Why some speaker cables sound different - in layman's terms
Link to nordost does not work ?
Try this: http://www.nordost.com/default/pdf/hifiplus_issue34.pdf
Hi,
I have to laugh at this.
The Siltech cable (5m at cost £6300) came last out of six, but due to an anomaly they adjusted it to second.
The QED cheapo (5m at £80) had an anomaly in the second run of tests, yet they left it last.
Their words :
Equally apparent (and reassuring) is the audible gap between the expensive cables and the budget QED. Indeed, barring a single aberration (that we'll go into later) the gap would have been wider.
So, an expensive cable gets marked up from last to second, and a QED cheapo cable has no such preferrential treatment.
The cheapo QED cable did very well, in the first round of tests - whose marks were above the control - Siltech had 10 marks as the standard, and all other cables fared better apart form a single Au24 mark in the first round. So in the first round Siltech was last. All other cables were better thn Siltech.
The QED aberration in second round - Stereovox had 3 sets of scores - two were above the 10 benchmark and the other set below - why no aberration mentioned here.
The QED cable has blatantly been allowed to remain last since it suits the intent of the article that expensive cables directly correlate to a better sound.
Regards,
Shadders.
It's all a conspiration really....
The QED cable has blatantly been allowed to remain last since it suits the intent of the article that expensive cables directly correlate to a better sound.
Regards,
Shadders.
These results can be twisted to fit a point of view. Under blind conditions, the Siltech came second in a different system. Either you think the results are fixed, or you take the results on face value, in which case something weird happened in the first system...it does happen.
This is all academic unless you try something for yourself. You are so sceptical, that any improvement you hear is likely to be there. If you try some TQ Black i/c and s/c and hear no great difference.....I'll be amazed. Though I'll also be amazed if you think it's worth the effort. 
Anyway, I appreciate your effort, but i suspect that you are as likely to talk me out of what I am hearing, as I am to talk you into it.
Cno
The QED cable has blatantly been allowed to remain last since it suits the intent of the article that expensive cables directly correlate to a better sound.
Regards,
Shadders.
These results can be twisted to fit a point of view. Under blind conditions, the Siltech came second in a different system. Either you think the results are fixed, or you take the results on face value, in which case something weird happened in the first system...it does happen.
This is all academic unless you try something for yourself. You are so sceptical, that any improvement you hear is likely to be there. If you try some TQ Black i/c and s/c and hear no great difference.....I'll be amazed. Though I'll also be amazed if you think it's worth the effort.
Anyway, I appreciate your effort, but i suspect that you are as likely to talk me out of what I am hearing, as I am to talk you into it.
Cno
Hi,
Not at all. The article is flawed - it has allowed an expensive cable (£6.3k) to be elevated to 2nd place from last, but the £80 cable QED is to demoted to last despite it scoring better than the £6.3k cable. Then in the second test there is no elevation of the QED even though it scored better than the benchmark by one reviewer. This is not looking at the figures for a point of view, but blatant changing the results. They literally changed the results for one cable, but not the other.
This is not a criticism of your hearing, but you must accept their arbitrary changes to the results fits their intent to prove expensive cables are better than cheaper cables.
If this was a formal Invitiation To Tender (ITT) between companies, the company running the ITT would be in court by now.
I would accept there is a difference if there was scientific fact to support the difference - but too many cable vendors as i stated in previous post have used technical theory wrongly to indicate their cable is better than others.
Given this report and cable vendors propensity to use theory incorrectly, my summary would be that you cannot trust cable vendors or reviewers - and as such there too much doubt on the validity of cables sounding different.
Regards,
Shadders.
The link didn't work for me but unless the test was properly double-blind then it is next to worthless as an objective measure. Results that have been "adjusted" are probably worthless.
I'm actually open-minded about cables and think they might make a difference in some circumstances and to some extent. However I hate the pseudo-scientific hokum that you see in some manufacturers' literature. That just makes me think they are trying to con somebody.
Anyway it ain't going to be resolved on this forum!
Chris
This is not looking at the figures for a point of view, but blatant changing the results. They literally changed the results for one cable, but not the other.
