Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Interconnects (Read 44993 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Interconnects

Reply #50 –
Quote
Quote
The conductors used in these cables are one of my friend Pete Riggle's recent underground discoveries. The resultant speaker cables and interconnects made from this wire have a musical balance not unlike Cardas Golden Cross. They do lots of space and positively nail the tone. Tone, tone, tone - everywhere there's intensely beautiful tone! They have lots of musically natural detail and decent PRaT too. They do nice tight bass. They actually rank right up there with some of the best interconnects and particularly speaker cables that I've heard for overall musicality.
Are these people taking the piss? Are they honestly suggesting that they can hear the difference between brands of extension lead? Leads probably made from exactly the same cable in exactly the same factory in China? Have they ever considered the possibility that this could be caused by confirmation bias? Are they not aware of the general trend towards parsimony in science?


given the source -- 6moons -- I would answer: No, Yes, Yes, No, and No, scientific trends are irrelevant to them.

Welcome to the world of 'high end' audio reviewing.

Quote from: botface on
"There are also many - though, less known - examples where "believing" in what is called "science" caused widespread myths."

Yes. Remember the one about nuclear power providing free energy: forever. Or how about BSE not being transferable to humans. Anyone convinced that GM crops will feed the world?



Did actual scientists make those claims without qualification, in scientific literature? Or are you quoting science as cartooned in the media?

Quote
And don't underestimate "magic". Ask any "primitive" tribe if their medicine man can cure the sick/bring rain/etc.



Right, and if you know 'The Secret' you can WISH your way to wealth!

Interconnects

Reply #51 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: botface on

"There are also many - though, less known - examples where "believing" in what is called "science" caused widespread myths."

Yes. Remember the one about nuclear power providing free energy: forever. Or how about BSE not being transferable to humans. Anyone convinced that GM crops will feed the world?



Did actual scientists make those claims without qualification, in scientific literature? Or are you quoting science as cartooned in the media?

Since scientists started to claim, that they alone can "explain the world", that also burdens them with the responsibility of how their experiments are transmitted, explained, teached and interpreted, plus the whole moral issue of new tech. They claim to be able to do anything, now deal with the consequences. In other words: scientists are fully responsible for choosing their cooperation partners, like employers, etc. - they cannot honestly get away from that burden, since they were the ones who practically fired those, who in the past were responsible for that (i.e. philosophers).

Quote
Quote

And don't underestimate "magic". Ask any "primitive" tribe if their medicine man can cure the sick/bring rain/etc.



Right, and if you know 'The Secret' you can WISH your way to wealth! :rolleyes:

You are aware, that since quite a while, the amount of evidence for "metaprogramming"-techniques has become so big, that it is now in widespread use by mental science, right? Or did you prefer to ignore that all that information for the sake of believing in the materialistic worldview of "natural science"?
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #52 –
The value of science is that it's a self correcting procedure, rather than any of the individual results of science. Most of what we know as "scientific fact" is probably wrong - some of it subtly, and some of it badly. What it is, however, is less wrong than most of the alternatives.

Consider Newton's mechanics. As a model of how moderately heavy things behave when travelling at moderate speeds, it's great. It is, however, slightly wrong. Now consider mechanics as understood by the ancient Greeks. That mechanics is also wrong. So do they have equal value? No. One is *more* wrong than the other. Wrong isn't a binary state - some theories are more wrong than other theories. Now consider interconnects. You (nobody in particular) say that magical faeries carry the sounds along the cable, an become grumpy if the cable isn't silver and make the bits sound worse, and I say that all interconnects will sound identical. I am wrong, but you are *more* wrong.

As soon as some scientific (or technical) fact is not 100% right, people seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A good scientist (either trained, or an amateur) comes up with a new theory which fits the observed facts better. Then they design experiments to see whether their theory fits observations under a range of conditions. After a while, that theory will become scientific fact, until somebody finds a piece of evidence which refutes it, and the process starts afresh. All scientific and technical books should come with a warning sticker (like cigarettes) which says "the theories contained in this book are likely to be incorrect, but are they are the best theories that we have to explain the available evidence".

