# Audible Differences in Copper vs. Silver Cables?



## SteeleBlayde

I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned at least several times on these boards but the Search button has provided way too many unrelated results.

 I did a search on Google and found that silver has better electrical conductivity, but why is it then that some manufacturers, such as Cardas Audio, refuse to use silver and continue to use high-purity, low-oxygen, copper?

 I've never heard silver cables (tin solder?), not to mention those esoteric, gold/silver/copper alloy cables, but can anyone comment on how all these different cable materials generally affect sound?


----------



## Orpheus

if you connect a copper or silver cable to an analyzer, you will find no difference in frequency response. read that as you will. but i think that pretty much disproves the myth that silver cables are "brighter." technology might not be good at measuring certain aspects of sound, but frequency response curves are pretty straightforward.

 and those who make the silver cables usually use solder containing silver, if that's what you were wondering.


----------



## SteeleBlayde

If that's the case, then theres no point getting silver cables due to their higher prices...


----------



## Orpheus

well.... is there any point in getting any cable over another, copper or silver? the things that people claim to hear are not measurable in a normal analyzer. so, without getting into the normal cables-don't-make-a-difference arguments........ i just thought i'd say that it's pretty clear that silver is not "brighter"...... though i guess people could argue it sounds different in other non-measurable ways.

 but i think this "brighter" thing is definitely a myth.

 ...anyway, i made a silver k1000 cable for uncledan. you might wanna pm him. pure material costs for his cable was already $200... so i assure you i only used the best. ask him his impressions.... (and ask him to post too... heh he, i wanna hear)


----------



## Pappucho

I just got my first silver IC's from infinity audio www.infinityaudio.net. I can definitely say that silver is audibly brighter than copper. I am going to fully burn them in before coming to any decisions as to which is better, but first impressions is that the silver cable is clearly brighter. Also, the cheap copper cable I am comparing it to has a fuller bottom end. It is definitely not a myth about silver being brighter, that I know for certain.


----------



## Chops

Hooking cables to an analyser may not show any differences between cables, but I really do not think it is a myth. Before I knew that silver cables were "brighter" from others, I noticed it the first time I bought a pair and hooked them up to my system.

 I don't think analysers or engineers can prove that one cable sounds differenct from another based on the materials used. Some things just can't be explained.

 Just like "burning-in" cables. No one has been able to explain why a cable changes in sound over time from burn-in, but they always do. There are no moving parts in a cable, so it isn't that the cable gets "trained" to sound better over time, like parting your hair to one side for years, then switching it to another direction.


 Yes, I know. It's a weird analogy, but it gets the point across.


----------



## Orpheus

well, here's the deal:

 i agree that it's possible than analyzers may not tell the whole story. after all, they only measure what we tell them to measure... so they only work if we measure something appropriate. if we use a machine to measure the temperature of a cable, well... what the hell is that gonna say--is the temeperature relevant at all? okay. so... if we use an analyzer to measure distortion in a signal...... that does measure an aspect of audio, but does not give them complete picture: distortion is not the end-all of audio. nor is frequency response. etc....

 HOWEVER, when you say something sounds "brighter,"... well, that is very easily measured. something sounds brighter cause higher frequencies are being boosted, or lower frequencies are attenuated. i do not see how you could argue otherwise, but i'd like to know if you disagree.... "Brightness" is not one of those hard-to-quantify qualities.

 therefore, if you can't measure frequency response differences between one cable or another, then it's clear one is not "brighter" than the other. it must all be in your head. and whether you like it or not, psychoacoustics is a proven phenomenom.


----------



## lan

Where can I get me some bulk silver wire? I'll probably try and build some cables to take a listen.


----------



## Chops

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*well, here's the deal:

 i agree that it's possible than analyzers may not tell the whole story. after all, they only measure what we tell them to measure... so they only work if we measure something appropriate. if we use a machine to measure the temperature of a cable, well... what the hell is that gonna say--is the temeperature relevant at all? okay. so... if we use an analyzer to measure distortion in a signal...... that does measure an aspect of audio, but does not give them complete picture: distortion is not the end-all of audio. nor is frequency response. etc....

 HOWEVER, when you say something sounds "brighter,"... well, that is very easily measured. something sounds brighter cause higher frequencies are being boosted, or lower frequencies are attenuated. i do not see how you could argue otherwise, but i'd like to know if you disagree.... "Brightness" is not one of those hard-to-quantify qualities.

 therefore, if you can't measure frequency response differences between one cable or another, then it's clear one is not "brighter" than the other. it must all be in your head. and whether you like it or not, psychoacoustics is a proven phenomenom. * 
 

Who are you referring to?


----------



## Pappucho

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*therefore, if you can't measure frequency response differences between one cable or another, then it's clear one is not "brighter" than the other. it must all be in your head. and whether you like it or not, psychoacoustics is a proven phenomenom. * 
 

When I used the silver cable in my rig, it was a night and day difference. Not a "It is kind of brighter" but a "crap thats friggen brighter." I had my doubts before about differences in cables, but they really do make a difference.


----------



## D-EJ915

The only real reason to get silver cables is that they would handle a higher amount of power more cleanly, right (it would be a n amazingly high amount, but still...)...is this correct??


----------



## fewtch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Orpheus _
*HOWEVER, when you say something sounds "brighter,"... well, that is very easily measured. something sounds brighter cause higher frequencies are being boosted, or lower frequencies are attenuated. i do not see how you could argue otherwise, but i'd like to know if you disagree.... "Brightness" is not one of those hard-to-quantify qualities.

 therefore, if you can't measure frequency response differences between one cable or another, then it's clear one is not "brighter" than the other. it must all be in your head. and whether you like it or not, psychoacoustics is a proven phenomenom. * 
 

Agreed 100%... some things can be measured, and I don't see what other definition of "bright" there is than tipped up treble.

 I'll concede that maybe people are hearing something else they interpret as "bright" with silver cables, but I have my doubts... silver is *visually* "brighter" than copper, and the brain makes some cross connections and associations between the senses and even thoughts/imagination/memories.

 To give an example of the brain's cross connections, have you ever heard a song playing in your head? You're not hearing it in the usual sense, but the notes are really "there"... to me, they "sound" just like they would actually playing, except there's nothing coming in through my ears.


----------



## Vertigo-1

I've not really heard a silver cable that was liberally brighter than a copper cable. Most silver cables on the other hand have had greater treble extension.


----------



## Chops

All I have to say is that I highly doubt that Monster Cable, KimberKable, Cardas, Analysis Plus, Sraightwire, and all those other major companies made their millions just on myths and psychoacoustics.


----------



## usc goose

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Chops _
*All I have to say is that I highly doubt that Monster Cable, KimberKable, Cardas, Analysis Plus, Sraightwire, and all those other major companies made their millions just on myths and psychoacoustics. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


* 
 

religion has made trillions on just myths alone. i believe in both jesus and high end cables though.


----------



## fewtch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Chops _
*All I have to say is that I highly doubt that Monster Cable, KimberKable, Cardas, Analysis Plus, Sraightwire, and all those other major companies made their millions just on myths and psychoacoustics. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



* 
 

Why not? It happens all the time in other areas than audio (e.g. psychic hotlines, the placebo affect with drugs, etc).

 Another example (audio related) -- Bose. They are highly overpriced and often crappy, so wouldn't you say they've made their millions on myths propagated by advertising?

 BTW, there's more to cables than sound... capacitance issues, shielding, overall quality of the cable and connectors, good looks, etc. And of course, people who have an expensive system often want expensive cables to feel like everything matches price-wise and quality-wise -- absolutely nothing wrong with that. The only area subject to debate is sound, and that's where I have my doubts.


----------



## Orpheus

you know that the diamond on your wife/gf's finger is worth a zillionth of what you paid for it? (blame it on the de beers)

 you remember that war that was fabricated out in the ocean about 1/2-1 century ago cause some media tycoon just made it up? (sorry, not good at names... but i think you know what i am talking about)

 you remember the hysteria that was caused when "War of the Worlds" was printed?

 you'd be surprised what people are willing to believe if one sets one's mind on it.

 EDIT: ha ha.... yes, Psychic Hotline is the perfect example. (they recently got sued big though..... so i think they're going under.) and yes..... BOSE.... all marketing. yup, Hearst sounds right. you remember the incident?--it's been a long time since i read about it.


----------



## usc goose

william randolph hearst?


----------



## lan

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Vertigo-1 _
*I've not really heard a silver cable that was liberally brighter than a copper cable. Most silver cables on the other hand have had greater treble extension. * 
 

What does extension mean? 

 Does this suggest copper cables are rolled off in perspective?


----------



## D-EJ915

he means that it's frequency range extends farther up than copper

 1066!!


----------



## fewtch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by D-EJ915 _
*he means that it's frequency range extends farther up than copper * 
 

I'd love to see a few measurements (but I know I never will)...


----------



## D-EJ915

haha...."the copper cable tops out at about 5.0*10^8Hz whereas silver tops out at about 18.2*10^15Hz"...lol


----------



## pigmode

The few silver cables I have owned were not only extended in the upper registers, but that extension had such a stong effect on the overall balance that the first thing that comes to mind is the word bright. Thus far I've found the trade-off to be a thinner midrange. The Grover ICs I currently have are more moderate in that sense, yet that extension is still there to some extent. 

 If I wanted sweeter mids, I wouldn't look at silver.


----------



## Sean H

I don't buy the "treble extension to be the cause of brightness" thing. Humans can't hear much above 16khz, not to mention at 20khz. At those frequencies our ears aren't nearly as sensitive to those tones, and what instruments that are able to hit notes that high are way down in level or are not sustained very long. Brightness is usually caused by emphasized frequencies somewhere from the upper mids into the mid and lower treble range.

 A are conductor of copper and silver may measure the same response but it's when you cover them with loads of **** around them, in different geometry configurations with different types of connectors, is where you will start to see "cables" measuring differently.


----------



## kuma

I think material used for conductor alone can't determine how they sound at the end. It seems many other variables influence the outcome.

 As for the measurements, you can probably get the stats to a certain point, but after that, you gotta start listening. 

 i have heard various good copper, silver, silver/copper as well as bad ones.


----------



## fewtch

Quote:


 _Originally posted by Sean H _
*I don't buy the "treble extension to be the cause of brightness" thing. Humans can't hear much above 16khz, not to mention at 20khz. At those frequencies our ears aren't nearly as sensitive to those tones, and what instruments that are able to hit notes that high are way down in level or are not sustained very long. Brightness is usually caused by emphasized frequencies somewhere from the upper mids into the mid and lower treble range.* 
 

Hate to say it, but the idea that a cable could emphasize certain frequencies is a little more far out than the idea a cable could roll off frequencies (which maybe could happen in extreme cases of capacitance issues with the cable). 

 These are not transducers, they're electrical conductors -- they do nothing but conduct electricity. 

 Look at it this way -- imagine you've got input and output jacks on a headphone amp. Between the input and output jacks are nothing but a bunch of thin traces on a circuit board, with some electrical components in there that have tiny, thin leads on them. I can't conceive how connecting a silver cable to the input and output jacks would do anything with those tiny, thin circuit traces and aluminum component leads in between the two. Not to mention when the signal passes through an op-amp, which contains some almost microscopic transistors, etc. You want to put a thick cable on the input and output, what's that gonna do?


----------



## braillediver

I went from Audioquest Copperheads- a low end copper cable to AudioTruth Lapis X3- High End pure silver cables and the difference was pleasent and very noticable. The silver cables were brighter and fuller in the higher frequencies.

 What do measurements tell you about sound? Frequency responce is only a small fraction of the actual make up real sounds? How about Phase angle across the audio band? Where does a sounds attack and decay come into play when using a spectrum analyzer? How do you measure Timber, Pace, Rythm and Harmony with a spectrum analyzer?

 Have you ever listened to music through a spectrum analyzer? And a spectrum analyzers impedance would probably be linear across the audio band where headphones or speakers wouldn't be.

 They still use human vision to check the quality of displays because the human eye is more discerning than any automated equipment made. The human eye can check more parameters more accurately than machine vision.


 Mitch


----------



## yidimsum

For a speaker setup, I like combining silver and copper to get the right balance. I've been using silver ICs for the source to preamp, copper ICs for preamp to amps, and silver speaker cables. It seems to strike a good balance between detail and body behind the sound. For source to headphone amp, I like silver.


----------



## usc goose

just curious, has anyone tried solid gold ICs? cause i've seen what some of your stuff is worth and damn... it's possible.


----------



## Dusty Chalk

We got to hear Cardas Golden Reference's at one of the previous meets at Hirsch's Headphone Museum...I mean, his condo...I think he had it hooked up to the...Blockhead?


----------



## SteeleBlayde

I dont think the Cardas Golden References are made out of solid 24K gold...... LMAO.


----------



## pbirkett

Its a myth that silver cables are brighter, although I have found that silver coated copper cables are a lot brighter, but never pure silver. They are more detailed and smoother however.


----------



## kuma

Quote:


 _Originally posted by pbirkett _
*Its a myth that silver cables are brighter, although I have found that silver coated copper cables are a lot brighter, but never pure silver. They are more detailed and smoother however. * 
 

I second this. Only deficit of silver cables I have heard so far is still let go a bit of bass over copper. Altho, good silver ones time better than most copper cabling. 

 And ALL silver plated anything results in a bad news. 

 And of course still many exceptions to rules.


----------



## SteeleBlayde

I was always under the impression that silver was the best material for wire plating...

 Something about being the best material for reducing skin effect.


----------



## kuma

Quote:


 _Originally posted by SteeleBlayde _
*I was always under the impression that silver was the best material for wire plating...

 Something about being the best material for reducing skin effect. * 
 

That maybe. But they don't sound good.


----------



## rcrump

Silver plated copper wire works great for DC wire. Silver plated connectors work fine as well and most of the switches in any unit uses silver plated contacts or coin silver (90% ag/10% cu)......I sure don't care for silver plated copper used for AC or signal, but silver clad copper is OK for signal......


----------



## Sean H

Whoa, wait a minute, er, hello? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Bob, is that you? You aren't strapping speakers to your head now too are you?


----------



## rcrump

I don't know, let me look......Yep, it is me.....Bob Hirsch mentioned that someone said I was using a network in my commerical power cords and that is true, but wanted to see what was said and had to register so thought I would throw my 2 cents into this thread as silver or clad (mechanical vs chemical process) copper can be wonderful, but don't care for coated copper unless you are talking contacts and no way around that as they need to be coated with something and silver has better focus than gold or rhodium and isn't bright like nickel......


----------



## SENOR4Q

Maybe this sounds stupid, but what about copper plated silver wire, or gold plated silver wire. Theoreticaly it could should mellow out the cable and maybe give it better bass, no?


----------



## eric343

All of you who say that hooking cables to an analyzer shows no difference between cable quality might want to take a look at this thread:

http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showt...340#post500340


----------



## Sean H

Quote:


 _Originally posted by kuma _
*I think material used for conductor alone can't determine how they sound at the end. It seems many other variables influence the outcome.* 
 

Exactly, and it's not just the material but also the geometry and connectors, as I said before.


----------



## Sean H

Quote:


 _Originally posted by fewtch _
*Hate to say it, but the idea that a cable could emphasize certain frequencies is a little more far out than the idea a cable could roll off frequencies (which maybe could happen in extreme cases of capacitance issues with the cable). 

 These are not transducers, they're electrical conductors -- they do nothing but conduct electricity. 

 Look at it this way -- imagine you've got input and output jacks on a headphone amp. Between the input and output jacks are nothing but a bunch of thin traces on a circuit board, with some electrical components in there that have tiny, thin leads on them. I can't conceive how connecting a silver cable to the input and output jacks would do anything with those tiny, thin circuit traces and aluminum component leads in between the two. Not to mention when the signal passes through an op-amp, which contains some almost microscopic transistors, etc. You want to put a thick cable on the input and output, what's that gonna do? * 
 

Thick cables? Thick cables, thick cables, what's up with the thick cables thing? Yeah I guess some big dollar ridiculous cables are thick but that's not due to their conductor gauge size it's all the shielding and crap around them making up for the thickness. Fewtch, all I'm saying is give a couple cables a try and see what you think and then come debate against cables instead of saying "I can't imagine" over and over. Now don't get all pissed at me, this is just a friendly debate. Why not just try some cables for yourself?


----------



## tortie

Here are George Cardas' 2 cents on the subject:

 "Q&A with George Cardas

 jude: All of your interconnects are made with copper conductors. And in one of your catalogs is the following quote: "Copper has proven to be the best conductor for an audio signal..." Lately there has been a strong emphasis on silver conductors by many cable manufacturers. In general, do you consider copper a better conductor for an audio signal than silver?

 George Cardas: In general, yes. We make the majority of all the ultra pure copper and silver used in high-end audio; but I choose to use only the ultra pure, ultra soft copper in my personal products.

 jude: Why?

 George Cardas: For starters, it sounds better. Silver is the best DC conductor, but, embodiment for embodiment, it is more inductive than copper. This trait, combined with its inherently lower loss, accounts for the bright, fatiguing quality of most of the silver cables (silver has approximately 5% more skin effect than copper). There have been many attempts at silver cables but little success. I think the problem in part is the cost of doing a proper conductor out of the metal. By the time the manufacturer buys the metal, there is little budget for a properly designed conductor; so they just use a monofilament solid core. This complicates an already bright situation. Silver is also a relatively hard metal and difficult to anneal. Hard coppers (linear crystal, etc.) also failed because of their tendency to ring mechanically. Electrically, silver is like a speaker box with no damping material. It will be more efficient, but it will have a definite "sound". All in all, your money is far better spent on good conductor geometry and copper.

 jude: What is your opinion of silver-plated and/or silver-clad copper as an audio conductor?

 George Cardas: Silly. The propagation and transfer impedance of the metals differs and their juncture is diodic. Ensuring a constant transfer is important. Silver and plating make some sense in very high frequency applications, such as video, but are not a good idea in audio."

 Its in this thread:
http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showt...rdas+interview


----------



## kuma

Quote:


 _Originally posted by fewtch _
* You want to put a thick cable on the input and output, what's that gonna do? * 
 

Cuz, it *can* change things. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Sometimes, not necessarily for better, but, it can alter a signal. Thickness of cables do not warrant better fidelity as well as I had few instances stock cables actually sounded better than fancy ones. (both thick and thin ) Nonetheless, it is a *change*. So, cables must be doing something to the signal.


----------



## xtreme4099

how bout silver mixed with copper ... some kinda alloy.. anyone doing that ...


----------



## Sean H

Quote:


 _Originally posted by xtreme4099 _
*how bout silver mixed with copper ... some kind alloy anyone doing that ... * 
 

Yes. Off the top of my head I can think of the Harmonic Technology Pro Silway II and III as well as The Bolder Cable Company interconnects.


----------



## D-EJ915

do you guys know of a good place online to buy cables (like...with and without connectors)...thanks


----------



## DejanM

Believing that the freq.response measurement will tell something about brightness (or anything else) about the sound character of the cable is a very naive way of thinking. Simply because the freq. response is only one issue in a very complex equation, which is called interconnect or speaker cable.

 There are too many whitnesses that cables of different materials do sound differently. Not necessarily better one from each other (because there are a lot of things that influence the end result, like for example: geometry of the cable, isolation, connectors, connections between connector and the cable, ...) but they do sound different. It has to be experimented in order to find out which one suits the best to your system. Once put in a concrete system, a cable becomes part of it, meaning that its impedance will interact with the impedances of connected components. This interaction cannot be generalized and it has to be examined in every concrete case. That is also why the same cable can sound differently when put in different systems.


----------



## BIG POPPA

This is where DIY comes in a bit? You can control every facet of the cable. Copper and Silver have different sound signatures. Make a few cables and try out a few things? To me Copper is very punchy with Solid State. Silver is very tall and detailed. With tubes Silver is Nirvana. Copper is a little too warm most of the time? Don't let me get started on Rhodium! I make most of my own cables on my rigs so I have a little experience? Just a little......


----------



## boomy3555

Hats off to you guys for digging up this "Dead Thread".... I can't say for sure but It's the oldest I've ever seen resurrected. But isn't it amazing how the same issues were as relevant 6 years ago as today and still so many people devided on the issue?

 I find silver brighter than copper. period.. and I've made identical IC's with both. In addition, The dirtier the copper the better. but then I prefer a darker "Sultry" sound over bright and punchy


----------



## fhuang

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *boomy3555* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hats off to you guys for digging up this "Dead Thread".... I can't say for sure but It's the oldest I've ever seen resurrected. But isn't it amazing how the same issues were as relevant 6 years ago as today and still so many people devided on the issue?_

 

i'm sure it's a lot safer to talk cable six years ago than now.....

  Quote:


 I find silver brighter than copper. period.. and I've made identical IC's with both. In addition, The dirtier the copper the better. but then I prefer a darker "Sultry" sound over bright and punchy 
 


 what about silver power cord vs copper power cord?


----------



## boomy3555

No experience with power cords. ever Sorry


----------



## pigmode

You all can theorize and interpret numbers all day long, but until you actually have direct experience with a variety of these cables then you're just a bunch of...


----------



## yblad

Quote: 





orpheus said:


> well, here's the deal:
> 
> i agree that it's possible than analyzers may not tell the whole story. after all, they only measure what we tell them to measure... so they only work if we measure something appropriate. if we use a machine to measure the temperature of a cable, well... what the hell is that gonna say--is the temeperature relevant at all? okay. so... if we use an analyzer to measure distortion in a signal...... that does measure an aspect of audio, but does not give them complete picture: distortion is not the end-all of audio. nor is frequency response. etc....
> 
> ...


 
   

  I'm afraid that's nonsense. "Brightness" does not equal a change in frequency response, it is one of the hardest to quantify qualities. "Brightness" can have a lot more to do with timbre than frequency. If you want an example, take helium. It is a fallacy that helium changes the frequency of the human voice. The frequency of a person's voice on helium is almost exactly the same as without helium. The apparent change in pitch is not due to a frequency change. And yet you hear a completely different pitch. The shape of the wave causes it, the number of harmonics which changes the wave form. Look up Fourier transforms if you want to know more.


  
  In short, "brightness" is about the most difficult to quantify quality of a sound, and it is certainly not close to good enough to look only at frequency response.

  
  If you want a bit more detail here it is. The human voice box when creating sound is an example of a forced damped harmonic oscillator, similar to a spring holding a weight  while a motor drives the system where there is air resistance. This type of system is governed by a type of equation called a second order differential equation. Remarkably, the same type of equation governs electrical systems known as LCR (standing for inductor-capacitor-resistor) circuits when driven by an AC current (just google comparison between LCR circuit and forced damped harmonic oscillators, it won't take long to find a proof of this). Electrical cables have long been known to act with capacitance, inductance and resistance. They are therefore LCR circuits. When you apply an audio signal, you have your AC current driver. So, mathematically electrical cables are startlingly similar to the human voice box. When a change in medium causes such a difference in the voice box, it would be foolish to think the same wasn't true of an LCR circuit. Particularly as changing the medium in the voice box only really effects the damping factor, while the material of the cable effects all three of the main parameters in the electrical system.
   
  By the way, I do not own nor have I ever heard a silver cable. I am not some silver cable advocate trying to defend purchase choices or their listening experience. I am but a physicist who has an understanding of how this works. I in fact did an entire 30 lecture module on it in university. The very first lecture of which had the lecturer playing sounds at the same frequency with different pitches to the human ear. Trust me when I say that it is far far more complicated than pure frequency response.

 EDIT: I feel I should add that I am not saying that I have proved that the material does have an audible effect, and nor was that my goal. I am just saying that the "proof against" given is wildly insufficient and that the question requires considerable further scientific examination. The case on this one is still open.


----------



## pompon

Each cables I have tried gave different result.
   
  Connector it-self seem to have a good importance in the equation.
   
  I am using pure silver RCA cable with WBT silver next gen connector.
  the speaker wire are pure silver too without any connector.
   
  It's not bright, it's just clean and transparent.
   
  I have speaker wire silver plate too ... I don't like them very much. The solid code 100% pure silver is far far better and let the bass it's full body compared to the small silver plate wire.
   
  The cable I own are Tempo Electric (BigTwist) ... I love them!


----------



## yblad

Furthermore it's possible that there some audible differences which are only present in certain set ups which aren't tested for by normal tests. What I'm particularly thinking of here is when something is being under amped or only just amped enough. Silver has a lower resistance than copper. If you are for example driving a set of 300ohm headphones on an amp which is only rated up to 300ohms (particularly if they're a power hungry set) there won't be enough power to drive them. When you replace the wiring with silver you are going to reduce the total resistance, allowing the headphones to be driven better. This would improve the clarity, which is an often reported silver cable claim. This can also potentially account for a "brighter" sound. This could mean that for some set ups there really is a difference, and other instances are then placebo. Especially if you've listened to a system where it does matter and it has trained your brain to expect the effect. Our standard measurements simply don't look at this. They look at typical well driven cases where the effect doesn't exist.

Does this mean buy silver cables? No, it means get a better amp. But if you can't afford one it could help.

Again I am not saying this an absolute. Just that it's an interesting possibility.


----------



## Speedskater

The differences in resistance between Gold, Silver and Copper are small compared to the probable differences in length and cross-section area of different areas.
   
_So if you are for example driving a set of 300ohm headphones on an amp which is only rated up to 300ohms (particularly if they're a power hungry set) there won't be enough current to drive them well. When you replace the wiring with silver you are going to reduce the total resistance, increasing the driving current which is getting to the headphones and causing them to be driven better._
   
  This idea is upside down!  300 Ohms is an easier load than 250 Ohms.  Besides the differences between Copper and Silver cables is only a fraction of an Ohm.


