I upgraded my standard mains cables to twin and earth cable many years ago

There was an improvement worth having.

*not* recommended and almost certainly *not* safe

I accept the point Martin.  But relating to earlier comments - that creates a massive expectation.  This is "cognitive dissonance".  Or for accountants "sunk costs".  The more you have already invested in a solution, the more deeply committed you are to finding that your earlier investment was valid.  It is really tough executing a "stop loss" (to really mix my metaphors) and conclude the previous investment was worthless.

That is not to state that your previous investment was worthless.  Just to state that your conviction that it was not will have a substantial influence on expectation bias.

I can see what you're getting at but I need to tell you the order of events in my case.

I started with the early Russ Andrews power cables after ascertaining that they were a good thing. I then moved up to exceedingly expensive higher end Powerkords, Kimber Select interconnects and speaker cables (these alone reached a price of £5.5k). Then I tried various alternatives: MCRU power cables, Yannis interconnects and TQ speaker cables. In every case, I sold the old cables, bought the new cheaper ones and pocketed the profit. In every case, I heard an improvement in the less expensive item and moved over to using it.  There are many other times when I did not prefer the cheaper item.

Where is the expectation bias in three different 'downgrade' events?  Or can you accept that I simply used my ears and moved to the best sounding items?

Hi Ron

Arthur is mentioned in my signature as a forum requirement - lest a suggestion of trade association be implied (there is none - he is just a mate, who I used to work with in the business)
Arthur has used all manner of speaker wires in his day but would be delighted to sell you his Funk Firm Wraith speaker cables at £1440 a pair using paladium conductors  (Actually I'm not sure if that is £1440 a terminated pair, or £1440 a metre (per pair)).  He won't get me to buy a pair.  We are mates, but don't agree on everything.  However, I would note that I have custom made talk 3 speaker cables at present in the system, and some chord flat cables coiled up in a box for possible future use (aesthetic reasons prevent their use in the present domestic environment - that and the talk 3's being damned good).
If you read my earlier posts you will see I did try some audiophile mains cables and they made sod-all difference  (they came with some free "audiophile fuses" which also made sod-all difference).  Although, if you trawl the AOS archive - you'll note that to start with I thought I did hear a difference, until I realised it was the usual "listening" phenomena - when just by virtue of paying attention you notice differences.

I could carry on with an enquiring mind waiting for the day I find the one that works, but given Martin T is selling one cable for over £600 that could be expensive
I would also note I have no problem with hearing differences that are real ones, like using the battery power pack on the Raspberry Pi.  To put this in context, I would have no issue with demonstrating I can hear that difference blind, and with a quick warm up would expect to score 10/10 (although I'd accept better than random chance from someone trying to convince me there was anything real in mains cables).  By real - I mean capable of an equivalent demonstration - one not dependent on knowledge or sight - but pure hearing.  With one mains cable or fuse - the one that makes the biggest difference.  But that comment will be ignored, and a queue will form of people seeking to assure me earnestly that they hear a difference, as though that is the same thing.  As they did with green felt pens 20 years ago.


The real issue is that nobody has ever demonstrated that the differences can be heard.  This is now the 3rd time in a week I have made this point on this forum. Still nobody has challenged that.  There are any number of people asserting that they know it works for them, but as ChrisB pointed out there are people who believe handling snakes brings them closer to God.  We really don't want to get into faith on this thread.  But people asserting they can hear things doesn't mean that experience was due to changes in the sounds that were produced.  It just seems real odd this debate has clearly been rumbling for much longer than I've had a heads-up on it, and nobody has been able to prove the difference is audible - just a mass of folk who are prepared to attest that it works for them.  Really bizarre. 

And coming back to Arthur - in common with others I know in this industry who are highly respected, such as Owen and Andrew Jones, and Andrew Watson - none of them are mains cable followers -and all just look at me with pity when I try to engage them on the subject.  I think I will follow their example and recognise my sanity is not helped engaging in debates of this sort.  Like Jez - I'll leave you all to have fun.

BTW when I was auditioning the Flamenca against a Rega RP6 for Arthur, not only did he make me do it blind, but the sod conned me on the first listen, telling me he had changed decks, when in fact he played the RP6 twice.  At PT we learned how easy it was for folk to be influenced about what they could hear.  In this case, as with the battery on the Pi - it was piss easy to tell the differences, so a stunt like Arthur pulled only temporarily perplexed me.