Science isn't a religion. The facts presented are not dogma. Everybody should be encouraged to test these facts with experiments, where possible. Don't believe that you can't hear the difference between two brands of power supply capacitor? Great! Now design an experiment to show that you can. Don't believe that FLAC is lossless? Great! Now design an experiment to find a counter example. Believe that you can hear the difference between two brands of garden extension lead? Great! Apply a powerful existing technique (like an ABX perceptual test, or a network analyzer) to show that you can.

I know I am preaching to the choir somewhat (and horribly, horribly offtopic), but this "I don't believe in science" idea really makes me angry. Science isn't asking for you to believe. It's not a magic faerie that lives of belief. Science is asking you to form your own beliefs by carefully observing the world around you, or by trusting the opinions of others who have carefully observed the world around them and reported their observations.

So, somebody once said that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter. They were wrong. However, they were more right than the guy who said that splitting the atom at all would be impossible. Who, in turn, was more right than the guy who said that there was no such thing as atoms. Incorrect theories do not make science wrong - quite the contrary - they drive science forward. They make use look more carefully at the world. They give us better and newer theories which will be less wrong.

Wouldn't you rather have it that way, than just to assume that the world was made of cheese and be too scared to look closely in case you shattered that illusion?

Interconnects

Reply #53 –
Quote from: Lyx on
Quote from: krabapple on


Quote from: botface on

"There are also many - though, less known - examples where "believing" in what is called "science" caused widespread myths."

Yes. Remember the one about nuclear power providing free energy: forever. Or how about BSE not being transferable to humans. Anyone convinced that GM crops will feed the world?



Did actual scientists make those claims without qualification, in scientific literature? Or are you quoting science as cartooned in the media?


Since scientists started to claim, that they alone can "explain the world", that also burdens them with the responsibility of how their experiments are transmitted, explained, teached and interpreted, plus the whole moral issue of new tech. They claim to be able to do anything, now deal with the consequences.


Not only does this not answer the question I posed, it's also absurd. Scientists claim to be able to do anything? Since when?  Are you getting your ideas about science from 1920's pulp magazines?


Quote
In other words: scientists are fully responsible for choosing their cooperation partners, like employers, etc. - they cannot honestly get away from that burden, since they were the ones who practically fired those, who in the past were responsible for that (i.e. philosophers).



Again, this is just bizarre.  No one was 'practically fired' -- what happened was that what used to be called 'natural philosophy' developed into science. 


Quote
You are aware, that since quite a while, the amount of evidence for "metaprogramming"-techniques has become so big, that it is now in widespread use by mental science, right? Or did you prefer to ignore that all that information for the sake of believing in the materialistic worldview of "natural science"?


Er....'metaprogramming' will only change your behavior -- it won't cause the universe to respond to your desires, which is what the new age nonsense of 'The Secret' claims that the right sort of attitude can achieve.  And btw, what is 'mental science'?

Really, this is kind of embarrassing...someone on hydrogenaudio ranting about someone else's 'materialistic worldview'? I hope you get better.

Interconnects

Reply #54 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Really, this is kind of embarrassing...someone on hydrogenaudio ranting about someone else's 'materialistic worldview'? I hope you get better.

What i find more embarassing is to be totally focussed on what is claimed by someone or a group of people, without actually checking if those claims are true. Anyways, this is getting too off-topic, so i'm not gonna get further into this.

P.S.: I distance myself from the implied claim by some other poster than "magic" can "bring rain" and stuff. This is according to currently available knowledge is bullshit. I do however fully agree, that magic (which is just another term for "metaprogramming plus a lot of unnecessary mysticism") can in some circumstances cure bodily damages and nearly always aid in an improvement. If that weren't the case, you wouldn't need those nice doublebliind-tests in medicine, right? :-)
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #55 –
Quote from: Lyx on
Quote from: krabapple on

Really, this is kind of embarrassing...someone on hydrogenaudio ranting about someone else's 'materialistic worldview'? I hope you get better.

What i find more embarassing is to be totally focussed on what is claimed by someone or a group of people, without actually checking if those claims are true. Anyways, this is getting too off-topic, so i'm not gonna get further into this.