----------



## yblad

Quote: 





speedskater said:


> The differences in resistance between Gold, Silver and Copper are small compared to the probable differences in length and cross-section area of different areas.
> 
> _So if you are for example driving a set of 300ohm headphones on an amp which is only rated up to 300ohms (particularly if they're a power hungry set) there won't be enough current to drive them well. When you replace the wiring with silver you are going to reduce the total resistance, increasing the driving current which is getting to the headphones and causing them to be driven better._
> 
> This idea is upside down!  300 Ohms is an easier load than 250 Ohms.  Besides the differences between Copper and Silver cables is only a fraction of an Ohm.


 
   
  I quite clearly said it's only a possibility. And it depends greatly on length of cable (along with thickness). I never said it will make a huge difference, but it will make a difference which on the very edge of driving ability could (and here again note the word could) give a perceived change in sound.

  
  That's not true. Higher impedance headphones are harder to drive (for most small amps). They allow you do exert more control when properly driven, but to properly drive them is harder. It is also the case that many op-amps are optimised for higher loads which mean they are more efficient and produce less distortion, but that doesn't stop them needing to drive harder. If what you're saying is true a mobile phone could drive 600ohm headphones with ease and you'd need a top end dedicated amp to drive EIMs or 16ohm phones. Which is the opposite of the truth.

  
http://www.head-fi.org/a/headphone-impedance

  
  There is a basic review of how it works, note "pros and cons of high impedance" points 3. and 4.

  
  I did accidentally write current where I meant power, so I apologise for that. That may have caused some confusion. The important thing is the power output however, and the voltage/current relationship. Although high impedance requires a lower current due to a stronger electromagnet to power said electromagnet takes more voltage. Most portable amps struggle with getting the voltage needed to drive high impedance well. The important point is that high impedance is harder to drive for most amps, and lowering the system impedance will make it easier to drive. Which as I said could make a difference in systems which are on the edge of their capabilities. Please note that I am just speculating on a possibility for certain systems, as I said in the first post I only expect it to possibly make a difference in systems on the edge of their capabilities. Most systems wouldn't be sensitive to this, which is why I stated that if this is where the original idea came from the hearing of a difference in most systems is placebo.
   
  I have edited my post in light of the mistake.


----------



## Happy Camper

speedskater said:


> The differences in resistance between Gold, Silver and Copper are small compared to the probable differences in length and cross-section area of different areas.
> 
> _So if you are for example driving a set of 300ohm headphones on an amp which is only rated up to 300ohms (particularly if they're a power hungry set) there won't be enough current to drive them well. When you replace the wiring with silver you are going to reduce the total resistance, increasing the driving current which is getting to the headphones and causing them to be driven better._
> 
> This idea is upside down!  300 Ohms is an easier load than 250 Ohms.  Besides the differences between Copper and Silver cables is only a fraction of an Ohm.


But enough to be heard.


----------



## yblad

The difference in conductivity is about 7% by the way. Not huge but still. I agree that the differences made to the total impedance of the system isn't going to be huge. And as a percentage the difference in total impedance due to the change will drop as the total impedance goes up (i.e. as the impedance of the the headphones climbs). This is why I have said so many times say "could" and "possibly". I have no problem admitting that the effect may or may not be audible. I am just saying that under certain conditions it's a possibility it could make a difference, and once again I will say I am only considering it a possibility in systems which are at the extremes of their abilities.


----------



## yblad

Now that I look up the conductivity of copper wiring I see that the effect would be very small on the total impedance. Enough to give me a decent level of doubt as to how audible to difference would be. I hadn't looked properly at any numbers last night to see exactly what size the impedance of the wire tends to be as I was in a rush. I was misremembering the order of magnitude by one, so my internal "back of a napkin" maths was off. Enough so to push what I was expecting to be an effect approaching negligible to the point of likely negligibility. The effect exists, but it would take a system really on the edge and a very decent length of wire to have a good chance of being audible.

  
  Still, I leave it as a point of academic interest.


----------



## laon

Go to a meet, seek headphone with replaceable cable with different cables, try it on a quiet corner with a song you're familiar with. Or hear with number instead and remain blissfully that way forever.


----------



## yblad

Quote: 





laon said:


> Go to a meet, seek headphone with replaceable cable with different cables, try it on a quiet corner with a song you're familiar with. Or hear with number instead and remain blissfully that way forever.


 
   
  I am neither pro or against the idea of there being a difference. It would be foolish to be so on a question which is still so open to scientific debate and in need of more analysis. The placebo effect is very strong however, and I don't trust even my own perception to be correct. It's perfectly possible that I would hear a difference where there isn't one. The only way to ever actually answer the question is through science. Which is what I attempt to do.
   
  And like all good scientists, I am perfectly ready to turn against my own argument when I notice an error I hadn't seen before


----------



## Happy Camper

It will always be this way. Some will never leave their formulas and try things, it's not logical. Those people have no experience but will be the boldest and loudest to tell those who have experience and found differences that they're wrong. They've determined it not to be of their view of acceptable value. Our bodies are corrupt, not as accurate as a piece of measurement gear, just about every negative method possible to justify their opinions. Of course the biggest method is the value of a component. Judging how people spend their money as foolish, naive, etc. to shame the opposing side and get a flock to follow their side of an argument. And that's mostly what it is, people who love to win arguments, not someone what gives 2c about your financial well being. The best advice to such nonsense is to try it yourself and ignore the debate. It tells a lot about your interest and if you are sincere in learning or just want to choose a side of an argument. Ignorance has been around a long time because it is so easy to maintain. Experience takes effort. 

When you look at all the systems on here and elsewhere, something should be obvious. There are about as many with gear that's argued against as there are those arguing. The reason there is high end gear isn't because of arrogance or vanity or a vested interest in it. They have found a selection of components that combine to make the whole the best of what's right to them, within their means. There is a system for every budget and not meant for everybody. It wouldn't make sense to have a $50 pair of headphones and put a $500 cable on it. So keep the perspective in mind when reading discussions. 

This is not to say everything that comes to market is better. This is a sponsored site and the goal is to make money. That's not a bad thing as we all have to live. So in this respect, it is wise to again follow the advice above and try it yourself or follow those you trust that have tried it. There are many hobbyists that try things continuously and have an informed opinion based on their efforts. Then there are those who like to jump on a new product and make claims of fantastic improvement in performance so as to be part of the "cool" crowd. When some experienced hobbyists give a listen and finds it's not what's claimed, it quickly gets pushed off on the newbs while the chatter is hot and it still holds value. Some prices demanded for some of these products is laughable but usually gets "found out" and quickly squashed. Then some are true gems of quality and value. It's part of the journey to explore and learn. If you don't want to explore, that's fine. But don't criticize those who do because it doesn't fit your view or value system. Everyone is right in their own world.


----------



## Migou67

I have buy some months ago a silver cable for my IE80, I want to give a try and get at the same time a spare cable. For me the bass was more controlled and sound stage increase a little bit with this cable. Don't know if is suggestive or not, but I'm happy using my new cable and this is the most important for me, a better satisfaction when I listening music, that all I want when a purchase a new audio product.


----------



## JohnSantana

chops said:


> Hooking cables to an analyser may not show any differences between cables, but I really do not think it is a myth. Before I knew that silver cables were "brighter" from others, I noticed it the first time I bought a pair and hooked them up to my system.
> 
> 
> I don't think analysers or engineers can prove that one cable sounds differenct from another based on the materials used. Some things just can't be explained.
> ...




yes I agree, personally I think the difference is just a colour or cosmetic difference to the cable itself.
the burn in that we must do on the headphone is for the driver I guess ?


----------



## wafflezz

Distortion in copper is well below the threshold for the human ear.
 It would take an enormous length of wire to detect any sort of impedance in a copper wire. Silver is just more expensive, and a slightly better conductor. But once again, 0+.0000001 for all practical purposes =0 

 tl;dr: a 5$ monoprice cable sounds as good as a 400$ double helix.


----------



## JohnSantana

wafflezz said:


> Distortion in copper is well below the threshold for the human ear.
> 
> It would take an enormous length of wire to detect any sort of impedance in a copper wire. Silver is just more expensive, and a slightly better conductor. But once again, 0+.0000001 for all practical purposes =0
> 
> ...




wow, does that means the expensive Toxic cable shielded and braided silver + 1% gold is hardly any difference compare to the stock cable (Silver coated copper cable) ?

some people said that it is just a microphonics difference with shielded cable, if that is the case then there is no need to upgrade to expensive cable for indoor listening use.


----------



## laon

The number said so!


----------



## yblad

happy camper said:


> It will always be this way. Some will never leave their formulas and try things, it's not logical. Those people have no experience but will be the boldest and loudest to tell those who have experience and found differences that they're wrong. They've determined it not to be of their view of acceptable value. Our bodies are corrupt, not as accurate as a piece of measurement gear, just about every negative method possible to justify their opinions. Of course the biggest method is the value of a component. Judging how people spend their money as foolish, naive, etc. to shame the opposing side and get a flock to follow their side of an argument. And that's mostly what it is, people who love to win arguments, not someone what gives 2c about your financial well being. The best advice to such nonsense is to try it yourself and ignore the debate. It tells a lot about your interest and if you are sincere in learning or just want to choose a side of an argument. Ignorance has been around a long time because it is so easy to maintain. Experience takes effort.
> 
> When you look at all the systems on here and elsewhere, something should be obvious. There are about as many with gear that's argued against as there are those arguing. The reason there is high end gear isn't because of arrogance or vanity or a vested interest in it. They have found a selection of components that combine to make the whole the best of what's right to them, within their means. There is a system for every budget and not meant for everybody. It wouldn't make sense to have a $50 pair of headphones and put a $500 cable on it. So keep the perspective in mind when reading discussions.
> 
> This is not to say everything that comes to market is better. This is a sponsored site and the goal is to make money. That's not a bad thing as we all have to live. So in this respect, it is wise to again follow the advice above and try it yourself or follow those you trust that have tried it. There are many hobbyists that try things continuously and have an informed opinion based on their efforts. Then there are those who like to jump on a new product and make claims of fantastic improvement in performance so as to be part of the "cool" crowd. When some experienced hobbyists give a listen and finds it's not what's claimed, it quickly gets pushed off on the newbs while the chatter is hot and it still holds value. Some prices demanded for some of these products is laughable but usually gets "found out" and quickly squashed. Then some are true gems of quality and value. It's part of the journey to explore and learn. If you don't want to explore, that's fine. But don't criticize those who do because it doesn't fit your view or value system. Everyone is right in their own world.




One of my favourite posts ever. First you claim that the definition of logic isn't logical, and then you attack something that no one actually said. I said repeatedly I am in no way against the idea of there being a difference, and in fact offered two possible ways in which they could exist. Maybe you should read things before you reply to them in the future  I explore more than most. The difference is that when I explore I try and answer why the difference I hear is there, and I accept that my brain can fooled. Just because you hear something doesn't make it real. If you can't accept that I feel sorry for you, delusions are a sad thing to base opinions on.


----------



## Happy Camper

yblad said:


> One of my favourite posts ever. First you claim that the definition of logic isn't logical, and then you attack something that no one actually said. I said repeatedly I am in no way against the idea of there being a difference, and in fact offered two possible ways in which they could exist. Maybe you should read things before you reply to them in the future  I explore more than most. The difference is that when I explore I try and answer why the difference I hear is there, and I accept that my brain can fooled. Just because you hear something doesn't make it real. If you can't accept that I feel sorry for you, delusions are a sad thing to base opinions on.


This wasn't intended to you but the science posse. But I can understand your thinking it was.


----------



## wafflezz

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> It will always be this way. Some will never leave their formulas and try things, it's not logical. Those people have no experience but will be the boldest and loudest to tell those who have experience and found differences that they're wrong. They've determined it not to be of their view of acceptable value. Our bodies are corrupt, not as accurate as a piece of measurement gear, just about every negative method possible to justify their opinions. Of course the biggest method is the value of a component. Judging how people spend their money as foolish, naive, etc. to shame the opposing side and get a flock to follow their side of an argument. And that's mostly what it is, people who love to win arguments, not someone what gives 2c about your financial well being. The best advice to such nonsense is to try it yourself and ignore the debate. It tells a lot about your interest and if you are sincere in learning or just want to choose a side of an argument. Ignorance has been around a long time because it is so easy to maintain. Experience takes effort.
> 
> When you look at all the systems on here and elsewhere, something should be obvious. There are about as many with gear that's argued against as there are those arguing. The reason there is high end gear isn't because of arrogance or vanity or a vested interest in it. They have found a selection of components that combine to make the whole the best of what's right to them, within their means. There is a system for every budget and not meant for everybody. It wouldn't make sense to have a $50 pair of headphones and put a $500 cable on it. So keep the perspective in mind when reading discussions.
> 
> This is not to say everything that comes to market is better. This is a sponsored site and the goal is to make money. That's not a bad thing as we all have to live. So in this respect, it is wise to again follow the advice above and try it yourself or follow those you trust that have tried it. There are many hobbyists that try things continuously and have an informed opinion based on their efforts. Then there are those who like to jump on a new product and make claims of fantastic improvement in performance so as to be part of the "cool" crowd. When some experienced hobbyists give a listen and finds it's not what's claimed, it quickly gets pushed off on the newbs while the chatter is hot and it still holds value. Some prices demanded for some of these products is laughable but usually gets "found out" and quickly squashed. Then some are true gems of quality and value. It's part of the journey to explore and learn. If you don't want to explore, that's fine. But don't criticize those who do because it doesn't fit your view or value system. Everyone is right in their own world.


 
  Look I'm not trying to put down anyone or try to invalidate their purchases. Obviously expensive cables are going to be more durable, more flexible and easier to work with(most of the time anyways). It just makes me throw up when they spend thousands on "audiophile" cables and even _power outlets_ and think it actually makes an audible difference with *clarity*. I mean...I could get decent SQ out of a coat hanger if I really wanted to. The cable is almost *never* a bottleneck in the sound chain.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> This wasn't intended to you but the science posse.


 
   
  Er, the "science posse"?
   
  se


----------



## TrollDragon

Now here is a quick question...

How many here wear a "Q-Ray" bracelet?

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Happy Camper

steve eddy said:


> Er, the "science posse"?
> 
> se




Oh, ok.......


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> Oh, ok.......


 
   
  Ok...
   
  se


----------



## nigeljames

Quote: 





johnsantana said:


> wow, does that means the expensive Toxic cable shielded and braided silver + 1% gold is hardly any difference compare to the stock cable (Silver coated copper cable) ?
> 
> some people said that it is just a microphonics difference with shielded cable, if that is the case then there is no need to upgrade to expensive cable for indoor listening use.


 
   
  Cables do make a difference, sometimes a large difference.
   
  How do I know because I have heard it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  I upgraded my stock HE6 cable for the Toxic Silver Poison and differences were clear and obvious. The HE6's jumped from being my 3rd choice phone to my number 1.
  It was so clear I have recently sold the Silver Poison..... and bought 3 Silver Widows for my HD800's LCD2.2s and HE6's.
  That's over £600 spent on the new cables and I certainly would not of done that unless I was sure of the benefits. And listening to my HD800's/silver widows as I write this *I know* it was money well spent.


----------



## Eisenhower

Quote: 





nigeljames said:


> Cables do make a difference, sometimes a large difference.
> 
> How do I know because I have heard it.
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  It would be really disappointing to you if you had spent all that money on an upgrade that did nothing to improve the sound, wouldn't it? You might have even felt embarrassed about it. Good thing that didn't happen, yeah?


----------



## JohnSantana

nigeljames said:


> Cables do make a difference, sometimes a large difference.
> 
> How do I know because I have heard it. :wink_face:
> I upgraded my stock HE6 cable for the Toxic Silver Poison and differences were clear and obvious. The HE6's jumped from being my 3rd choice phone to my number 1.
> ...




holy god.... :-o

the more I read this thread, the more I'm intoxicated with the Silver Widow (*_*)


----------



## nigeljames

Quote: 





eisenhower said:


> It would be really disappointing to you if you had spent all that money on an upgrade that did nothing to improve the sound, wouldn't it? You might have even felt embarrassed about it. Good thing that didn't happen, yeah?


 
   
  I had total confidence that it would not given the performance of the silver poison on the HE6's.
   
  My confidence was justified!


----------



## JohnSantana

Can someone here please share the link or your experience of whether 22 AWG or 26 AWG copper cable make any audible difference ?

Does the strand count also plays part in the sound quality of the cable or just the flexibility only ?


----------



## Eisenhower

Quote: 





johnsantana said:


> Can someone here please share the link or your experience of whether 22 AWG or 26 AWG copper cable make any audible difference ?
> 
> Does the strand count also plays part in the sound quality of the cable or just the flexibility only ?


 
   
  22 AWG will sound "bigger" than the 26 AWG. The extra strands means more bass and lows get delivered to the headphone. This is basic science.
   
  just kidding, it doesn't matter.


----------



## BIG POPPA

You got it backwards 22AWG will sound bigger, its a bigger wire size. 

26 AWG will sound "bigger" than the 22 AWG. The extra strands means more bass and lows get delivered to the headphone. This is basic science.

just kidding, it doesn't matter.
[/quote]


----------



## Jam_Master_J

It would depend on the application.  For a headphone recable, depending on the length the 26 AWG may add a small amount of extra resistance.  For say an RCA connection we are talking line level with high input impedance so resistance is not much of an issue here.
  
  Big Poppa,
  My comment above was deleted so I won't repost since it was obviously done for a reason, but one particular comment I didn't mean to make was to endorse locking connectors.  I was moreso trying to emphasize the effect of a solid, metal-to-metal electrical connection.  Locking type are not the only option.


----------



## Gorillaz

if you upgrade the stock cable to 1% gold "insert fancy/mysterious name here" cable woudn't you need to upgrade the pcb inside the dap, amp, and the inside of the headphone and even the inside of the female jack to gold, silver, adamantiun or whatever material used to "improve the sound"?


----------



## JohnSantana

eisenhower said:


> 22 AWG will sound "bigger" than the 26 AWG. The extra strands means more bass and lows get delivered to the headphone. This is basic science.
> 
> just kidding, it doesn't matter.







jam_master_j said:


> It would depend on the application.  For a headphone recable, depending on the length the 26 AWG may add a small amount of extra resistance.  For say an RCA connection we are talking line level with high input impedance so resistance is not much of an issue here.
> 
> 
> Big Poppa,
> My comment above was deleted so I won't repost since it was obviously done for a reason, but one particular comment I didn't mean to make was to endorse locking connectors.  I was moreso trying to emphasize the effect of a solid, metal-to-metal electrical connection.  Locking type are not the only option.







gorillaz said:


> if you upgrade the stock cable to 1% gold "insert fancy/mysterious name here" cable woudn't you need to upgrade the pcb inside the dap, amp, and the inside of the headphone and even the inside of the female jack to gold, silver, adamantiun or whatever material used to "improve the sound"?




Cool, thanks guys for your clarification, I guess there is no big significant audible sonic difference with different cable materials based on the thread that I read above.
So it can be concluded that the only difference or enhancement that you will benefits is the cable flexibility, cosmetic changes and eliminating the microphonics effects.


----------



## yblad

happy camper said:


> This wasn't intended to you but the science posse. But I can understand your thinking it was.




In that case I hope you will accept my full and unreserved apologies. I wrote that at the end of a long train journey and I was tired and cranky.

The problem is people who understand only a little science who jump on one thing they do know and forget everything else exists. So often I see comments such as "Capacitors don't need to settle, therefore burn in doesn't exist". Total nonsense, yes that one effect can't explain it but that doesn't mean some other effect doesn't (in that particular case such as heatsink thermal grease settling for example). It's fine to say this certain effect doesn't explain it, just don't claim the one tiny thing you do understand is the entirety of the subject!

Personally I keep my mind open as much as I can, and if an effect is widely reported I try an consider every possible way it could exist. Even if you want to debunk something you should start by trying you're very hardest to prove that it does in fact exist, look at every effect which could be in play and see if it could be a cause. Only when you've done that can begin to say it doesn't exist with any confidence.


----------



## yblad

gorillaz said:


> if you upgrade the stock cable to 1% gold "insert fancy/mysterious name here" cable woudn't you need to upgrade the pcb inside the dap, amp, and the inside of the headphone and even the inside of the female jack to gold, silver, adamantiun or whatever material used to "improve the sound"?




This is true to a degree, but it's not the whole story. If the wiring was, for example, adding 1db of distortion/signal loss/whatever per metre of cable changing the cable you're using to something producing half that would still improve the total distortion/signal loss/whatever in the system. Of course in reality the wiring doesn't add anything like that unless it's really god awful to the point of being defective, and I'm not claiming that the wiring actually does cause enough distortion or anything else to worry about. Just that IF it was important changing 1.5m (or more for long cables) of the wiring could make a difference. If the internal wring of the device comes to a total of 1.5m or less (which isn't unrealistic in certain devices) and you have a 1.5m cable that's half of the total length of the signal path or more you'd be replacing. Even if the internals came to a mighty 10m it's 15%, and that's for a short cable. If like me you often use 3m or longer it's more. As I said I'm not saying cables do matter, just that if the wiring material does matter there's a good chance that changing some of it is better than changing non of it.


----------



## ev13wt

A 3mm, 6 foot cable, copper vs. silver measures to a 0.0024dB difference in highs.


----------



## yblad

ev13wt said:


> A 3mm, 6 foot cable, copper vs. silver measures to a 0.0024dB difference in highs.




Good to know thanks for the data. What do you mean by highs specifically, at what frequency?


----------



## HPiper

The good thing about silver or gold cables, is when the economy really tanks you can melt em down and live off them for a few weeks.


----------



## kanna

Most people are talk about silver and copper, How about gold?
  I found some cable are using pure silver+2% gold.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Alloying gold with silver increases the wire's resistivity. Pure silver has a bit lower resistivity than copper, but adding 2% gold, then the resistivity ends up actually being higher than that of copper.
   
  If you'd like to learn more about this, check out The Electrical Resistivity of Gold-Silver Alloys by Iyer and Asimow,_ J. Less-Common Metals, 13 (1967) 18-23_
   
  You can purchase the paper online for $31.50.
   
  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00225088/13/1
   
  se
   
  EDIT: Here's the resistivity curve for silver-gold alloys from the above paper, ranging from 100% silver to 100% gold.


----------



## ev13wt

yblad said:


> Good to know thanks for the data. What do you mean by highs specifically, at what frequency?




At 3mm diameter and 6 feet copper cable:

10Hz to 10KHz 0.008dB. 10kHz 0.016dB At 25kHz 0.028dB 

At 3mm diameter and 6 feet copper cable:

10Hz to 10KHz 0.007dB. 10kHz 0.016dB At 25kHz 0.026dB


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





ev13wt said:


> At 3mm diameter and 6 feet copper cable:
> 
> 10Hz to 10KHz 0.008dB. 10kHz 0.016dB At 25kHz 0.028dB
> 
> ...


 
   
  What exactly are you basing your numbers on? I know you say 3mm diameter by 6 feet, but what's the 3mm diameter refer to and what's the geometry of the cable?
   
  se


----------



## Speedskater

Yes 'ev13wt' you need to describe the entire test setup before those numbers have any meaning.
   
Source impedance?
Load impedance?
Cable construction? (Zip cord, twisted pair, co-ax)
Capacitance? 
Self inductance?


----------



## Steve Eddy

I'm beginning to think he was just pulling yblad's leg.
   
  se


----------



## ev13wt

Its an example calculation, not real measurements. I wanted to show the magnitude of how these things translate into real life "levels" aka dB. I don't even want to discuss cables at all, not sure how I got lost in this thread. This info is actually from a loudspeaker cable debate I had over on audiokarma.

For the copper (edit: stranded wire) example, assume 58 (61 for silver) × 107 mhos per meter at 2x3 meters, assume a perfect source of 0 Ohms, and a load of 8Ohms. Dielectric relative permittivity value is 1.5 This can be calculated to power loss in a transmission line vs frequency.

edit: I can't get the 7 up to superscript, read it like "to the powers of" 

more edit: Assume the audio frequency range... BTW, I love aftermarket cables.


----------



## wafflezz

Quote: 





ev13wt said:


> At 3mm diameter and 6 feet copper cable:
> 
> 10Hz to 10KHz 0.008dB. 10kHz 0.016dB At 25kHz 0.028dB
> 
> ...


 
  Oh wow. I don't even know if that's audible. I think the threshold is something like .1db

 Thanks for the data man. Assuming this is correct I think you just saved some people a lot of money...


----------



## yblad

wafflezz said:


> Oh wow. I don't even know if that's audible. I think the threshold is something like .1db
> 
> 
> Thanks for the data man. Assuming this is correct I think you just saved some people a lot of money...




It depends how good the data is. Really do need some more info on it. These things are so very complicated. As I mentioned earlier wires are LCR circuits and unless we know information on the inductance and capacitance we can't tell if the data is useful for the types of cables we use. Power loss is actually really very complicated in the real world where we have to take account of electrical resonance effects. Which is why we need the other data. But if it's just an example calculation (read above) then it doesn't really answer the question unless you do factor in inductance and capacitance and calculate the electrical resonance curve. Curves in fact as there are harmonics. you would then need to map those onto the data and see what it does to it. Lots more calculations


----------



## ev13wt

So, go do it! Can you give a ballpark figure of the power loss?

I mean, one could go out and measure cables and then set forth some source and headphone impedance and factor in all the data you are calling for and the temperature of the air and what not, but in the end what will happen?

A power loss greater than 0.1? Unless the cable is purposely built incorrectly I doubt it will happen.

But I have tin ears and probably can't hear much above 16KHz anymore so who am I to talk about cables sounding different. If the do to anyone then the upgrade was worth it, unless you sold your car or are hurting yourself or your family to finance the cables.


