"No two wires will ever measure exactly the same." Quote from video.

Also nice video

@Vitaliy_Kiselev Of course I watched the whole video. I just think it is funny that he says no two wires test the same.
As far as the science goes, it isn't really complete science. If perception is modulated by quantum entanglement, for example, they aren't testing for that. If double blind perception occurs on a subconscious level, they aren't testing for that. And so on. They are self testing. They create the experiment, then test withing the experiment using their own methodology. It's a reasonable approach, but it is circular reasoning to say that the test proves everything inside the test as well as outside the test.
However, there's a basic hands-on, practical flaw in the methodology, which is cumulative experience. So, for example, a lot of audio engineers prefer Gotham or Canare cable over some other brands I won't mention. But here's the thing--audio engineers with decades of experience will use Gotham cable, but they won't spring for something (in most cases) that costs $100 a foot. The decades of experience are collectively informing them that prefer a better quality wire up to a point and also that among brands they have a preference.
For these reasons, I recommend using a quality wire (Gotham) but not a boutique wire. And since this then creates three tiers instead of two, and since the price is really not a factor, since one eliminates the huge profit margins of boutique wire, there's no reason whatsoever not to follow this simple plan.
Now, you might argue that all these audio engineers have it wrong, and that I and many others are deluded when we prefer Canare or Gotham.
In which case I could point you to, for example, numerous works of art that were scientifically proven to be authentic, then found out to be fakes using different science or not even science at all.
Or you can choose not to discard the decades of experience by audio engineers. And don't put cheap tires on your cars even if they test exactly the same in the short run (I'm guessing no two tires test alike).

Well, you can disagree of course, but there's nothing wrong with my science.
I'll give you a short example. The smallest packet of light that the eye can register is one photon. That means, perception on the biological scale extends to the limit of the smallest quantity of light that exists. However, the smallest amount of light that the conscious mind can register is way, way larger than one photon. So does the photon "affect" your eyes? Of course, but can it be seen? That's an interesting question. The science is proven, but what it means in terms of perception is less clear. And why is the eye designed to register a photon, if that photon goes nowhere? Because it does go somewhere.
So, for example, let's say that as time goes by, you lose one photon a day. Is it cumulative? Of course. Is sound cumulative? Of course, as it persists in memory. Or it can even build up in a resonant acoustic.
These tests test a a narrow band of science outside the ear and mind, they don't test perception. If you want to say, hey, that's it, there's nothing more, fine. But if you chose to think, hey, maybe there's a bit more, also fine.
Quantum physics did not exist 100 years ago because we could not see it or test it.
Could you devise an experiment to see if a few millipascals moved the cilia in the ear? Of course. It's not in the video.

I respectfully disagree about the photon. That doesn't mean I'm right, it just means I studied. I may have missed a few classes but we definitely covered quantum mechanics. The fact that a photon has unusual properties does not alter the fact that a single photon can be registered by the eye.
Re: the signal is identical: the guy in the video said the signal is not identical, and proved it, so hopefully he's right about that.
AFAIK, the limits of hearing have only been tested in a challenge and response environment, not at the molecular level, nor at the quantum level as in the case with the photon. So that would be like saying that Canada does not exist because Americans cannot find it on a map.
Lastly, our view of science is basically unchanged since Kuhn's view of science cycles. There will be another cycle, and this version of the science will be replaced in a few years. Just as it always has. And the reason that we "see" entanglement, which was previously completely unknown, is that we are looking in different places. There's no reason to believe that the perception of sound does not operate in as yet unknown ways, and the use of a null box doesn't prove it because it uses circular reasoning. It only tests what it was designed to test. You could just as easily say that quantum effects do not exist because this box does not "see" them.
What the "box testers" are saying is that audio effects only exist with the box. They then look in this box and say "See, nothing outside the box." They then go on to say, well, there are things outside the box but you can't see them so they don't exist. I have a problem with the methodology.

The fact that a photon has unusual properties does not alter the fact that a single photon can be registered by the eye.

I really do not understand your point. I see few recent single photon claims, but better read something more logical

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html

AFAIK, the limits of hearing have only been tested in a challenge and response environment, not at the molecular level, nor at the quantum level as in the case with the photon. So that would be like saying that Canada does not exist because Americans cannot find it on a map.

I am slightly lost with fuzzy changing arguments. :-) May be it is nice idea to start ignoring all audio measurement using some string theory declared limits? :-)

Lastly, our view of science is basically unchanged since Kuhn's view of science cycles. There will be another cycle, and this version of the science will be replaced in a few years. Just as it always has. And the reason that we "see" entanglement, which was previously completely unknown, is that we are looking in different places. There's no reason to believe that the perception of sound does not operate in as yet unknown ways, and the use of a null box doesn't prove it because it uses circular reasoning. It only tests what it was designed to test. You could just as easily say that quantum effects do not exist because this box does not "see" them.

You sometimes tell such strange things. It won't be another cycle, but it will be revolution that will change science from foundation, as science is always serving ruling class in fundamentals and resisting anything that can hurt ruling class (despite always telling otherwise and telling about objective things).

I can say that entanglement is mostly bullshit made to get grant money by very smart people using few clever tricks. Scientist like such things. Thousands of them promised easy humanity energy solution using thermonuclear energy in tokamaks, tens of billions had been spent without any real result.

What the "box testers" are saying is that audio effects only exist with the box. They then look in this box and say "See, nothing outside the box." They then go on to say, well, there are things outside the box but you can't see them so they don't exist. I have a problem with the methodology.

I have problem with your problem :-) I know you need to believe in certain things but you don't need to become preacher of this :-)

BTW the Photon is established science. The article you link to is 22 years old. Just sayin.