Too bad., I'd like you to present evidence that the things you claim scientists are saying and believing, have actually been said and believed by scientists, thanks.  We can start with 'science can do anything'. As a 
scientist myself, I'm perplexed that I wasn't clued into this incredible secret in grad school or as a postdoc.

Quote
P.S.: I distance myself from the implied claim by some other poster than "magic" can "bring rain" and stuff. This is according to currently available knowledge is bullshit. I do however fully agree, that magic (which is just another term for "metaprogramming plus a lot of unnecessary mysticism") can in some circumstances cure bodily damages and nearly always aid in an improvement. If that weren't the case, you wouldn't need those nice doublebliind-tests in medicine, right? :-)


So, you misunderstand placebo effects and DBT too.  I'm not encouraged.  I'm also not encouraged by the repeated recourse to 'metaprogramming', which I confess is not a concept I ever recall seeing in the neuroscience literature (or did you mean something else by 'mental science')?

Interconnects

Reply #56 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Too bad., I'd like you to present evidence that the things you claim scientists are saying and believing, have actually been said and believed by scientists, thanks.

I never claimed that they themselves say that. I am claiming that they are lying in that regard (that their intentions are different to what they claim their intentions are). Scientists "believe" that they do not "believe" - else their "belief" wouldn't work.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #57 –
Many audio(head)philes claim changing interconnects make the biggest difference.. I wonder if there are any subjective listening tests performed on interconnects???

I know the powercable test has been done in HA once- And the result was very promising.

Interconnects

Reply #58 –
Quote from: udauda on
Many audio(head)philes claim changing interconnects make the biggest difference.. I wonder if there are any subjective listening tests performed on interconnects???
I would love to do tests like this, and could probably get access to some high end interconnects for the test. The problem, however, is that the test subjects really need to be "true believers" for the null ABX result to be interesting at all.

Interconnects

Reply #59 –
audio jewellery.

Interconnects

Reply #60 –
What I was trying to say - albeit a bit mischievously - a few posts ago was that there's rubbish being bandied about on both sides of the argument. On the one hand we have those taken in by snake oil. On the other we have people claiming out of hand that a piece of wire is a piece of wire and can't possibly affect the sound of a system - even though they haven't bothered to listen themselves.

As always the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, different interconnects and speaker cables can sound different. Not every one sounds different to every other one but neither do they all sound the same. The difficulty of course is in deciding when different = better.

In principle I would be more than happy to take part in double blind tests to resolve this one. However, I strongly suspect that if I didn't reach the "right" conclusion all sorts of reasons would be found as to why the test was invalid.

The best approach, I believe, is what has been suggested by several others. Try making some yourself and have a listen. Soldering isn't a difficult skill to acquire. If you're worried about self-deception creeping in get a friend/wife/whoever to change the cables without you looking. There are plenty of "recipes" for DIY cables on the net and many of them don't involve much outlay

Interconnects

Reply #61 –
Quote from: botface on
On the one hand we have those taken in by snake oil. On the other we have people claiming out of hand that a piece of wire is a piece of wire and can't possibly affect the sound of a system - even though they haven't bothered to listen themselves.

As always the truth is somewhere in the middle.



Oh, great. Really, the truth is somewhere in the middle, then? What's the evidence. Any competent cable for a given application had better sound just like any other competent cable for a given application.

Of course wire can affect a system, if you don't have any, it doesn't work. If you have competent wiring, it works.  If you have some strange wire that isn't quite competent, you may get some EQ or level shifts, or something like that.

My message? If anything DOES sound different than a minimum-grade cable that is competent for the application, it's broken.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Interconnects

Reply #62 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
Quote from: botface on
On the one hand we have those taken in by snake oil. On the other we have people claiming out of hand that a piece of wire is a piece of wire and can't possibly affect the sound of a system - even though they haven't bothered to listen themselves.

As always the truth is somewhere in the middle.



Oh, great. Really, the truth is somewhere in the middle, then? What's the evidence. Any competent cable for a given application had better sound just like any other competent cable for a given application.