Regards,
Shadders.
Using "POV" may have been misleading........"Interpretation", might have been a better word. I look at the results as a further indication that cables make a difference; whereas you latch onto the "anomaly" to cast doubt on the whole test, as you think the whole thing is ridiculous.
VFM is a whole different argument, and is very personal to the individual.
The link didn't work for me but unless the test was properly double-blind then it is next to worthless as an objective measure. Results that have been "adjusted" are probably worthless.
I'm actually open-minded about cables and think they might make a difference in some circumstances and to some extent. However I hate the pseudo-scientific hokum that you see in some manufacturers' literature. That just makes me think they are trying to con somebody.
Anyway it ain't going to be resolved on this forum!
Chris
For some reason, the link seems to have a time out. So try this:
Follow link -> Click on Reviews -> scroll down to Speaker Cables Listening Test (and open)
The electrical properties of cables have been known for a very long time. Even skin effect was first identified in 1883. It was in the 1970s that audiophile cable makers started to appear and do their 'research'. I say 'research' as none of it is backed up by any sort of scientific independent peer review or professional body. That has not stopped cable makers from ploughing on. In 1995 QED published their ‘Genesis Report’ on loudspeaker cables.
http://www.qed.co.uk/qed-reports/the-genesis-report.htm
They comment on the mysticism and pseudo-science around claims about cables. There is a lot of evidence presented to show how a cable can measure differently. We already know about that. However, there is the issue of linking construction to sound quality. They put forward an argument that applies to many cables, not just their own that accurate and consistent sounding speaker cables will have low capacitance, inductance, resistance and dielectric losses. They state that certain factors are unlikely to be audible such as skin effect. They also say that blind testing has shown that listeners are unable to discriminate cable directionality. The actual test is not shown and they do not apply blind testing to anything else in their paper. Why use blind listening in one part only, why not use it for all of the claims made by QED?
The bottom line is that here is no causal link between any objective electrical property and subjective reports of differences in sound quality.
This is not looking at the figures for a point of view, but blatant changing the results. They literally changed the results for one cable, but not the other.
Regards,
Shadders.
Using "POV" may have been misleading........"Interpretation", might have been a better word. I look at the results as a further indication that cables make a difference; whereas you latch onto the "anomaly" to cast doubt on the whole test, as you think the whole thing is ridiculous.
VFM is a whole different argument, and is very personal to the individual.
Hi,
No - the "Interpretation" is not the issue - they changed the results. All cables were perceived to be better than the Siltech - so they changed it so Siltech was second - they actually changed the numbers.
Yet the anomaly for QED was not changed - two of the reviewers marked the QED lower, the third marked consistently higher than the benchmark Au24. So what makes the two reviewers correct and the third incorrect.
Changing your accounts to give you a loss so you don't pay tax is fraud.
Changing ITT scores such that one company wins the bid again is illegal.
This is not interpretation - they changed results to make a cable second.
Their statements showed they expected QED to become last since its cost was much lower - a budget cable.
All these actions show at a minimum bias. (sorry, in fact, i cannot believe i am being so lenient on this - bias is too nice)
This particular report must be discarded - i have seen others and i have to accept that they were run with integrity as i have not seen the marking system or changes have not been reported.
Regards,
Shadders.
Ok I've read it now and I'm sorry but it's absolute nonsense. It's not blind, not even single blind, and as for measuring things by allocating scores out of 10 that's about as objective as the scoring on Strictly Come Dancing.
Chris
Ok I've read it now and I'm sorry but it's absolute nonsense. It's not blind, not even single blind, and as for measuring things by allocating scores out of 10 that's about as objective as the scoring on Strictly Come Dancing.
Chris
Hi,
No - the "Interpretation" is not the issue - they changed the results. All cables were perceived to be better than the Siltech - so they changed it so Siltech was second - they actually changed the numbers.
This is not interpretation - they changed results to make a cable second.
Regards,
Shadders.
We will have to agree to disagree on what the test is saying.
All the data results are given in a very open manner, as well as the reasoning for presenting it how they did. The fact they say "you can handle this raw data in a number of ways" tells me that interpretation comes into it.....Lies, Dam Lies and Statistics!