----------



## yblad

I'll have a "ballpark" look at it when I get chance. I need to research some data to input into it and then do some calculating. But keep in mind it will be approximate and only be a certain test case. I don't want people shouting at me saying "that's only for one length and thickness" because I am well aware that that's the case. I also can't include cable geometry effects because trust me when I say that is very (read VERY) complicated and I don't have the time. And I don't want people to think, whatever the results, that it answers the question on if cables make a difference. It's too complicated and varied a problem to do that. Unless you guys want to pay my wages for a while and convince the department it's a good spend of resources  also I'm not an electrodynamicist or a materials expert, or even in solid state physics for that matter. Hell I'm not even in condensed matter physics. My areas of interest are on a much smaller scale than that  but when I have time I'll have a look at it. Can't promise a time scale or that I'll bring results, if I'm not happy with it after the amount of time I'm prepared to invest I'm not posting it just to have it torn apart.


----------



## yblad

I have no idea if it will push it over 0.1 to be honest. Let's wait and see. I should imagine that if there was something enough to cause differences above a reasonable threshold we would know about it by now. But I'll have a look.


----------



## Frihed89

Quote: 





steeleblayde said:


> If that's the case, then theres no point getting silver cables due to their higher prices...


 
  There are audible characteristics of signals that can not be inferred from an O'scope or a DVM, or can only be guessed at, ex post.  Some cables sound different from one-another; some better, some worse, while others don't sound different whether they "measure" the same or not.  Also these changes are often system dependant.  Since there can be large price differences in cables, this means a person can spend, literally, years, "upgrading" cables and potentially a lot of money before they find the cables that do they want, if they ever do.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





frihed89 said:


> There are audible characteristics of signals that can not be inferred from an O'scope or a DVM, or can only be guessed at, ex post.


 
   
  Who says oscilloscopes and DVMs are the only measurement tools available?
   
  Unless you're prepared to veer off into the paranormal, an audio signal is really nothing more than a change in voltage and current over time. And it's possible to measure a cable's performance in both the time and frequency domains to levels orders of magnitude lower than any human can ever hope to perceive. Any non-linear characteristic of a cable would manifest itself in distortion analysis which can be measured down to -160db using the proper equipment and test setup.
   
  And to date (and that covers a span of over 30 years), no one has ever demonstrated actual audible differences among cables save for cables which have pathologically high resistance, inductance and/or capacitance. So I'm curious as to just what you base your claim on.
   
  se


----------



## JohnSantana

steve eddy said:


> ............
> 
> And to date (and that covers a span of over 30 years), no one has ever demonstrated actual audible differences among cables save for cables which have pathologically high resistance, inductance and/or capacitance. So I'm curious as to just what you base your claim on.
> 
> se




Many thanks for the clarification Mr. Ed, I now understand by reading this forum that cable materials cannot hugely improve sound quality, apart from aesthetics, ergonomical, microphonics effects and cosmetic, there is no other benefits scientifically.


----------



## Steve Eddy

johnsantana said:


> Many thanks for the clarification Mr. Ed, I now understand by reading this forum that cable materials cannot hugely improve sound quality, apart from aesthetics, ergonomical, microphonics effects and cosmetic, there is no other benefits scientifically.




Well, no one has yet demonstrated there to be. So until someone does, I can't in good conscience make any claims, or support the unsubstantiated claims of others to the contrary.

se


----------



## Frihed89

Thanks Steve.  It's in the nature of interpreting the impact of the distortion on what we hear.  I don't think that's the paranormal.  I think cables have the potential to do more harm than good and the best they can do is to bring out the best in your system...that is already there.  Different systems sound better, but only up to a point, or worse with different cables. For example: Audio Note makes cables that fit together sonically with with their components.  Using non-Audio Note cables in an all Audio Note system usually doesn't work as well.  I have gone from all Audio Note to just an Audio Note digital front end.  I have a fairly lush 26 preamp and pretty neutral (for SET) 2 stage 45 amp coupled to a pair of single driver + tweeter speaker with high freq. cross over.  The silver Audio Note cables I have do not suit it at all (speakers become shouty) and the their copper cable is too "round".  I found another brand of copper cable that pulls things together much better to my ears and stopped.  Its design is actually pretty crude from what I can tell.  
   
  I don't think this is an exact science: too many other variables, of which the ear and brain's roles are hard to quantify. If you add up all the partial fixed effects and interactions and then throw in some randomness, the experimental design required to isolate the effect of different cables in a system from a subjective perspective is daunting, as you can only hear the system through the whole system.  I doubt very much if the ability to measure various electrical characteristics of the signal at each junction in the system would be very helpful, because it wouldn't show too much difference unless you were using aluminum coat hangers!


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





frihed89 said:


> Thanks Steve.  It's in the nature of interpreting the impact of the distortion on what we hear.


 
   
  I didn't see any interpretations. I saw a flat out objective claim that there are audible characteristics of signals that cannot be inferred from an oscilloscope or DVM. And while I don't have a problem agreeing with that as you stated it, but as I said, oscilloscopes and DVM's aren't the only measurement tools available.
   
  So are you saying that there are audible characteristics of signals that cannot be inferred even from the other measurement tools we have at our disposal? If so, I'm curious what exactly you base that claim on.
   
  se


----------



## Frihed89

It isn't that you can't see it/measure it; it's whether or not you can hear differences and, if you can, how you hear it.  
   
  I've lost track of where this started, probably with me mis-interpreting something you wrote.


----------



## nigeljames

Only one measuring tool is relevent to me... my ears


----------



## siles1991

Like it or not cables do make a difference...changing my stock cables to some l4e6s has always given me slightly more punch to my bass and slightly more extension to my treble. It's not a huge improvement but its still there behind the curtains, very minor.
   
  This is my logic, this is in no way stating its true in any way but its my logic, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm no cable engineer, nor an audio engineer in any way I just DIY stuff. 
   
  First thing that hit me was that power cables require cables that is able to hold currents, like how there are industrial grade cables used for making power cables for high current tools. You don't see hospitals using stuff you can buy from Walmart and such they have their own grade of equipment to go with their equally sensitive equipment.
   
  From here onwards I will be using slang or certain words because I don't have the right words for them xD
   
  Ok imagine you have a thin wire, it's like a pipe? Limited amounts of water can go through it in such the larger the AWG of the wire/pipe the more "power"/water can go through. So your getting a signal from a DAP(low end ones i guess) or maybe your phone? The signal is weak doesnt have much power so maybe even if you have power going through that cable it's little so it can flow through nicely and there won't be a difference because the cable isnt being "overloaded". But imagine "power" coming from a dedicated amp? It's a lot stronger and bigger volume, so naturally a smaller pipe/wire would hold back that huge volumes of water/power. So imagine a small amount of power flowing to your headphone drivers. If only a little of that power can reach into your driver before being released as sound waves you'd get a weak signal/sound waves.
   
  But, if you have more amounts of power going through a larger "pipe" the amount of power being released into the driver and converted into sound waves would be larger, which would in turn give a boost to the dynamics of the sound. Deeper and higher extension of bass and treble are an example. Thats my explanation when I switched my alessandro cable which was like thin and flimsy lol into a L4E6S by canare which was thicker. Than in my opinion it's useless to get a bigger cable like those power cables for headphones because headphone drivers have limitations so even if you put a nitro into a weaker car it aint going to be as fast as a better car with the same nitro. So one of the limitations of cables is the drivers ability to receive that "power" which is why speakers require large wires haha to receive more "power".
   
  Than next is silver vs copper. Would paint look smoother on a sanded piece of wood or a wood fresh from being chopped down? It's like grime in your pipe slowing down your water flow. Silver better conductivity therefore less grime in your pipe and smoother flow of "power"  
   
  Next is my opinion on cablemakers and such. Of course if everything was as simple as I stated above than anyone can just get some silver cable and throw it together to make and sell for a lot of money. Which most people believe thats what 3rd party cable makers are doing. But this is my though on it, So we know larger wire = more flow and silver = smoother flow. WHAT IF we use that knowledge to control the flow? A mix of silver and copper cables??? A mixture of larger and smaller wires??? More "power" there to make lows less rolled off, a little less "power" here to reduce the too sparkly treble. This would take a crud load of experimentation.
   
  Yeah so this is my view on how cables work hahaha, this is just my honest opinion with no scientific support at all just some random theory I cooked up.


----------



## ev13wt

siles1991 said:


> Ok imagine you have a thin wire, it's like a pipe? Limited amounts of water can go through it in such the larger the AWG of the wire/pipe the more "power"/water can go through.
> 
> Than next is silver vs copper. Would paint look smoother on a sanded piece of wood or a wood fresh from being chopped down? It's like grime in your pipe slowing down your water flow. Silver better conductivity therefore less grime in your pipe and smoother flow of "power"
> 
> Yeah so this is my view on how cables work hahaha, this is just my honest opinion with no scientific support at all just some random theory I cooked up.




While you are correct, there is such a thing as "good enough for the job" and "total overkill". So, lets say a 0.01mm cable, the one in your headphones going to the driver is "good enough" for those 1-2 inches - how can a cable that is 1 or 2mm from amp to headphones be too small for the job? 

Like a garden hose: If the faucet only produces a fixed amount of flow/pressure, then there is an optimal size of garden hose. Go bigger and the same amount of water will come out, albeit slower.

Electricity is not water, so take it with a grain of salt.

Copper vs. silver, same "good enough" logic applies here. Our cables are what - max 6 feet long and that is the longest I've seen. With the current that must "flow" to our headphones, 1mm is already total overkill.


I do wonder why nobody replaces those reeeeaaally thin wires inside the headphones. That must bring a DRAMATIC improvement!

(And easy to test too, just recable one side of the driver, reeinstall and listen to a mono signal. Should be quite obvious if there is a difference.)


Another test in 4 wire headphones would be to substitute one side with premium "high end" cables and the other 2 with standard crap cables and drive one driver with it. The signal must be mono with one side reversed (I think, maybe someone can help me out here?)

Any difference in cable would be audible! You would only hear highs with silver cable et cetera... ?


----------



## siles1991

Quote: 





ev13wt said:


> While you are correct, there is such a thing as "good enough for the job" and "total overkill". So, lets say a 0.01mm cable, the one in your headphones going to the driver is "good enough" for those 1-2 inches - how can a cable that is 1 or 2mm from amp to headphones be too small for the job?
> 
> Like a garden hose: If the faucet only produces a fixed amount of flow/pressure, then there is an optimal size of garden hose. Go bigger and the same amount of water will come out, albeit slower.
> 
> ...


 
  actually I did replace the cables inside of my Fostex T50RP all with L4E6S because I had spare cables. I also noticed that when I used the stock cable it was less sensitive, when I switched to my DIY cable which was done nicely I could hear a teeny weeny bit of hiss therefore I assumed it made it a tad more sensitive(could be solder issue but im quite confident with me soldering). The soundstage was ever so slightly different from stock to the custom one I made. The problem is soldering those "wires" directly to the drivers are a bit risky so I'm not sure if anyone would take the risk of damaging the driver to do the 4 wires 2 in one driver 2 in another. 
   
  I agree electricity is not like water but I had no idea how else to explain my theory haha but it's nice to see other people's opinion other than just saying look at frequency graphs and what not. In the end those are graphs not human ears and also graphs aren't always 100% accurate. It will always fluctuate.


----------



## ab initio

siles1991 said:


> I also noticed that when I used the stock cable it was less sensitive, when I switched to my DIY cable which was done nicely I could hear a teeny weeny bit of hiss therefore I assumed it made it a tad more sensitive(could be solder issue but im quite confident with me soldering).




Let's recap, 
You had normal, functional headphones
 You soldered new connections
You heard noise that wasn't there before
You concluse that your headphones improved

Yep, sounds legit to me 


Cheers


----------



## wiinippongamer

the Alien Crystal formula gives a bigger improvement than high-end cables with air dielectric. With this formula, the dielectric smearing effect is reversed, which makes you hear more microdetail.


----------



## siles1991

Quote: 





ab initio said:


> Let's recap,
> You had normal, functional headphones
> You soldered new connections
> You heard noise that wasn't there before
> ...


 
  so something new always has to be negative?
   
  and let me clarify I heard improvement of my sound on top of that ever so slight hiss. Weird thing is it only happens when I move my mouse or scroll my mouse wheel.
   
  do note the t50rp comes with removable cable so yeah it only happens when i switch cables, and ive checked the solder connections countless of times.


----------



## sterob

for IEM cable, from  Westone 2 cable to Lune silver cable, there is definitely audible differences.


----------



## siles1991

update : the hiss was not from the cable it came from my ODAC sigh...


----------



## yblad

siles1991 said:


> actually I did replace the cables inside of my Fostex T50RP all with L4E6S because I had spare cables. I also noticed that when I used the stock cable it was less sensitive, when I switched to my DIY cable which was done nicely I could hear a teeny weeny bit of hiss therefore I assumed it made it a tad more sensitive(could be solder issue but im quite confident with me soldering). The soundstage was ever so slightly different from stock to the custom one I made. The problem is soldering those "wires" directly to the drivers are a bit risky so I'm not sure if anyone would take the risk of damaging the driver to do the 4 wires 2 in one driver 2 in another.
> 
> I agree electricity is not like water but I had no idea how else to explain my theory haha but it's nice to see other people's opinion other than just saying look at frequency graphs and what not. In the end those are graphs not human ears and also graphs aren't always 100% accurate. It will always fluctuate.




Electricity is so completely not like water that beyond explaining the basic concept of what a current is to a schoolchild it really is totally unsuitable. It provides a nice visualisation for people without any training in electrodynamics but you can't look at anything water does and say that works for electricity. 

 In your analogy you mention that a "smaller pipe" has more "resistance" which isn't actually true for water. I assume what you're thinking about is back pressure. While it is true that this back pressure is exerted in such a situation the velocity of the water actually increases to compensate. And this is all actually for a pipe changing in size from large to small in an open circuit, not a small pipe in a closed circuit. The increase in back pressure is caused by the horizontal component of the pair of the force applied to the water in forcing it into a narrower gap (by Newton's 1st law). It is not something inherent to the smaller pipe which causes this, it is the act of moving the water outside of the small pipe diameter into the small pipe. The only reason in this situation the flow volume drops is because the water coming into the pump is at a certain pressure and you're increasing the pressure of that which is coming out of it, giving a pressure differential which tries to make the water flow the wrong way. If you have a small pipe in a closed circuit you can easily get the same flow volume by increasing the pressure of the water you put into it. The pressure is equal either side of the pump and apart from the risk of explosion everything acts pretty much the same. Assuming you don't pressurise it enough to cause it to phase change or considerably alter its viscosity. So in the water analogy the size of the pipe doesn't matter apart from explosion risk unless you increase the pressure to a degree at which it creates ice or something approaching ice.

Most importantly, not a single thing I just said occurs with electricity. So the entire analogy is faulty and you cannot derive the behaviour of electricity from that of water, even if you had understood the behaviour of water correctly. Water also doesn't have capacitance or inductance to worry about. And electricity doesn't have viscosity, pressure etc.

Yes it is true that thicker wires have a lower resistance, but the resistance changes are only a small part of what happens. When you increase the wire size you also reduce the inductance and increase the capacitance. This has a whole host of potential effects. 

The effect on the resistance as has already been discussed is really very tiny. I myself made the mistake earlier in this thread of thinking it may be significant when I messed up some mental arithmetic, but sadly it is far too small to explain any possible differences. The relationship between the inductance and capacitance is where things might be explained if indeed they do actually exist at all.

 Your final statement bemuses me greatly. To seek to give a physical explanation and then end with denying the premise of physical measurement is something I struggle to comprehend. Everything you think you know about your explanation is based on scientific measurements and/or fundamental mathematics. The human ear is a horrifically inaccurate measuring device. If you want to know the accuracy of human measuring place one hand in ice and the other in hot water. Now place them both in tepid water. You're brain will tell you it is both cold and hot at the same time. A digital thermometer may have an error of +-0.1% giving equal degrees of "fluctuation" but your brain can't even tell you if it's warm or not. Compare the thermometer graph to your perception graph and you'll see clear data next to a dartboard. We can measure the signals in wires down to less than +-0.01%, the human ear can't. Yes there may be something happening we haven't decided to measure yet (that's a huge maybe at best), but you can't possibly say that the human ear can compare to a modern graph. You can argue we might have the wrong graph, but that's about it.


----------



## siles1991

yblad said:


> Electricity is so completely not like water that beyond explaining the basic concept of what a current is to a schoolchild it really is totally unsuitable. It provides a nice visualisation for people without any training in electrodynamics but you can't look at anything water does and say that works for electricity.
> 
> In your analogy you mention that a "smaller pipe" has more "resistance" which isn't actually true for water. I assume what you're thinking about is back pressure. While it is true that this back pressure is exerted in such a situation the velocity of the water actually increases to compensate. And this is all actually for a pipe changing in size from large to small in an open circuit, not a small pipe in a closed circuit. The increase in back pressure is caused by the horizontal component of the pair of the force applied to the water in forcing it into a narrower gap (by Newton's 1st law). It is not something inherent to the smaller pipe which causes this, it is the act of moving the water outside of the small pipe diameter into the small pipe. The only reason in this situation the flow volume drops is because the water coming into the pump is at a certain pressure and you're increasing the pressure of that which is coming out of it, giving a pressure differential which tries to make the water flow the wrong way. If you have a small pipe in a closed circuit you can easily get the same flow volume by increasing the pressure of the water you put into it. The pressure is equal either side of the pump and apart from the risk of explosion everything acts pretty much the same. Assuming you don't pressurise it enough to cause it to phase change or considerably alter its viscosity. So in the water analogy the size of the pipe doesn't matter apart from explosion risk unless you increase the pressure to a degree at which it creates ice or something approaching ice.
> 
> ...



Firstly "I agree electricity is not like water but I had no idea how else to explain my theory haha" secondly its a theory that I claimed that should not be taken seriously. Third im not an electric engineer. Fourth yes I damn well know electric is not the same I used it due to the lack of the right words I already stated it in my post if you bothered to read that part. Fifth frequency graphs are fine but this is audio you listen with your ears. You dont listen using graphs on a computer audio is subjective. So yes ears are the best measuring tools you can have. In the end what you hear is important not graphs. They can be guidelines but not a definitive answer. Sixth dont need to be a keyboard warrior about something I already said was a random theory, and should not be taken so seriously. Need me to repeat myself further?


----------



## Menasor

Going from run of the mill Monoprice RCA to custom made silver IC's was a huge difference. So much that I was shocked without moments after the swap


----------



## Winegums

A silver cable would make the biggest difference if you had a 50 ft long distance you had to cover. Since the resistance of silver is
Lower. If silver sounds brighter then what would that mean for a superconductor cable?


----------



## ab initio

winegums said:


> If silver sounds brighter then what would that mean for a superconductor cable?




True fact: Everything sounds warm compared to superconducting cables.

Cheers


----------



## yblad

siles1991 said:


> Firstly "I agree electricity is not like water but I had no idea how else to explain my theory haha" secondly its a theory that I claimed that should not be taken seriously. Third im not an electric engineer. Fourth yes I damn well know electric is not the same I used it due to the lack of the right words I already stated it in my post if you bothered to read that part. Fifth frequency graphs are fine but this is audio you listen with your ears. You dont listen using graphs on a computer audio is subjective. So yes ears are the best measuring tools you can have. In the end what you hear is important not graphs. They can be guidelines but not a definitive answer. Sixth dont need to be a keyboard warrior about something I already said was a random theory, and should not be taken so seriously. Need me to repeat myself further?




You may have said you know it's not like water but then going on to deduce everything from water invalidates that statement. Especially when you then get how water works completely wrong anyway. It doesn't matter that you're not an electrical engineer, when your attempting to explain something via electrical theory it will challenged and corrected by those standards. I'm not a professional EE either  If it's not supposed to be taken seriously, examined, and challenged why post it in a serious debate? Such things belong in your head.

Actually you listen to audio with your brain. That soft squishy mass we all have is completely unreliable. Just knowing the cable is a different material is enough for it to sound different. The only way we can actually know is by physical measurement and/or extensive abx type testing. The question being debated isn't "can I hear a difference" it's "is there a difference". A great many people hear no difference between them so there is equal perceptive evidence on both sides.


----------



## yblad

winegums said:


> A silver cable would make the biggest difference if you had a 50 ft long distance you had to cover. Since the resistance of silver is
> Lower. If silver sounds brighter then what would that mean for a superconductor cable?




I think the main difference there is whether or not your headphones explode.


----------



## Winegums

yblad said:


> I think the main difference there is whether or not your headphones explode.



Why would your headphones explode? The only difference would be is you would have a perfectly unbiased signal path. There would be no loss in the cable so you would have a perfect load and source relationship, nothing in the middle.Yes it would be easier to blow up your headphones but only because you'd have less resistance on the amp. So end result would be you'd turn up your volume less that you regularly would.


----------



## siles1991

Quote: 





yblad said:


> You may have said you know it's not like water but then going on to deduce everything from water invalidates that statement. Especially when you then get how water works completely wrong anyway. It doesn't matter that you're not an electrical engineer, when your attempting to explain something via electrical theory it will challenged and corrected by those standards. I'm not a professional EE either
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  serious debate? I don't see any serious debate going on here lol??? It's called random blab doesnt have to be challenged because it's not even claiming that its true...and I repeat it doesnt matter how perfect or accurate your frequency graphs are if you don't hear the same thing. Therefore your ears will be the main decisive factor, if you can't hear it than so let it be unless you have an inferiority complex and wish to disprove how silver cables dont make a difference to feel less inferior.
   
  Let's recap your trying to disprove a theory which I just randomly made up in my bored time, I didn't say it was remotely true, I also already claimed I used water because of a lack of other words to use. Serious debate...practically most of the comments here are self-experience  not "debating". I think you might be in the wrong thread. All in all good job for being a know it all  give yourself a pat in the back for challenging and dissecting a completely random theory which should not have been taken seriously from the beginning. also its okay dont bother replying from your previous replies I can see your not one to back down, and i'm not interested in any further arguing, have a good day.


----------



## Speedskater

On Copper and Silver Cables:
   
  The ratio of Resistivity between Copper and Silver is about 1.17.  So this means that you could replace a 10 foot Copper cable with a same cross-section Silver cable that is 11.7 feet long.
   
  Interestingly the AWG step size ratio of 1.26 is very close to that 1.17 ratio.  So you could replace a Silver 14  AWG speaker cable with a 13 AWG Copper cable of about the same length.
   
  Not much difference is there?


----------



## yblad

siles1991 said:


> serious debate? I don't see any serious debate going on here lol??? It's called random blab doesnt have to be challenged because it's not even claiming that its true...and I repeat it doesnt matter how perfect or accurate your frequency graphs are if you don't hear the same thing. Therefore your ears will be the main decisive factor, if you can't hear it than so let it be unless you have an inferiority complex and wish to disprove how silver cables dont make a difference to feel less inferior.
> 
> Let's recap your trying to disprove a theory which I just randomly made up in my bored time, I didn't say it was remotely true, I also already claimed I used water because of a lack of other words to use. Serious debate...practically most of the comments here are self-experience  not "debating". I think you might be in the wrong thread. All in all good job for being a know it all  give yourself a pat in the back for challenging and dissecting a completely random theory which should not have been taken seriously from the beginning. also its okay dont bother replying from your previous replies I can see your not one to back down, and i'm not interested in any further arguing, have a good day.




Actually I think you'll find I have myself proposed several possible reasons as to why silver cables might make a difference. I seek to find the truth, with no bias. Inferiority complexes aren't really my style :rolleyes: lets not get into personal insults though, I haven’t insulted you and I’d ask that you extend the same courtesy to me. This is a debate about science, not a playground. 

If you were a historian and someone said the second world war was in 1066, would you not correct that? It's my job to understand these things. It's not my fault that you don't. A theory (and actually it was more of a hypothesis, probably even conjecture) is there to be challenged. If you don't want it examined don't post it in the first place. You can't say you think something works a certain way because of x and then say that it was never intended to listened to or critiqued. Do that in your head, not on a thread attempting to genuinely answer the question. If you say "I think it works like this" you are automatically asking for it to be taken seriously.

I apologise if you feel I offended you by correcting what you said, it was not my intent. You cannot blame me however for your lack of knowledge, and throwing around personal insults because someone knows more than you isn't really on.


----------



## siles1991

Quote: 





yblad said:


> Actually I think you'll find I have myself proposed several possible reasons as to why silver cables might make a difference. I seek to find the truth, with no bias. Inferiority complexes aren't really my style
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  whatever floats your boat


----------



## Winegums

Quote: 





speedskater said:


> On Copper and Silver Cables:
> 
> The ratio of Resistivity between Copper and Silver is about 1.17.  So this means that you could replace a 10 foot Copper cable with a same cross-section Silver cable that is 11.7 feet long.
> 
> ...


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect
  Silver has the lowest skin depth, this lets the wire carry a higher frequency signal before it encounters an exponentially increasing resistance. It's less about standard resistance and more about frequency resistance.
   
  There's about a 6% percent difference between pure silver and pure copper. Whether the human ear can detect that 6% is questionable. I have noticed that with a top of the line planetwaves oxide free copper cable my guitar is noticeably brighter as well as have greater clarity, (it sounds like a 8-10% increase in sound quality).
   
  I'm a skeptic and a believer in higher quality cabling. On one hand I think that they increase sound quality and frequency response. On the other hand I'm doubtful that the price jump (1000% in some cases) from a high quality pure copper cable to a pure silver cable is justified.


----------



## Steve Eddy

winegums said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect
> Silver has the lowest skin depth, this lets the wire carry a higher frequency signal before it encounters an exponentially increasing resistance.




Just the opposite. Higher conductivity and a shallower skin depth means that the ratio between DC resistance and AC resistance is greater, which means a greater effect on high frequency roll off compared to a metal with a lower conductivity. In other words, in terms of skin effect, brass would be better than copper, and copper better than silver.

se


----------



## Winegums

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Just the opposite. Higher conductivity and a shallower skin depth means that the ratio between DC resistance and AC resistance is greater, which means a greater effect on high frequency roll off compared to a metal with a lower conductivity. In other words, in terms of skin effect, brass would be better than copper, and copper better than silver.
> 
> se


 
  But if silver is theoretically worse, then why does it sound brighter?


