[w0utert]

> At least you could tell the difference between a cheap car and an expensive car in a blind test.

If I show my car to people, most of them don't see a 'modern classic', a 'rare limited edition', a 'real drivers car' or a 'high performance vehicle' with 'upgraded specifications'. They just see a re-sprayed 20-year old clunker without satnav, double airbags or cupholders ;-)

[mikeash]

Sure, but you can still tell the difference. Not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind test.

[davidcuddeback]

> Not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind test.

That's a pretty broad generalization about a large group of people. Do you have any facts to back it up?

[adamzochowski]

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the...

[davidcuddeback]

Let's start by considering the original source for the story. It comes from this forum post: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15412-post28.html

First off, that begs the question: how reliable do you consider a comment on a forum? Are you going to condemn an entire industry based on that? But that doesn't really matter. As I mentioned in my reply to mikeash, that's just not enough evidence. I'm not going to repeat myself here. You can read my other comment to understand why one piece of evidence isn't conclusive.

To address the Engadget article, it took one paragraph of that post out of context to make a narrow point about Monster cables. If you read the rest of the post (and probably the rest of the forum thread), it's clear that the author is not advocating that there's no difference between any stereo equipment. In fact, the thread that he's posting in is about how to choose the right loudspeakers. The paragraph that was taken out of context is just part of the author making a point to the other forum participants.

In another post (in the same thread), the author writes: "Some systems sound boring, some are absolutely alive (such as on large horn speakers). Others are polite, compressed, but accurate (Martin Logans, Quads). Then again, others are explosive and extremely good at creating 'illusion' of reality such as Wilson Wamm, and like speakers in the $50,000 to $125,000.00 bracket. They draw you into an altered state of mind (hypnosis)" [1]. It seems to me that he's saying he can hear the difference between speakers, which is exactly contrary to the conclusion that you're using his words to support. "Audiophile equipment" and "mundane equipment" includes more than just speaker cables.

[1] http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15419-post31.html

[mikeash]

In addition to adamzochowski's hilarious coathanger link, there's some even crazier stuff out there.

A review of audiophile SATA cables (yes, the digital connectors that let your hard drives talk to your computer) quickly became infamous:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/dont-buy-into-the-expensi...

I can't find the original, because the author took it down. Not because he realized he was wrong, but because he was getting too much hate mail. In a followup post (now also unavailable, for some reason), he completely stood by his original conclusion:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/that-sata-cable-saga-the-...

Please read the quotes from the original post, they are absolutely priceless.

Here is a similarly hilarious review of a high-end audiophile USB cable:

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/entreq/usb.html

A choice quote:

"As in, demonstrably more refinement in the upper ranges; more extended harmonics; better separation and superior articulation across the range. The generic cable sounded warmer, fuzzier, less distinct - actually blurry. The biggest differentiator was arguably the additional information above the upper midrange."

(That's from page 2, which is accessed by a not-entirely-obvious "next" link at the bottom.)

No, I didn't make that up. This reviewer is reporting substantially better audio from using a high-end USB cable. You know, a digital connector, where data either arrives or it doesn't. And he's not reporting that the cheap cable loses any data, because that would show up as clicks, pops, static, or worse. No, he's reporting that the cheap cable is "fuzzier", and the expensive one shows "more refinement". From a digital cable.

I have no doubt that there are people out there who actually understand audio equipment and spend good money on stuff that actually makes a difference. However, I doubt most of them will self-describe as "audiophiles", because that word has been largely co-opted by a crowd that operates on the same level as homeopaths and palm readers.

If anybody can reliably distinguish the expensive SATA cable from a regular one in a proper blind test, then I will cheerfully retract all of the above.

[davidcuddeback]

Thanks for the links. They were entertaining. But I'm afraid they don't provide evidence to support the claim that audiophiles can't tell the difference between audiophile equipment and more mundane equipment.

You've shown two anecdotes of audiophile reviewers making claims that a high-end digital cable improves audio quality. We both know that those claims are bunk. But picking a couple of anecdotes doesn't qualify as conclusive evidence. For example, I could find a few scientists that claim that global warming isn't real. But those scientists have a dissenting opinion from the rest of the scientific community on global warming. Hence, the anecdotes don't indicate the overall trend.

Every field has its share quacks. Showing me a couple anecdotes doesn't convince me that an entire field is filled with quacks.

> If anybody can reliably distinguish the expensive SATA cable from a regular one in a proper blind test, then I will cheerfully retract all of the above.

