I apologize for continuing on this subject, the one from yesterday. Sometimes I get in a groove and it becomes a rut.
Basically, I'm uncomfortable arguing from suppositions. I find that even a lot of objectivist statements about sound quality have, couched within them, some purely faith-based premise. ("To conduct a double-blind test, we hung an acoustically invisible curtain between the speakers and the listeners, and in our test we found...." Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up there, hoss. Acoustically invisible? Who says it is? How did you arrive at that? How did you test it? What, does Igor say, "yes Boss, that sounds the same"? An "acoustically invisible" curtain is a faith-based premise if you ask me, sitting right there out in the open. It renders questionable every conclusion that depends on it.
But if I shoot each such statement down, it would only be from from the baseline my own suppositions, which might be partially faith-based too, and we end up with nothing but argumentation.
My old speakers from 2012 are up from the basement and
seeing daylight for the first time in five years.
Here's the best I can do. I'm setting up a sort-of new system in my bedroom, which happens to be the largest room in my house except for the combined kitchen/dining room. Once I get it set up and get familiar with it (assuming it sounds any good at all, which is still up in the air), just for fun I'll try a few different speaker wires and tell you what I think I hear. That'll be the best I can do; I get uncomfortable making claims about things I'm not familiar with. If/when I do write about that, you'll know all the parameters yourself so you can accept my conclusions, or accept them with provisos, or reject them, as you deem appropriate.
That's all on this subject from me for now. Back to common ground!
Mike
Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
JG: "Just because some sonic differences can't be measured/quantified using today's technology doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist or their effects are not potentially audible to careful listeners. Remember that science (and by extension, the measurements and experimental evidence it relies upon) always trails behind nature and never runs ahead of it. That the sonic signature of an audio cable cannot be explained by measurements made today doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or the reasons why it exists will not be adequately and accurately explained by other and/or better measurements made tomorrow. Or that someone who claims to hear the sound of a cable today, in advance of measurements and a scientific explanation confirming its existence, is delusional. Mind you, this is not to say that some—perhaps even many?—of the claims made by some cable designers for their products aren't out-and-out bunk or the performance of their cables justifies the high prices being asked for them."
Mike replies: I don't recall the story of IM, but wasn't that a relevant example JG?
Stephen Scharf: "Here's my advice, having been in this 'hobby'/avocation for some time now:
"Don't fall prey to the whole 'Double-Blind/ABX testing' thang promoted by 'objectivists.'
"It's a pit of snakes and it will prove to be a waste of time and possibly, depending one's orientation and sensibilties, a source of exasperation.
"As professional scientist, I'm all for data and measurements. Hell, I'm probably the only guy that has conducted a statistically valid Design of Experiments to effectively incorporate my REL sub into my 2-channel system. 
"With respect to audio, all the great audio designers I know of (Nelson Pass, the late Bill Z Johnson of AR, Mssrs. Conrad and Johnson of Conrad-Johnson, Jurgen Ries of MBL, Caelin Gabriel of Shunyata Research, etc) use measurements during the design and engineering process, but conduct the 'refinement and optimization' of their products by conducting subjective listening tests.
"Personally, I use measurement and data analysis to provide direction for my own system. but 'data and measurements' are only a start; you have to listen to complete the task to putting together a system that creates an engaging and beguiling listening experience. Measurements alone will not get you there.
"Here is what is reality: different materials, different metals, wires, power cables, signal cables, DACs, and yes, even Ethernet cables...sound different.
"Nobody knows why, but they do.
"Why do Vishay metal-film resistors sound notably better than carbon comp, or god forbid, sand-cast resitors? They all measure the same.
"Nobody knows why, but they do.
"Why do Ediswan, GE/JAN, or Amperex Bugle Boy 6922s sound completely different? They all measure exactly the same. However, they sound virtually nothing like each other.
"Nobody knows why, but they do.