----------



## ab initio

Quote: 





winegums said:


> But if silver is theoretically worse, then why does it sound brighter?


 

 Who has conclusively demonstrated that typical lengths of sliver and copper cables of reasonable quality are _audibly _different?


----------



## Winegums

Quote: 





ab initio said:


> Who has conclusively demonstrated that typical lengths of sliver and copper cables of reasonable quality are _audibly _different?


 
  If I was still in school for Electrical engineering I would run some frequency response tests with two equal resistance silver and copper wires (by varying their length).


----------



## ab initio

winegums said:


> If I was still in school for Electrical engineering I would run some frequency response tests with two equal resistance silver and copper wires (by varying their length).




Theres more to life than just resistance. Capacitance and inductence play a role in the transmission of signals in a wire. The fact is, in normal length cables of normal gauge, all of these values are increadibly small compared to the other elements in the signal path. Another headfier has done some fairly well done tests on various interconnects and demonstrated that the various interconnects show no real statistical differences.

Cables should be the very last part you worry about when trying to upgrade the sonic performance of your gear. 

Cheers

Edit: heres the link for the interconnect test by nick_Charles


----------



## Steve Eddy

winegums said:


> But if silver is theoretically worse, then why does it sound brighter?




I don't know that it does. No one has ever demonstrated that its audibly different from any other metal, all else being equal.

se


----------



## noahbickart

Quote: 





chops said:


> All I have to say is that I highly doubt that Monster Cable, KimberKable, Cardas, Analysis Plus, Sraightwire, and all those other major companies made their millions just on myths and psychoacoustics.


 
_[size=small]Expectation Bias accounts for most of their profit. Also blatantly false advertising claims.[/size]_
   
_[size=small]The whole "silver cables are brighter" and "copper cables are warmer" statements (neither of which can be substantiated by science in any way) are best attributed, in my opinion, to the colors of the metals themselves.[/size]_
   
_[size=small]And before someone tells me that their experience is correct and can't be contradicted, I saw the sun rise this morning- so don't go telling me about [/size]_*heliocentrism*_[size=small].[/size]_


----------



## Winegums

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1790/


----------



## ab initio

Nice read, Thanks!
   
Fine print: Although I'm sad that the author didn't do some example problems (or cite others who've done the example problems) to using the underlying theories to conclusively demonstrate his points. It's always nice for those with applied math, physics, or engineering backgrounds, but who may not have focused on EE topics.
   
  Cheers!


----------



## JohnSantana

orpheus said:


> well.... is there any point in getting any cable over another, copper or silver? the things that people claim to hear are not measurable in a normal analyzer. so, without getting into the normal cables-don't-make-a-difference arguments........ i just thought i'd say that it's pretty clear that silver is not "brighter"...... though i guess people could argue it sounds different in other non-measurable ways.
> 
> 
> but i think this "brighter" thing is definitely a myth.
> ...




I guess it's all up to the listener ears and the preference of the person who uses the cable.


----------



## Hapster

I use silver because It doesn't turn into that nasty green color like copper when it oxidizes. That is all


----------



## Audio Reiner

I like pure Silver cables. The sound is faster, has more breath, is more clearly. But this is ONLY with solid silver cables, silver plated copper sounds more stressful and not harmonic.


----------



## ab initio

audio reiner said:


> I like pure Silver cables. The sound is faster, has more breath, is more clearly. But this is ONLY with solid silver cables, silver plated copper sounds more stressful and not harmonic.




What do any of you adjectives have to do with audio?

Also, there are no physical mechanisms by which silver plated copper can add harmonic or nonharmonic distortion in an audio cable.

Cheers


----------



## Audio Reiner

ab initio said:


> What do any of you adjectives have to do with audio?
> 
> Also, there are no physical mechanisms by which silver plated copper can add harmonic or nonharmonic distortion in an audio cable.
> 
> Cheers


 
 May be we don't know anything about that, but that means not that there is no hearable difference. That means only, we do not know enough.


----------



## ab initio

audio reiner said:


> May be we don't know anything about that, but that means not that there is no hearable difference. That means only, we do not know enough.




We know a lot. While you might be theoretically correct that there is something we dont know, the overwhelming body of scientific knowledge and emperical evidence place the burden of proof on you to demonstrate the physical mechanism by which the type of differences in cable material and construction that you speak of can lead to an audible difference.

 Furthermore, the adjectives youve used to describe the difference you think you are hearing are so imprecise that they are meaningless to anybody outside of yourself. It would be much more helpful to others if you said the difference was in the treble equalization or phase distortion or something. Then we can debate whether or not that's possible or audible 

Cheers


----------



## Audio Reiner

ab initio said:


> We know a lot. While you might be theoretically correct that there is something we dont know, the overwhelming body of scientific knowledge and emperical evidence place the burden of proof on you to demonstrate the physical mechanism by which the type of differences in cable material and construction that you speak of can lead to an audible difference.
> 
> Furthermore, the adjectives youve used to describe the difference you think you are hearing are so imprecise that they are meaningless to anybody outside of yourself. It would be much more helpful to others if you said the difference was in the treble equalization or phase distortion or something. Then we can debate whether or not that's possible or audible
> 
> ...


 

 I won't discuss it, I hear it. That is enough for me.


----------



## Astropin

Interesting article


----------



## Lenni

ab initio said:


> We know a lot. While you might be theoretically correct that there is something we dont know, the overwhelming body of scientific knowledge and emperical evidence place the burden of proof on you to demonstrate the physical mechanism by which the type of differences in cable material and construction that you speak of can lead to an audible difference.
> 
> Furthermore, the adjectives youve used to describe the difference you think you are hearing are so imprecise that they are meaningless to anybody outside of yourself. It would be much more helpful to others if you said the difference was in the treble equalization or phase distortion or something. Then we can debate whether or not that's possible or audible
> 
> ...


 
  
 they are quite accurate and meaningful to me.
  
 physical mechanism in a cable?! wow, way to go Heinstein.
  
 cable's job is to transmit signals - that's it! what Audio Rainer was perhaps alluding is that your science bible may not covering the entire story on metal conductivity, audio signal, and everything else involved in the matter.  it's reasonable.
  
  
  
  


astropin said:


> Interesting article


----------



## ab initio

lenni said:


> they are quite accurate and meaningful to me.


 
 You could do us all a favor and translate those terms into actual quantities. At the very least, "Stressful" and "(not) Harmonic" are lacking in the glossary of terms, which is the bare minimum for a term to even begin to have any sort of actual meaning when describing an analog or digitized waveform.
  


lenni said:


> physical mechanism in a cable?! wow, way to go Heinstein.


 
 Yes. If you need an introduction, wikipedia has a page here: Physical Sciences. You might be particularly interested in the 2nd- and 3rd-to-last bullet points that cover electricity&magnatism and sound.
  
  


lenni said:


> cable's job is to transmit signals - that's it!


 
 Exactly, I don't know how this concept seems to get so unnecessarily confused with the kinds of things that actually are on the frontier of human knowledge and engineering, for example, things like quantum computing, the Higgs boson, turbulence, or the Riemann Hypothesis.
  


lenni said:


> What Audio Rainer was perhaps alluding is that your science bible may not covering the entire story on metal conductivity, audio signal, and everything else involved in the matter.  it's reasonable.


 
 But it's not reasonable! Just because you guys assert that you don't understand physical mechanism involved in the transmission of an electrical signal along a wire doesn't mean that there aren't people who do understand these concepts. The principles for understanding all the basics of audio, from digital signal theory to the material science of semiconductor materials are taught in undergraduate level classes. The current body of knowledge says that one should not expect copper speaker wire versus silver plated copper speaker wire to cause a detectable difference in the transmitted audio signal. It is unreasonable. Just because folks think they hear a difference in sighted listening, it does not mean that there is an actual physical difference in the sound reproduction.
  
 There are free course materials from a somewhat well known university available here. LINK TO FREE EDUCATION. All of the fundamentals for understanding the process of sound reproduction can be found there. One just needs to give the effort to learn them. I understand that reading up on the details is not for everyone, but lack of motivation does not make one's assertions automatically valid.
  
 Cheers


----------



## Frihed89

The differences people hear is also (maybe mainly) about the problems of measuring what we hear, after the ears and brain have done in terms their reception, amplification, filtering and other forms of their processing of an audio signal (the perception of a sound) and the language we use to describe what we hear.  Measured sound and the perception and then the description of the sound, or an image, or a smell, or a .... are two very different things.  To make consistent measurements of what we hear across individuals is, to my mind, impossible.  It's just short of comparing how happy people are. It's not about physics.


----------



## elmoe

frihed89 said:


> The differences people hear is also (maybe mainly) about the problems of measuring what we hear, after the ears and brain have done in terms their reception, amplification, filtering and other forms of their processing of an audio signal (the perception of a sound) and the language we use to describe what we hear.  Measured sound and the perception and then the description of the sound, or an image, or a smell, or a .... are two very different things.  To make consistent measurements of what we hear across individuals is, to my mind, impossible.  It's just short of comparing how happy people are. It's not about physics.


 
  
 How is it then that all these people hear cables sound the same? Read some cable reviews - the general consensus is that gold cables sound lush, warm yet fast, silver sound detailed and quick, copper sounds warm and muddied...
  
 It's interesting how all these adjectives are pretty accurate descriptions of the metals' *colors/properties*... both of which have absolutely nothing to do with sound signature.


----------



## Astropin

Amazing how so many can hear a difference when they know which cable they are listening to but the difference completely disappears when they don't know which cable they are listening to.


----------



## Lenni

elmoe said:


> How is it then that all these people hear cables sound the same? Read some cable reviews - the general consensus is that gold cables sound lush, warm yet fast, silver sound detailed and quick, copper sounds warm and muddied...
> 
> It's interesting how all these adjectives are pretty accurate descriptions of the metals' *colors/properties*... both of which have absolutely nothing to do with sound signature.


 
  
 last time I peaked behind the amp, my ICs looked bright dark-pinkish colour - not sure what sound signature I should be hearing...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
 I wonder, if you were to take a sample of silver metal, or copper, and were to show it to some random people and ask them to write down both physical properties and associative qualities of the metal - out of a thousand people how many would come up with "detailed and quick" or "warm and muddied". My guess is probably no one. zero.
  
 sorry, but your ideas about the general consensus is nonsense.


----------



## elmoe

lenni said:


> last time I peaked behind the amp, my ICs looked bright dark-pinkish colour - not sure what sound signature I should be hearing...:rolleyes:
> 
> 
> I wonder, if you were to take a sample of silver metal, or copper, and were to show it to some random people and ask them to write down both physical properties and associative qualities of the metal - out of a thousand people how many would come up with "detailed and quick" or "warm and muddied". My guess is probably no one. zero.
> ...




The only thing that's nonsensical is your supposed ability to hear sound differences in cables


----------



## Lenni

it's a shame, because you guys are missing out on one of most, if not the most essential component in a good audio system: good quality cables.


----------



## ab initio

lenni said:


> it's a shame, because you guys are missing out on one of most, if not the most essential component in a good audio system: good quality cables.


 

 Not true! I have some really good cables:

I use these for DAC->crossover and crossover->powered speakers/sub, using the shortest possible length for each connection. These things are built like tanks.
I use these for stacking my DAC and headphone amp. I can't find anything shorter or better built.
And I've got this cable which came with my customized Paradox headphones.
 These are all good quality cables, built with solid engineering principles, and in the case of the paradox cable, some custom, hand-crafted sexiness.
  
 Cheers


----------



## gyzimaki

usc goose said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Chops _
> ...


 

 Well, exactly. People NEED to believe in something. In a lot of things, actually - if you're looking to capitalize on that, you just need to have no scruples and figure out what it is they wanna believe in. Then you create a plausible version of what you're gonna be targeting that specific audience with, and just let them buy it. And believe in its efficiency.
  
 Belief is a very strong motivator.


----------



## elmoe

lenni said:


> it's a shame, because you guys are missing out on one of most, if not the most essential component in a good audio system: good quality cables.


 
  
 I've had interconnects that cost up to a thousand dollars for a pair, that had raving reviews from magazines etc. They were no different than a cheap monoprice cable in terms of sound quality. What's truly a shame is people spending more than 50 bucks on a pair of cables believing they have some magical properties that will make their music sound better.
  
 What's even more shameful is people who believe cables are the most essential component in a good audio system. You're literally wasting hundreds if not thousands of your hard earned dollars on a fairytale, when you could be putting that money towards things that actually matter in your audio chain. It's your money and ultimately, do what you will, eventually you will be curious enough to test things out for yourself and you'll realize how much money you've wasted on hocus pocus.


----------



## nigeljames

IMO cables are part of the system and the signal chain and therefore are important. However there is a lot of snake oil in cable design and I would never buy expensive ( > £500 ) cables.
 I do buy good quality cables, even made my own, but do feel that very expensive cables are just a scam.


----------



## elmoe

nigeljames said:


> IMO cables are part of the system and the signal chain and therefore are important. However there is a lot of snake oil in cable design and I would never buy expensive ( > £500 ) cables.
> I do buy good quality cables, even made my own, but do feel that very expensive cables are just a scam.


 
  
 Buying good quality cables or making your own because you want something sturdy, or for aesthetic reasons is one thing. But thinking these cables will change sound quality is just not true. Ultimately, your Toxic Cables Silver Widow will sound exactly the same as a 10 dollar monoprice cable.
  
 For example, the Toxic Cables Silver Widow 6ft HD800 headphone cable costs around 150£, that's 250usd give or take. The total cost for parts, counting large, is not above 50usd. Which means you are paying 200USD strictly for a little braiding, a little soldering and some heatshrink, all things that no doubt you could've easily done yourself. And Toxic Cables is one of the cheaper cables you can buy as well, that's saying alot in my opinion. Four times the price of parts for maybe an hour's worth of work that most people who can use a soldering iron could do themselves fairly easily, that seems overly expensive to me.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Nice to see a thread like this still alive and not locked. Most of these talks degrade into 2nd grade level name calling, then closed. 


I have only the opinion that folks should try different stuff to see what works for them. There are so many variables in everyone's system. After years of not thinking cables could make a difference I found out that they do, in contrast to mainstream scientific testing and theory?

 Some gear does not scale with cables but some does. Some people hear it and some don't. Just the fact that some believe makes a reason to test stuff.


----------



## nigeljames

elmoe said:


> Buying good quality cables or making your own because you want something sturdy, or for aesthetic reasons is one thing. But thinking these cables will change sound quality is just not true. Ultimately, your Toxic Cables Silver Widow will sound exactly the same as a 10 dollar monoprice cable.
> 
> For example, the Toxic Cables Silver Widow 6ft HD800 headphone cable costs around 150£, that's 250usd give or take. The total cost for parts, counting large, is not above 50usd. Which means you are paying 200USD strictly for a little braiding, a little soldering and some heatshrink, all things that no doubt you could've easily done yourself. And Toxic Cables is one of the cheaper cables you can buy as well, that's saying alot in my opinion. Four times the price of parts for maybe an hour's worth of work that most people who can use a soldering iron could do themselves fairly easily, that seems overly expensive to me.


 
  
 Firstly I respectfully request that you do not tell me what I do or don't hear!!
  
 Secondly I feel you are totally dismissing the amount of work that can go into making quality cables. I request that you contact Frank at Toxic Cables and ask him how long it takes to complete 1 Silver Widow Cable.
  
 Thirdly Yes cables do make a difference sometimes a big difference. How do I know? simply because I have heard the differences. I few months ago, soon after I received my Toxic cables, I showed the difference between the SW and stock cables on my HE-6's to a friend, who also did not believe cables made a difference.
 He clearly heard a difference when I changed cables and heard no difference when I did not (when he was blindfolded). Thank fully he clearly preferred the SW  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  
 If you can not hear any difference between cables then that is more an issue with your hearing or the lack of resolution of your system or maybe the cables being compared are too similar.
 I admit I have heard expensive and cheap cables using the same core material, normally copper, where it's been hard to tell the difference but to say that all cables sound the same is just ridiculous and wrong and reminds me of a CD player review many years ago that said all CD players sound the same.


----------



## elmoe

nigeljames said:


> Firstly I respectfully request that you do not tell me what I do or don't hear!!
> 
> Secondly I feel you are totally dismissing the amount of work that can go into making quality cables. I request that you contact Frank at Toxic Cables and ask him how long it takes to complete 1 Silver Widow Cable.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Your first request is respectfully denied. There is scientific proof that cables do not have a sound signature, if you want to argue the contrary, that's fine, so long as you provide proof of your own. "My ears can hear it" is not an argument. The issue isn't what you can or can't hear, as there is nothing "more" or "less" to be heard in the first place. The issue is the expectation bias of your brain that makes you believe you hear something "better" simply because after spending that kind of money and seeing such a pretty looking cable, you expect it to.
  
 Secondly, no, I am not dismissing it. I've made plenty of cables myself. If you're interested in the specifics of how Frank at Toxic Cables makes his cables, you can feel free to contact him yourself. If you feel that paying 200 dollars for labor is fair, that's fine, it's your money. I'm allowed to disagree.
  
 No, cables do not make a difference. What you think you know is irrelevant unless you provide substantial scientific proof of your claim, if you heard any difference while blindfolded, and assuming the proper procedure was used (that's doubtful), then one of the cables used had design flaws. My hearing is actually quite good, it's been tested quite a few times. My system is also quite resolving, but that doesn't really matter as I have demo'd cables costing thousands of dollars on systems costing close to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and my conclusion remains the same.
  
 This is always the prime argument of the cable believer that has no substantiated proof to his claims: if others can't hear it either their hearing is bad or their system sucks. Sorry to tell you but your expensive cables sound exactly the same as the cheapest properly built cable you can find.


----------



## nigeljames

elmoe said:


> Your first request is respectfully denied. There is scientific proof that cables do not have a sound signature, if you want to argue the contrary, that's fine, so long as you provide proof of your own. "My ears can hear it" is not an argument. The issue isn't what you can or can't hear, as there is nothing "more" or "less" to be heard in the first place. The issue is the expectation bias of your brain that makes you believe you hear something "better" simply because after spending that kind of money and seeing such a pretty looking cable, you expect it to.
> 
> Secondly, no, I am not dismissing it. I've made plenty of cables myself. If you're interested in the specifics of how Frank at Toxic Cables makes his cables, you can feel free to contact him yourself. If you feel that paying 200 dollars for labor is fair, that's fine, it's your money. I'm allowed to disagree.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Sorry but you are getting silly now, very silly. I have the best proof that you can get, *my own ears*. I don't listen with science, I don't listen through a machine to tell me what I am hearing.
 If you believe science is god and is infallible then so be it. That is your problem not mine.
 Your prime argument, and it's the same for all cable naysayers, is that if it can't be proven with science it can't possibly be true.
  
 If my ears tell me, and many many many other peoples to, that there is a difference (even in blind tests) then that is far more accurate than any scientific method that you dogmatically cling to.
  
 You entitled to your opinion but not to dismiss other peoples actual experiences.
  
 Uh and I have just looked at your cable inventory.... interesting that you have wasted so much money on cables that make no difference!!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 (Enigma Audio Silver ICs
 Cardas 300b Microtwin ICs
 Moon Audio Blue Dragon Digital RCA to BNC
 Glass Toslink Optical Cable x2
 Moon Audio Black Dragon Speaker cables)


----------



## elmoe

nigeljames said:


> Sorry but you are getting silly now, very silly. I have the best proof that you can get, *my own ears*. I don't listen with science, I don't listen through a machine to tell me what I am hearing.
> If you believe science is god and is infallible then so be it. That is your problem not mine.
> Your prime argument, and it's the same for all cable naysayers, is that if it can't be proven with science it can't possibly be true.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Since you're mentioning blind tests, there hasn't been a single blind test ever done that reliably proved anyone could hear any difference between cables. Feel free to look that up.
  
 The thing is, my "opinion" is not an opinion. It's a fact, it's been proven repeatedly, for decades. And every single attempt at disproving it has failed. I'm absolutely entitled to dismiss your experiences, just as you've been dismissing not only my "opinion", but the facts of the matter entirely. Your argument is onpar with someone telling me that the moon is yellow because that's what he can see, ignoring the fact that science has proved the color is due to the sunlight hitting it/the particles in the atmosphere.


----------



## nigeljames

elmoe said:


> Since you're mentioning blind tests, there hasn't been a single blind test ever done that reliably proved anyone could hear any difference between cables. Feel free to look that up.
> 
> The thing is, my "opinion" is not an opinion. It's a fact, it's been proven repeatedly, for decades. And every single attempt at disproving it has failed. I'm absolutely entitled to dismiss your experiences, just as you've been dismissing not only my "opinion", but the facts of the matter entirely. Your argument is onpar with someone telling me that the moon is yellow because that's what he can see, ignoring the fact that science has proved the color is due to the sunlight hitting it/the particles in the atmosphere.


 
  
 Your opinion is 'only' opinion when many people disagree. I have not dismissed your opinion it was you who dismissed mine.
 If you can't hear any difference with cables, or you have convinced yourself you can't because science tells you, then that is fine. It's your choice if you want to be led by the scientific community, I make my own mind up based on my own experiences.
 I have not told you what you can or can't hear but seem intent on telling other people.
  
 There are a number of threads on head-fi dedicated to cable users who report hearing differences.
 Maybe you should try polluting on those threads and see what response you get, but then again why bother, we are all mad and hearing things that don't exist


----------



## Hapster

Just an innocent head-fier, passing through.


----------



## elmoe

nigeljames said:


> Your opinion is 'only' opinion when many people disagree. I have not dismissed your opinion it was you who dismissed mine.
> If you can't hear any difference with cables, or you have convinced yourself you can't because science tells you, then that is fine. It's your choice if you want to be led by the scientific community, I make my own mind up based on my own experiences.
> I have not told you what you can or can't hear but seem intent on telling other people.
> 
> ...




Then I guess the earth isn't really round and 2+2 don't really equal 4, those are after all just opinions I choose to believe right? 

No, you're not mad, just gullible and stubborn


----------



## Astropin

nigeljames said:


> Your opinion is 'only' opinion when many people disagree. I have not dismissed your opinion it was you who dismissed mine.
> If you can't hear any difference with cables, or you have convinced yourself you can't because science tells you, then that is fine. It's your choice if you want to be led by the scientific community, I make my own mind up based on my own experiences.
> I have not told you what you can or can't hear but seem intent on telling other people.
> 
> ...




What we are trying to tell you is that you and every other human on the face of the Earth Can Not Hear Any Difference In Sound Quality Between Properly Constructed Cables No Matter The Cost or Construction (generally copper or silver)......Period.

If I bring over a cheap Monoprice cable and set up a proper double blind test not you or anyone else could hear the difference between it and your favorite cable.....guaranteed.


----------



## nigeljames

elmoe said:


> Then I guess the earth isn't really round and 2+2 don't really equal 4, those are after all just opinions I choose to believe right?
> 
> No, you're not mad, just gullible and stubborn


 
  
 Not gullible or stubborn just *know* what I *know*. You don't believe it so be it your problem your loss (although not financially)
  
 Please go to the Toxic or Moon Audio or any other cable *appreciation* thread and tell them ALL that they are imagining any SQ differences.
 Again look at your own cable inventory, and you're really saying that cables don't make a difference 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 There are thousands of people who do believe cables make a difference. They can't all be wrong, in fact only one needs to be correct to prove that cables can make a difference.
 It comes down to blind faith in science (I never do blind faith) or common sense. I am on the side of common sense!
  
 Also many years ago scientists believed the world was flat, how wrong they were!!


----------



## nigeljames

astropin said:


> What we are trying to tell you is that you and every other human on the face of the Earth Can Not Hear Any Difference In Sound Quality Between Properly Constructed Cables No Matter The Cost or Construction (generally copper or silver)......Period.
> 
> If I bring over a cheap Monoprice cable and set up a proper double blind test not you or anyone else could hear the difference between it and your favorite cable.....guaranteed.


 
  
 I have read some funny posts on head-fi but that almost tops the lot, thanks for the laugh I appreciate it.


----------



## elmoe

nigeljames said:


> Not gullible or stubborn just *know* what I *know*. You don't believe it so be it your problem your loss (although not financially)
> 
> Please go to the Toxic or Moon Audio or any other cable *appreciation* thread and tell them ALL that they are imagining any SQ differences.
> 
> Also many years ago scientists believed the world was flat, how wrong they were!!




You know what you know, sounds like you're part of a cult. Scientists (actually it was mostly the religious, blind faith and all, you know something about that) had HYPOTHESIZED the world was flat and were PROVEN wrong.... By science.


----------



## nigeljames

elmoe said:


> You know what you know, sounds like you're part of a cult. Scientists (actually it was mostly the religious, blind faith and all, you know something about that) had HYPOTHESIZED the world was flat and were PROVEN wrong.... By science.


 
  
 Hypothesis that science attributed to.
  
 As for being part of a cult seriously I could say the same about you.
  
 But this is getting silly now so won't be commenting anymore.
  
 You believe what you have been told to believe and I will believe what I hear and leave it at that then we are both happy...deal?


----------



## elmoe

nigeljames said:


> Hypothesis that science attributed to.
> 
> As for being part of a cult seriously I could say the same about you.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Go open a dictionary and read the definition of hypothesis, then the definition of a fact.
  
 I don't "believe" anything. It's not a question of beliefs, that's the whole point. We're not talking about Santa Claus or the toothfairy.
  
 As for my cable inventory, every single one of them was bought BEFORE I actually tested things out for myself and came to the realization that it was complete rubbish. I've had much more expensive ones too, that I've since sold, because they provide no difference in sound quality whatsoever. So in fact I am well placed to know what I'm talking about, even from your 'trust your ears' standpoint.


