Hi Saturn et al,
I do not think anybody here doubts that you (and your fiance) genuinely perceived an audible difference. We are not debating about that "fact" (your perception), but about the possible reasons for that perception. Here are several hypotheses that I can immediately come up with:
(1) The Kimber cable was truly superior for some real physical/technological reasons.
(2) The electrical connection between the Monster cable and the binding posts on your speaker/amp was for some reason less than optimal, or the Monster cable was in fact defective in a subtle way.
(3) The actual physical sound produced by your speakers was in fact identical down to any measurable degree, yet you did perceive an audible difference due to a subtle change in the psycho-auditory processing in your own brain, that originates from the very knowledge that you have changed the cable.
Any one of these factors can cause a genuine change in your auditory perception. So the challenge is how to distinguish between these possibilities. I have to agree with Semi in that a repetitive blinded test is the
only scientifically acceptable way to distinguish between (1)/(2) and (3). Roger Russell's essay I cited above describes in detail a nice example of how this blind test can be conducted.
As for the "benefits of bi-wiring" that your friend perceived (apparently not knowing what you did to his system), it could simply be that you happened to improve the electrical connection at the speaker terminals by loosening and retightening the binding posts and thus scratching and refreshing the contact surfaces. In fact, such exact scenario is also cited in Dr. Russell's essay. Again, the
only definitive way to exclude that possibility is to conduct a repetitive blind test with your friend.
In my own professional field, the hypothesis (3) above is collectively called "placebo effects." A patient can genuinely feel that his/her condition is improved, just by taking a pill of starch that is labeled as an effective medicine for his condition. In order to exclude the placebo effects, all new drugs have to go through a rigorous process of randomized "double-blind" clinical trials before an FDA approval can be given.
Here, "double-blind" means that not only the patients who participate in the trial but also the physicians who evaluate the patients' conditions have to be blinded as to whether a given patient is taking the real drug or a placebo. This requirement is based on the well established fact that the knowledge (either in the patients or physicians) of being administered with a "potentially effective" drug alone exerts a genuine and significant effect on patients' evaluated conditions.
Honestly, I do not think the person is lying when he/she insists that he heard the difference. What is at stake is the possible mechanism(s) resulting in the perceived difference.
Cheers!
