James Randi Offers $1M for Golden Ears to Successfully Differentiate High-End Cables

[drf]

Sonnie wrote:

Would the two different speakers even have to be electrostatic vs dynamic?

What about two dynamic speakers... say Paradigm vs. B&W?

If speakers measure the same exact frequency response regardless of the brand, does that make them all sound the exact same?

No, it all comes down to the shape of the sound wave. We can have a saw shaped wave and sine wave and a square wave all at the exact same frequencies yet they will all sound hugely different.
A saw tooth wave will sound more like a brass instrument, a sqaure wave will sound like a heavily distorted guitar and a sine wave will sound like smooth clean tone. However, it will be the speakers or the amp that manipulates or contorts the shape of the wave, Not the cable. So scientific testing should still be highly accurate for judging cable influence.

[Anthony]

I say no to that, but with a caveat.

Simple nearfield, yes. But since we listen at a distance, many factors come into play: power response (off axis), baffle effects, and possibly spectral decay. I say possibly, because if the sound was averaged over time, it would show up on the FR plot as a slight peak where ringing occurred. However, if the response was gated, the ringing might not show up in the FR, but would definitely affect the sound.

so if you measured all that and the speakers measured the same then I say it's possible they would sound the same.

That's what I'm trying to do now: replace a Magnepan speaker with an open baffle dynamic speaker (see DIY Speakers forum for more details on that).

[clubfoot]

I'm sorry to tell you replacing a Magi with a dynamic speaker will not sound the same,...not even close.

[terry j]

Sonnie wrote:

Would the two different speakers even have to be electrostatic vs dynamic?

What about two dynamic speakers... say Paradigm vs. B&W?

If speakers measure the same exact frequency response regardless of the brand, does that make them all sound the exact same?

No Sonnie, I simply used as different examples as I could find to 'magnify' the question so to speak.

I get different answers to my question, depending on how i analyse it!! Take the 'hidden behind the curtain' example.

We don't know what is there, so can treat it as a black box, we don't care what happens inside it, only what comes out (bit like an amp black box). What comes out of it are waves in the air, which impinge on our ears. So, a given FR will sound a certain way, so if each time I take a measurement prior to listening I see the exact same measurement (even tho the demons have switched speakers behind the screen without my knowledge) I can believe that I would hear the same sound.

OTOH, surely surely a FR measurement will not take into account factors (intrinsic to drivers) of say transient response?? So a dull, boring lifeless speaker driver could theoretically have exactly the same FR (with dsp if needed) as a dynamic, exciting and energetic driver, so the two would reproduce music very differently no matter how close their measurements.

See, I'm confused, and it doesn't take much ha ha.

[clubfoot]

Would they sound the same if their pink noise measured the same?

[drf]

clubfoot wrote:

Would they sound the same if their pink noise measured the same?

No, like I said before, FR can be a perfect match in two completely different systems yet if the soundwave is a different shape then it wil sound different. For example if driver A has a 10mm excursion before it becomes non-linear and driver B only has 5mm. Then when feed with identical sound sources speaker B will start to bend the wave in a non-linear fasion before speaker A. Thus causing it to sound different even although the FR is still the same.

[digital]

Can someone out there please do us all a favor and setup a quality mic. in your speaker’s sweet-spot, then record the effect of running basic 12-guage extension-cord to your speakers vs. some kind of uber-fancy cables. As mentioned earlier in the thread: don't move the speakers or microphone even an inch while recording. Go so far as to place your slightly sound-absorptive body in more or less the same part of the room each time, and record us two FLAC or WAV files, even a 320Kb/s MP3, and post em? I suggest a beautiful classical piece, jazz or unplugged (your favorite pick) from a well-mastered CD or LP.

Briefly describe the size / furnishings / sound energy in the room so we can ‘place our minds there’.

If any of you out there can pull this off, it’d be a great way to share the ‘sound’ or lack thereof, with regards to cables.

If the sound clips end up being too huge for this forum to host, I’ll offer up unlimited file size hosting on my server-space.

Andrew D.
www.cdnav.com

[Otto]

Hi Andrew, all,

I don't think that measurements of this type are going to have the required resolution to differentiate cables. I've run multiple measurements of the same system, one directly after the other, and the sweeps are similar but definitely different (these measurements were done within seconds of each other, with no movement of the mic, the system, or any thing or person within the room). The differences that people expect to hear in cables are much, much more subtle that what you can measure with an RS SPL meter and REW. I would suspect that even anechoic measurements with state-of-the-art equipment aren't going to reveal the types of differences that would be expected from cables.

It would be much more productive to measure the cable itself. REW and PCs don't generally lend themselves to measuring speaker cables, but you could do it with interconnects rather easily. At that point, you have removed the transducers from the loop, and are measuring the cable only. Indeed, I believe that any properly-designed cable will measure virtually identically. Still, the believers in cable differences will indicate that although the cables have measured the same frequency response, they will still exhibit sonic differences during subjective listening tests.

For the record, I am making no statement as to whether I would expect to hear differences or not. I have not done the double-blind testing.

[digital]

Still, the believers in cable differences will indicate that although the cables have measured the same frequency response, they will still exhibit sonic differences during subjective listening tests.

Exactly, thus my thoughts on using a quality microphone instead...

