Yes, its true!

The danish shop, Hi-Fi Klubben (Site also available in Swedish and Norwegian languages) sells speaker cables for a price of up to €2681 for two meters.

Not only do they allow themselves to sell such expensive cables, but they also say that one should spend, as a general rule, 20% of their sound systems worth on cables!

I've already sent them a mail, telling them that blind listening tests have proven that cables really dont make diffirence, but they havent answered.

I am simply outraged

do you really except them to to take some products off(line) if it sells? I would be very surprised if they even bothered to answer.

I cant help it, I just feel very sorry for the average rich bastard who comes in their shops and believes every word of the clerk saying "This cable gives more room for the bass, and allows for high frequencies to pass through without distortion, compared to xxx cable"

It seems as if everybody but HA believes the cable voodoo.

You can't say that there is never a sound-difference between cables. It is only proven that people may imagine sound differences where there are none ...
However, if you wan't to improve your sound quality better invest in loudspeakers ...

That reminds me of when I bought my current HIFI setup (at a different store).

With speakers, amp, radio and CD player, it totalled around 3500€. Then the salesman wanted to sell me some fancy cables, which I promptly denied. He just kept going at it, eventually giving me a 90% discount or so. He just couldn't handle the idea of using an expensive HIFI system with 2€ cables, so he was practically giving them away.

So yea... I've got super elite XLR cables for my CD player. They do look kinda nice though.

Anyways. HIFI Klubben are mostly friendly and competent people, but they're also salesmen and I assume cables have huge profit margins. You just can't go into a HIFI shop without dealing with this cable bullshit. Sad really.

As long as there are people with more money than sense these markets will continue to exist. There are many parallels in other areas and hobbies and sports. Who can say that a Rolls Royce, for instance, is good value?

no one can proof that something doesn't exists. you also can't say that aliens never brainwashed all politicians to make them work for a secret and horrifying goal.

if you are willing to spent much money on status then it its

Actually you have that the wrong way around - no-one can prove that something *does* exist. Things can and are proven incorrect; major scientific thoeries have fallen by the wayside when they fail to predict reality, for instance.

My point about the Rolls Royce is that there are other cars, at a fraction of the cost, that can do anything a Rolls can do, but don't have the hand-built cost and prestige value. It could be argued that anything is worth only the price someone is willing to pay for it.

You dont have to asume. They do have huge profit margines - not just for audio, not just for computer, not just for TV. I do have access to some wholesale sites, and i can tell you that the shops buy the cables and "complementary gear" about 70% more cheap there. But with the primary devices (TFTs, hard-drives, printers, etc.) the price-difference is much less.

To simplify it, the shops only make minor profit with primary products - they pay their bills with complementary gear like cables, paid service and commisions.

As long as their are people who will pay, there is a market... to be honest with you, I would sell them, too. Audiophiles are the crackheads of the music world -- big money there.

I am simply outraged

I wouldn't let it bother me, there are far worse things to be upset about. Like SUVs or deforestation.

with my last hi-fi buy, they were trying to sell some cables as well to me, but i told them that i will come back when iam annoyed by the quality of original cables

What should that alien-issue prove? Are you saying that it the probability to hear differences between two different cables compares to the likelyhood of aliens controlling our politicians? Why did I say this? Because so many people woh never made a appropriote test say: "It's all voodoo"
I tested different cables forth_and_back and I claim that there are subtle differences between them, which you can hear with a good pair of loudspeakers (e.g. B&W). ... and some cables obviously sound the same (to me). Just because it may be nonsense (in a quality manner) to spend thousands of dollars/euros for a cable, that doesn't mean it's always the best deal to buy the cheapest cable available.

afaik noone actually prove that, so it is on you now (read tos #8)

http://www.shrani.si/pics/ha_tos886697.jpg

(actually that would be a cool test, the cheapest possible cable vs the most expensive one)

I hate to be a cynic, but as Popeye says, "Iyam wot iyam." (For you non-Englsh folks, "I am what I am.")

It bothers me not one whit to see someone figure out how to separate excess money from guys (and let's face it, most Hi Fi nuts are guys) who clearly have too much of it. I live in New Mexico, and a portion of my area's revenue is from rich people buying what they think is "art". It helps redistribute wealth.

OTOH, I personally know folks who were NOT wealthy who got snookered by guys like these. While they really should have done their homework and bear personal responsibility for how they spend their money, it is also hard to feel anything but loathing for the jerks like this place who take money from them that could be better spent.

Mark

I'd say ditto! How many ABX-test exists where there is prove that there are no differences? I can't provide a test at this point because I had to sell my fine speakers and it would not be easy anyway ... (the test setup)
... and Yes it would be cool to compare the cheapest cable with a real expensive one

henkersmahlzeit, well you said you can hear some small differences, so like i said this test would /probably/ have to be done by people who belive that there are differences.