----------



## nigeljames

elmoe said:


> Go open a dictionary and read the definition of hypothesis, then the definition of a fact.
> 
> I don't "believe" anything. It's not a question of beliefs, that's the whole point. We're not talking about Santa Claus or the toothfairy.
> 
> *As for my cable inventory, every single one of them was bought BEFORE I actually tested things out for myself and came to the realization that it was complete rubbish. I've had much more expensive ones too, that I've since sold, because they provide no difference in sound quality whatsoever. So in fact I am well placed to know what I'm talking about, even from your 'trust your ears' standpoint.*


 
  
 Yet you have not sold them, bought monoprice cables that are just as good and pocketed the difference!!, interesting... oops said I would not post anymore silly me


----------



## Steve Eddy

nigeljames said:


> Sorry but you are getting silly now, very silly. I have the best proof that you can get, *my own ears*.




Ears are fine. The problem is they're plugged into a highly subjective, embarrassingly fallible human brain. If our subjective perceptions were in fact the best proof one could get of the physical world around us, then there could be no such things as aural and optical illusions because the best proof you can get could never be so easily fooled or manipulated. Yet there are countless examples of aural and optical illusions out there. Which is why, when we want to know just what is going on around us, we don't simply "trust our ears" or "trust our eyes."

Or brains are also capable of being possessed of huge amounts of ego and vanity, which can cause some to ultimately deny their own humanity, making any sort of rational discussion with such individuals virtually impossible as has been demonstrated here. 

se


----------



## Hapster

This is like telling someone that ghosts don't exist even if they think they've seen them, it's not going to work. We just need to change the law, add regulations expensive amps, dacs, and cables with a little warning "any actual improvement in sound quality is purely imagined".


----------



## Steve Eddy

hapster said:


> This is like telling someone that ghosts don't exist even if they think they've seen them, it's not going to work.




No, it's not going to change their minds, but since the discussion isn't taking place in private, I think it's still worthwhile to present the other side for the benefit of others.

se


----------



## elmoe

nigeljames said:


> Yet you have not sold them, bought monoprice cables that are just as good and pocketed the difference!!, interesting... oops said I would not post anymore silly me


 
  
 Sure I have, I sold every single one I thought I could get my money back on, and kept the ones that wouldn't be worth selling (read: that I would sell for less than 50 bucks, might as well just keep those). It says so right there in my post you quoted. I did sell most of the expensive ones though, and pocketed quite a difference as well.
  
 The only pair of ICs I haven't sold in fact are the Cardas, which I could get around 100usd for, because they have small tears around the RCA connectors which would make their selling price plummet.


----------



## Souldriver

I'm going to use my guitar work for reference on this and say the quality of a cable is 10x more influencial on sound than the material used.
  
 Jumping from a cheap $10 cable to a $30 thicker, well built one made my guitar sound much better, clearer, more frequencies coming through, more detailed etc. But jumping from a $30 well built cable to any of the $50+ well built cables didn't really do much, if anything to the sound. Maybe a tiny bit more highs were present. I keep the expensive cables bc I already spent the money in them, the extra money I pulled into them also went to better durabikty in the construction and a lifetime warranty on some of them. But if they broke I would go back to the $30 cable that sounded just as good.
  
  
 Some players like Jimi Hendrix liked the cheap ass, high impedance $10 cables bc they would roll if highs and fuzz things up. But it wasn't material it was cheap construction.


----------



## elmoe

souldriver said:


> I'm going to use my guitar work for reference on this and say the quality of a cable is 10x more influencial on sound than the material used.
> 
> Jumping from a cheap $10 cable to a $30 thicker, well built one made my guitar sound much better, clearer, more frequencies coming through, more detailed etc. But jumping from a $30 well built cable to any of the $50+ well built cables didn't really do much, if anything to the sound. Maybe a tiny bit more highs were present. I keep the expensive cables bc I already spent the money in them, the extra money I pulled into them also went to better durabikty in the construction and a lifetime warranty on some of them. But if they broke I would go back to the $30 cable that sounded just as good.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Yep, any *properly* built cable should sound the same as any other *properly* built cable, regardless or price or materials used. If there's any kind of difference between two cables, you can be sure one of them is faulty.


----------



## superjawes

elmoe said:


> Yep, any *properly* built cable should sound the same as any other *properly* built cable, regardless or price or materials used. If there's any kind of difference between two cables, you can be sure one of them is faulty.


...well there is a length exception. Whatever wire you use is going to have Resistance and Capacitance per length (and inductance), and you can hit a point where your wire is having an additional effect despite being "good" in build quality.

Of course the length of a headphone cable is going to be extremely short relative to these effects, as would most guitar cables (and if you needed a really long guitar cable, you're probably getting excellent construction and materials for multiple reasons).


----------



## elmoe

superjawes said:


> ...well there is a length exception. Whatever wire you use is going to have Resistance and Capacitance per length (and inductance), and you can hit a point where your wire is having an additional effect despite being "good" in build quality.
> 
> Of course the length of a headphone cable is going to be extremely short relative to these effects, as would most guitar cables (and if you needed a really long guitar cable, you're probably getting excellent construction and materials for multiple reasons).


 
  
 Yes but I think we're talking about hundreds of feet here, so it's not much of a problem as far as hifi cables are concerned.


----------



## superjawes

elmoe said:


> Yes but I think we're talking about hundreds of feet here, so it's not much of a problem as far as hifi cables are concerned.


Not "hundreds" of feet if you're talking about an 8 Ohm speaker and small wire (where resistance can add up quickly), but yes, much longer than one should concern himself with here.


----------



## elmoe

superjawes said:


> Not "hundreds" of feet if you're talking about an 8 Ohm speaker and small wire (where resistance can add up quickly), but yes, much longer than one should concern himself with here.


 
 http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm
  
 Scroll down to see the table.
  
 For 10/12 AWG it can go up to hundreds of feet, but yes even with smaller wire it shouldn't be much concern.


----------



## superjawes

I've seen the table. That's why I said "small wire" 

With #22 you still get 12 feet on 8 Ohms, which is much more than you need for headphones. Heck, it still gives you some decent distance on speakers as long as you don't have to do any weird routing.

To be clear, I am agreeing with you. I was just trying to point out an actual science reason why a cable could make a difference.


----------



## elmoe

Yes yes we are on the same page, just thought I'd post the link for anyone who wants a look.


----------



## TheoS53

I recently put together a rig to measure response from IEMs, so I decided to test out the cable myth. 
  
 I got a silver oxygen free cable with the stacking kit for my Fiio X5, and compared it to the original copper cable that came with my Fiio E12 amp.
  
 The cables in question went between the audio box and the amp
  
 Tests were done using REW V5
  
 I tested both with the bass boost on, and off. 3 tests for each cable, a total of 6 for each cable
  
 Frequency response:

  
  
 Phase
  

  
  
 I read about people saying that silver cables sounded brighter, so I checked that out too
  

 Even zoomed in at a 0.1dB scale, absolutely no difference
  
  
 So, from these measurements, it does indeed seem like there is absolutely no difference between the audio reproduction between silver and copper cables (as I had suspected). However, to be fair, this has only been a single test, and only 1 sample of each cable type was used


----------



## bzippy

souldriver said:


> I'm going to use my guitar work for reference on this and say the quality of a cable is 10x more influencial on sound than the material used.
> 
> Jumping from a cheap $10 cable to a $30 thicker, well built one made my guitar sound much better, clearer, more frequencies coming through, more detailed etc. But jumping from a $30 well built cable to any of the $50+ well built cables didn't really do much, if anything to the sound. Maybe a tiny bit more highs were present. I keep the expensive cables bc I already spent the money in them, the extra money I pulled into them also went to better durabikty in the construction and a lifetime warranty on some of them. But if they broke I would go back to the $30 cable that sounded just as good.
> 
> ...


 

 I am also an electric guitar player and I agree that there is a very noticeable difference in instrument cables (cable that goes between the guitar and the amp). Like, even the potato-eared masses would easily hear these differences. But the instrument signal is super tiny and very susceptible to differences in cable capacitance. Speaker cables handle much more current and most think there is no difference as long as the wire gauge is appropriate for the cable length. I imagine headphone cables are more similar to speaker cables in application and therefore it matters little, if at all.
  
 That said, out of unbearable curiosity I just ordered an aftermarket cable to replace my stock HD600 cable. But it only cost $40 (from lunashops.com). And I chose the pure OCC over silver-plated OCC purely because I think it looks prettier.


----------



## TheoS53

bzippy said:


> I am also an electric guitar player and I agree that there is a very noticeable difference in instrument cables (cable that goes between the guitar and the amp). Like, even the potato-eared masses would easily hear these differences. But the instrument signal is super tiny and very susceptible to differences in cable capacitance. Speaker cables handle much more current and most think there is no difference as long as the wire gauge is appropriate for the cable length. I imagine headphone cables are more similar to speaker cables in application and therefore it matters little, if at all.
> 
> That said, out of unbearable curiosity I just ordered an aftermarket cable to replace my stock HD600 cable. But it only cost $40 (from lunashops.com). And I chose the pure OCC over silver-plated OCC purely because I think it looks prettier.


 
 I must admit, I have read from audio pros (or perhaps it was a video), they found no audible differences with silver, except when it came to guitars. strange


----------



## Hapster

theos53 said:


> I recently put together a rig to measure response from IEMs, so I decided to test out the cable myth.
> 
> I got a silver oxygen free cable with the stacking kit for my Fiio X5, and compared it to the original copper cable that came with my Fiio E12 amp.
> 
> ...




/thread


----------



## zachawry

theos53 said:


> I recently put together a rig to measure response from IEMs, so I decided to test out the cable myth.
> 
> I got a silver oxygen free cable with the stacking kit for my Fiio X5, and compared it to the original copper cable that came with my Fiio E12 amp.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'm sorry, I don't meant to sound harsh, but the only thing those test show is that you don't understand the limits of your testing system. 
  
 There is more to how humans perceive sound than pitch and loudness. There is a whole field devoted to studying it called psychoacoustics. 
  
 For example, would your test show the same signal for recordings of exactly middle C pitch at exactly 50db, but produced by, say, a violin, a singer, and a purely computer-generated tone? I'm not sure exactly how you tested, but it seems like graphs would be identical for the identical pitch at the identical decibel level. 
  
 And yet, the human ear can hear the difference. 
  
 I'm hardly well-read in psychoacoustics, but I've read some, and I know that there is a lot more going on in the system than just pitch and loudness. 
  
 You're like a guy with a stethoscope who claims that two hearts are identical because they're beating at the same rate, where one is producing crazy electrical irregularities that you aren't seeing because you are depending on one simple measuring device to evaluate an incredibly complex system.


----------



## Steve Eddy

zachawry said:


> I'm sorry, I don't meant to sound harsh, but the only thing those test show is that you don't understand the limits of your testing system.
> 
> There is more to sound than pitch and loudness. There is a whole field devoted to studying it called psychoacoustics.
> 
> ...




I'm afraid the lack of understanding is yours.

In the electrical domain, the audio signal exists as nothing more than voltage and current versus time. So you have a time domain and a frequency domain. In order for a cable to make any actual audible difference, it must alter the signal in the time to main and/or the frequency domain. And we can measure any alterations in each of these domains to levels orders of magnitude lower than our ability to perceive. And it has been shown over and over again that unless a cable is broken, or incompetently designed, it will not alter the signal sufficiently in either domain as to be audible.

To put it bluntly, getting an audio signal from point A to point B without any audible degradation has been a "solved problem" for probably close to a century.

And the copper/silver/whatever debates are particularly absurd. All a wire brings to the table is its conductivity, which on the applications side of things manifests as simple resistance. And a given amount of resistance is a given amount of resistance regardless if it's from a copper wire or a silver wire. There is no otherworldly property that distinguishes the two.

se


----------



## zachawry

steve eddy said:


> I'm afraid the lack of understanding is yours.
> 
> In the electrical domain, the audio signal exists as nothing more than voltage and current versus time. So you have a time domain and a frequency domain. In order for a cable to make any actual audible difference, it must alter the signal in the time to main and/or the frequency domain. And we can measure any alterations in each of these domains to levels orders of magnitude lower than our ability to perceive. And it has been shown over and over again that unless a cable is broken, or incompetently designed, it will not alter the signal sufficiently in either domain as to be audible.
> 
> ...


 

 First of all, I was not staying that there is definitely a difference between copper and silver. I was merely saying that TheoS53's tests (while interesting) don't demonstrate there is no difference. 
  
 Second, I myself am agnostic about it. I know that I got much better sound from stock cable after upgrading, but this is likely due to "good copper" versus "bad copper." 
  
 But in the end, no amount of theorizing will settle the issue, because there are always potentially things we are failing to measure. You'd have to perform a blind test a statistically significant number of times to come to any meaningful conclusions.


----------



## TheoS53

zachawry said:


> First of all, I was not staying that there is definitely a difference between copper and silver. I was merely saying that TheoS53's tests (while interesting) don't demonstrate there is no difference.
> 
> Second, I myself am agnostic about it. I know that I got much better sound from stock cable after upgrading, but this is likely due to "good copper" versus "bad copper."
> 
> But in the end, no amount of theorizing will settle the issue, because there are always potentially things we are failing to measure. You'd have to perform a blind test a statistically significant number of times to come to any meaningful conclusions.


 
 Ok, I too didn't state it as a fact that there is a difference. I specifically said that, according to the results I got, it seems that that might be a difference..but thats a the difference between finding proof, and having results that suggest something


----------



## zachawry

theos53 said:


> Ok, I too didn't state it as a fact that there is a difference. I specifically said that, according to the results I got, it seems that that might be a difference..but thats a the difference between finding proof, and having results that suggest something


 

 Fair enough. Sorry if I was too argumentative.


----------



## Steve Eddy

zachawry said:


> First of all, I was not staying that there is definitely a difference between copper and silver. I was merely saying that TheoS53's tests (while interesting) don't demonstrate there is no difference.




Fair enough.




> Second, I myself am agnostic about it. I know that I got much better sound from stock cable after upgrading, but this is likely due to "good copper" versus "bad copper."




Not sure what that means. 




> But in the end, no amount of theorizing will settle the issue, because there are always potentially things we are failing to measure.




Not without some Nobel Prize-winning paradigm shift in our understanding.

And there's also difference testing, in which signal A (which could be passing through a copper cable) is subtracted from signal B (which could be passing through a silver cable) and has the advantage of being able to use actual music as the "test signal." If the residual isn't audible, then there's no audible difference between the two. Pretty simple.




> You'd have to perform a blind test a statistically significant number of times to come to any meaningful conclusions.




If you wanted to show that there _is_ an actual audible difference. Otherwise, a null result is just a null result.

se


----------



## Kimball Corson

I have to laugh at some of you guys. I have been in high end audio since the early 1950's and have owned much of the very best equipment along the way. The debate over whether cables and interconnects make an audible difference was settled decades ago. The same for amplifiers. You are ridiculing the wrong person. Next, I also have to laugh again at you guys for opining on the accuracy of reproduced sound. Most of you have not much heard natural unamplified acoustical instruments in various venues. You have spent most of your lives, not at symphonies and live jazz concerts, but listening to speakers make music from instruments often with the aid of mixing consoles. You have no reality reference. It really is humorous.
  
I really am amused, too, at being dubbed a Junior Head-Fi'er at age 73, having been in high end audio since its beginning with the GE and Shure cartridges and Garrard turntables starting in 1953, before even Edward Villchur came up with his acoustic suspension loudspeaker in 1954 which was demonstrated in Grand Central Station in New York City a year later. A very far cry from the later Wilson Wham and Infinity reference speaker systems.


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> I have to laugh at some of you guys. I have been in high end audio since the late 1950's and have owned much of the very best equipment along the way. The debate over whether cables and interconnects make an audible difference was settled decades ago.





Do you have any sort of cite or reference for this? Or is this just more of the same empty claims I've witnessed for the past 30 years?

Or am I misunderstanding what it is you're trying to say?

se


----------



## Kimball Corson

Kimber, MIT, Cardas, Audioquest and many others have been making and selling high end cables and interconnects to the high end community for decades. See, for example, the offerings of the thecableco.com and its trial library for what is out there now. Those who deny such differences are condemned to inferior equipment as a just reward. High end audio at CES has been using customized and specialized cables and interconnects for even much longer. The settled consensus of the high end community is measuring equipment can't detect differences double blind tested ears can. The disputes remain over what is best and then what is best at each price point. Those who listen to a lot of live, unamplified and unprocessed sound from live instruments tend to prefer a subset of cables and interconnects. But the arguments that amplifiers (Julian Hirsh in the 60's), cables and interconnects (various and later) that measure the same. sound the same are clearly out the window and have been for decades. NASA is now purchasing specialized wire from high end audio companies because some of it works better in some sensitive applications although NASA engineers don't know why. Fight and ridicule these ideas all you want. You are just decades late to the discussion and party, and good luck ever having the best there is in equipment and reproduced sound.


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> Kimber, MIT, Cardas, Audioquest and many others have been making and selling high end cables and interconnects to the high end community for decades. See, for example, the offerings of the thecableco.com and its trial library for what is out there now. Those who deny such differences are condemned to inferior equipment as a just reward. High end audio at CES has been using customized and specialized cables and interconnects for even much longer. The settled consensus of the high end community is measuring equipment can't detect differences double blind tested ears can. The disputes remain over what is best and then what is best at each price point. Those who listen to a lot of live, unamplified and unprocessed sound from live instruments tend to prefer a subset of cables and interconnects. But the arguments that amplifiers (Julian Hirsh in the 60's), cables and interconnects (various and later) that measure the same. sound the same are clearly out the window and have been for decades. NASA is now purchasing specialized wire from high end audio companies because some of it works better in some sensitive applications although NASA engineers don't know why. Fight and ridicule these ideas all you want. You are just decades late to the discussion and party, and good luck ever having the best there is in equipment and reproduced sound.




Them's an awful lot of words for saying nothing meaningful. Or as my ol' granpappy used to say, "I see a lot of chopping, but no chips flying." And I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for something more specific regarding your NASA engineer claims.

I'm curious. Why did it take three years before making your first post?

se


----------



## CanadianMaestro

steve eddy said:


> *I'm curious. Why did it take three years before making your first post?*
> 
> se


 
  
 Maybe he's just got other priorities, like work, family,  and enjoying the music.


----------



## scootermafia

I've heard of cable companies buying from factories that supplied NASA, but never the opposite.


----------



## Kimball Corson

Nothing meaningful to you, that is.   But it is not all "no wood chips" to everyone.

 The NASA bit I got from my cousin who worked for Cal Tech/JPL with NASA but I did find this just now on line, http://www.analysis-plus.com/letterfromnasa/ The companies I heard about from my cousin were JPS Labs and Audience. Such companies typically do not buy their product or "wire" from other companies, but make it themselves in their own labs. They are not repackaging operations.

 I am over educated, have many interests, read voraciously, but as a general rule don't post on forums of any kind and might not here again. I have not learned anything at all from this exchange and that is my business in life now that I am retired and have more time.


----------



## Steve Eddy

canadianmaestro said:


> Maybe he's just got other priorities, like work, family,  and enjoying the music.




Maybe. How did he ever find the time to register? And his post count has tripled in the past 24 hours. Maybe he quit his job and his wife threw him out so he has more time on his hands now.

se


----------



## Kimball Corson

Pass.


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> The NASA bit I got from my cousin who worked for Cal Tech/JPL with NASA but I did find this just now on line, http://www.analysis-plus.com/letterfromnasa/




That's rather misleading. They say "Letter from NASA" but the letter is from a gentleman from the National Institute of Aerospace, which is a private, non-profit organization, with a .org, not .gov website. While they have an association with NASA, getting a letter from them is not the same as getting a letter from NASA or that it was NASA who was contacting speaker cable manufacturers.

Also, they were looking to loudspeaker cable manufacturers to simply find an off-the-shelf solution that would work for their application rather than using something specifically engineered for their application. Their primary concern seems to be finding something more flexible than the stiffer wire they were using. The AP wire seems to have met that criteria, but the AP wire didn't seem to be special in any other respect. They just said that one model was on par with the cable they were currently using and that another model produced instability so they rejected it.

That's a far cry from your claiming "NASA is now purchasing specialized wire from high end audio companies because some of it works better in some sensitive applications although NASA engineers don't know why." so try again.




> The companies I heard about from my cousin were JPS Labs and Audience. Such companies typically do not buy their product or "wire" from other companies, but make it themselves in their own labs. They are not repackaging operations.




Neither of those companies make their wires or cables in their own labs, save for soldering on connectors and applying Techflex and heatshrink. They have their stuff made by real wire and cable manufacturers (New England Wire as just one example of many). They may have stuff made to their specifications (materials, cable geometries, etc.), but they're not making it "in their own labs." 




> I am over educated, have many interests, read voraciously, but as a general rule don't post on forums of any kind and might not here again. I have not learned anything at all from this exchange...




You will. Check your PM in a little while.

se


----------



## CanadianMaestro

Go easy on the guy.


----------



## Steve Eddy

canadianmaestro said:


> Go easy on the guy.




Don't worry. Kid gloves. Not Everlast. 

se


----------



## Kimball Corson

You obviously have no idea how NASA operates in conjunction private contractors or JPL or Cal Tech.
  
 And speaking of no "wood chips," the likes of JPS Labs and Audience develop and test their own wires in their own labs and then, like NASA and many if not most high tech companies, contract out part or all of production. They consider it their stuff done in their labs.
  
 Still haven't learned anything and so will leave here.
  
 I wish you well listening to your lamp cord speaker wire and stock cables and interconnects, but know that at the very top end of the audio world, your views don't exist or have any currency.


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> Still haven't learned anything and so will leave here.




Good riddance.

se


----------



## CanadianMaestro

"The problem with quotes and articles from the Internet is that most of them are made up."
 --- Charles Dickens


----------



## Steve Eddy

canadianmaestro said:


> "The problem with quotes and articles from the Internet is that most of them are made up."
> --- Charles Dickens




Sure that was Dickens? Sounds more like Wilde or Twain.

se


----------



## IHMEYERS

I have been an audio fanatic since the age of 15 (35 years now).  I can almost always hear the differences between cables, connectors, vibration materials, etc. To my ears it has never been a matter of silver vs. copper vs silver-coated copper, etc.  All wires sound different and the same brand of wire will sound different with different equipment.  I'm not a scientist and I never tried to measure what those differences might be.  But I am a behaviorist and a trained audiophile and I know what I hear, which is in and of itself is *completely subjective*.  What sounds 'right' to me might sound awful to you and vice versa.
  
 In the words of someone way smarter than I,
  
*Not everything that matters can be measured and not everything that can be measured matters.*
  
 A. Einstein


----------



## CanadianMaestro

A true statement. But when in doubt, I rely on science. If, as a scientist, after repeated attempts, I cannot replicate an experimental outcome, I must conclude that the outcome doesn't likely exist. Much as I would like to conclude otherwise. That's how progress is made, in medicine, physics, and all the essential sciences, including audio engineering.
  
 Many people state that experience trumps science. But they miss the fact that science itself is based on experience. The word, "Experiment" comes from "Experience", and it is the foundation of the scientific method.


----------



## CanadianMaestro

steve eddy said:


> Sure that was Dickens? Sounds more like Wilde or Twain.
> 
> se


 

 Might even be later. Goebbels.....


----------



## Steve Eddy

ihmeyers said:


> In the words of someone way smarter than I,
> 
> [COLOR=FF0000]*Not everything that matters can be measured and not everything that can be measured matters.*[/COLOR]
> 
> A. Einstein




Yes, but that is completely out of context. This is audio, not quantum physics.

We can measure to orders of magnitude below any human ability to hear, and no one has demonstrated anything to actully be audible that cannot be measured.

se


----------



## CanadianMaestro

He 's right, though. Not everything that matters can be reliably measured. Out of context, but I think Einstein meant it to be a blanket remark. Think Religion and "God"..... can't measure them.


----------



## Steve Eddy

canadianmaestro said:


> Many people state that experience trumps science. But they miss the fact that science itself is based on experience. The word, "Experiment" comes from "Experience", and it is the foundation of the scientific method.




Well, in a certain sense, subjective experience does trump science. At least when it comes to our enjoyment of reproduced music. Our subjective experience is really all that matters at the end of the day. And no amount of science can change what our subjective experience is. Well, excluding pharmaceuticals. 

I know I've used this before, but I think it really sums things up.

_“The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed.”_ —Robert Pirsig, _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

canadianmaestro said:


> Might even be later. Goebbels.....




HA!

se


----------



## CanadianMaestro

For once, you're right! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   There's lots of gear that measure great on paper, but sound like crap in the listening room. It's the thrill and essence of hi-end audio.


----------



## Steve Eddy

canadianmaestro said:


> He 's right, though. Not everything that matters can be reliably measured. Out of context, but I think Einstein meant it to be a blanket remark. Think Religion and "God"..... can't measure them.




Yes. I see what you mean. Rather goes to the Pirsig quote in my previous message. And for myself, it is the subjective experience that "matters."

se


----------



## CanadianMaestro

steve eddy said:


> _“The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed.”_ —Robert Pirsig, _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_
> 
> se


 
 That's a great quote. I had read Zen back in high school, and that quote just escaped unnoticed. I shall use it in my signature line. Thanks.


----------



## Steve Eddy

canadianmaestro said:


> For once, you're right!     There's lots of gear that measure great on paper, but sound like crap in the listening room. It's the thrill and essence of hi-end audio.




For _once_? Ok, I'll let that slide this time. 

And listening room aside, it ultimately depends on what our minds bring to the table.

se


----------



## CanadianMaestro

steve eddy said:


> For _once_? Ok, I'll let that slide this time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 yeah, open minds are essential for full musical enjoyment (and life in general).


----------



## Steve Eddy

canadianmaestro said:


> yeah, open minds are essential for full musical enjoyment (and life in general).




Yes. But some can take it a bit too far and their brains end up sloshing out onto the floor. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

canadianmaestro said:


> That's a great quote. I had read Zen back in high school, and that quote just escaped unnoticed. I shall use it in my signature line. Thanks.