I tell you as guy with much better education in this - science has huge issues with photons, and it is obvious as soon as you step outside simple school books with statements.

Considering 22 years, I do not care. I care that it has logic and explanation, and few latest publications I saw had been complete bullshit made to get grant money and bad press not understanding that they write.

But they aren't going to be defeated by a video that says "all wires test different."

You try to pull words you like from whole thing and try to use them as you like. And it is not good thing to do.

It is not "scammers", most of this cable sellers are nice established capitalists, they just put capitalism main values into extreme :-). Much more profits without adding any real value. Cameras companies are closely following this guys lately, did't you notice?

Some of the responses seem to be missing the whole ponit of the null test: to determine if there is, in fact, a residual signal to move up the next stage of the audio path. If there isn't, there is no factual or logical basis on which to make a claim to the contrary.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html

Great share, I was wondering about this recently, It seems like a legitimate research review.

These videos don't include combination tones, which is a major flaw, and I'll leave it at that. If ppl don't know why this is an issue, that doesn't bother me either.

The bad study about the photon (bad even when published) is the perfect example of this. It was wrong, it was bad science, and people said, hey, this is the objective truth. They were all wrong, and they didn't know it. This is, in fact, how science works--one theory is superseded by another. It's a continual process. In a good science class, you learn this.

And here we go again. Start thinking using your own head, stop following sensationalism of popular press.

But the practical fact remains that I wouldn't use cheap cable even if the so-called "science" proved I couldn't hear the difference, and I won't be switching brands because the "science" proves that the Gotham wire sounds the same as Mogami. In addition, two ADDA circuits routinely test exactly the same (within the margins of the wire test) yet sound different. And, if you think all ADDA circuits sound the same, I'm just going to say I don't agree. Same for mic preamps.

In reality you are agnostic. :-) I told you above - if you like good connectors and nice shield or such - it is fine, just do not proclaim that it is due to sound quality and it had been whole point of this topic.

Considering ADDA stuff. If we'll do proper double blind test for two almost same measured things you will never tell us any difference. I saw it so many times, it is not fun. One guy destroyed his nice new note (just smacked it) after the test - so disappointed he had been and he could not tell any difference despite hot statements of opposite.

Because, quite simply, they invalidate experience.

No, they invalidate unfounded opinions.

Idea of PV is to rise opinions to knowledge, not in reverse.

@Libertas That article you link to is a more recent, better-designed experiment. It also clearly illustrates that the science can do a 180 in a short space of time (which we knew anyway in the 60s because of Kuhn's book. OMG it is 50 years since I read that book). Note that they have to rely on psychophysics to reduce to one photon, for obvious reasons, just as you would need to rely on psychoacoustics in the null experiment (it doesn't).
The larger question here is whether the null box is falsifiable using Popper's definition of falsifiable.
The second larger question is whether getting your science from a YouTube video is mathematically the same as buying a lottery ticket. It's more like a raffle ticket, but it's the same. That says nothing about the individual video, just to be clear.
Link to the Wikipedia article on Kuhn's book, many of you have probably read it, but if not, it is a must read book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
I'm not going to go into the difference here between what I will call wire science, acoustics, the biology of acoustics, and psychoacoustics, but let me just say these are four separate things. Related, but separate. Combination and difference tones, for example, are audible, but they are not transmitted in the air or measure by the wire experiment. Not it is even now understood why they can be produced with headphones (through a wire!) in certain tests. We simply don't know why, but they are audible, even loud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone
Your typical audio engineer might (might not) agree with the wire test, probably would not agree that it applied to ADDA and definitely not agree that it applied to preamps. Yet all of these could pass the test. But let's take it a step further, you could use a mic simulator to pass the test, so we could use the same mic for everything, as well. And, you could also take two video cameras and reduce the visual threshold differences to the same percentage, so we don't need to use expensive video cameras. Same with the lenses. After all, they could all pass the test, and, even if they couldn't pass the test they could be made to pass the test with a filter or two.
Now, the fact of the matter is that with the right DSP, you could in fact come very close to matching two different cameras or two different mics, and the additional fact is that at some point soon we won't need the mics, the preamps or the cameras, because the differences will be smaller and smaller and they can be processed to be virtually equivalent. We are definitely heading in that direction, and our gear will even be more worthless than the normal two year cycle for cameras (I'm still using the mics I bought in the 70s...)
I actually don't see the difference between the GH5 and the G85, BTW. I do see a difference from the G7. Would I pass a blind test? No. Absolutely not. But I still see a difference. I totally see a difference whether it passes a test or not, and I'm OK with saying that. I'm OK substituting my judgment in place of the test I know I would fail. The only reason the wire video has legs is because it is about wire, not cameras and preamps.
So we don't need the cameras, the mics, the cables, the speakers, the headphones. OK. I will buy your gear since we have now conclusively proved it's worthless. Sell it on eBay.

But for me, it doesn't change the outcome. I will still rely on my experience, and I will still question the science. There's more to life than a wire and a box, and recording is an art.

@DrDave

You jump and mew like a cat that fell in the box trap. :-) You try to find the exit but where is none, so you just painted it inside and bang your head over it.

Combination and difference tones,

In reality most probably it is just non linear stuff. You can dug into human hearing biology to find that it is far from ideal.

Now, the fact of the matter is that with the right DSP, you could in fact come very close to matching two different cameras or two different mics, and the additional fact is that at some point soon we won't need the mics, the preamps or the cameras, because the differences will be smaller and smaller and they can be processed to be virtually equivalent.

If not capitalism we had around 10-25x less same-different microphones and cameras (and definitely just one mount for each camera category with exact same interface and contacts for all). And all this free power and resorces could be used to do real innovations and try really new ideas.

Simple sample of matching.