If i would do such test i wouldnt hear a difference, since i would expect that there is no difference (got it?).

I see the Problem ... (and there are more). I am aware that nobody should believe me just because I remembered some (none blind) years ago. But so many people here are soooh shure about cable to be a Voodoo-Issue only ...
However, I'm not arguing to buy expensive cables.

You cannot prove that. People can only prove that there is a difference, not that there is no difference. Therefore, the burden is on the one who claims that there is a difference(you). If you dont agree with this philosophy, then strictly spoken you are not allowed to post on ha.org(read the TOS).

Do I miss something her?? If people who claim to hear a difference fail the ABX-test this should have no meaning? This is not a esoteric discussion!

That is not correct

Lyx is right. Like I said in this topic:



So, if someone fails a test this does not prove that the two samples sound the same (you may assume it, however).

I never said that somebody who does not believe in the audibility of certain differences and fails a test is proving something. But people who claim to hear a difference should not fail.
... and BTW, this should not be a competition where one side is winning against the other and where I can't expect honest testing from the 'enemy'.
I would love to provide some cable-ABX-tests, but I can't. But unless you can show me statistically failure (with different equipment and different people) from those 'cable-audiophiles' I just suggest to stay open-minded

...and if you think that thought to it's end... what if they fail?
this is no competition, it's just one of the main principles this community is built on.

you may want to read this and this.

<mad-mode>
Here is a simple challenge: prove me that the world is *not* full of funny green aliens who tarnish themselves inside of trees and who are constantly stealing our pocket lighters, ballpoint pens and socks. They are really clever - when someone would approach a tree, they would just go below the surface really fast and leave no trail behind.
</mad-mode>

You cannot prove that something doesn't exist. But you can say "we can only take things into account which are observable(can be proven) and disregard the rest. This does not mean that the rest doesn't exist - just that it cannot (yet) be included when making *rational* decisions/conclusions."

Wonderful world, eh? Everything is possible. Probability is another matter ;-)

edit: this is the main reason, why science does not collide with religion/spirituality per definition. Science is limited to the things which are observable - it's boundaries dont even touch the domain of "magic". Conflicts only happen when religions begin to not only define a "abstract system/worldview" but also concrete observable actions/things/persons. Another source of conflict is that religions usually don't allow themselves to improve. A given religion is considered "perfect" and can only be modified by branching a new one. So, religions are usually static, while science considers itself flawed by definition(and is therefore allowed to progress/improve).

There actually WAS a thread that referred to ABX results for audio cables here sometime last year. IIRC, the test wasn't conducted by anyone here, but the test as it was described seemed to have been conducted properly. I'll look for the thread. (Was it Pio that posted the link to the test, perhaps?)

I feel that the $3000 (or more) people spend on cables is often more of an entry fee to an elite "subjectivist audiophile club" than it is simply buying overpriced wire and plastic.

When I buy audio (and video) cables, I buy ones of nominal quality that look good draped across the floor of my living room. I recall paying a couple dollars more per foot for pretty blue Phillips Gold Series interconnect cables, for instance. No way in hell would I spend 20% of my total system investment for something that has no empirical evidence (that I've seen) showing it's technical superiority to justify such an expenditure.

I am totally aware of these rules and don't need to be reminded in every second post! But until something is proven I expect the community to stay open-minded.
Science is based on evidence and in this case it should be based on blind-listening-tests. There is not much scientific evidence available in this cable-issue. You just can say: 'Not enough Data' to claim one Point or another.

Exactly. But the fact that not enough data is available only makes it unproven/not worthy of taking it into account. But the lack of data does not prove that it is untrue!

Actually... I could believe that... would explain a lot!

Some people just want to be fooled. OTOH, if my store sells that stuff and makes lots of money, they can afford to give me a bigger discount.

Let me see if I get this straight:

1: It seems, that no-one can actually disprove that "better" cables give better sound.
2: To increase the probability of the claim that better/more expensive cables increase audible sound transparency is a fallicious claim, a pro-cablevoodo group of people would have to conduct a scientific blind ABX test.
3: Such a test would require extremely high end audio equipment, as to make the test more convincing.

I, personally, would not spend more than $10 per meter on a speaker cable if my setup would be in the more-than-$1000 range - YET - but if a scientific listening test prooves that "better cables increase transparency", I'd use at least the 20% on cables.

Nope, its the other way around :-) everything is transparent unless proven otherwise.

However, science does bypass the problem that you cannot prove non-existance by using *probability* as *evidence*. Thus, if lets say 1000 people with very good ears and training try to find a difference, and fail, then it can be asumed, that it is highly unprobably that the majority of other people can detect a difference. Thus, science does fill the gap of "proven facts" with probability. Probability basically acts as an "priority-meter" - highly unprobable things get discarded until proven otherwise.