Yeah it is. And like you, I only came to it some time after having read Zen.

Ultimately what Zen concluded was that objectivity and subjectivity can peacefully coexist.

Where things go wrong in audio is when people try and play both sides of the street at the same time. Most commonly when people insist that their subjective experience is some unerringly accurate reflection of the objective reality. This is just people letting their vanity and ego get the better of them.

As I said, when it comes to the enjoyment of reproduced music, I'm wholly a subjectivist. But when someone thinking themselves a subjectivist tries crossing over to the objective side of the street, I hold them to the standards demanded by objectivity. As well when I'm wanting to expand my own knowledge of the subject.

se


----------



## Kimball Corson

ihmeyers said:


> I have been an audio fanatic since the age of 15 (35 years now).  I can almost always hear the differences between cables, connectors, vibration materials, etc. To my ears it has never been a matter of silver vs. copper vs silver-coated copper, etc.  All wires sound different and the same brand of wire will sound different with different equipment.  I'm not a scientist and I never tried to measure what those differences might be.  But I am a behaviorist and a trained audiophile and I know what I hear, which is in and of itself is *completely subjective*.  What sounds 'right' to me might sound awful to you and vice versa.
> 
> In the words of someone way smarter than I,
> 
> ...


 
 This is largely my view of it on cables and interconnects, with an exception.

 The exception is, to ears well accustomed to live music  that is not amplified or in any way electrified, much agreement can emerge about equipment configurations, including particular cables and interconnects in them, which are more accurate and true to the original sound so that. in that sense, the aural result is not so much subjective as objective. There is a reference standard and good judges to assess proximity to it.

 Einstein got that partially correct in this context. We measure characteristics today that matter which we did not think of years ago. It wasn't  that we couldn't measure them then, we just didn't know enough to think they mattered. And of course, much measurable can be not very relevant or important. to our ends.


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> This is largely my view of it on cables and interconnects, with an exception.
> 
> 
> The exception is, to ears well accustomed to live music  that is not amplified or in any way electrified, much agreement can emerge about equipment configurations, including particular cables and interconnects in them, that is more accurate and true to the original sound so that. in that sense, the aural result is not so much subjective as objective. There is a reference standard and good judges to assess proximity to it.
> ...




I thought you were leaving?

se


----------



## CanadianMaestro

steve eddy said:


> Yeah it is. And like you, I only came to it some time after having read Zen.
> 
> Ultimately what Zen concluded was that objectivity and subjectivity can peacefully coexist.
> 
> ...


 
  
 There's a time for the laboratory, and one for music. I never mix the two, generally. Both are fun. But like church and state, mixing the two can be dangerous to one's sanity.


----------



## Steve Eddy

canadianmaestro said:


> There's a time for the laboratory, and one for music. I never mix the two, generally. Both are fun. But like church and state, mixing the two can be dangerous to one's sanity.




[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/uCaf7YUmQxA[/VIDEO]

se


----------



## CanadianMaestro

Good film, just like Kubrick. 
  
 Have you seen A Clockwork Orange?


----------



## Steve Eddy

canadianmaestro said:


> Good film, just like Kubrick.
> 
> Have you seen A Clockwork Orange?  :devil_face:




Yes, my droogie. :veryevil:

se


----------



## Lenni

kimball corson said:


> ...
> 
> The exception is, to ears well accustomed to live music  that is not amplified or in any way electrified, much agreement can emerge about equipment configurations, including particular cables and interconnects in them, which are more accurate and true to the original sound so that. in that sense, *the aural result is not so much subjective as objective*. There is a reference standard and good judges to assess proximity to it.
> 
> ...


 
  
 word!
  
 I'd love if there were a machine that could analyse my system and find where the anomalies that my brain is picking up are. Unfortunately it doesn't yet exist. So, audiophiles will have to go with their gut feeling most of the time, and start a sort of process of elimination, until they are satisfied or near satisfied with the sound.


----------



## Kimball Corson

lenni said:


> word!
> 
> I'd love if there were a machine that could analyse my system and find where the anomalies that my brain is picking up are. Unfortunately it doesn't yet exist. So, audiophiles will have to go with their gut feeling most of the time, and start a sort of process of elimination, until they are satisfied or near satisfied with the sound.


 
 My approach was to run back and forth between home and live symphonies and other live, unamplified music and swap equipment in and out of my system (can buy and sell used on Audiogon at little loss) until I got closer and closer to what I was hearing live. Several of us did this together. In time, we tended to agree on much of the same equipment, although not all could afford it. Then I would buy new.  One friend was a reviewer with Stereophile and along the way we spent a lot of time listening together to equipment he got for review.  Finally, after I got a really good system, I began modifying it for improvements, down to circuit upgrades or changes, I also modified the room extensively with antiechoic treatments on some walls and the backs of blinds and also large moving baffles on the walls as well. The reviewer, who attended CES each year and took me, observed toward the end of my efforts that my system was one of the three best he had ever heard. It consumed a large listening room with studio vacuum turntable and front end electronics in an adjacent room, with an adjacent double weight door between the two rooms. I also brought in a dedicated 220v line and a separate home service for the equipment. I went all out and was fortunate to be able to afford it and have a wife who understood and also had keen, well educated ears herself. It was quite an experience. I learned that science and mathematics (I was an undergrad math major) only went so far and that little things could matter a great deal. After several years of audio bliss, I completely retired and then sold, gave to friends or replaced most everything to sail around the world solo which I am still doing. Parting with my large vinyl collection was the hardest, but it went to a good home.


----------



## AlanU

Kimball,
  
 Your approach to going back and forth from home to "real live symphonies" is one of the most hardcore audiofile methods I've heard in a while....very very cool!!
  
 Thank you for contributing to this thread...you take this heated debate/topic in stride...kudos!!
  
 I will admit i do not have golden ears but I most certainly can hear the difference when swapping from brand to brand. 
  
 I don't know how man are quick to judge on cabling.  Even my 8yr old daughter will give descriptions of sharper, smoother sounds  when I do cable swaps...talk about entertaining asking 8yr old eardrums to tell the diff between cables. Hard to eliminate the innocence out of an 8 yrs old. To them "it is what it is" as they are clueless in knowing what I am doing behind the audio rack.
  
 I still prefer 2 channel vs my headphones but I find distinct differences from silver kimber interconnects to Audio sensibility ohno copper interconnects. The sound is so different that I cannot believe people would claim "differences" do not exist.
  
 My bottom line is I'm not here to convince. I'm just hoping folks can be open minded. Cabling is more like fine tuning rather than larger steps in buying new components.  
  
 Experimentation is what this hobby is about....well I guess  you must factor wallet thickness too


----------



## Steve Eddy

Just a reminder, the subject of this thread is "_Audible Differences_ in Copper vs. Silver Cables?"

se


----------



## Kimball Corson

alanu said:


> Kimball,
> 
> Your approach to going back and forth from home to "real live symphonies" is one of the most hardcore audiofile methods I've heard in a while....very very cool!!
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hearing is largely a brain function and that in turn can be a matter of training. Help from others doesn't hurt, but listening carefully to live, unamplified live music in different venues is the best help, I think.  One problem is a piece of equipment in a system can sound better in some regards and worse in others. Also, you need to live with equipment changes for a bit independently of burn in to let your brain adjust and see how comfortable or not you become with the changes. It is really tricky business, but having live music as a reference really helps. I was amazed at how fast our group could agree on what was overall very good or not.  

 Headphones of any type lack dynamic impact. That is my problem with them. Fifth row center orchestra seating in Grady Gammage auditorium during Mahler's 2nd Symphony for enlarged orchestra can have the *proscenium st*age floor flex on its perpendicular axis by over 1 1/2" on crescendos.. The visceral impact is enormous and very real. Headphones simply can't replicate that., but with good DAP's in-ear headphone are great for walk around portable use. I listen to Emotiv 5S amplified bookself speakers and a Yamaha subwoofer on my boat and like in-ear headphones more sometimes because cheap speakers in a box always sound like speakers in a box unless inordinate sums are spent killing resonances. Too, balancing the subwoofer with those bookshelf units kills impact. So it goes . Head phones help ease the loss of decent systems.


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> Hearing is largely a brain function and that in turn can be a matter of training. Help from others doesn't hurt, but listening carefully to live, unamplified live music in different venues is the best  help, I think.  One problem is a piece of equipment in a system can sound better in some regards and worse in others. Also, you need to live with equipment changes for a bit independently of burn in to let your brain adjust and see how comfortable or not you become with the changes. It is really tricky business, but having live music as a reference really helps. I was amazed at how fast our group could agree on what was overall very good or not.
> 
> 
> Headphones of any type lack dynamic impact. That is my problem with them. Fifth row center orchestra seating in Grady Gammage auditorium during Mahler's 2nd Symphony for enlarged orchestra can have the [COLOR=6A6A6A]*proscenium st*[/COLOR]age floor flex on its perpendicular axis by over 1 1/2" on crescendos.. The visceral impact is enormous and very real. Headphones simply can't replicate that., but with good DAP's in-ear headphone are great for walk around portable use. I listen to Emotiv 5S ampified bookself speakers and a Yamaha subwoofer on my boat and like in-ear headphones more because speakers in a box always sound like speakers in a box unless inordinate sums are spent killing resonances. Too, balancing the subwoofer with those bookshelf units kills impact. So it goes . Head phones help.




I thought you said you were leaving?

se


----------



## Hapster

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/35mgl5/til_a_prize_of_1_million_has_been_offered_to/


----------



## Ivabign

hapster said:


> http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/35mgl5/til_a_prize_of_1_million_has_been_offered_to/


 

 Lol - it would be nice if someone would actually pony up the $1m


----------



## Steve Eddy

ivabign said:


> Lol - it would be nice if someone would actually pony up the $1m




Randi has the $1 million on deposit at a bank. Someone just has to demonstrate actual audible differences (outside of things like pathologically high resistance, capacitance and or inductance) and claim it.

se


----------



## Lenni

ivabign said:


> Lol - it would be nice if someone would actually pony up the $1m


 
  
 someone would have ponied it, if the challenge actually existed. the fact that nobody has... is probably because nobody has done the challenge. 
  
 I don't know all the detail, but apparently Randy pulled out of the deal a few years ago.
  
 Ask Steve Eddy - he was there at the event!


----------



## Steve Eddy

lenni said:


> I don't know all the detail, but apparently Randy pulled out of the deal a few years ago.
> 
> Ask Steve Eddy - he was there at the event!




There was no event. Randi disingenuously pulled the rug out from under Fremer before there could ever be an event (actual listening tests).

Although I doubt that Fremer would have ever passed any controlled listening tests anyway, I lost pretty much all respect for Randi after that. 

You can read my posts about it on the JREF forum archive here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96913

se


----------



## Lenni

steve eddy said:


> There was no event. Randi disingenuously pulled the rug out from under Fremer before there could ever be an event (actual listening tests).
> 
> Although I doubt that Fremer would have ever passed any controlled listening tests anyway, I lost pretty much all respect for Randi after that.
> 
> ...


 
 yeah I remember reading that. awesome. Kudos for your unbiased version of the story.


----------



## Steve Eddy

lenni said:


> yeah I remember reading that. awesome. Kudos for your unbiased version of the story.




Thank you. That caused a bit of a rift between me and some of my friends who are huge Randi fans. I was a huge Randi fan myself. But I call things as I see them, I don't care what "side" they may be coming from. And that incident showed me that Randi was more interested in mocking and impugning Fremer and the guy from Pear than giving Fremer a fair shot at it.

I don't think Randi was thinking that there were still two other cables on the table at the time Pear backed out and he pulled the rug out from under Fremer. And when that was pointed out, instead of a mea culpa, ironically he tried weaseling out of it like those who he has legitimately debunked.

se


----------



## germanturkey

so we all know the supposed alterations that silver and copper give to sound, but what about silver/gold cables?  i'm shopping around and there are a few of these as well.


----------



## Steve Eddy

germanturkey said:


> so we all know the supposed alterations that silver and copper give to sound...




Which is none.




> ...but what about silver/gold cables?  i'm shopping around and there are a few of these as well.




Do you mean separate silver and gold wires, or wires made of a silver/gold alloy?

Bottom line is, the only thing a wire brings to the table is its electrical conductivity. That's it. Which in terms of a cable translates into nothing more than simple resistance.

In the case of separate silver and gold wire, gold has a lower conductivity than silver (which has the highest conductivity of all the metals). So the final resistance would be the parallel combination of the resistances each type of wire.

It's not so simple when it comes to silver/gold alloys. There's an interesting phenomenon that occurs when you alloy gold with silver. The alloy's conductivity doesn't change linearly as you begin to add more gold. Instead, the conductivity of the alloy drops quickly and exponentially as you begin to add gold. In fact, once you reach an alloy of 50% silver and 50% gold, it's conductivity is significantly lower than that of gold alone, which has a conductivity well below that of silver to begin with.

By the time you add just 1% of gold, the conductivity is below that of copper.

But again, conductivity translates into simple resistance as far as the cable is concerned (conductivity is just a figure that's based on the end to end resistance of a fixed volume of metal). And that will depend on other factors, not just conductivity. The gauge of the wire used. The length of the wire. Bottom line, conductivity is pretty meaningless in terms of a cable. You could use an alloy with a low conductivity, but simply use more of it and end up with the same or less resistance compared to a cable using silver wire.

Still, I can't think of any reason on earth why you would want to create an alloy whose conductivity is less than that of copper, which is only slightly less conductive than silver (by about 6%), is readily available, and costs a whole lot less than silver. The only reason that makes any sense is marketing. 

se


----------



## skeptic

Fascinating info about the alloys!  What's your take on litz vs. regular occ stranded?  Is skin effect a real consideration in something like a headphone cable?


----------



## Kimball Corson

Those who persist on Head-Fi in the long dead view elsewhere that cables and interconnects don't make an audible difference have their own just deserts in the inferior systems they are self condemned to listen to. Inferior sound is their reward, if you can call it that.

 Also, many on Head-Fi under 45 or so have too little orientation to the reality of live unamplified acoustical instruments in different venues to have a well enough developed memory about what live music really sounds like. They have been too much raised on “music” run through mixing consoles and then fed into different amplified loudspeakers and so lack a sense true sonic reality. You hear references to being a "basshead" or preferring or not one "sonic signature" over another. All are indications of what I am saying. They are in no position to judge, even if they do hear differences between cables. They lack a valid reference standard.

 The flat earthers who deny cables matter tend to be caught up on measurement and testing, but both quarters are too primitive and ignorant to know how to proceed well. The same old saw used to apply to amplifiers, too. A $200 Japanese receiver that measured less than .1 % at 100 watts rated output on IM and harmonic distortion had to sound better than a pair of $15,000 Mark Levinson monoblocks rated at 100 watts at 1% harmonic distortion. What a frigging joke that was. That view and the view all cables sound alike died in two channel room stereo in the mid-1960's, but the view that cables don't matter seems to still have its proponents here and so it is alive and well in this tiny corner of the audio world.

 The real issue for a change in cables is not whether they make a difference, but is the difference an across the board improvement, or an improvement in some regards and a deterioration in others. For most ears, that is the true question, not whether different cables make any difference. But discussion of this very real issue is dumb by the flat earthers who deny cables matter sonically and are poised to ridicule such discussion. It is a shame. Too much good discussion on cable differences is quashed. We should have much discussion on is the Baldur Storm as good as the Baldur MkIII for the Shure SE535? How does it differ? Is Zee’s White Angel cable the same as the DarK Knight cable? Does a Zee’s simple 4N OFC silver plate cable do wonders for the Shure SE215 and actually put it in competition with the stock cabled Westone W4r?*  *To the point Zee’s can’t keep them in stock.  I could go on at great length here about what I have learned.


----------



## meat01

> But discussion of this very real issue is dumb by the flat earthers who deny cables matter sonically. It is ashame.


 
  
  
 It is a shame when people post facts and science about cables are called flat earthers.  Please check the science forum where there have been numerous tests proving there is no audible difference between a material that is 6% more conductive, yet there is STILL not ONE test of someone proving that there is a difference.  Science does not lie, but people who use it to prove there is no difference sonically are ridiculed and just supposed to "believe" there is a difference because you have a lot of experience and say so.  Why is this topic debated to this day if it was proven years ago?  Are there any debates on the sound quality of cassettes and CDs?  You should go win that million dollars if it is a closed case that cables make a difference!


----------



## Steve Eddy

skeptic said:


> Fascinating info about the alloys!  What's your take on litz vs. regular occ stranded?  Is skin effect a real consideration in something like a headphone cable?




Skin effect just isn't an issue at audio frequencies. Problem is, some will take something that is a real phenomenon like skin effect, blow it all out of proportion in order to create a Bogey Man to scare people and then offer them the "cure." 

se


----------



## Solrighal

My QED Silver Anniversary interconnect sounds a lot different to my Linn Black interconnect. My wife can hear it & my wife generally thinks we're all mad.


----------



## DreamKing

"Flat earther" is a terrible analogy and is ironic in the manner you chose to use it. Being that cables "matter" sonically and the earth being flat are beliefs (one being archaic in the face of overwhelming evidence). You seem pretty mad about this "tiny corner of the world" yet if the AES's and other tests don't support claims to any superiority in cables for "most ears", then I don't see why you should be so insulting. 
  


kimball corson said:


> Spoiler: ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> Those who persist on Head-Fi in the long dead view elsewhere that cables and interconnects don't make an audible difference have their own just deserts in the inferior systems they are self condemned to listen to. Inferior sound is their reward, if you can call it that.




That's the problem with "audiophiles." Their completely consumed by their own vanities and egos. This makes them ripe targets for those trying to get them to part with their money for expensive "cures" for problems that do not exist.




> Also, many on Head-Fi under 45 or so have too little orientation to the reality of live unamplified acoustical instruments in different venues to know what live music really sounds like. They have been too much raised on sound run through mixing consoles and then from amplified loudspeakers  and so lack a sense true reality. You hear references to be a "basshead" or preferring or not one "sonic signature" over another. All are indications of what I am saying. They are in no position to judge, even if they do hear differences between cables. They lack a valid reference standard.




Irrelevant. Capturing and reproducing such an event has nothing to do with the cables. 




> The flat earthers who deny cables matter tend to be caught up on measurement and testing, but both quarters are too primitive and ignorant to know how to proceed well.




The irony here is downright painful.

It is the "audiophiles" who are the flat earthers. They are the ones who are shouting "Just look at the horizon! It's flat! Trust your eyes!" and telling Pythagoras to take his measurements and shove 'em.




> The real issue for a change in cables is not whether they make a difference, but is the difference an across the board improvement, or an improvement in some regards and a deterioration in others. For most ears, that is the true question, not whether different cables make any difference. But discussion of this very real issue is dumb by the flat earthers who deny cables matter sonically. It is ashame.




The shame would be any audio cable that sufficiently altered the signal passing through it so as to actually be audible. Such a cable should be thrown in the trash immediately.

Cables are well understood and have been so for over a century. There are no mysteries, and it is trivially easy to design a cable that is audibly transparent. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> My QED Silver Anniversary interconnect sounds a lot different to my Linn Black interconnect. My wife can hear it & my wife generally thinks we're all mad.




That disinterested spouse routine is so old it has whiskers. 

se


----------



## DreamKing

Lol I thought this was the sound science forum for a moment...I'll rephrase.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dreamking said:


> Lol I thought this was the sound science forum for a moment...I'll rephrase.




Since the subject of this thread is "audible differences." I think the DBT-Free Zone rules should not apply. I suggested a long time ago that this thread should be moved to Sound Science but it's still here. So don't bother rephrasing.

se


----------



## Solrighal

steve eddy said:


> That disinterested spouse routine is so old it has whiskers.
> 
> se


 
  
 Are you trying to be offensive?


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> Are you trying to be offensive?




I'm simply saying that that non sequitur has been a cliche for many years.

se


----------



## inthere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
  
 If you a see a silver cable, you'll hear a silver cable. If you see a copper cable, you'll hear a copper cable. 
  
 However, if you don't see either cable, you'll never be able to tell the difference. 
  
 This has been proven countless times in blind testing relying on peoples actual hearing, not just measurable testing. 
  
  No one has ever, ever, ever, EVER been able to distinguish the differences between cables without seeing them, and if you feel you can do it feel free to test it yourself; if you're successful, you'll prove every single scientific test ever taken wrong and confirm the existence of an unknown, unmeasurable sonic parameter.
  
  You can make a fortune off YouTube as a point of reference for all future audio debates, as well as TV appearances and college lectures. 
  
  You don't even need to be a genius to do this, just easily and consistently do what you say you can-identify the difference between cables and show that all others with average hearing can do the same.


----------



## Solrighal

I'm well aware of confirmation bias & I'm also aware of the validity of double-blind testing. I'm not a preacher either. I am simply stating that in the specific example above there is a clearly audible difference in my setup. That is all.


----------



## inthere

Then blind test your setup.............with confidence. 
  
 I did it after spending tens of thousands on high end conversion and was crushed. I also didn't accept the measurements. Didn't accept null testing results. In the end I had to trust my own ears. And without seeing what was playing, I couldn't tell what was previously massive sonic differences. 
  
 A lot of us don't understand how powerful confirmation bias is. 
  
 Letting your wife see two cables and asking her "does the silver one sound different from the copper one?" is way different from not letting her see the cables and asking her to identify one from another 10 times.


----------



## Solrighal

inthere said:


> Letting your wife see two cables and asking her "does the silver one sound different from the copper one?" is way different from not letting her see the cables and asking her to identify one from another 10 times.


 
  
 That's not actually how it went. My wife thought I was listening to my new VT-231 valve. She had no idea the cable had changed. In fact I had forgotten about it myself (I'd been drinking). The valve being used was the same valve she'd previously heard & she's not hi-fi orientated in the slightest, which is why I've given this 'discovery' such weight in my opinion.
  
 As for double-blind testing, I don't want to. I'm happy to believe I hear differences even if it could be proven I'm mistaken. It's no biggie for me. In other aspects of life I like facts but in hi-fi? Not so much.
  
 I'm also not convinced double-blind is reliable with cables anyway, unless some kind of switching box is employed. It takes too long to switch cables & I'm aware that our audio memory is nowhere near as good as some think it is.


----------



## inthere

solrighal said:


> My wife thought I was listening to my new VT-231 valve.


 
  
 She was expecting it to sound different.................so it did


----------



## Solrighal

inthere said:


> She was expecting it to sound different.................so it did


 
  
 No, she thought it sounded different and assumed it was the valve.


----------



## skeptic

steve eddy said:


> Skin effect just isn't an issue at audio frequencies. Problem is, some will take something that is a real phenomenon like skin effect, blow it all out of proportion in order to create a Bogey Man to scare people and then offer them the "cure."
> 
> se


 
  
 Thanks Steve!  That was my operating assumption and what I was hoping to hear.  For ergonomic and aesthetic reasons, I've been flirting with the idea of making a nice short, light weight cable for my hd800's (eyeing some 26awg bulk russian mil spec occ copper on fleabay), and I have no interest in buying a solder pot or otherwise attempting to deal with litz wire.  I noticed you guys seem to use litz type 2 on Q cables and wasn't sure whether this was simply a function of material supply and market demand or because there was some cognizable sonic benefit.


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> As for double-blind testing, I don't want to. I'm happy to believe I hear differences even if it could be proven I'm mistaken. It's no biggie for me. In other aspects of life I like facts but in hi-fi? Not so much.




That's fine. But the subject of this thread is "_Audible Differences_ in Copper vs. Silver Cables."

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

skeptic said:


> Thanks Steve!  That was my operating assumption and what I was hoping to hear.  For ergonomic and aesthetic reasons, I've been flirting with the idea of making a nice short, light weight cable for my hd800's (eyeing some 26awg bulk russian mil spec occ copper on fleabay), and I have no interest in buying a solder pot or otherwise attempting to deal with litz wire.  I noticed you guys seem to use litz type 2 on Q cables and wasn't sure whether this was simply a function of material supply and market demand or because there was some cognizable sonic benefit.




Ah. 

We use a traditional litz wire with a silk serve to avoid extruded plastic insulation. It's readily available in Type 2 litz. I would have to special order to get it in Type 1, which is pretty pointless in applications where litz wire is used because a Type 1 is just a regular twisted wire and doesn't do anything to ameliorate skin effect. So it's a matter of convenience rather than a technical benefit.

se


----------



## Solrighal

steve eddy said:


> That's fine. But the subject of this thread is "_Audible Differences_ in Copper vs. Silver Cables."
> 
> se


 
  
 And I _do_ hear audible differences, which is why I posted in the first place. I found this thread because I wanted to see if I was alone & it seems I'm not.


----------



## Kimball Corson

Our ears, especially if schooled by constant  exposure to live unamplified  music, are an extremely sensitive device at detecting differences that the art of measurement is too crude, primitive and poorly developed to detect. (For example, NASA sought a cable from  a high end cable designer that had a rise time within specified bounds. Most who measure cables hardly even know what that is.)  As I say, the issue is long moot among those who own the very best sounding high end two channel room stereo systems. It is a no brainer. But here is a thought for the honest skeptics among you. Learn for yourself. Here is how at no great expense -- See, http://www.cnet.com/news/can-expensive-audio-cables-improve-the-sound-of-a-hi-fi/   I would start with room stereo systems first where as is more history, a track record and a broader selection. People at The Cable Company can help with starting recommendations for loaner cables.


----------



## Kimball Corson

Or to get more technical about it, it is not just a question of the resistance of a cable. That is too simple minded an approach. A better question what is the impedance of a cable at various frequencies? Impedance is the opposition to current flow to included resistance, capacitive reactance and inductive reactance, the latter two at different phase angles depending on frequency.  (And current flow is not the only issue.) Or better yet, the impedance of a cable connected to a device load that itself has a variable impedance at different frequencies, with its own different resistive and capacitave and inductive reactive components at different frequencies, again depending on loading, to include dampening factors, different rise times and more -- most all of which the measurement crowd ignores. Different cables can actually simulate different equalization settings, if you will, of an equalizer, and affect sound in other ways as well.