Of course wire can affect a system, if you don't have any, it doesn't work. If you have competent wiring, it works.  If you have some strange wire that isn't quite competent, you may get some EQ or level shifts, or something like that.

My message? If anything DOES sound different than a minimum-grade cable that is competent for the application, it's broken.


Your evidence?

Interconnects

Reply #63 –
Quote from: botface on
Your evidence?
How about the fact that, for half a century or more, every blind test has backed this up?

With cables, known measurable differences that should have an effect on the sound, often do - present this difference to people in a blind test, and some can pass the test.

With cables, known measurable differences that should not have an effect on the sound, and immeasurable/imagined differences that cannot have an effect on the sound, never do - present such a "difference" to people in a blind listening test, and they fail to pass the test any more than they would if they were answering at random.


You can't prove 100% that two things sound the same, but you can easily prove that they sound different (if they do). Pick two "competent" cables, prove they sound different in a statistically significant double blind test, and you'll go down in history as the first person to do so!

Cheers,
David.

Interconnects

Reply #64 –
Quote from: botface on
What I was trying to say - albeit a bit mischievously - a few posts ago was that there's rubbish being bandied about on both sides of the argument. On the one hand we have those taken in by snake oil. On the other we have people claiming out of hand that a piece of wire is a piece of wire and can't possibly affect the sound of a system - even though they haven't bothered to listen themselves.


No, no one has said that cables can't possibly affect the sound of a system.

THese strawman arguments are as tiresome as they are pervasive. And shame on those who keep them in circulation.


Quote
As always the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, different interconnects and speaker cables can sound different. Not every one sounds different to every other one but neither do they all sound the same. The difficulty of course is in deciding when different = better.


The truth is that for pathological situations -- which can well occur if one dabbles in the peculiar design philosophies if 'high end' amps and cables -- cabling could make a difference.  But for the the vast majority of situations -- and one might argue, for all situations where the component design is competent --
cabling won't make a sonic difference if you use good RCL characeristics.



Quote
In principle I would be more than happy to take part in double blind tests to resolve this one. However, I strongly suspect that if I didn't reach the "right" conclusion all sorts of reasons would be found as to why the test was invalid.


Blind cable tests have been done, more than once.  GUess what the outcome was.

Quote
The best approach, I believe, is what has been suggested by several others. Try making some yourself and have a listen. Soldering isn't a difficult skill to acquire. If you're worried about self-deception creeping in get a friend/wife/whoever to change the cables without you looking. There are plenty of "recipes" for DIY cables on the net and many of them don't involve much outlay

Interconnects

Reply #65 –
I'm a sort-of scientist (MD) with special certification in Physics.  If someone can discount the two articles at the bottom of this post, I would love to hear the argument.  Honestly, if I believed there was a possibillity that my Klipsch Image IEMs would sound better if my Cowon iAudio7 were connected to my RSA Hornet with a $200 interconnect I would be the first in line to spend the money.  My purest joy in life is music.

I'm not being rhetorical.  I have little experience in this realm and am new to DAPs/IEMs/hedphone amps.  The scientist in me simply balks at the idea of superlative interconnects.  Change my mind.

http://sound.westhost.com/cables.htm
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

Interconnects

Reply #66 –
Quote from: MWA on
I'm a sort-of scientist (MD) with special certification in Physics.  If someone can discount the two articles at the bottom of this post, I would love to hear the argument.  Honestly, if I believed there was a possibillity that my Klipsch Image IEMs would sound better if my Cowon iAudio7 were connected to my RSA Hornet with a $200 interconnect I would be the first in line to spend the money.  My purest joy in life is music.

I'm not being rhetorical.  I have little experience in this realm and am new to DAPs/IEMs/hedphone amps.  The scientist in me simply balks at the idea of superlative interconnects.  Change my mind.

http://sound.westhost.com/cables.htm
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

Well, the first is far too wordy for me to waste my time on, but the second appears to be right-on, and I think that all regular posters here at HA will agree with me on that.

Interconnects

Reply #67 –
Quote from: MWA on
I'm a sort-of scientist (MD) with special certification in Physics.  If someone can discount the two articles at the bottom of this post, I would love to hear the argument.