I am more than willing if you ever over in NW London to have a fun listening session to see if we can hear or not hear the difference in the cables. Using a standard cable and a ebay mains cable I bought a few years back for about £140 that is no longer made. Both of us report our honest findings even if we disagree. 

I would agree with that I am certainly not suggesting someone who does not hear a difference has a closed mind, I do however think cable debates are circular in nature and no real conclusions one way or the other
As you say Gordon its about enjoying the music and long may that continue for all

No, you didn't but somebody did...

The problem with closed, blocked and unbending minds is that they do not have the curiosity or the will to try something they doubt. They, in there own belief and way of doing things, have pre-ordained that something will not work so why bother to try, its too much of an effort and maybe, just maybe they may find that it does work and have to make an alteration in thinking... HOW THE HELL TO YOU KNOW IF SOMETHING WORKS OR DOES NOT WORK IF YOU DON'T TRY IT FIRST!

I find this sort of stuff quite insulting.

Yup.  At your own risk for sure.

Craig

I have no intention to patronise, but I understand the comment.  You are certainly right that expectation bias can work both ways.  And I could fake "no difference" on a blind test.  However, a bit like the visual fields test I have just taken with my "blind" right eye (to meet NHS criteria for surgery on the eyelid which my corneal surgeons want me to have).  To get the surgery, my visual field needs to be impaired - but not non-existant.  Fortunately I can see lights in the bottom right hand section of the vision field and passed the test.

Back to my expectation bias - you would fix it by adding an obviously audible variant into the test.  So A B C - Where A and B are being compared but C is very obviously audible, and if I score "no change" for everything, I have demonstrated the limitations of my hearing!  Actually its not really necessary, because if you or Martin, or anyone else (just one auditioner, anywhere on the planet) can demonstrate in a proper blind test that they can hear, then the case is proven, and the expectation bias of the foo-basher is irrelevant.

But you are right - the bias is there both (all ?) ways.  And like you and Martin, I often decide something has made a difference just by listening and enjoying.  But, when it is contentious, when its not sure (usually these days that's when it involves parting with serious cash), I try to take steps to prove it to myself by removing the "other factors" including expectation bias.

Our equipment ALWAYS sounds different.  We set the volume slightly differently (the volume on different recordings is set at different levels).  We sit slightly differently -  a bit to the right, a bit to the left.  We have different amounts of ear wax from one audition to the next.  There is different ambient noise (last night there was a howling gale blowing - I might not have been conscious of it in the living room, but you can bet, compared to the dead silence we get here sometimes it changed the listening conditions).  We are distracted by our daughter ending her relationship with her lovely boyfriend, just as she was about to move into a new house with him, and our mind is not on the music.  We are exhausted, have had more wine than last night, have a distracting nag from an old sprained ankle...

So the music ALWAYS sounds different.  I always notice "changes" if I listen for them.  When I was evaluating at PT - the key was to separate those changes in what I heard between the ones due to equipment changes we had made, and those due to all the other factors.

In Martins case - I wasn't meaning to say "You're batty and the changes you hear MUST be expectation bias".  More, I was trying to point out to him, how every post he makes, every assertion of the amount of emotional commitment he has invested in "the knowledge" that mains cables are important, further confirms the magnitude of the expectation bias he has, and the challenges in overcoming it.  If you have been so sure you are right for so long, and have so much credibility at stake (internal credibility - cognitive dissonance), then if you are listening for differences and hear them, you will be sure they are due to the equipment you have changed, and none of the other factors I listed.

After all - if the differences are substantial - however much you may not personally choose to prove to yourself that they are real - in the way we felt a need to at the factory - they should be capable of such proof.

But the "magnitude" of the difference flickers like a will-o-the wisp in these threads between "fundamental" and "exceptionally subtle".  Curiously there never seems to be a significant cumulative effect.  Martin has listed the many serial upgrades he has made from the original starting point of my B&Q leads - every change an improvement - through over-priced "good, but not good enough" to the final (current?) state of the art solution.  Surely the difference between the current version and a B&Q must be of an order of magnitude that it can be dem'd blind in the way the Pi battery can.

As you say - these discussions tend to be circular.  And I have learned to avoid them.  I normally just skip over these threads and maintain my karma enjoying only "safe" threads where I feel less need for hot towels round my head.  I can't imagine why I looked at this one - I was probably in that hospital waiting room and bored to desperation