 Those here commenting on the Baldur MKIII cable, for example, observe it brings the upper mid-range a bit forward, reduces the veiling of those frequencies and cleans up the muddy mid and  upper bass as well for Westone W4r (problems for that IEM) yet, the same cable with the Shure SE535 makes the upper mid-range less bright and forward, the higher frequencies more extended and the bass stronger. Several of us all hear these same differences,  believe it or not.

 The matter is not so simple as the flat earthers make it out to be. All wire is not the same, especially under load, even if the measured resistance is the same. The matter can be taken quite farther, if one wishes to be even more technical about it, than I have here, and this is without even addressing how silver plating affects OFC or OCC and of what gauge, insulation and design configuration (the Baldur cables are quite thick.)  The notion that everything measures the same in circuit and sounds the same becomes increasingly improbable. the deeper we dig into the matter. A cable, once connected, becomes itself a part of an integrated circuit that interacts among its various components.


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> And I _do_ hear audible differences, which is why I posted in the first place. I found this thread because I wanted to see if I was alone & it seems I'm not.




You may subjectively perceive differences, but that doesn't mean they are due to actual audible differences. That's the problem with human beings. It's trivially easy for us to subjectively perceive differences even when there are none. It's just how our brains are wired and has been well established for a very long time.

That is why controlled listening tests are needed to separate that which is due to psychology and that which is due to actual audibility. Until that is done, you can't rightly make any claims as to actual audibility.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> Our ears, especially if schooled by constant  exposure to live unamplified  music, are an extremely sensitive device at detecting differences that the art of measurement is too crude, primitive and poorly developed to detect. (For example, NASA sought a cable from  a high end cable designer that had a rise time within specified bounds.




Not this nonsense again.

They weren't looking to a high end cable maker to get a cable with a specified rise time that they couldn't get with some cheaper cable. They could get the rise time they wanted from cheaper solutions. They just wanted a cable that was MORE FLEXIBLE than the cheaper ones they were using. That's it. You continue to grossly misrepresent this whole "NASA" story (again, it wasn't NASA, it was a private company).




> Most who measure cables hardly even know what that is.)




Absolute nonsense. Take your lies and get out of here.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> Or to get more technical about it, it is not just a question of the resistance of a cable. That is too simple minded an approach. A better question what is the impedance of a cable at various frequencies?




It's highest at the lowest frequencies and drops linearly with increasing frequency. It's the square root of R/2pi_fC_ where R is the cable's DC resistance, _f_ is frequency and _C_ is capacitance. And unless the cable is poorly designed, at the highest audio frequencies it will be significantly higher than the load impedance.




> Impedance is the opposition to current flow to included resistance, capacitive reactance and inductive reactance.




No. Really? I never knew that.




> Or better yet, the impedance of a cable connected to a device load that has a variable impedance at different frequencies itself with its own different resistive and capacitave and inductive reactive components at different frequencies, again depending on loading, to include dampening factors, different rise times and more -- most all of which the measurement crowd ignores.




First, it's "damping factor," not "dampening factor." 

Second, no cables, except the most incompetently designed have rise time issues in the audio band.

Third, none of this is anything the "measurement crowd" ignores. It is however something you obviously have only the most naive understanding of.

Different cables can actually simulate different equalization settings, if you will, of an equalizer, and do more as well.




> The matter is not so simple as the flat earthers make it out to be. All wire is not the same, especially under load, even if its measured resistance is the same.




You can only make this argument by resorting to lies.

No one has said that all wire is the same. This is a persistent lie that is spouted by propagandists like yourself.

It is certainly possible to make a cable that is so poorly designed that ain't can result in actual audible differences. And if you should ever happen to come across such a cable you should get your money back or throw it away.

 The point that has been made by the "measurement crowd" is that all of this is simple stuff that has been well understood for many many decades, and that it is trivially easy to design a cable for a given situation that is audibly transparent. It doesn't take any Herculean effort or cutting edge technology. Just good design practices. 

Now gather up your lies and get the hell out of here. Your naïveté is such that you have absolutely no business telling anyone anything regarding the subject.

se


----------



## Solrighal

So all properly constructed cables sound exactly the same?


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> So all properly constructed cables sound exactly the same?




Let me put it this way. A properly designed cable (which again is trivially easy) won't alter the signal passing through it in any audible fashion. 

se


----------



## Solrighal

steve eddy said:


> Let me put it this way. A properly designed cable (which again is trivially easy) won't alter the signal passing through it in any audible fashion.
> 
> se


 
  
 OK, why would you put it that way? Why not just answer yes to my question?


----------



## meat01

Zorrofox,
  
 I will try to answer your question in a polite matter and you can take it as you will.  I realize it is just an anecdote like yours.
  
 I once made some crudely built interconnects out of paperclips and scotch tape to prove the theory that the material of the cables do not make an audible difference in sound.  Each paperclip was straightened and soldered at the ends to another paperclip.  Each cable probably used 10 paperclips per lead. I used scotch tape all around them as insulation.  The things were not very flexible and very fragile, but they were able to transfer the signal without any loss in sound quality.  Whatever material paperclips are made of is conductive, but no where near as conductive as copper or silver.  
  
 I did blind tests with some friends between my interconnects and their silver ones.  None of us was able to tell the difference between the 2 cables repeatably.  The other equipment was Sennheiser HD580s, an M3 AMP and an Onix CD player.
  
 The audio signal passes through a lot of different materials to get from the source to the headphones and loudspeakers.  It travels through resistor leads, which are not made of copper or silver.  It passes through stainless steel connectors or nickel plated plugs.  It passes through tin or steel potentiometers.  It passed through crappy ribbon cables.  It passed through hair like copper wire near the headphone transducers.  Why does 3 feet of copper or silver make a difference, but the other things don't?  Wouldn't a design with a lot of resistors degrade the signal more?


----------



## Kimball Corson

Such a person as se should be monitored.


----------



## Kimball Corson

steve eddy said:


> Now gather up your lies and get the hell out of here. Your naïveté is such that you have absolutely no business telling anyone anything regarding the subject.
> 
> se


 
 Why lack civility and mannered discourse? You reveal yourself.


----------



## Kimball Corson

meat01 said:


> The audio signal passes through a lot of different materials to get from the source to the headphones and loudspeakers.  It travels through resistor leads, which are not made of copper or silver.  It passes through stainless steel connectors or nickel plated plugs.  It passes through tin or steel potentiometers.  It passed through crappy ribbon cables.  It passed through hair like copper wire near the headphone transducers.  Why does 3 feet of copper or silver make a difference, but the other things don't?  Wouldn't a design with a lot of resistors degrade the signal more?


 
 True. But top amplifier designers minimize circuitry, design their own resistors and capacitors. use much silver and gold, use ground buses, never ribbon cables, never standard potentiometers. They try to sidestep the problems you raise


----------



## Kimball Corson

steve eddy said:


> Let me put it this way. A properly designed cable (which again is trivially easy) won't alter the signal passing through it in any audible fashion.
> 
> se


 
  
 Zorrofox: OK, why would you put it that way? Why not just answer yes to my question?
  
  
 Indeed, why not answer the question?


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> OK, why would you put it that way? Why not just answer yes to my question?




If you insist, then "yes."

Happy?

se


----------



## Solrighal

meat01 said:


> Zorrofox,
> 
> I will try to answer your question in a polite matter and you can take it as you will.  I realize it is just an anecdote like yours.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I absolutely follow your logic here, thank you. I do still think I hear a difference though but I accept I could be wrong. The thing that winds me up is the attitude of @Steve Eddy.
  
 These silver cables have been hiding in a box for nearly 10 years I think & I only dug them out because they're 0.5m as opposed to every other cable's 1.0m. It's neater & they look nice. There certainly was no expectation bias on my part.
  
 Anyway, nobody died in the making of this thread so it's all good. People can believe what they want, it's only cable.


----------



## Solrighal

steve eddy said:


> If you insist, then "yes."
> 
> Happy?
> 
> se


 
  
 You're not very pleasant, are you?


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> Why lack civility and mannered discourse? You reveal yourself.




Because those who lie and mischaracterize aren't deserving of such civility.

se


----------



## Solrighal

steve eddy said:


> Because those who lie and mischaracterize aren't deserving of such civility.
> 
> se


 
  
 Who's lying? Me? I reported what I hear. You say it's what I _think_ I hear. You are entitled to your opinion. Do you have some kind of vested interest in this, because I most certainly don't?


----------



## bfreedma

kimball corson said:


> Such a person as se should be monitored.


 
  
 Yes, Steve should be monitored by those interested in factual information on this topic.
  
 You really have nothing to offer other than the usual lies/misdirections/mystical claims required to prop up those that refute established knowledge on this subject.


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> You're not very pleasant, are you?




This from the person who questioned me as to why I answered their question the way I did? Here, let me turn it around on you.

Why did you respond to my answer the way that you did? Why couldn't you just say "ok"?

se


----------



## Charliemotta

I use these on all my cables to save $ on scotch tape..   ♫


----------



## Solrighal

steve eddy said:


> This from the person who questioned me as to why I answered their question the way I did? Here, let me turn it around on you.
> 
> Why did you respond to my answer the way that you did? Why couldn't you just say "ok"?
> 
> se


 
  
 I prefer it when people just ask the question, not create a different question and answer that instead. That makes me look to motives. Like I say, I have nothing to sell. I just offered an opinion & it was you who jumped in & rubbished it.
  
 Anyway, each to their own. Good day to you.


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> I absolutely follow your logic here, thank you. I do still think I hear a difference though but I accept I could be wrong. The thing that winds me up is the attitude of @Steve Eddy




You know what winds me up? Thirty years of hearing people make claims of audible differences, not being able to actually demonstrate them, nor even able to offer a plausible _theory_ as to why there should be any audible differences.

Listening to the same tired old song over and over and over for thirty years is bound to change one's attitude. Put on a new record and maybe my attitude will change.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> I prefer it when people just ask the question, not create a different question and answer that instead. That makes me look to motives.




Except that I didn't create a different question. I simply phrased my answer in such a way that it would be unambiguous as to what I was saying.




> Like I say, I have nothing to sell. I just offered an opinion & it was you who jumped in & rubbished it.




No, you did not just "offer an opinion." If you had, I likely would have had nothing to say to you.

But when you stated that the differences you perceived where actual audible differences, that was not stating an opinion. It was a declarative statement of fact. Please learn the difference.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> Who's lying? Me?




No. Kimball Corson. Pay attention, son.

se


----------



## Kimball Corson

steve eddy said:


> You know what winds me up? Thirty years of hearing people make claims of audible differences, not being able to actually demonstrate them, nor even able to offer a plausible _theory_ as to why there should be any audible differences.
> 
> Listening to the same tired old song over and over and over for thirty years is bound to change one's attitude. Put on a new record and maybe my attitude will change.
> 
> se


 
 This is a worm's eyed view. "Not being able to back them up" comes from too quickly switching back and forth in double blind testing. That technique overlooks too much and errs. This made clear in Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman’s new book _T__hinking Fast and Slow_. (Highly recommended.) He is an expert on perception. He believes that conclusions we draw about the differences between two sounds in the short-run tend not to hold true in the long run. When it comes to this, I couldn’t agree more. But some interesting tests have been done based on that book. Short run double blind tests ask listeners to judge too quickly and tend to produce random or suggested responses. The better approach is to keep the test blind but let the test subjects take the alternatives home and switch back and forth at their leisure over time, listening casually and unconsciously. Then the results differ radically. Differences are heard that are much more confirmed, not random at all.
  



> _ One such test was done concerning high res formats. Differences were heard and confirmed with the latter method that could not be in the faster switching, controlled and pressured environment of normal double blind testing. Blindness was confirmed throughout.
> 
> _


 The testing approach we have been using is wrong. That is why we have thirty years of claimed audible differences that conventional testing cannot confirm.


----------



## Kimball Corson

steve eddy said:


> No. Kimball Corson. Pay attention, son.
> 
> se


 
  Son? Pay attention? I am 73, have multiple advanced degrees from a top university and have been in high end audio since soon after the 33 LP was invented. I have also been fortunate enough to have gone through and owned some of the very best audio equipment available. Your condescension fails.


----------



## Solrighal

steve eddy said:


> No. Kimball Corson. Pay attention, *son*.
> 
> se


 
  
 See that, right there. That's why I couldn't give a moneys for your 30 years experience.
  
 For the record I'm 50 and started out in the hi-fi trade when I was 19. I don't _perceive_ a difference I _hear_ a difference. Not with all cables, in fact not with most. But with this one particular cable I do. If you can't deal with someone holding a different opinion to you then I suggest you do one.
  
 Enough of your pish. You're blocked!


----------



## Solrighal

kimball corson said:


> Son? Pay attention? I am 73, have multiple advanced degrees from a top university and have in high end audio since soon after the 33 LP was invented. I have also been fortunate enough to have gone through and owned some of the very best audio equipment available. Your condescension fails.


 
  
 I believe the "son" was directed towards me. Still a fail though. This clown doesn't know the first thing about me.


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> Son? Pay attention? I am 73, have multiple advanced degrees from a top university and have been in high end audio since soon after the 33 LP was invented. I have also been fortunate enough to have gone through and owned some of the very best audio equipment available. Your condescension fails.




The "son" was directed at Zorrofox. Christ, what's wrong with you guys that you can't follow a simple discussion.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> I believe the "son" was directed towards me. Still a fail though. This clown doesn't know the first thing about me.




I know that you can't follow a simple message thread and figure out who is saying what to whom. I don't need to know your height, weight and date of birth to see that.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> For the record I'm 50 and started out in the hi-fi trade when I was 19. I don't _perceive_ a difference I _hear_ a difference.




But you haven't demonstrated that to be the case.

It's _all_ perception. The question is whether or not that perception is due to the sound that's striking your eardrums or whether it's purely psychological in nature. If it's purely psychological in nature, then it can't be said to be an audible difference. 

Here is a perfect example. It's called the McGurk Effect. When the video changes to his mouthing the sound "fa" with an f, you _percive_ it as if he is actually saying "fa" with an f. But the sound that's actually striking your eardrums is the same "ba" with a b that he was saying from the start. In other words, your perceiving it sounding like "fa" with an f is purely psychological in nature. There is no actual audible difference.


[VIDEO]http://youtu.be/G-lN8vWm3m0[/VIDEO]


That's the problem with "audiophiles." They have no understanding of their own humanity and the weaknesses that come along with it. And when made aware of it, they just go into deep denial, or think that their humanity can somehow be overcome by "experience," or sheer willpower. But this is nothing but vanity and ego.




> Not with all cables, in fact not with most. But with this one particular cable I do. If you can't deal with someone holding a different opinion to you then I suggest you do one.




Again, when you are making claims of actual audible differences, *YOU ARE NOT STATING AN "OPINION."*. You are making a claim of fact. And if after 50 years on this planet you don't understand the difference between the two, then you should probably not engage in discussions such as this. 




> Enough of your pish. You're blocked!




The pish is all on your side. You just don't have the capacity to understand that it's pish.

se


----------



## nigeljames

I see the thought police have arrived again.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Boring....


----------



## Kimball Corson

The flat earthers really do dampen any discussion on Head-Fi of the sonic differences between cables, as I earlier explained.  We have an example here. Indeed, a further example is as to the entire thread. But more specifically . . .

 I discussed the sonic properties of several different cables (all silver plated copper of various types) in two posts here and was immediately rained on by the naysayers.  

 This was so even though I also posted research -- indeed much inspired by a book by a Nobel Laureate and an expert on perception, indicating why double blind testing for perceived differences is a failure and will not reveal them whereas other blind testing can. Of course, there was no response by them to that at all.

 Thought police rings true. Indeed, the policing is much done by libel and insult.


----------



## skeptic

Says the guy who has to throw around the ad hominem "flat earthers" in order to try and make his point. Logical fallacy police needed asap. 

Also, still waiting on the list of supposed amp manufacturers who laser trim their own resisters and roll their own caps. Hint, the teflons in my mainline were made for arc's 25k preamp by RTI, the same company that makes virtually all high end caps. Do these same amp makers also build custom vacuum tubes using 10awg silver litz for the output? I love claims that the physical dimensions of a conductor is a "bottleneck" in the chain when the amplified signal is coming off the plate, in all or our fancy tube amps, on hair thin wires of uunknown composition.


----------



## Steve Eddy

nigeljames said:


> I see the thought police have arrived again.  :rolleyes:
> 
> Boring....




I haven't noticed any posts having been deleted. What thought police are you referring to?

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> Thought police rings true. Indeed, the policing is much done by libel and insult.




What policing? I've deleted none of your posts. There has been no libel and it's not an insult to call a liar a liar any more than it is to call a thief a thief.

se


----------



## dudlew

Some questions..... I have not read multitudes of books on the subject or researched a lot of these claims of proof of hearing differences....
  
 but it seems to be  continuous war. cant the both camps just agree to disagree? 
  
 It is hard to say that there is no differences from my point of view because i did a blind test with a complete non audiophile between two cables and the choices made were constant.
  
 Also i remember buying a cheap cable that was so bad that it was immediately obvious that it was just down right inferior.
  
 I understand the video shown about the McGurk effect, but how does it affect a blind test? Take away the other stimuli and leave it up to your ears and perhaps there might be a difference?
  
 A lot of the points against this are valid... what about the rest of the chain? arent there various things that come into play as well? why should that make a difference? But then why should there be a difference in two dacs that use the same chip and probably filters, but the difference being construction and implementation? In that case, the better quality resistors and capacitors should make no difference and neither shoud the circuit board design or the type of soldering etc. Why are there claims that potentiometers have an affect on the sound of a device, or the power supply? If they all do the same thing, then a cheap pot and cheap  transformers with the cheapest caps and resistors etc made in the same config as one using better quality parts of the same spec should sound identical. right?


----------



## Steve Eddy

dudlew said:


> Some questions..... I have not read multitudes of books on the subject or researched a lot of these claims of proof of hearing differences....




You don't need to read a book. It's very simple. When one makes an objective claim, which is a claim that holds true for all observers, then the onus is upon the person making such a claim to substantiate it. If they cannot, they have no business making the claim in the first place.

Let's say my wallet turns up missing. And I turn to you and say "You stole it!" 

Your having stolen the wallet or not would be true for all observers. So if I'm going to make the objective claim that you stole my wallet, then the onus is upon me to substantiate that claim. If I cannot, then I have no business making such a claim in the first place.

Do you understand?




> but it seems to be  continuous war. cant the both camps just agree to disagree?




No. When it comes to opinions it's fine to ultimately agree to disagree. But this is not about opinions. An objective claim of actual audible differences is not a natter of opinion. It is either true or it is false. And those who continue to make such claims but cannot substantiate them should have their feet kept to the fire until they can substantiate those claims or they stop making the claims. 




> It is hard to say that there is no differences from my point of view because i did a blind test with a complete non audiophile between two cables and the choices made were constant.




And that alone counts as nothing. Without knowing the full details and procedure of the test in order to determine if it provided proper controls, and if so the results duplicated by others, it means nothing.




> Also i remember buying a cheap cable that was so bad that it was immediately obvious that it was just down right inferior.




And I know people who say their audio systems sound much better after they put photographs of themselves in their freezers. 




> I understand the video shown about the McGurk effect, but how does it affect a blind test? Take away the other stimuli and leave it up to your ears and perhaps there might be a difference?




The McGurk Effect is simply one phenomenon. The purpose of blind testing is to control for all of the various biases and influences that can affect how we perceive things. So if you get a positive result (provided adequate controls were in place which they often aren't with amateur blind tests), you can be fairly confident that it was due to actual audible stimulus.




> A lot of the points against this are valid... what about the rest of the chain? arent there various things that come into play as well? why should that make a difference? But then why should there be a difference in two dacs that use the same chip and probably filters, but the difference being construction and implementation? In that case, the better quality resistors and capacitors should make no difference and neither shoud the circuit board design or the type of soldering etc. Why are there claims that potentiometers have an affect on the sound of a device, or the power supply? If they all do the same thing, then a cheap pot and cheap  transformers with the cheapest caps and resistors etc made in the same config as one using better quality parts of the same spec should sound identical. right?




Because people are human beings. And anyone who is truly interested in audio should be at least reasonably well versed in how any why we perceive the things that we perceive. Human beings are not the perfect measurement instruments our vanities and egos would like to lead us to believe. That's why the field of study for this sort of stuff is called _psychoacoustics_.

se


----------



## Lenni

I think there should be a total ban on science related comments in this forum. *Total*. The same stupid arguments have been going in circle over and over ad nauseam, and they serve no purpose as no one is going to be convinced by the other. Anyone with two functionally brain cells would have seen that by now.


----------



## Lenni

steve eddy said:


> What policing? I've deleted none of your posts. There has been no libel and it's not an insult to call a liar a liar any more than it is to call a thief a thief.
> 
> se


 
  
 I think you should have been banned from making comments in this forum a long time ago. Instead they appoint you as moderator? What a joke.
  
 they pretty much sign a death warrant for this forum.
  
 RIP cable forum.


----------



## Solrighal

lenni said:


> I think you should have been banned from making comments in this forum a long time ago. Instead they appoint you as moderator? What a joke.
> 
> they pretty much sign a death warrant for this forum.
> 
> RIP cable forum.


 
  
 I agree. The title of this forum is, after all, 'Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (*DBT-Free* Forum)'. The clue _should_ be in the name.


----------



## bfreedma

lenni said:


> I think there should be a total ban on science related comments in this forum. *Total*. The same stupid arguments have been going in circle over and over ad nauseam, and they serve no purpose as no one is going to be convinced by the other. Anyone with two functionally brain cells would have seen that by now.


 
  
 Would you support a total ban on unsupported claims and anecdotal evidence used as "proof" and "fact" in the Sound Science forum?
  
 I really don't see the issue - either skip or ignore posts you disagree with.  Censorship is never a good path, particularly on a forum intended for open discussion.


----------



## Lenni

bfreedma said:


> Would you support a total ban on unsupported claims and anecdotal evidence used as "proof" and "fact" in the Sound Science forum?
> 
> I really don't see the issue - either skip or ignore posts you disagree with.  Censorship is never a good path, particularly on a forum intended for open discussion.


 
 of course there should be a ban on "non scientific" discussions in the science forum. absolutely!
  
 the topic has been discussed forever. it's never going to end. I'm sick of it.


----------



## Lorspeaker

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



http://www.cabledyne.com/power-cord.html
  
 these single crystal copper n silver powercords are fabulous..
 for those in the "i can hear a diff" camp, do check them out 
  
 try the silver usb cable too.. holographic man...LOL
  


  
 ok back to the i can hear /  i cant hear grate debate.


----------



## meat01

> the topic has been discussed forever. it's never going to end. I'm sick of it.


 
  
 Then don't read it.  Go start your own thread about the things you hear with your silver cable.


----------



## Lenni

meat01 said:


> Then don't read it.  Go start your own thread about the things you hear with your silver cable.


 
  
 what's the point - it'll end up like this in no time
  
  
 why don't you start a thread in the science forum about cables?
  
 probably because apart from you, no one would be interested.


----------



## Steve Eddy

lenni said:


> I think you should have been banned from making comments in this forum a long time ago. Instead they appoint you as moderator? What a joke.
> 
> they pretty much sign a death warrant for this forum.
> 
> RIP cable forum.




They made me a moderator? That's news to me. You guys really are delusional, aren't you?

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> I agree. The title of this forum is, after all, 'Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (*DBT-Free* Forum)'. The clue _should_ be in the name.




But the SUBJECT of this thread is about *AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES*. It should have been moved to Sound Science from the start. But since they chose to leave it here, the DBT-Free rule should not apply to this thread.

se


----------



## Charliemotta

Congrats Steve!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  ♫


----------



## Lenni

steve eddy said:


> They made me a moderator? That's news to me. You guys really are delusional, aren't you?
> 
> se


 
  
 I cannot delete other people's comments. Can you?


steve eddy said:


> But the SUBJECT of this thread is about *AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES*. It should have been moved to Sound Science from the start. But since they chose to leave it here, the DBT-Free rule should not apply to this thread.
> 
> se


 
 if no-one made scientific related comments, it would have been right here where it is.


----------



## Steve Eddy

lenni said:


> I cannot delete other people's comments. Can you?




Sure can't.




> if no-one made scientific related comments, it would have been right here where it is.




No. The title itself, _audible_ differences, demands science. This thread simply doesn't belong here. So as long as it is here, it should be immune from the DBT-Free rule.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

charliemotta said:


> Congrats Steve!! :wink_face:   ♫




Yeah, who'd have thought, eh? 

se


----------



## Solrighal

Do you go through life looking for arguments? Give it a rest ***.


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> Do you go through life looking for arguments? Give it a rest ***.




I don't have to go looking. There's no end of silly statements and claims that I regularly encounter on the very few threads that I read with any regularity here. 

se


----------



## Kimball Corson

skeptic said:


> Says the guy who has to throw around the ad hominem "flat earthers" in order to try and make his point. Logical fallacy police needed asap.
> 
> Also, still waiting on the list of supposed amp manufacturers who laser trim their own resisters and roll their own caps. Hint, the teflons in my mainline were made for arc's 25k preamp by RTI, the same company that makes virtually all high end caps. Do these same amp makers also build custom vacuum tubes using 10awg silver litz for the output? I love claims that the physical dimensions of a conductor is a "bottleneck" in the chain when the amplified signal is coming off the plate, in all or our fancy tube amps, on hair thin wires of uunknown composition.


 
 This subject area is vast and clearly out of place here, but are the implications of your comment  1) all or most high end amp/preamp manufactures largely use the same or basically the same components stocked by other manufactures, and 2) Amps and preamps which measure the same sound the same, ceterus paribus, or all other things the same?