"In some forums, when I've posted reviews of different cables, DACs, and some other products, I always get the line, 'Prove it by conducting a double-blind test.'
"I counter with, 'Show me a statistically valid DBX test with Alpha set to 0.05 and Beta set to 0.10 that fails to reject the Null Hypothesis.'
"And you know what I hear back from the 'objectivists'? Crickets.
"The bottom line is: Different gear, components, metals, materials, tubes, binding posts, tonearms, step-up transformers, etc, etc. sound different.
"Nobody knows why, but they do.
"Reductionist scientist can't explain many things we know to be true: Why our dogs or cats are waiting for us when we come home, or the sensation of being stared at, to provide just two examples.
"The best scientists in the world can't unify General Relativity and Quantum Physics, fer crissakes. Hell, they can't even solve 'the measurement problem.'
"So, here's my advice: Don't worry about it and don't fall prey to it. Your job is simple: just go with what creates an engaging and beguiling listening experience for you. You will be happy and content.
"With respect to different speaker wires...sure. But, my recommendation would be to 'rent in' a Shunyata Delta NR v2 C15 power cable from The Cable Company, and power your amp, integrated, whatever is your main amplification component, with it. Power cables have a bigger impact than speaker cables. Trust me on this.
"Have fun!
"PS—Nice speakers, BTW."
Mike replies: It made no effing sense to me that power cables should affect anything. It doesn't seem logical. But then, that's based on my it's-a-sunfish conception of how electrical circuits work. If I hadn't heard it to the extent that I couldn't deny it, I never would have believed it.
Here's a short couple of forum posts by Caelin Gabriel, who you mentioned. For anyone who understands engineer-speak. Which does not include me.
Neil the Wheel: "Mike...photography please?"
Mike replies: Gotta catch up with all the comments first. For something nobody want to talk about, people sure want to talk about this.
Trevor Johnson: "I have been following this fascinating series of discussions as one who not only listens to music, but also has a track record of recording for commercial release (classical). Although my A77 is a few feet from me, my current setup uses a new Sound Devices digital recorder and microphones from AKG, Rode etc. Good quality, oxygen-free balanced mic connectors with Neutrik connectors.
"Professional recorders/mixers/engineers have solved the speaker cable/amplifier/speaker issue by moving almost exclusively to active speakers, (active speakers contain their own power amplifiers, usually one for each speaker in the cabinet). The signal is provided by a balanced cable from the preamplifier/monitor controller/mixer, etc. Generally, rercordings are made using 24bit, because that gives you the extra dynamic range to record cleanly up to –12dB below 0dB. Exceeding a 96Khz sample rate has no advantages, but can cause problems of its own. A well recorded and mastered 16/44.1 CD is excellent. Can I tell the difference between my original 24/96 recording and the final 16/44.1 CD? Yes, my mastered CD is better. Incidentally, in the past I also had vinyl LPs mastered and released. In those instances, the original recordings were inevitably better!
"All I can say is that it is all rather fun but the chances of a consensus are highly unlikely. I belong to neither camp: measured performance is interesting, but my hearing/brain always has the final say."
Ulf A: "I think engineers oftentimes miss the point when they try to measure sound quality (or image quality for that matter). It is not obvious that accuracy is the goal. It can be, but it is not for me. I would choose lively, entertaining sound over accurate reproduction any day. As for what that is, I suppose everyone is different. This does not however mean that measurements are useless. It is just that the unit of measurement should match the consumer‘s reason for using a product. Only when this is defined clearly, and the construct validity is tested, so that it is clear that what is measured is what was intended do measurements make sense. Otherwise you can have the most sophisticated testing for something that nobody cares about.
"Also, I don't think testing needs to be blind. If I enjoy listening to beautiful speakers from a brand I like, it's part of the experience. It doesn't make sense to discount some dimensions of the experience just because they aren't based in function. Some people think you're a sucker if you pay for non-functional benefits. I'm not one of them."