I believe that it is most unlikely that a cable can go from dead last in one test, to getting a first and two thirds in another, without some sort of anomaly having happened.....so the incompatibility issue with the first system is highly likely.....which is why two systems were used in the first place.
This was their conclusion (interpretation?), and they were there.
The most expensive cable was conclusively first, which wouldn't have happened in a statistically significant way, if price had no bearing. It was also generally noted that (taking the results by listener) that the QED, (bar one score), comes in last or second last ....very constant I would say, given the test was blind, and subjectivity plays such an important part.....and certainly when taken along with the statement, that there was an apparent and reassuring gap between the cheaper and dearer cables.
If there was no appreciable difference, the results would been no better than random, with no obvious patterns.
I have nothing further to add, so gracefully bow out; but enjoyed our amicable debate......which is somewhat unusual where cables are concerned.
Cno
Ok I've read it now and I'm sorry but it's absolute nonsense. It's not blind, not even single blind, and as for measuring things by allocating scores out of 10 that's about as objective as the scoring on Strictly Come Dancing.
Chris
If you don't know what cable is used, it's certainly not sighted.......so something in between then! 
It's not what I would call a proper test, shame, I thought something really unusual had happened. Is it an old review? I ask because I thought R.G. was now head of marketing (or similar) at Nordost, and not allowed to review/test any Nordost products for the mag anymore. I haven't read Plush for a long time, so could be out of date with what's happening there.
I believe that it is most unlikely that a cable can go from dead last in one test, to getting a first and two thirds in another, without some sort of anomaly having happened.....so the incompatibility issue with the first system is highly likely.....which is why two systems were used in the first place.
This was their conclusion (interpretation?), and they were there.
The most expensive cable was conclusively first, which wouldn't have happened in a statistically significant way, if price had no bearing. It was also generally noted that (taking the results by listener) that the QED, (bar one score), comes in last or second last ....very constant I would say, given the test was blind, and subjectivity plays such an important part.....and certainly when taken along with the statement, that there was an apparent and reassuring gap between the cheaper and dearer cables.
If there was no appreciable difference, the results would been no better than random, with no obvious patterns.
I have nothing further to add, so gracefully bow out; but enjoyed our amicable debate......which is somewhat unusual where cables are concerned.
Cno
Hi,
Not directed at you - but to comment further - i do not expect removal of results to be valid if they were lower than expected.
If this cable (Siltech) is supposedly sensitive to equipment it connects - then its design must be flawed. Then, it is still a piece of wire - so the results are probably correct and should not have been removed.
As you have said they have been open about it - which is odd - but then they have a view that they expected QED to be last, and they then adjusted accordingly (omitted scores) to prove this.
Again, apologies for repeating - the bias is obvious - they promoted Siltech to second place, but when QED was less than the benchmark for 2 out of 3 reviewers they did not change. Why ?. It is because this was expected and gave them the results they wanted.
Thanks for the discussion.
Regards,
Shadders.
- Login to post comments
Yeah I'd heard that too.. I've seen Blacks 2m terminated for £200 on ebay which I could sell mine and prob break even.. I can't justify spending anywhere near £500+ on speaker cables at the mo.. I need interconnects as well at some point..
That is quite understandable.
Contrary to the impression that some people have, I don't necessarily want people to buy more expensive cables (ie. at a level that makes sense in the context of their system), only listen to them and make up their own mind.
Report back with what you decide to do.
Ps. Did you ever try different links.........though it would make sense to use the same cable that you finally end up with (TQ , like Chord, do them).
yeah cheers.. I don't know if I'd want a 'warmer' or a more transparent cable and I suppose testing is the only way to find out. I'll have to try and find somewhere that will loan or do 30 day money back of something. I didn't try links as I will be changing my speakers at some point soon and R300's are on my dem list which have internal links.. I should wait until I have my listening room so I can do proper tests.. I have pretty bad boom and other acoustic issues in my akward bedroom..
Electrocompaniet PI 2 | Naim ND5 XS | Chord Epic | ProAc Studio 115