How I would measure cables

cleeds,

I have never made such a demand.  And in his OP, neither did Erik, so that's a strawman.

In his OP Erik simply gave the reasons for his own skepticism about some claims made for high end cables, and he encouraged  THOSE WHO MAKE CABLES CLAIMING THEY DO SOMETHING (cool)  to engage in the type of research that yields results that others can test.(Clearly...he's talking technical evidence, not just subjective vetting).

This is an entirely sensible suggestion (and not a "demand").   His suggestion for skepticism and common sense critical thinking in the face of cable claims is also entirely sensible and not some "demand."

erik,

Thank you for the rational, reasonable post

And, yes, as you rightly identify:  cleeds is as usual trying to shift the burden of proof.

Of course, the skepticism many have about cables comes from actual knowledge of the theories and practical applications of electrical theory.  That's why so many EE's disparage audiophile claims.   They aren't doing it from their armchair: they often discuss in detail electrical theory and practice, to show why audiophile cables come with suspicious claims.

Consumers often don't have the requisite technical knowledge to vet the seductive technical boasts of cable manufacturers, so the best we can do is look to consensus of experts, and notice who is making the arguments based on bad logic or inherently suspicious grounds.As you point out: it's a suspicious feature of high end cable manufacturers that they invoke all sorts of physical, scientific phenomena in their claims, yet almost never give measurable, scientific data supporting that they have solved the purported problem.  It goes straight to marketing instead.

But...again as you rightly point out...when a high end cable manufacturer makes claims about their cable, technical or otherwise, especially extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is NOT on the consumer's shoulders to disprove the claims; it's on the manufacturer to support the claim.

Shifting the burden of proof has always been the modus operandi of people defending bogus claims.

thyname,

Another pointless discussion from the people who yell "PROVE IT TO ME" all over the Internets, with no desire whatsoever to try for themselves.

You can make it pointless by attacking strawmen. Or, we could have a possibly interesting conversation. Your choice.

No one is pounding tables shouting "PROVE IT." Strictly speaking, nothing is absolutely proved; we just have more and better evidence supporting one hypothesis or another.

Simply pointing out the inconsistencies and problems in certain claims is hardly a dogmatic stance; it’s just good old critical thinking of the type you’d use to buy a car (hopefully!).

Of course said people would dismiss anybody sharing their experience of ownership and usage as placebo, psychoacoustics, and such,

Nope. You could really be hearing differences in your cables. But, since it’s also very easy to be in error from our subjective impressions, it’s fair to ask "how did you reliably determine the difference was objectively audible, vs your subjective impression."

This is asked routinely in virtually all areas in which science studies human experience, including in scientific understanding of audio. But for some reason, audiophiles think they are immune. And one is cast as some Terrible Dogmatist simply by pointing out the facts that none of us are immune to such errors. Is it really THAT hard to accept?

And yet, if you searched a bit, you will find plenty of info from cable manufacturers showing the rationale behind their product.

That’s fine...but every manufacturer of anything you can buy - from electronics, to beauty products, to purveyors of alternative medicine - will give you their "rationale" behind their products. Does that mean you just accept the rationale? Or should we apply some critical thinking to the claims? You don’t necessarily have to be an expert yourself to notice when it doesn’t make sense to simply jump on some manufacturer’s rationale as The Truth.

For instance, from your link:
Roger Skoff - who sold and manufactured expensive audiophile cables keep in mind! - wrote:

The one thing, though, that seems to be most consistently (and insistently) under attack is cables.

Very true. Now it makes sense to ask: WHY is that?


It’s because many people with relevant knowledge and credentials dispute the claims made for audiophile cables.
That’s significant. In medicine, you don’t see professionals "attacking" the germ theory of disease. But, tellingly, you certainly see a lot of them "attacking" things like anti-vaccine claims. It should tell you something: if the claims are controversial among people who know about a field...it is wise not to simply jump in and presume someone’s disputed claim is sound.

Roger Skoff continued:

Among the doubters have been the AES (Audio Engineering Society), EEs (Electrical Engineers), and even a goodly number of High End equipment designers and manufacturers (not to be named here to preserve our friendship), all of which or whom believe (as they were educated to do) that the only factors determining cable performance are resistance (R), capacitance (C), inductance (L), and characteristic impedance (Z0), and that any audible difference in cables can only be the result of one of those or of physical damage, poor connection, or poor construction.

So...look who the "doubters" are. The AES is a collection of trained audio professionals dating to 1948 and currently comprising 12,000 members around the world. Work published in AES journals are peer-reviewed. You don’t get to just make up anything that sounds plausible TO YOU and it gets a pass: it will be critically dissected by other professionals with knowledge and experience in what you are talking about.

In contrast, who is Roger Skoff?

A bio states:

Roger Skoff is an economist and entrepreneur,

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/reviewers/skoff.htm

So, he’s not accredited in electronics. Basically, he’s lived an audiophile life and turned it into a writing profession and at one point a business selling expensive cables.

Now, one doesn’t have to be an accredited EE oneself to simply apply critical thinking here. If on one side we have claims by an "entrepreneur" without training in electronics, and on the other hand we have the largest, most prestigious and rigorous engineering society in the world whose members would generally be skeptical about his claims....which one does it make sense to give more credence?
The answer is obvious.

But the audiophile who has a "personal experience" of a high end cable sounding "so much better" will go with that experience - never mind any possible error - and side with whatever mavericks or cable sellers can produce as explanations to sell their cables.

And, so it goes....