Perhaps your mili-second apart measurements were simply reflections / standing waves in the room? What results do you get with solid tones or bandwidth sweeps? Any warbling in the recording due to room effects? I still think using a mic. and speakers is an interesting angle, especially due to the very fact that 'those who hear' state that measurements make no difference, and that its all kinda', um, 'out there' somehow... pace & rhythm, ‘speed’ and all that. I don't get it either, but as we cannot rely on measurements and TWH always say "trust your ears", what else have we got as tools?

Andrew D.
Cdnav.com

[terry j]

eugovector wrote:

The latest:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=941184

Apparently the folks at AVS took my view and just did their own test. I'll leave the results as a surprise...

Edit: Oh, and the "Mike", is not Michael Fremer, but Mike Lavigne. Don't know anything about him.

Have a look at Mikes setup......if he can't pick the difference then his system and room are NOT to blame!!!

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/663.html

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...avigneroom.htm

[yourgrandma]

I'm not an esoteric audiopile by any means, so you'll have to bear with me. First and mot importantly: Can any of these insane reviewers claim that thier listening experiance would be improved more by investing tens of thousands of dollars on cables, than say the same amount on acuostical improvements?

Also, am I to assume the "baseline" cables are a midrange Monster? I have Z1's and while I won't claim to have heard a huge difference, I do think that in my system, the jump from 14g zip line made a very subtle change, mostly in level, but that;s an improvement.

I guess what I'm getting at is that no matter what your looking at, speaker cable or motorcycles, the more money you spend, the less of a difference that extra bit of cash will make.

[thxgoon]

yourgrandma wrote:

Can any of these insane reviewers claim that thier listening experiance would be improved more by investing tens of thousands of dollars on cables, than say the same amount on acuostical improvements?

No but the tens of thousands of dollars they make in advertising dollars from the cable companies will certainly go a long way in the improvement in their system

[toecheese]

All of these recent threads are missing the point. The point being- can anyone hear the difference between $100 speaker wires and $10k ones. Randi is offering $1M for this test and should be commended. He chose some ridiculous speaker wires which had the hilarious review of 'danceable' and Monster cables and wants someone to tell the difference *with their ears*. You could probably find miniscule differences with instrumentation (the more expensive ones actually degrading the sound due to capacitance), but if the best set of ears cannot tell a difference, why would you do it?

[ACGREEN]

Everyone needs to take a common sense approach to cabling their system. The cables should match your system. If you have a Sony HTIB, then you don't need high-end cables. But i would be hard pressed to justify a $300/ft HDMI cable as it is for a digital signal. Digital signals don't require such high end cables like speaker wire. Some analog signals and audio signals are more susceptible to interference. This is where you should invest your money in good cables.

ACGREEN wrote:

Digital signals don't require such high end cables like speaker wire.

Interestingly, that's almost completely wrong.

Digital signals carry far-higher frequency content that analogue signals, and therefore require "better" cabling, e.g. lower capacitance etc, in order to minimise losses in the high frequencies which would lead to "rounding off" of the square waves. Too much rounding (from cables, cables that are too long, etc) and the digital signal will be misinterpreted, quickly leading to no intelligible transmission.

[drf]

I'll see your "almost completely wrong" and raise you a "not quite true but close".

While a certain quality of cable is required for optimum digital transfer, the idea that cheap cables fall below this quality control is wrong. There will not be sufficient rounding of square wave due to the capacitance or jitter issues due to impedance mismatch unless the cable is a pre-loved power cable from the mid 1800's.
There is a good reason most people can't tell the difference between entry level digital and even the most expensive digital cables.

drf wrote:

I'll see your "almost completely wrong" and raise you a "not quite true but close".

While a certain quality of cable is required for optimum digital transfer, the idea that cheap cables fall below this quality control is wrong. There will not be sufficient rounding of square wave due to the capacitance or jitter issues due to impedance mismatch unless the cable is a pre-loved power cable from the mid 1800's.
There is a good reason most people can't tell the difference between entry level digital and even the most expensive digital cables.

Understood! I was just trying to point out that digital cables can have more stringent requirements than analogue cables, which can be counterintuitive. I wasn't trying to suggest that everyday cheap cables can't do the job in short runs.

It should only really be audible (or visible, in the case of HDMI cables) if the cables are really badly constructed, or for loooong run lengths.

[drf]

One other thing I forgot to mention:

Welcome to the forums rogergraham. good to see new people

[ACGREEN]

rogergraham wrote:

Interestingly, that's almost completely wrong.

Digital signals carry far-higher frequency content that analogue signals, and therefore require "better" cabling, e.g. lower capacitance etc, in order to minimise losses in the high frequencies which would lead to "rounding off" of the square waves. Too much rounding (from cables, cables that are too long, etc) and the digital signal will be misinterpreted, quickly leading to no intelligible transmission.

What I am trying to say is that a $10 fiber optic cable vs a $100 fiber optic cable will not give any noticable difference in sound quality. But speaker cabling can be a different story depending on your gear. I speak from personnal experience only. You are correct that digital cables must meet a higher standard, there really isn't anything due to speaker wire.

[premiumplus]

I have $4,500 q-tips that clean the ear canal for max frequency response. Your music will come to life with a clarity and definition that will redefine the soundstage! These q's are NOS and VERY RARE...