This, by the way, is the same method which you use in your daily life when making decisions - it has just become so normal to you that you dont notice it anymore.

OMG are you one of the folks that worries about SUV's going on yet another killing spree? or just thier gas millage? (I'm just trying to give you a hard time so please don't take offense?)

I just want to point out that the first SUV's were the Toyota 4-runner and the Nissan Pathfinder...BOTH of these cars got roughly 20MPG out of their four-cylinder engines and granted they could have done better on fuel effiency, they were hardly gas-guzzlers? It just always puzzles me why people get so bent over the SUV....The term stands for "Sport Utility Vehicle" Where "Sport" started out being analogous to "Small"?

But in Hifi, actually nothing is transparent. It's not like comparing samples where the CD-Version is the transparent one. What is the reference her? A live Band? A live singer?

I'm glad we agree on that scientific issue but not only cables are not ABXed, dito with amplifiers/speakers/audio-players. So there is no reason why only cable should be Voodoo.

The page was last updated 4 years ago, but this is the one I was referring to before. I can't vouch for the credibility of the test administrator or the consistency of the methods used. The scope of many of the tests (both in products tested and number of participants) is very limited, however. Here's the link directly to the results of testing interconnects and speaker wires.

And here's a link to a project for using ABX to test power cables.

After a few searches I found these and several other sites discussing ABX results which consistently proved no audible difference between expensive and cheap interconnects, speaker cables and power cables. I haven't seen one yet, though, that proves that there is an audible difference. Maybe I'm not searching hard enough?


Edit: These are examples of people who (at least apparently) used double-blind ABX testing to show that there is no (or not a substantial) audible difference between inexpensive cables and the "high-end" stuff. Seems to me the onus would now be on anyone who claims there is a difference to show it with the same type of test.

Good point. Thats one of the things which do annoy me in audio-equipment - that the "processing"-stage is used for "coloring". IMHO, processing-units should only output the pure (mostly) unmodified signal and coloring should happen on-demand(with effect-processors like DSPs).

Anyways, in some of those cases, it may be possible to test transparency without needing a reference-unit. Wouldn't this be possible in the case of amps, by simply picking a recording, then putting it through an amplifter, then recording the output someway and afterwards compare the source and target? Speakers are a more difficult matter i guess, because the sound travels through the air and is therefore modified anyways (although i guess it should be possible to compare the frequency-curve of the speakers with the hearing-curve of joe-average. This would of course not generally detect any mangling with the sound - just frequency-response.)

Here's an interesting page on developing an ABX test platform for source components.

Interesting links @nero!

Here a quota from the cable-ABX-test:

If he is right (like this test indicates), the question remains what a 'competently made cable' is ...

Aww, that's nothing.

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina28.htm

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina27.htm

I really thought both of those were parodies...

from the first URL of Woddinville previous post


1GHz, aren't those microwaves?

that was fun.

From the second URL:



Are you sure it isn't a parody?

That website is awesome.

Check this: Nimbus Sub-Hertz Platform

Some quotes:


Ok, nice.


For a vinyl player I guess?


What?

And now a quote from the reviews section:


Oh..my...

Well, somebody's gone as far as buying one and trying to win the Randi Million with it...

But it ought to be a parody, eh?

(edited to add)

Click to read the explanation of how the GSIC works. Please, please, do not hold any liquid in your mouth or hand or near any electronic equipment while you're reading it!

Vendors like this that do exist are all a part of the "natural order". Stupid people don't deserve to keep their money. Consider it "Economic Darwinism".

Not only is it real, there was a JREF test just the other week to blind test it.

Hello,
I've got all the links to what you are looking for at home and will post it this evening.

Cheapest vs most expensive cable blind test.
Cables blind tests on very high end equipment.
Blind test done by people who do hear a huge difference
Direct comparison between the output and the input of an amplifier...

In the meanwhile, have a look in the "listening test" forum.

I sent an email to a danish Hi-Fi mag. (http://hifi4all.dk) asking them to perform a double blind ABX test on some cables, as I've read some articles on their website clearly showing that they accept the cablevoodoo as a fact.

My brief email spawned the following response (Translated to english) :


*sigh*

Interesting... so applying his logic makes HIFI magazines and reviews useless.

Even more - applying his logic means that blind-testing is the only relevant info which a magazine can report (plus some technical data, usability, images, etc.).

His logic - when thinking it through - concludes: in terms of soundquality, it doesn't matter what you buy, because its a subjective matter of taste and placebo anyways. The only thing which could provide info which is relevant to all customers are blind-tests with "positive" results.

But the readers dont want to read "this sounds the same as everything else" a dozen time in the mag. They want to read nice tales. They want to be fed with beliefs.

When you think about it - his reply is very honest.

Yeah, I'm pretty impressed with that response.