----------



## Kimball Corson

dudlew said:


> It is hard to say that there is no differences from my point of view because i did a blind test with a complete non audiophile between two cables and the choices made were constant.


 
 This has been my experience and that of my friends. Without looking, when cables were switched and we listened, we could hear differences and tell which cable was which repeatedly without looking, even to the point of telling when the cables weren't switched after being told they were. It was a no brainer. That is why the flat earthers amaze me so. I shake my head in disbelief. The difference, for example between the Baldur Storm and MkII or MKIII vs. the stock cable for the Shure SE535 is huge and marked. So it is true even for IEM cables, too. That is why I just can't believe them.


----------



## Kimball Corson

se says "And anyone who is truly interested in audio should be at least reasonably well versed in how any why we perceive the things that we perceive. Human beings are not the perfect measurement instruments our vanities and egos would like to lead us to believe. That's why the field of study for this sort of stuff is called _psychoacoustics_."
  
 Yet he is not familiar with _Thinking Fast and Slow_ by a Nobel prize winning expert on perception who argues double blind testing is not valid because differences that cannot be detected quickly can often be when blind testing is done very slowly and leisurely in a home context when the switching can be done blindly and more casually at will.


----------



## skeptic

kimball corson said:


> This subject area is vast and clearly out of place here, but are the implications of your comment  1) all or most high end amp/preamp manufactures largely use the same or basically the same components stocked by other manufactures, and 2) Amps and preamps which measure the same sound the same, ceterus paribus, or all other things the same?


 
  
 1) Nope, not implying that.  I was just responding to your comment, quoted below, regarding the inconsistency of using exotic cables when the conductors/leads of the critical components in all of our pricey amps and dacs are small awg copper at best.  I certainly know of amp designers that custom order transformers and that purchase boutique caps from companies like RTI, but I question your claim that top amp manufacturers, perhaps aside from audio note, really "design" resistors, to say nothing of caps.  Further, on the topic of materials, even v-cap's $700 teflon caps use simple 18awg copper leads (no reference to OCC or any other buzzwords). By the same token, I think it is telling that the very origin of an amplified signal in a tube amp is carried from the plate to the pin on a tiny hair thin wire, generally of unknown composition.          


kimball corson said:


> True. But top amplifier designers minimize circuitry, design their own resistors and capacitors, use much silver and gold...


 
  
 2) I believe that if two amps measured _exactly _the same, including not only the ordinary array of rightmark measurements, but also non-linear distortion products at every order, transient intermodulation distortion etc., then they should sound the same.  (Along the lines of the complexities Pass discusses here - https://passlabs.com/articles/audio-distortion-and-feedback ) Whether it is actually possible for two different amps with distinct topologies to do this, I have no idea.


----------



## bfreedma

Kahneman's Nobel was for Economics. Funny how you forget to mention that when you cite him as your reference for audio testing. The majority of his book addresses the different psychological models used by humans making personal economic decisions.

If you have specifics from that book which address audio testing, specifically the DBT methodology you ascribe to him, please provide the quotes.


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> Yet he is not familiar with _Thinking Fast and Slow_ by a Nobel prize winning expert on perception who argues double blind testing is not valid because differences that cannot be detected quickly can often be when blind testing is done very slowly and leisurely in a home context when the switching can be done blindly and more casually at will.




I don't have to be familiar with it. That's been an argument "audiophiles" have made for years.

Obviously _you_ are not aware of the late Tom Nousaine. 

Tom set up about a dozen or so "audiophiles" with ABX systems in their homes. So that they could use their own systems, in their own homes, at their leisure, for as long as they liked. Some of these systems were left installed for well over a year.

The result? 

Zip. Zilch. Zero.

I think maybe you should start resigning yourself to the idea that audio cables have been a solved problem for many decades, and that any reasonably well designed cable (which again is trivially easy and involves no great expense) will be audibly transparent.

No one has ever even offered up a plausible _theory_ as for why this should not be the case. 

All you can do is argue with lies, gross misrepresentations and one non sequitur after another. You're a wholly irrational person. The problem is, irrational people are incapable of recognizing their own irrationality. Which is why it's simply impossible to have a rational discussion with an irrational person.

se


----------



## Solrighal

DBT-Free is in the forum title. Does that mean nothing to you guys? You're wilfully destroying this thread.


----------



## JaZZ

Yeah, what an ugly thread! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 It would have had better chances with the title «Do you hear differences between copper and silver cables?». As it is, it seems to attract certainties-loaded objectivists like light does to moths.
  
 And it's indeed a DBT-free forum. So nobody is obliged to back up his or her experience and opinion with test protocols. I politely invite those who are just able to discuss under these terms to leave this part of the forum and retire to the Sound Science forum where their preferred rules apply.


----------



## warrior1975

Stupid question, and I did Google it, what is dbt? Quite a few acronym definitions appear... None that make sense.


----------



## bfreedma

solrighal said:


> DBT-Free is in the forum title. Does that mean nothing to you guys? You're wilfully destroying this thread.




It was Kimball Corson who brought the DBT discussion into this thread with his inaccurate assessment of Kahneman's economic theory. Take it up with him.


----------



## bfreedma

warrior1975 said:


> Stupid question, and I did Google it, what is dbt? Quite a few acronym definitions appear... None that make sense.




Double blind test. A model where neither the person taking the test or the proctor know (in this example) what cable is in each test cycle so that the proctor can't accidentally provide cues the testee may overtly or subconsciously pick up.


----------



## JaZZ

warrior1975 said:


> Stupid question, and I did Google it, what is dbt? Quite a few acronym definitions appear... None that make sense.


 
  
 Double-blind testing. The prohibition stands for the goal to have a discussion free of claims for scientific proof for reported sound characteristics/differences between anything else than sound transducers. To avoid threads like this.


----------



## warrior1975

Thank you gentlemen.


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> DBT-Free is in the forum title. Does that mean nothing to you guys? You're wilfully destroying this thread.




Yeah. It means that this thread should have been moved over to Sound Science. You can't discuss "audible differences" without bringing controlled listening tests into the discussion.

If you don't like that this thread is in this forum, talk to the Powers That Be about moving it over to Sound Science. Perhaps you'll have better luck than I have had.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

bfreedma said:


> It was Kimball Corson who brought the DBT discussion into this thread with his inaccurate assessment of Kahneman's economic theory. Take it up with him.




DBT is ultimately invoked by the subject of this thread. If you want to discuss audible differences and be free of DBT, then it would go in the Religion forum. But there isn't one here.

se


----------



## bfreedma

steve eddy said:


> DBT is ultimately invoked by the subject of this thread. If you want to discuss audible differences and be free of DBT, then it would go in the Religion forum. But there isn't one here.
> 
> se




Since you're a mod now, why not create one? :wink_face:


----------



## Solrighal

steve eddy said:


> DBT is ultimately invoked by the subject of this thread. If you want to discuss audible differences and be free of DBT, then it would go in the Religion forum. But there isn't one here.
> 
> se




You clearly don't believe in this discussion so why do you feel compelled to keep interfering? Leave people alone to make up their own minds. You just come across like the class bully. It's not an attractive trait, particularly in an adult.


----------



## Lorspeaker

tot this section is a space for bat-ear adventurers who are open to squalene oil coated on magic crystals...
 and want to exchange notes/excitement with fellow faithbelievers.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bfreedma said:


> Since you're a mod now, why not create one? :wink_face:






se


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> You clearly don't believe in this discussion so why do you feel compelled to keep interfering?




But I DO believe in this discussion. Apparently more than you do. In case you need reminding yet again, the SUBJECT of this thread is AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES. And THAT is the subject that I am speaking to. You on the other hand, seem to want to discuss things OTHER than audible differences. Which would be (duh!) OFF TOPIC.




> Leave people alone to make up their own minds.




How on earth can I do OTHERWISE? 

Are you accusing me of employing Jedi mind control tricks or something?

And I don't know what world you inhabit, but in the world I live in, we generally think it's a good idea to leave people to make up their minds once they've heard ALL SIDES of an issue. You seem to want this thread to be some sort religious cult that isolates itself from "outsiders" lest they bring a little enlightenment to the members of the cult and perhaps cause them to think in new ways.




> You just come across like the class bully. It's not an attractive trait, particularly in an adult.




I'm sure I'd get into trouble if I said how you and others come across. Suffice to say that I'm left wondering who ties your shoes for you in the morning.

se


----------



## Solrighal

You're the one who's coming across as some kind of religious nut mate. The difference I heard in the cables I mentioned are audible to me. Whether you believe that or not doesn't affect me one iota, but you're doing a damn fine job of shutting down discussion all on your own.

You apparently think I'm either deaf or mad. That's your prerogative but you really don't need to preach to me.


----------



## Kimball Corson

Hearing differences has been my experience and that of my friends for years. Without looking, when cables were switched and we listened, we could hear differences and tell which cable was which repeatedly without looking, even to the point of telling when the cables weren't switched after being told they were. It was a no brainer. That is why the flat earthers amaze me so. I shake my head in disbelief. The results are similar for IEM’s.

The difference, for example between the Baldur Storm and MkII or MKIII vs. the stock cable for the Shure SE535 is huge and marked. I find the bronze SE535 with the stock cable unlistenable (a C- or D). It is bass deficient and it is much too forward and pronounced in the upper midrange, requiring extreme equalization. However with a Baldur cable and minimal equalization, from either the FiiO X3 or the X5, the combination is a good B+ or A-. (Note, Shure itself offers an upgraded stock cable, purchasable separately, for the SE846 that works on the whole SE series of IEM’s. Apparently Shure thinks the cable difference matters. I will also try it on the SE535, but I do not expect it to displace a Baldur cable.)

I am still struggling with suitable cabling for the Westone W4r which has a relatively recessed and veiled upper midrange and muddy mid bass (B- overall). I have tried one “upgrade” cable which failed (didn’t correct) and have several other cables coming to try. If I can’t find something suitable, I will abandon the Westones which are not unlistenable with their stock cable, but just not worth the money as they are. 

These experiences in total and over many years are why I just can't believe the flat earthers on cables.


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> You're the one who's coming across as some kind of religious nut mate. The difference I heard in the cables I mentioned are audible to me.




"Audible to me" is meaningless and does not establish actual audibility.

Audibility is not something that is purely subjective and relevant only to a specific individual. Audibility is an _objective_ term, meaning that is is something that is true for all observers.

While you may subjectively _perceive_ differences, because of how our brains are wired (and don't forget that our ears are plugged into our brains where _all_ perception occurs), that _does not_ mean that that perception was due to actual _audible stimulus_. It is trivially easy to get humans to subjectively perceive differences even in the complete absence of audible stimulus.

That is precisely why controlled listening tests were developed. They help separate that which is actually audible from that which purely psychological in nature.

So unless you have performed properly controlled listening tests to determine that those subjectively perceived differences you are experiencing are due to actual audible stimulus, then you simply can't say that those differences are audible, whether to yourself or anyone else.




> You apparently think I'm either deaf or mad. That's your prerogative but you really don't need to preach to me.




I'm not saying you're mad or deaf. You're simply human just like every other human and as such are subject to the same human weaknesses as everyone else. Unless you are laying claim to being superhuman.

se


----------



## Kimball Corson

se, would you butt out and go take your hatchet to other trees if instead of saying "audible differences" we rephrased and said "differences I or we hear?" Or would you still butt in and to tell us we could not possibly hear "such differences."  If so, that is clearly Facistic speech policing


----------



## bfreedma

kimball corson said:


> Hearing differences has been my experience and that of my friends for years. Without looking, when cables were switched and we listened, we could hear differences and tell which cable was which repeatedly without looking, even to the point of telling when the cables weren't switched after being told they were. It was a no brainer. That is why the flat earthers amaze me so. I shake my head in disbelief. The results are similar for IEM’s.
> 
> The difference, for example between the Baldur Storm and MkII or MKIII vs. the stock cable for the Shure SE535 is huge and marked. I find the bronze SE535 with the stock cable unlistenable (a C- or D). It is bass deficient and it is much too forward and pronounced in the upper midrange, requiring extreme equalization. However with a Baldur cable and minimal equalization, from either the FiiO X3 or the X5, the combination is a good B+ or A-. (Note Shure itself offers an upgraded stock cable for the SE846 that works on the whole SE series of IEM’s. I will also try it on the SE535, but I do not expect it to displace a Baldur cable.)
> 
> ...


 
  
 The irony of someone espousing faith based cable beliefs calling those that understand the science/engineering behind audio cables "flat earthers"....
  
 BTW, you seem to have ignored my post requesting you explain how Kahneman's statements about personal economic decision processes in any way relate to this discussion as you previously claimed in the audio realm.


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> Hearing differences has been my experience and that of my friends for years. Without looking, when cables were switched and we listened, we could hear differences and tell which cable was which repeatedly without looking, even to the point of telling when the cables weren't switched after being told they were. It was a no brainer.




Great. Publish your test procedures and controls so that others may duplicate your test and verify or falsify the results. If your test had adequate controls and the results can be duplicated and verified, I'll be the first to put you up for a meeting with the King of Sweden. Otherwise, if it's just going to be nothing more than empty hand-waving claims on an Internet forum, then just go back to Miss Pat's Playhouse with your bwankie and take a nap.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimball corson said:


> se, would you butt out and go take your hatchet to other trees if instead of saying "audible differences" we rephrased and said "differences I hear?"




The subject of this thread is "audible differences." If you wish to discuss "differences I hear," then start a new thread as it is off topic for this thread.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

bfreedma said:


> BTW, you seem to have ignored my post requesting you explain how Kahneman's statements about personal economic decision processes in any way relate to this discussion as you previously claimed in the audio realm.




That has been a consistent MO with him. Grossly mischaracterizing and misrepresenting. That's all he's got. A whole lot of time-waiting nothing.

se


----------



## skeptic

kimball corson said:


> Hearing differences has been my experience and that of my friends for years. Without looking, when cables were switched and we listened, we could hear differences and tell which cable was which repeatedly without looking, even to the point of telling when the cables weren't switched after being told they were. It was a no brainer. That is why the flat earthers amaze me so. I shake my head in disbelief. The results are similar for IEM’s.
> 
> The difference, for example between the Baldur Storm and MkII or MKIII vs. the stock cable for the Shure SE535 is huge and marked. I find the bronze SE535 with the stock cable unlistenable (a C- or D). It is bass deficient and it is much too forward and pronounced in the upper midrange, requiring extreme equalization. However with a Baldur cable and minimal equalization, from either the FiiO X3 or the X5, the combination is a good B+ or A-. (Note, Shure itself offers an upgraded stock cable, purchasable separately, for the SE846 that works on the whole SE series of IEM’s. Apparently Shure thinks the cable difference matters. I will also try it on the SE535, but I do not expect it to displace a Baldur cable.)
> 
> ...




Your example of multi driver iems complicates matters. It is well documented on goldenears and even in some of nwavguys posts that changes in output impedance can dramatically mess up the FR of these types of headphones in particular. If the cables you are playing with happen to have higher or lower impedance than the stock cable, they are acting as impedance adaptors and effectively raising output impedance of your amp. Have you metered the cables in question?


----------



## Solrighal

http://www.theonion.com/article/man-who-enjoys-thing-informed-he-is-wrong-7057


----------



## Steve Eddy

solrighal said:


> http://www.theonion.com/article/man-who-enjoys-thing-informed-he-is-wrong-7057






se


----------



## Kimball Corson

se says "
  
 "The subject of this thread is "audible differences." If you wish to discuss "differences I hear," then start a new thread as it is off topic for this thread."


 What a petty tyrant. Who made you God to decide what is and is not off topic and by how much and what people can and therefore can't say here?  Further, you would simply condemn and shut down by interruptions the alternative thread you propose anyway, based on your mistaken views that  'There aren't any audible differences between cables. So our perceptions about differences are therefore wrong and irrelevant and we should just shut up and go away," precisely the orders you gave me earlier. I simply won't accept your bullying and telling me what  I hear and don't hear, especially when your blind AB testing is demonstrable scientific bunk. Such arrogance.

 Next, you require I explain how Kahneman's statements "about personal economic decision processes," as you mistakenly put it, in any way relate to this discussion, just as you require I publish the general results of my own listening tests with others on cable differences. But the fact is I have absolutely no interest or obligation to do either of those things. Again, who are you to demand I do so? God again? What a tyrant.

 However, inasmuch as reading the book for yourself is apparently beyond you, I will say this:  Kahneman's book is not about the "personal economic decision process" as you say. Although Kahneman's Nobel Laureate is for economics, the fact he is a professor emeritus of psychology at Princeton and an expert on perception and how it impacts decisions made from choices of all kinds. His bottom line conclusion is decisions made rather quickly about objective, sensory based matters in a structured environment are very often wrong -- more so alternatively than such decisions only made more slowly -- which are also often wrong as well, just not as frequently.  However, choices made quickly followed by revision and adjustment from subsequent and slower, more deliberate consideration -- all in a less structured environment of greater "cognitive ease" -- are the best by far and the most accurate by a very considerable margin. I leave it to you to work out the implications yourself for structured blind AB testing vs the alternative I have suggested and what I and others have used. I have consciously been doing what Kahneman suggests is best for decision making for years, in many different contexts, and have my own previously developed and similar, but less informed views on the subject. 

 Your arrogant self-righteousness and your ignorance are such an unseemly combination.


----------



## bfreedma

kimball corson said:


> se says " "The subject of this thread is "audible differences." If you wish to discuss "differences I hear," then start a new thread as it is off topic for this thread."What a petty tyrant. Who made you God to decide what is and is not off topic and by how much and what people can and therefore can't say here? Further, you would simply condemn and shut down by interruptions the alternative thread you propose anyway, based on your mistaken views that 'There aren't any audible differences between cables. So our perceptions about differences are therefore wrong and irrelevant and we should just shut up and go away," precisely the orders you gave me earlier. I simply won't accept your bullying and telling me what I hear and don't hear, especially when your blind AB testing is demonstrable scientific bunk. Such arrogance.Next, you require I explain how Kahneman's statements "about personal economic decision processes," as you mistakenly put it, in any way relate to this discussion, just as you require I publish the general results of my own listening tests with others on cable differences. But the fact is I have absolutely no interest or obligation to do either of those things. Again, who are you to demand I do so? God again? What a tyrant.However, inasmuch as reading the book for yourself is apparently beyond you, I will say this: Kahneman's book is not about the "personal economic decision process" as you say. Although Kahneman's Nobel Laureate is for economics, the fact he is a professor emeritus of psychology at Princeton and an expert on perception and how it impacts decisions made from choices of all kinds. His bottom line conclusion is decisions made rather quickly about objective, sensory based matters in a structured environment are very often wrong -- more so alternatively than such decisions only made more slowly -- which are also often wrong as well, just not as frequently. However, choices made quickly followed by revision and adjustment from subsequent and slower, more deliberate consideration -- all in a less structured environment of greater "cognitive ease" -- are the best by far and the most accurate by a very considerable margin. I leave it to you to work out the implications yourself for structured blind AB testing vs the alternative I have suggested and what I and others have used. I have consciously been doing what Kahneman suggests is best for decision making for years, in many different contexts, and have my own previously developed and similar, but less informed views on the subject. Your arrogant self-righteousness and your ignorance are such an unseemly combination.




I was the member who asked you about Kahneman's theory and how it relates to audio. I asked for two reasons - the first because you cited his Nobel without including the caveat that it was for Economics, not for works related to audio in any way. The second because I'm quite familiar with his works and only the loosest possible interpretation of them could in any way be applied to auditory comparatives. His writings very specifically detail the thought processes he feels are of highest value for long term decision making in general and for personal economic/investment decisions in specific. 

Based on your response, only two paths appear possible. Either you aren't nearly as familiar with Kahneman as you claim or you're being willfully intellectually dishonest.

Given that, I'll leave you to your ranting and unicorns.


----------



## JaZZ

As a 100% cable-sound perceiver and advocate I'm very much tempted to chime in to this fruitless thread, example of miserable «culture of controversy», and help standing up to the ayatollahs of living fundamentalism who try to shove their rules of life down everybody's throat.
  
 Luckily I could resist.
  
 [oops]


----------



## skeptic

JaZZ said:
			
		

> fit
> ayatollahs of living fundamentalism who try to shove their rules of life down everybody's throat...


 
  
 An amusing description, but are you sure it fits?  What rules is anyone here shoving down anyone else's throat?
  
 It seems to me we have two factions with two different ways of reading the terms "audible differences."  One camp reads these terms with an implied "personal impressions of" in front of them.  The other reads them assuming the word "demonstrable" up front.  So be it.  This forum would be a total bore if everyone agreed on everything.  
  
 I note you were actually quite careful with your language above and referenced yourself as a cable "perceiver."  It seem to me that a statement like this, in reference to your own perceptions, doesn't actually conflict with SE's objection to factual assertions about "audible differences" between competently made cables that are of proper spec for their application.   
  
 I also presume you guys understand from his MoT title that SE actually has a profit motive _to agree with you_.  He makes headphone cables!  How refreshing is it to see an industry insider that is firmly devoted to reminding people that there isn't empirical evidence supporting audible differences between cables, even when he has numerous customers floating around _this forum_ talking about how Q cables sound better to them than stock.  Seriously, stop and think about it in the context of an industry that regularly assures us that everything from magic pebbles to cryo treatment will make "day and night" differences.


----------



## Mindstorms

so can anyone tell me if it is truth than pure copper cable vs silver cable will have better bass and also if it will become darker AKA frecuencies over 16KHZ will become darker? muded? in pure copper one THANKS IN ADVANCE


----------



## BIG POPPA

Mindstorms said:


> so can anyone tell me if it is truth than pure copper cable vs silver cable will have better bass and also if it will become darker AKA frecuencies over 16KHZ will become darker? muded? in pure copper one THANKS IN ADVANCE


You need to check out OFC OCC cryo'd copper Brands like Jena Labs, Kimber Kable, WBT, Furutech. That is the good stuff. ALO also!!


----------



## Mindstorms

Any serious article i can read?


----------



## bfreedma

Mindstorms said:


> so can anyone tell me if it is truth than pure copper cable vs silver cable will have better bass and also if it will become darker AKA frecuencies over 16KHZ will become darker? muded? in pure copper one THANKS IN ADVANCE



There is no truth to that and no physical or electrical properties of an appropriately built and utilized cable that support that theory.  Something as specific as “more bass” would be trivial to measure and if it existed, would be the first line in marketing materials.  Yet none of the cable manufacturers publish that kind of hard data.  How odd....


----------



## Mindstorms (Apr 23, 2021)

mmm i can hear audible difrences betwen cables....im sure its not plascebo i could even pass a blind test out of many cables. but im not sure of the extend of this...


----------



## Broquen

Mindstorms said:


> mmm i can hear audible difrences betwen cables....im sure its not plascebo i could even pass a blind test out of many cables. but im not sure of the extend of this...



I finally concluded that it's better to let the people with that kind of ears to base their opinions only in measurements and be happy. Scientists are very clear when talking about the complexity and, in some aspects, unawareness of human PECEPTION. Because hearing includes tactile sensations and many, many nuances depending on anatomical features and hearing capabilities.
Another thing is that our brain sometimes fills in gaps in information on a different level for every person, just like it does with our vision. But pretending to measure the whole thing and then to preach that the results are the only truth, leaving aside that the interaction of sound with each auditory system cannot 'yet' be measured, inevitably reminds me of some quantic physics detractors in 1900s. Don't want to offend anyone, but leave some concept to think about.


----------



## Mindstorms

i agree i have very good hearing not only that i have a highly trained ear i can detect difernces in bitrates... firmwares... and also cables... you have to really focus sometimes... but somepeople went hear that diferences nor have the time to do it... they just enjoy sound... as it is...


----------



## 14christ (Aug 2, 2021)

I know for an absolute fact that to my ear two cables I have sou d different.  I have one copper and another silver plated copper. They are very close in construction but when using the copper cable anything past 12oclock at medium gain on a specific song clips the dynamic driver. When using the silver plated copper I can go medium gain on the same song and crank it up 100% volume with no clipping. Now that's an audible difference that I cannot explain as I do t have the technical knowhow. All I know is that tells me a cable isn't just a cable. Cables differ from one to another in an audible manner.


----------



## Vamp898

I have an pure silver cable and tested it with my IER-M9 and IER-Z1R, but there is no difference in the sound compared to the stock cable.

At first i thought the Silver one sounds a bit darker/warmer with the IER-M9 but it sounded different every single time i swapped it anyway. Changing the cable takes too long for me to hear any difference.

But there is a famous blind test where people were told that they switched calbes and daps and whatever but in reality did nothing.

Switching from one to the exact same cable three times caused that trained audiophiles could explain exactly what the difference between those cables are, even though it was always the same cable. Then they used the cheapest and worst cable they had and increased the volume by 1 step and everyone liked that cable more than the up to 3000€ cables.

So you want to improve your cheap stock cable? Turn the volume up one step and bam it sounds better than the best cable you can get on the market.

I have not found a single blind test were anyone was able to detect difference in sounds in cables. Neither with headphones, nor with earphones or speakers, So i doubt it exists unless someone proofed it.


----------



## 14christ (Dec 14, 2021)

Vamp898 said:


> I have an pure silver cable and tested it with my IER-M9 and IER-Z1R, but there is no difference in the sound compared to the stock cable.
> 
> At first i thought the Silver one sounds a bit darker/warmer with the IER-M9 but it sounded different every single time i swapped it anyway. Changing the cable takes too long for me to hear any difference.
> 
> ...


Maybe you can't but I sure can. If you can't tell difference in sound quality from changing cables then the cables are not your bottleneck. Check your source or headphones


----------



## Vamp898

14christ said:


> Maybe you can't buy I sure in the heck can. If you cannot tell difference in sound quality from changing cables then the cables are not your bottleneck. Check your source or headphones


The Source was the TA-ZH1ES and the Earphone was the IER-M9. Not much room to upgrade there


----------