> I'm a sort-of scientist (MD) with special certification in Physics. If someone
> can discount the two articles at the bottom of this post, I would love to hear
> the argument.

OK, I'll have a go while my music library is being restored from backup (don't ask).

As pdq says, the first is a bit wordy and wanders. The second is a bit wonky in some of the details but is essentially correct as far it goes. When a person hears sound this involves both the sound impinging on the ears and what is going on in the brain between the ears. Although the two articles you cite are largely correct they concentrate on the former rather than the whole experience.

Indeed exotic audiophile cables do not change the sound impinging on the ears sufficiently to be audible using normal equipment. But they can change what is going on between the ears so that an audiophile receiving the normal cues (i.e. not blinded) perceives a better sound with high-performance, extensively researched, impressive looking, expensive audiophile cables compared to obviously inadequate cheap ordinary wire.

A couple of examples to back this up. An oft-cited example on the internet of how other factors apart from the sound impinging the ears is involved in perceiving sound is the the McGurk effect:

http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html

There have been a substantial number of challenges over the 30 year life of the audiophile sector to demonstrate under blind conditions the ability to hear difference in the sound of amplifiers, cables, digital and the like. The many audiophiles that take the tests are baffled by their failure when they know they can hear difference but few have the grace to honestly report what happened in the test (it requires a pretty bigoted outlook to be an audiophile in the first place). One of the few, performing a preliminary test before going off to collect Randi's million dollars, was Mike Lavigne:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread....00#post12255000

note that during the failed the test he was hearing clear differences.

So can you believe in cables in the same way as some of your patients believe in homeopathy?

Interconnects

Reply #68 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: seditious3 on
Hales Transcendence 5's...can't be too much better off than that!
Oh come on - speakers that cost more than cars - that's the thing!

Only half joking - given the "mark up" on audio goods, the individual drivers can still be measurably "better" above that price point. A $6k speaker has drivers that cost a few hundred $ in total to manufacture, at the very most.

Cheers,
David.


Agreed, which is why I rarely buy hifi new.  I paid $1800 for the speakers.  I love their sound (or coloration, distortion, sonic signature, whatever).

Interconnects

Reply #69 –
Quote from: botface on
Quote from: Woodinville on
My message? If anything DOES sound different than a minimum-grade cable that is competent for the application, it's broken.


Your evidence?


Your nihilism is noted.

Wire's job is to transmit a signal without changing it.

Ergo, if a wire changes the signal, it's broken.

It is trivially shown that minimum-grade competent cable absolutely, irrevocably carries a signal with all noise sources below the known, established thresholds of human hearing.

Therefore, one can make the assertion from hard measurement, established science, and simple, incontrovertable logic. There is no better evidence available in this universe.

Now, different cables may provoke different responses in equipment. Fix the equipment. Different cables may create rolloff or emphasis, in which case if you like that particular malfunction of the cable, build yourself a circuit to do the same thing under concious, deliberate control. Et cetera.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Interconnects

Reply #70 –
> Wire's job is to transmit a signal without changing it.

Not audiophile wire. As a luxury product its primary job is to fulfill the same function as other luxury products.

> Ergo, if a wire changes the signal, it's broken.

Not necessarily for audiophile wire. But granted for wire for more technical purposes.

> It is trivially shown that minimum-grade competent cable absolutely,
> irrevocably carries a signal with all noise sources below the known,
> established thresholds of human hearing.

Indeed but it is also trivially shown that an audiophile's perception of sound is influenced by their knowledge of the equipment. Do you dispute that an audiophile perceives the same sound from a fancy audiophile cable as a cheap ordinary cable?

> Therefore, one can make the assertion from hard measurement, established
> science, and simple, incontrovertable logic. There is no better evidence
> available in this universe.

Indeed but you are only applying this to part of the problem. Namely, the sound that impinges on the ears and ignoring what goes on between the ears. Your established science has learnt a fair bit about the latter. Just because you and I cannot hear the difference between audiophile wire and ordinary wire does not mean that audiophiles cannot regardless of whether their stated reasons are nonsense or not.