I appreciate that you're approaching this with skepticism. I think that's the right approach. I highly doubt that anyone will ever be able to distinguish between SATA cables in a blind study, so I think our conclusions about digital signal cables will hold.

The lack of skepticism on the part of the reviewers is the real problem we're seeing here. This quote from your second ZDNet link is telling:

I know full well that it is ‘scientifically' not possible for a data cable to exert such influence but I know what we heard and hoped that maybe someone might be able to throw some light on what might be going on.

I wouldn't be surprised the reviewer really did hear a difference, but it was probably in his head. (Even though he admits that he knows its impossible.) Enjoying music is a psychological process, which makes it even more important to do double-blind tests when doing a comparison in order to remove expectation bias.

This problem, I admit, is prevalent among hi-fi reviews. I've read a lot of reviews of different stereo equipment and not once seen a reviewer use a double-blind test. I've heard that a lot of times, reviewers have a financial incentive to post glowing reviews. I don't know how true that is. If it is true, that will probably make it harder to get reviewers to adopt double-blind testing. Adrian Kingsley-Hughes (ZDNet author) should be commended for taking Malcolm Steward (hi-fi blogger) to task over his SATA cable reviews. I'd love to see hi-fi reviewers take a more scientific approach.

However, it does not follow that all audiophiles are incapable of discerning the differences in equipment. First of all, the evidence we've looked at so far only concerns reviewers. We haven't looked at hobbyists. Do hobbyists accept everything that the reviewers write? It's one thing for a reviewer to write a glowing review for a new product (especially when the manufacture pays a lot of money for ads in their magazine). It's quite another for someone to actually spend hard-earned cash on that new product. Lastly, we've only discussed digital cables so far. Which isn't really fair, because that's not a component that can make a difference. What about DACs, amplifiers, and speakers? Do you honestly think that audiophiles can't tell the difference between a good speaker and a budget speaker? Even better, do you have any evidence that that's true?

I honestly don't know the answers to these questions. If I was a betting man, I would bet that a lot of people can tell the difference between cheap and mid-range, but I have no clue about mid-range and high-end. (Say, for example, $30 headphones from Best Buy versus $300 Sennheissers versus $3000 planar magnetic headphones.) So it's also going to depend on how we define "audiophile equipment" versus "mundane equipment." Are we comparing the $3000 headphones to the $300 ones or the $300 pair to the $30 pair? I suspect it will make a difference which ones we decide to compare.

My point in all of this is that more evidence is needed to substantiate a claim as large as, "not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind test." Just like you're demanding a double-blind test for the reviewers to prove a difference in cables, I'm demanding a more representative sample of evidence from you to substantiate your claim that an entire group of people can't distinguish between two classes of equipment.

In case you're wondering why this matters so much to me, it's because of two reasons. (1) Generalizations about groups of people are the root of prejudice. (2) I want to build a better stereo system for myself. If there's a categorical bias within the audiophile community, knowing the details of that bias (e.g., at what price point does the bias start to outweigh the actual differences in equipment) could significantly reduce the solution-space that I have to search within. Telling me that some people believe that there's a difference in digital signal cables doesn't help. I already know that. And I already know that that's bunk.

[mikeash]

My comment is really about audiophile equipment. I say that audiophiles can't tell the difference with much equipment in blind tests, because nobody can, because it makes no difference. There are plenty of other examples out there of crazy high-end digital cables like the two examples I showed. People do buy them. I was intentionally vague with the word "much", only meaning to point out that there's a lot of this stuff out there, not make any quantitative statement about just how much.

As for your goal of building a better stereo system, I'd say your best bet is to avoid any community that self-describes as "audiophile". I imagine you know enough about audio to know what makes sense and what doesn't, so see how people evaluate stuff and go for the people who use sane benchmarks. Avoid anybody who talks about stuff being "warm" or similar, especially in the context of changing digital components, and look for people who provide measurement of sensible numbers.

[davidcuddeback]

You still seem to be hung up on digital. Digital is only a small segment of audio equipment.

> I say that audiophiles can't tell the difference with much equipment in blind tests, because nobody can, because it makes no difference.

That only holds true for digital equipment, but not for analog. If that's your definition of audiophile equipment, then your position makes sense. But that doesn't fit my definition of audiophile equipment, and I think a lot of audiophiles would disagree, too.

> As for your goal of building a better stereo system, I'd say your best bet is to avoid any community that self-describes as "audiophile".

I appreciate you're advice. I mean no offense by this, but I'm going to pass. I'm just not going to avoid an entire group of people because some guy on the internet (who I've never met) has some unsubstantiated claims about that group of people.