are understood.

 

[seanm]

To those who believe that a power cord cannot make any significant difference in the sound of a piece of gear: you could be right. It might be shown one day that all these effects people hear are hypnotically induced by expectations, and that the prevailing understanding of the science involved answers all the relevent questions.

I can believe that people mentally convince themselves that some things are better. I know I have. I was sure a buffered effect was sucking some of the low-end tone out of the bass even when off. So I connected a loooper and A/Bed them. While I could tell a difference in the highs, I could not hear the loss of lows.

And it is not just me. If you read some of the effect reviews, for the same pedal, some people will claim there is no loss of lows and some will claim a huge loss.

I also think that "buyers high" may have something to do with it.

However, I cannot believe a power cord makes a difference. The point of a power supply is to take whatever is coming from the wall socket and produce a clean DC or AC signal.

I think we can all agree that with a poor or even only good power supply, the cord will not make a difference since the supply itself is the weak point. For a high end power supply, a lot of work will have gone into making sure that the clean power out is isolated from the power in. In this case, the cord is isolated out of the equation.

This ignores what others have already mentioned about the fact that the wires running to the wall socket become the weak link since you could run a special circuit.

I can believe that a battery powered amp would make a difference. Hmmm, maybe I should cover my butt here and say by "power cord" I mean the cord from the wall socket to the power supply. Not a power cord from an external power supply to a piece of equipment.