Interconnects

Reply #71 –
Reducing the issue to the core, audiophiles expose two inefficient/unreasonable behaviours:

1) Investing an insanely high amount of resources (financial) to create an effect, which they - with the right mindset - as well create themselves - be it with pure metaprogramming or/and with much cheaper external aids (i.e. room decoration - any external stuff which changes the atmosphere of the "listening experience"... aesthetics DO matter here!). Its like investing 50.000 $ to get something, which you can as well get for like 500 $.

2) Dishonesty: "The cable performs different, not my mind". This is a direct consequence of "1)" - since they became dependent on creating the desired effect via placebo, it can only work by believing in the lie - they lose the option of being honest to themselves.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

Interconnects

Reply #72 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Indeed but you are only applying this to part of the problem. Namely, the sound that impinges on the ears and ignoring what goes on between the ears. Your established science has learnt a fair bit about the latter. Just because you and I cannot hear the difference between audiophile wire and ordinary wire does not mean that audiophiles cannot regardless of whether their stated reasons are nonsense or not.



My goodness. Yes, fancy red-and-gold wires are a nice placebo.

The changes happen cognatively.  Placebos work. Is that your point? What do you define as "hear", in this case? Are you playing semantics, or are you arguing for golden-eardom. If you are arguing for golden-eardom, physics has some very bad news for you, I fear.

There is no change to what reaches the ears, unless one or the other wire is broken. It really is that simple. And, no, this has nothing to do with hearing the differences.  Machines can measure down to below the noise level of the atmosphere at the eardrum, and they do measure that accurately.

And, as far as placebos, audiophiles are no different than the rest of us.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Interconnects

Reply #73 –
> The changes happen cognatively. Placebos work. Is that your point?

It depends what you are lumping under the umbrella placebo since it is not a word that would usually be used to describe the brains activity when processing the information received at the ears along with other information the brain possesses at the time.

> Are you playing semantics, or are you arguing for golden-eardom. If you are
> arguing for golden-eardom, physics has some very bad news for you, I fear.

I was trying to point out that your statements were insufficient and to a degree misleading because you were not considering audiophile wire in the context of audiophiles using them to listen to music reproduced on their audiophile stereos. Whether this is an argument for golden-eardom depends on what one understands golden-eardom to mean. Yes if it means some audiophiles can perceive "better" sound with audiophile wire compared to non-audiophile wire under normal listening conditions. But no for listening under abnormal blind conditions.

> And, as far as placebos, audiophiles are no different than the rest of us.

Not necessarily when it comes to audiophile matters. The brain draws on a range factors such as what is being seen and what has happened in the past in order to make sense of the sound impinging on the ears. If we consider my previous two examples, the McGurk effect relies on a learned linking of a lip movement and a sound. It does not work for those with languages that do not commonly use the sound. For Mike Lavigne, whatever was going on in his head was leading him to perceive differences between wires during a blind test. Are you claiming that you would also be perceiving the same differences under these conditions because I know I would not not.

The effectiveness of particular placebos depends on the person and their experiences and beliefs. People with very different experiences and beliefs in a particular area are not going to react in the same way to placebos in this area. Your statement is only correct if interpreted to mean that nobody is immune from placebos in general.

Interconnects

Reply #74 –
There was an interesting article which relates to the cable thing in The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20.../humanbehaviour.

It basically says that when a person believes something has a higher monetary value than something else, the thing with the higher value will bring more pleasure.  They use the example of a wine test where subjects were given a "$10" per bottle wine and then a "$90" bottle.  The wines were the exact same.  However, the people prefered the $90 wine.  The interesting thing in the article is this bit: "brain scans showed increased activity in the medial orbitofrontal cortex and its surrounding area, the rostral anterior cingulate cortex, in the frontal lobes [when drinking the $90 wine]. I'm pretty sceptical about the merits of this kind of brain imaging research, but I will mention that the orbitofrontal cortex has previously been activated in studies looking at ratings of pleasantness of music and smells."

So these cable people are enjoying their music more, maybe the cables were worth the price after all.  Which reminds me of this snakeoil: http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicate...e/dp/B000I1X6PM.  Some of the reviews are pretty funny.